For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
Ideally we would have only subscription MMORPGs with a cash shop that only sells cosmetics and expansion dlcs. If the MMO is F2P that changes everything, suddenly it is not about people playing together, it is about the money you are spending.
How do you encourage players to take a subscription in a F2P MMO? How do you ween them off cash shop purchases and make a subscription the way to go? You have to give them something special, but that means a fair playing field has gone, the players are no longer all together. How is that justified?
You have to remember that most players don't remember old school. I think that if you get players used to a subscription, they may in the future only play MMOs which have them. Which in turn can lead to them looking for MMOs which are not F2P. Now you may think that's a lot of assumptions, and it is but think about how grindy F2P can feel without a subscription, it makes subscriptions look good. If a subscription in a F2P MMO is not worth having how on earth are we going to convince players a sub only MMO is the way to go?
Good to see you back Delete, keep calm and carry on posting.
For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
You have to remember that most players don't remember old school. I think that if you get players used to a subscription, they may in the future only play MMOs which have them. Which in turn can lead to them looking for MMOs which are not F2P. Now you may think that's a lot of assumptions, and it is but think about how grindy F2P can feel without a subscription, it makes subscriptions look good. If a subscription in a F2P MMO is not worth having how on earth are we going to convince players a sub only MMO is the way to go?
Hello there were a lot of MMORPGs that were hugely grindy that were fully subbed. Don't even get me started on the terrible hell levels in Everquest. That game was incredibly grindy and when you died and lost some more experience it took even longer to get back to where you were. Saying F2P games are grindy is looking at them without realising that games were already grindy before F2P came along.
I do believe the model to make the game grindy if you didn't get the sub was inspired by how grindy they were when you were old school. Of course I am talking about games like FFXI, Everquest so my catalogue is limited. How about the grind for Jedi in SWG?
For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
You have to remember that most players don't remember old school. I think that if you get players used to a subscription, they may in the future only play MMOs which have them. Which in turn can lead to them looking for MMOs which are not F2P. Now you may think that's a lot of assumptions, and it is but think about how grindy F2P can feel without a subscription, it makes subscriptions look good. If a subscription in a F2P MMO is not worth having how on earth are we going to convince players a sub only MMO is the way to go?
Hello there were a lot of MMORPGs that were hugely grindy that were fully subbed. Don't even get me started on the terrible hell levels in Everquest. That game was incredibly grindy and when you died and lost some more experience it took even longer to get back to where you were. Saying F2P games are grindy is looking at them without realising that games were already grindy before F2P came along.
I do believe the model to make the game grindy if you didn't get the sub was inspired by how grindy they were when you were old school. Of course I am talking about games like FFXI, Everquest so my catalogue is limited. How about the grind for Jedi in SWG?
Not saying old school was not grindy, just that subscriptions need to show modern players how good they can be if we are ever to have a sub/cosmetics/expansion only come back. But if we compare F2P without the player using the cash shop to old school I do think the modern grind compares in some new school MMOs. Think about all that loot box grinding, all that crafting gear that can be destroyed (bdo) and so on.
For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
I'm sure you are aware that MMORPGs have never been a level playing field regardless of the way they are monetized.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth. B2P that comes with a cash shop still favours the wealthy but not so much as f2p.
They parity of players you imagine never existed in MMORPGs.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So unlimited storage is a bad thing if paid for in a cash shop, but OK if it comes with a sub? At least with the cash shop its a one time thing....
It's "okay" whatever way they want to provide it. Unlimited crafting material storage is not a standard MMORPG feature one can expect to be included by default or offered in a particular way.
EVE Online, unlimited storage, industry or otherwise included in the subscription price since 2003 and the game I played for 10 years, so yes I expect all MMORPGS to be similar, or are deficient as far as I'm concerned.
Unlimited crafting material storage is included with the ESO subscription. The complaint had over it is that it is not available otherwise.
Regardless, your expectations based on EVE Online are not reasonable. For them to be so unlimited storage capacity being associated with subscription would need to be near universal in MMORPGs where that option is available.
For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
I'm sure you are aware that MMORPGs have never been a level playing field regardless of the way they are monetized.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth. B2P that comes with a cash shop still favours the wealthy but not so much as f2p.
They parity of players you imagine never existed in MMORPGs.
The nature of time and money are not even in the same game, much less the same ballpark, team, or position. Everyone gets the same total hours a day. That's immutable. The rate at which we accrue time is immutable, at least outside of a thereotical physics discussion. What we choose to do with it is the only thing that changes from person to person.
Not so with money. Comparing time with money is one of the most popular and absolute worst comparisons humans have ever made.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Tell that to the owners of major sports team franchises.
Paying to win is an often used method to ensure success instead of building everything up through the farm systems.
So in my mind, both ways are probably equally valid methods to gain power, especially if P2W is within the legal sanctioned structure put in place by the game's owners.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Tell that to the owners of major sports team franchises.
Paying to win is an often used method to ensure success instead of building everything up through the farm systems.
So in my mind, both ways are probably equally valid methods to gain power, especially if P2W is within the legal sanctioned structure put in place by the game's owners.
Yeah well, I'm not a big fan of relative morality. And in any case the players in your example got to where they are through talent and working their asses off putting in a shit ton of hours to do that. Those who don't put it the hours get to play in the beer leagues.
I don't give much of a shit about the owners and how they got to be owners.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Agree 100%, That's a piss poor way of looking at it. Words can't describe how stupid it sounds to say time in game is unfair to someone playing less.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Tell that to the owners of major sports team franchises.
Paying to win is an often used method to ensure success instead of building everything up through the farm systems.
So in my mind, both ways are probably equally valid methods to gain power, especially if P2W is within the legal sanctioned structure put in place by the game's owners.
Yeah well, I'm not a big fan of relative morality. And in any case the players in your example got to where they are through talent and working their asses off putting in a shit ton of hours to do that. Those who don't put it the hours get to play in the beer leagues.
I don't give much of a shit about the owners and how they got to be owners.
It was once said any fool can succeed by working their asses off, but the really smart person is the one who succeeds while not trying very hard at all.
Based on this logic, I'm pretty sure I'm a freaking genius of sorts.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
I'm sure you are aware that MMORPGs have never been a level playing field regardless of the way they are monetized.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth. B2P that comes with a cash shop still favours the wealthy but not so much as f2p.
They parity of players you imagine never existed in MMORPGs.
The nature of time and money are not even in the same game, much less the same ballpark, team, or position. Everyone gets the same total hours a day. That's immutable. The rate at which we accrue time is immutable, at least outside of a thereotical physics discussion. What we choose to do with it is the only thing that changes from person to person.
Not so with money. Comparing time with money is one of the most popular and absolute worst comparisons humans have ever made.
Everyone gets the same number of hours per day, What they don't get are the same type of hours each day or the same value for those differing types of hours.
Also, the hours of some are more choice based than others.
Comparing time with money is the best approach available, but requires that time be considered beyond the simplicity of totality and a non-existent homogeneity of it between persons and overall.
For me, if you sub you should get benefits not just extra coins to use in a store so I have no issues with a subscription player being put first.
The problem with F2P players, cash shop buyers and subscription payers is you have the "full range of spenders", all in a game that should be equal.
We are talking about mmoppgs right ?..... everyone is to be equal was the original intent all so PEOPLE CAN PLAY TOGEATHER.
I'm sure you are aware that MMORPGs have never been a level playing field regardless of the way they are monetized.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth. B2P that comes with a cash shop still favours the wealthy but not so much as f2p.
They parity of players you imagine never existed in MMORPGs.
The nature of time and money are not even in the same game, much less the same ballpark, team, or position. Everyone gets the same total hours a day. That's immutable. The rate at which we accrue time is immutable, at least outside of a thereotical physics discussion. What we choose to do with it is the only thing that changes from person to person.
Not so with money. Comparing time with money is one of the most popular and absolute worst comparisons humans have ever made.
Everyone gets the same number of hours per day, What they don't get are the same type of hours each day or the same value for those differing types of hours.
Also, the hours of some are more choice based than others.
Comparing time with money is the best approach available, but requires that time be considered beyond the simplicity of totality and a non-existent homogeneity of it between persons and overall.
It's still fundamentally different than a resource that's *accrued* at different rates between individuals. Money is also obligated at different rates between individuals, and different individuals have differing amounts of leisure money. That has a large effect on human motivations reference either resource. Ignoring that key difference means you will never accurately gauge player motivations.
If two people have the same obligations on their time, they have the same leisure time left. If a rich and a poor person have the same obligations on their money, the rich person has a vastly larger amount of discretionary income. Those two very different end results means the two resources should not be compared so directly, though we do far too often.
Looking at money the same we one does time is like looking at a photo compared to reality. It's looks similar, but it's missing an entire dimension.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Tell that to the owners of major sports team franchises.
Paying to win is an often used method to ensure success instead of building everything up through the farm systems.
So in my mind, both ways are probably equally valid methods to gain power, especially if P2W is within the legal sanctioned structure put in place by the game's owners.
I am not sure modeling our monetization methods around the psychological profiles of sports league franchise owners is going to lead to a useful outcome in any way.
Unless useful, to you, is player power stratification based directly on socioeconomic status. That sounds absolutely awful, but some folks seem to want it (pay to King, anyone?).
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Agree 100%, That's a piss poor way of looking at it. Words can't describe how stupid it sounds to say time in game is unfair to someone playing less.
I never said anything about fairness.
Subscriptions are a flat fee. You get charged the same whether you play one hour a month or hundreds. Those with abundant free time incontestably get more out of this model as they get far more hours of entertainment and advancement than their fellows with little in the way of free time.
Clearly those with abundant free time are advantaged under the subscription model. The fairness of it is irrelevant to the fact of it.
I saw this on a reddit thread discussion how Netflix is tanking itself with horrible decisions and double down on making their existing customers feel the pain. Many comments in the thread instantly reminded of how mismanaged many MMORPGs have been (and still are).
The first rule of subscription services is never make your customers think about the subscription services. As soon as they do, they start doing cost-benefit analysis, looking at possible replacements, and even evaluating if they need the service at all.
MMORPG studios and publishers like to do the opposite. They like to tout how much you're getting for what you pay, how those who don't pay aren't in "the club", and impose a fear of missing out if you drop it.
This might sound good at first glance and might work with a small percentage of player or in the short term, but I think it's a bad long term position to take. There is a lot of truth in that quote. Tapping into the wallet of your customers is something you don't want them thinking about because after the initial dopamine rush of buying something shiny wears off, then they start to do that "cost-benefit analysis" mentioned above. MMO publishers/studios are really bad at this.
I always look at the long term cost of something I buy...Whether its a game, a car, a house , a television, whatever.....I always look at what the total price is going to be, and not what the monthly cost is.....When those costs are factored in, then I make my decision.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Tell that to the owners of major sports team franchises.
Paying to win is an often used method to ensure success instead of building everything up through the farm systems.
So in my mind, both ways are probably equally valid methods to gain power, especially if P2W is within the legal sanctioned structure put in place by the game's owners.
I am not sure modeling our monetization methods around the psychological profiles of sports league franchise owners is going to lead to a useful outcome in any way.
Unless useful, to you, is player power stratification based directly on socioeconomic status. That sounds absolutely awful, but some folks seem to want it (pay to King, anyone?).
I quite agree, P2K (nice moniker btw) isn't something I'm in favor of, but that's probably because I don't really have $10K per month of disposable income to spend on such, but it appears some (quite a few?) do so there's a market for such.
I was always one who never had enough time to play these games and have no real issue paying a bit extra to eliminate "some" inconvenience.
I never imagined the heights it would grow to, if you had told me back in 2003 gamers would spend $10K or more on games, or in recent years not games like Star Citizen I would have called you crazy.
To any who I did such to back then, I apologize, you were all correct, and I definitely got it wrong.
(Best meme I could find on the subject of eating crow)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I agree- if you had told me there would be half a billion dollars directly from gamers poured into a ten year old tech demo, I would've told you you were naive as hell. But, you would have been right, and the naive parties are those who think a half-billion dollar, ten year old tech demo will bring them the gaming experience they've always wanted... Soon™️
I agree- if you had told me there would be half a billion dollars directly from gamers poured into a ten year old tech demo, I would've told you you were naive as hell. But, you would have been right, and the naive parties are those who think a half-billion dollar, ten year old tech demo will bring them the gaming experience they've always wanted... Soon™️
and who foresaw that people would get paid to play video games (some of them extremely well), and there would be professional leagues evolving around video games?....I see things like Star Citizen and think that people have lost their minds (or it really is laundered drug money)....
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Well, better at the game can be in MMORPGs not really better skill wise, but just having spent more time grinding. And the grinding speed is even better with an efficient guild.
So you can be good at the game, and been trashed by a nolifer that has awesome stats/gear but just clicked a button or two.
You can see this very well in BDO.
BTW, BDO add another dimension = luck.
If you are lucky enough in your gear enhancement rolls, you can get a tremendous bump in power.
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth.
I've never liked that analogy that makes it sound as if both, playing the game a lot or paying cash to get to a similar spot as the player that plays a lot, are somehow equally valid ways to gain power in a game.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
Well, better at the game can be in MMORPGs not really better skill wise, but just having spent more time grinding. And the grinding speed is even better with an efficient guild.
So you can be good at the game, and been trashed by a nolifer that has awesome stats/gear but just clicked a button or two.
You can see this very well in BDO.
BTW, BDO add another dimension = luck.
If you are lucky enough in your gear enhancement rolls, you can get a tremendous bump in power.
BDO didn't invent the luck element in gear rolling, Lineage 1, The Bloodpledge is first place I encountered it back in 2001, probably not the originators of the concept either.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I agree- if you had told me there would be half a billion dollars directly from gamers poured into a ten year old tech demo, I would've told you you were naive as hell. But, you would have been right, and the naive parties are those who think a half-billion dollar, ten year old tech demo will bring them the gaming experience they've always wanted... Soon™️
and who foresaw that people would get paid to play video games (some of them extremely well), and there would be professional leagues evolving around video games?....I see things like Star Citizen and think that people have lost their minds (or it really is laundered drug money)....
The idea the money could be disappearing up Robinson's nose did make me laugh.
Comments
How do you encourage players to take a subscription in a F2P MMO? How do you ween them off cash shop purchases and make a subscription the way to go? You have to give them something special, but that means a fair playing field has gone, the players are no longer all together. How is that justified?
You have to remember that most players don't remember old school. I think that if you get players used to a subscription, they may in the future only play MMOs which have them. Which in turn can lead to them looking for MMOs which are not F2P. Now you may think that's a lot of assumptions, and it is but think about how grindy F2P can feel without a subscription, it makes subscriptions look good. If a subscription in a F2P MMO is not worth having how on earth are we going to convince players a sub only MMO is the way to go?
Good to see you back Delete, keep calm and carry on posting.
I do believe the model to make the game grindy if you didn't get the sub was inspired by how grindy they were when you were old school. Of course I am talking about games like FFXI, Everquest so my catalogue is limited. How about the grind for Jedi in SWG?
I'm sure you are aware that MMORPGs have never been a level playing field regardless of the way they are monetized.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant time. F2P favours those with abundant wealth. B2P that comes with a cash shop still favours the wealthy but not so much as f2p.
They parity of players you imagine never existed in MMORPGs.
Being good at something, anything, because you spend a lot of time doing that something, in my mind will always have more credible value than throwing cash around to get there.
If those who play much more than me are better at the game, good on them. If someone pays to be better than me, fuck them for taking that shortcut.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Regardless, your expectations based on EVE Online are not reasonable. For them to be so unlimited storage capacity being associated with subscription would need to be near universal in MMORPGs where that option is available.
Not so with money. Comparing time with money is one of the most popular and absolute worst comparisons humans have ever made.
Paying to win is an often used method to ensure success instead of building everything up through the farm systems.
So in my mind, both ways are probably equally valid methods to gain power, especially if P2W is within the legal sanctioned structure put in place by the game's owners.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't give much of a shit about the owners and how they got to be owners.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
That's a piss poor way of looking at it. Words can't describe how stupid it sounds to say time in game is unfair to someone playing less.
Based on this logic, I'm pretty sure I'm a freaking genius of sorts.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Also, the hours of some are more choice based than others.
Comparing time with money is the best approach available, but requires that time be considered beyond the simplicity of totality and a non-existent homogeneity of it between persons and overall.
If two people have the same obligations on their time, they have the same leisure time left. If a rich and a poor person have the same obligations on their money, the rich person has a vastly larger amount of discretionary income. Those two very different end results means the two resources should not be compared so directly, though we do far too often.
Looking at money the same we one does time is like looking at a photo compared to reality. It's looks similar, but it's missing an entire dimension.
Unless useful, to you, is player power stratification based directly on socioeconomic status. That sounds absolutely awful, but some folks seem to want it (pay to King, anyone?).
Subscriptions are a flat fee. You get charged the same whether you play one hour a month or hundreds. Those with abundant free time incontestably get more out of this model as they get far more hours of entertainment and advancement than their fellows with little in the way of free time.
Clearly those with abundant free time are advantaged under the subscription model. The fairness of it is irrelevant to the fact of it.
I always look at the long term cost of something I buy...Whether its a game, a car, a house , a television, whatever.....I always look at what the total price is going to be, and not what the monthly cost is.....When those costs are factored in, then I make my decision.
I was always one who never had enough time to play these games and have no real issue paying a bit extra to eliminate "some" inconvenience.
I never imagined the heights it would grow to, if you had told me back in 2003 gamers would spend $10K or more on games, or in recent years not games like Star Citizen I would have called you crazy.
To any who I did such to back then, I apologize, you were all correct, and I definitely got it wrong.
(Best meme I could find on the subject of eating crow)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
and who foresaw that people would get paid to play video games (some of them extremely well), and there would be professional leagues evolving around video games?....I see things like Star Citizen and think that people have lost their minds (or it really is laundered drug money)....
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon