Those Wallet Warriors "win", and games that have cash shops will see to it that they do because that's the reason to buy. And to sell more.
Less emotion, less labels, more facts would help this conversation greatly.
You're not going to have this conversation without emotion because it clearly isn't cut and dry. For those of us who believe that power acquisition in a game should come down to skill and time, paying real world money to get around effort spent is not a good thing. The people who do this are buying an advantage against other players for the amount of time it takes said players to catch up. An advantage for any amount of time is still an advantage but it only concerns me when my gaming experience may be affected by these players. As it is in the case of AA and similar games with owpvp.
You have brought up an interesting point... and one that I think is being missed.
Most people do believe that if there is a competitive enviornment, those with the higher skill should generally perform better. It is a general belief that the skill advantage is fair, as long as it is not too extreme (i.e. pitting a chess master vs a 4 year old in a chess match).
However, you have also brought up the issue of time. Why should time itself present an advantage other than the opportunity to improve skill? In this instance it would not be cumulative time (i.e. seniority) but rather amount to access (measured in time). Why is it fair for those who are more available to perform better than those with less availability (and perhaps higher skill)? I am not questioning a basic time requirement (you have to show up to participate), but why do those who have more time deserve an automatic advantage over those that have less?
If there's a sharp looking cloak that I want, but can't have unless I buy it, then that's PtW. Including if I can possible get it in game play but with lots of effort, thus delaying getting it while the buyer already has it.
Period. I don't care what you or anyone else says, that's what *I* say, and I count too.
It's not winning.
When have you ever said you "won" when you got an item that was purely cosmetic? Never. Because that's not what winning is.
So why not use a more accurate term?
Other genres have pay to win which is legitimatelypay to win. MMORPG players seem to just want to apply the term automatically to their own game, without actually thinking about what P2W is. Why not use a term that actually describes your complaint instead of using a term without thinking things through? If your criticism is "pay for benefit" why not call it that?
But taking the gist of that question, it seems to me that even a subscription game (no cash shop) is PtW. Because you can't even enter, to win anything, if you don't pay up.
Not even close.
Pay to Win is about players getting an unfair advantage over other players by virtue of paying money. What constitutes an advantage is the point behind all these discussions, really. But having to actually buy the game in the first place has nothing at all to do with P2W.
Edit: I am referring to sub-only games, btw.
Well, you can't "win" anything if you don't pay to play, right? That was the first part of my point.
The second being that the real point of it all is the fairness factor, and trying to be as fair as possible in an imperfect world of gaming.
Are you going to buy stuff? You know, to win in some form that others don't?
When you buy gas, do you call it winning? When you buy clothes, do you call it winning? When you buy groceries, do you call it winning?
Or maybe is winning more than just getting something?
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
Pay 2 Win is a derogatory term. As such, its meaning is based on the subjective criteria of the user, and does not have any objective requirements. Just like any other derogatory, there does not need to be any agreement with how it can be used, as it is simply used to show disrespect and insult.
Are you going to buy stuff? You know, to win in some form that others don't?
When you buy gas, do you call it winning? When you buy clothes, do you call it winning? When you buy groceries, do you call it winning?
Or maybe is winning more than just getting something?
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
Sounds like we are both given the same options:
Q: He/She's probably an irrational shopper, manages his/her money well, prioritizes what he/She wants(not needs), has a stable job with excess funds, or has parents who hand out generous allowance. A: Opposite of Q
Are you going to buy stuff? You know, to win in some form that others don't?
When you buy gas, do you call it winning? When you buy clothes, do you call it winning? When you buy groceries, do you call it winning?
Or maybe is winning more than just getting something?
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
You're working on the odd assumption that they even know you exist, let alone give a crap what you do.
But even if we are going to go on such an illogical tangent, what you are describing is jealousy, not a win-lose scenario.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Are you going to buy stuff? You know, to win in some form that others don't?
When you buy gas, do you call it winning? When you buy clothes, do you call it winning? When you buy groceries, do you call it winning?
Or maybe is winning more than just getting something?
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
You're working on the odd assumption that they even know you exist, let alone give a crap what you do.
But even if we are going to go on such an illogical tangent, what you are describing is jealousy, not a win-lose scenario.
You're damn right they don't know I exist. I don't play their crappy copy-cat games . Me and a lot of other gamers looking for something different, better, entertaining.
Jealousy? Heh, right. You game developers are sumptin' else, you know that? Why don't you spend your time actually improving your games instead of so much time here trying to defend the crappy rinse and repeat gaming so many of us are tired of? Just wondering, ya know?
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
When is the last time you hear any of those people call those things "winning"? Never. Because it's not considered winning. They get a benefit from those things. They would almost certainly appreciate the value of those things. But they would not win from those things.
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
When is the last time you hear any of those people call those things "winning"? Never. Because it's not considered winning. They get a benefit from those things. They would almost certainly appreciate the value of those things. But they would not win from those things.
Are you going to buy stuff? You know, to win in some form that others don't?
When you buy gas, do you call it winning? When you buy clothes, do you call it winning? When you buy groceries, do you call it winning?
Or maybe is winning more than just getting something?
Those^ are not function of a game, are they. (troll much?)
Pay to win, is when you are paying the developer for an in-game advantage over other players. That constitutes a mini "win" in the eyes of the buyer, and of the person who can not afford to do so.
Anything, in which gives a character an advantage, over another is a win. When you pay for it, it becomes pay to win. What the advantage is, does not matter, because the player who didn't purchase it, doesn't have it. Thus the person who did purchase the advantage, has just gain a "I Win".
You do not win the game! You are paying to get ahead of another, thus winning the situation.
There is no actual win, because nobody has ever won a MMORPG. I never seen a developer give an award out to the winner of their game.
Skyforge. But I play it entirely solo, so for all I know, to be a social gamer, you have to break out the plastic. Still, it's quite fun and I appreciate it for what it is. No arm twisting involved for my playstyle, at least!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
1) The guy that has to walk thinks so. 2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so. 3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming. Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning? A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
When is the last time you hear any of those people call those things "winning"? Never. Because it's not considered winning. They get a benefit from those things. They would almost certainly appreciate the value of those things. But they would not win from those things.
to finish first in a race, contest, or the like. [All skill-related things.]
to succeed by striving or effort. He applied for a scholarship and won. [The candidate competed for a scholarship and won due to his skill.]
to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. [Skill-related.]
Slang. to be successful or competent and be acknowledged for it [Competence is skill.]
Now that you're acquainted with what winning means, let's answer your question.
Are any of the 50 items in a cash shop circumventing skillful challenges? Then it's winning. Otherwise it's not.
Obtuse much? You guys want to use the dictionary and ignore the meaning of what people are saying. Anything for a "win", eh?
The problem of this thread is everybody is using their own definitions. If we can't agree on what words mean then everything else is moot.
As far as your 1-3 and Q/A above, IF they can earn them with reasonable time and effort then it is not wining. Now we have to have a debate on what reasonable is.
The problem of this thread is everybody is using their own definitions. If we can't agree on what words mean then everything else is moot.
As far as your 1-3 and Q/A above, IF they can earn them with reasonable time and effort then it is not wining. Now we have to have a debate on what reasonable is.
That's a reasonable take, but I still have to disagree. If one player has to put in some effort, and another player just skips any effort at all and simply buys (whatever "it" is), then they bought advantage over the other player. Remember that we aren't talking about just one thing here.
As far as "reasonable" time, as you suggest, isn't that more a matter of degree? I think so. Making said thing "reasonable" could easily remove objections. But I think you'd have to look far and wide for that sort of thing from game producers. After all, they want to sell these things and if it's a reasonable effort to get them, they simply won't sell enough.
---- This is a problem. Too many are making games that simply won't sell, so they are making them FtP and working the whales for their money. In the meantime we aren't getting better games made by more talented, more insightful developers. Because they don't have to as long as whales will pay the bill for what the average gamer won't pay for.
I believe this is what we'd call a "conundrum". We are stuck in a conundrum.
That is the point some here do not understand. That we are defining and using a definition. It doesn't matter to what degree, only that it is, or is not.
If it is, THEN you can discuss to what degree.
Some here can not get past that and want to simply try to re-define a "win" based on severe it is. Severity of perceived win, does not matter when defining.
Example: EXP boosts are a Obvious win. How much of a boost, or the function of them in each game doesn't matter. It is a clear advantage.
But claiming that EXP boosts are not an advantage, because they can have little impact doesn't defeat the definition.
That is the point some here do not understand. That we are defining and using a definition. It doesn't matter to what degree, only that it is, or is not.
If it is, THEN you can discuss to what degree.
Some here can not get past that and want to simply try to re-define a "win" based on severe it is. Severity of perceived win, does not matter when defining.
Example: EXP boosts are a Obvious win. How much of a boost, or the function of them in each game doesn't matter. It is a clear advantage.
But claiming that EXP boosts are not an advantage, because they can have little impact doesn't defeat the definition.
And here is the problem. I would say that you are 100% wrong on every count beside your first sentence.
Your example is bait and switch. EXP boosts are 100% not win. It is a clear advantage, as is playing more time, having friends vs pugs, being in a large guild, picking the right class, having a good computer/internet (can be a huge advantage). But you only see paying as an advantage.
Some here changed the definition of win to advantage. But they only see spending money as an advantage.
IF you must pay to win, then it is P2W.
We can go back and forth, that is why all OP should define the discussion.
Those Wallet Warriors "win", and games that have cash shops will see to it that they do because that's the reason to buy. And to sell more.
Less emotion, less labels, more facts would help this conversation greatly.
You're not going to have this conversation without emotion because it clearly isn't cut and dry. For those of us who believe that power acquisition in a game should come down to skill and time, paying real world money to get around effort spent is not a good thing. The people who do this are buying an advantage against other players for the amount of time it takes said players to catch up. An advantage for any amount of time is still an advantage but it only concerns me when my gaming experience may be affected by these players. As it is in the case of AA and similar games with owpvp.
You have brought up an interesting point... and one that I think is being missed.
Most people do believe that if there is a competitive enviornment, those with the higher skill should generally perform better. It is a general belief that the skill advantage is fair, as long as it is not too extreme (i.e. pitting a chess master vs a 4 year old in a chess match).
However, you have also brought up the issue of time. Why should time itself present an advantage other than the opportunity to improve skill? In this instance it would not be cumulative time (i.e. seniority) but rather amount to access (measured in time). Why is it fair for those who are more available to perform better than those with less availability (and perhaps higher skill)? I am not questioning a basic time requirement (you have to show up to participate), but why do those who have more time deserve an automatic advantage over those that have less?
Good points.
But "time" itself doesn't present the challenge you are asking, it is the time put in (to their characters). Someone could spend 2h attending an in-game wedding, etc
We all understand time is a commodity, and when you can invest more time into developing your character, he has the potential to outpace his peers. But again, that is everyone's choice. I like to say that MMORPG are a lifestyle.
We understand that not all people use their time wisely in game, so the value or perceived notion someone is casual, or hardcore based on time played, is flawed. It is what you do with your time. To someone who spends their time getting ahead of others, means he sees EXP boost as unfair. Because he spends all his time in lush EXP areas, being efficient with his time.
But like noted above, nearly everyone sees paying for an EXP boost, as an obvious advantage over others. Water is water, no matter how much.
That is the point some here do not understand. That we are defining and using a definition. It doesn't matter to what degree, only that it is, or is not.
If it is, THEN you can discuss to what degree.
Some here can not get past that and want to simply try to re-define a "win" based on severe it is. Severity of perceived win, does not matter when defining.
Example: EXP boosts are a Obvious win. How much of a boost, or the function of them in each game doesn't matter. It is a clear advantage.
But claiming that EXP boosts are not an advantage, because they can have little impact doesn't defeat the definition.
And here is the problem. I would say that you are 100% wrong on every count beside your first sentence.
Your example is bait and switch. EXP boosts are 100% not win. It is a clear advantage, as is playing more time, having friends vs pugs, being in a large guild, picking the right class, having a good computer/internet (can be a huge advantage). But you only see paying as an advantage.
Some here changed the definition of win to advantage. But they only see spending money as an advantage.
IF you must pay to win, then it is P2W.
We can go back and forth, that is why all OP should define the discussion.
The discussion we are having is two-fold, defining a "win", then applying that toward paying for it. That is the current subject. They are 2 things.
And many here never took logic or debates in school, so they do not know how to parley and/or debate logically, & instead uses qualifiers, because they can not perceive Another's perception. Unable to imagine their own ideas played out upon another. Many people are not critical thinkers and do not have this ability. It is just human nature. So they latch on to ONE idea of how an exp boost doesn't fit the over-all description and then myopically try to use that, as some argument.
In reality, many do not even understand the context is which they are actually arguing.
Now, if you can not back up and read all of what has been said, you are not doing us any favors.
Because water is water... it is definable and it doesn't matter how much you have of it, or how little, you still call it water. Same applies to a perceived "win". It doesn't matter if you see it is small or insignificant, or someone else see it as a massive win, and substantial.. they are just degrees of "win".
Many can't accept that.. because it becomes personal at that point (& it is when they get irrational) . You can see this happen in their posting, when they have to confront, little or big..? And have to accept an advantage is an advantage. Additionally, continually comparing it's advantage to something else, only makes you understand how little, or small that advantage is. Not whether or not it is one.
That is how definition works. Plastic is Plastic, doesn't matter if it is shavings, or a truck full of it. How much, or the severity of it, does not weigh in on the definition. Only if it is, or is not.
You can not debate it, we know what a definition means and is.
Comments
Most people do believe that if there is a competitive enviornment, those with the higher skill should generally perform better. It is a general belief that the skill advantage is fair, as long as it is not too extreme (i.e. pitting a chess master vs a 4 year old in a chess match).
However, you have also brought up the issue of time. Why should time itself present an advantage other than the opportunity to improve skill? In this instance it would not be cumulative time (i.e. seniority) but rather amount to access (measured in time). Why is it fair for those who are more available to perform better than those with less availability (and perhaps higher skill)? I am not questioning a basic time requirement (you have to show up to participate), but why do those who have more time deserve an automatic advantage over those that have less?
Once upon a time....
Yes it is.
Once upon a time....
The second being that the real point of it all is the fairness factor, and trying to be as fair as possible in an imperfect world of gaming.
Once upon a time....
When you buy clothes, do you call it winning?
When you buy groceries, do you call it winning?
Or maybe is winning more than just getting something?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
2) The guy wearing old, torn clothes thinks so.
3) The hungry think so.
Ir maybe I'm just being presumptuous.
But lets try one that's more in tune with gaming.
Q: When you buy all 50 items in a cash shop, is that winning?
A: To the guy that can only afford 2 of them this month, it sure is.
Once upon a time....
BTW, I like your signature....
"Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play."
In other words, "shut up and do what I want"....right?
Once upon a time....
Pay 2 Win is a derogatory term. As such, its meaning is based on the subjective criteria of the user, and does not have any objective requirements. Just like any other derogatory, there does not need to be any agreement with how it can be used, as it is simply used to show disrespect and insult.
~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~
Q: He/She's probably an irrational shopper, manages his/her money well, prioritizes what he/She wants(not needs), has a stable job with excess funds, or has parents who hand out generous allowance.
A: Opposite of Q
But even if we are going to go on such an illogical tangent, what you are describing is jealousy, not a win-lose scenario.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Jealousy? Heh, right. You game developers are sumptin' else, you know that? Why don't you spend your time actually improving your games instead of so much time here trying to defend the crappy rinse and repeat gaming so many of us are tired of?
Just wondering, ya know?
Once upon a time....
Win
- to finish first in a race, contest, or the like. [All skill-related things.]
- to succeed by striving or effort. He applied for a scholarship and won. [The candidate competed for a scholarship and won due to his skill.]
- to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. [Skill-related.]
- Slang. to be successful or competent and be acknowledged for it [Competence is skill.]
Now that you're acquainted with what winning means, let's answer your question.Are any of the 50 items in a cash shop circumventing skillful challenges? Then it's winning. Otherwise it's not.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You guys want to use the dictionary and ignore the meaning of what people are saying.
Anything for a "win", eh?
Once upon a time....
Those^ are not function of a game, are they. (troll much?)
Pay to win, is when you are paying the developer for an in-game advantage over other players. That constitutes a mini "win" in the eyes of the buyer, and of the person who can not afford to do so.
Anything, in which gives a character an advantage, over another is a win. When you pay for it, it becomes pay to win. What the advantage is, does not matter, because the player who didn't purchase it, doesn't have it. Thus the person who did purchase the advantage, has just gain a "I Win".
You do not win the game! You are paying to get ahead of another, thus winning the situation.
There is no actual win, because nobody has ever won a MMORPG. I never seen a developer give an award out to the winner of their game.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
As far as your 1-3 and Q/A above, IF they can earn them with reasonable time and effort then it is not wining. Now we have to have a debate on what reasonable is.
If one player has to put in some effort, and another player just skips any effort at all and simply buys (whatever "it" is), then they bought advantage over the other player. Remember that we aren't talking about just one thing here.
As far as "reasonable" time, as you suggest, isn't that more a matter of degree? I think so. Making said thing "reasonable" could easily remove objections. But I think you'd have to look far and wide for that sort of thing from game producers. After all, they want to sell these things and if it's a reasonable effort to get them, they simply won't sell enough.
----
This is a problem. Too many are making games that simply won't sell, so they are making them FtP and working the whales for their money.
In the meantime we aren't getting better games made by more talented, more insightful developers. Because they don't have to as long as whales will pay the bill for what the average gamer won't pay for.
I believe this is what we'd call a "conundrum". We are stuck in a conundrum.
Once upon a time....
If it is, THEN you can discuss to what degree.
Some here can not get past that and want to simply try to re-define a "win" based on severe it is. Severity of perceived win, does not matter when defining.
Example:
EXP boosts are a Obvious win. How much of a boost, or the function of them in each game doesn't matter. It is a clear advantage.
But claiming that EXP boosts are not an advantage, because they can have little impact doesn't defeat the definition.
Your example is bait and switch. EXP boosts are 100% not win. It is a clear advantage, as is playing more time, having friends vs pugs, being in a large guild, picking the right class, having a good computer/internet (can be a huge advantage). But you only see paying as an advantage.
Some here changed the definition of win to advantage. But they only see spending money as an advantage.
IF you must pay to win, then it is P2W.
We can go back and forth, that is why all OP should define the discussion.
Good points.
But "time" itself doesn't present the challenge you are asking, it is the time put in (to their characters). Someone could spend 2h attending an in-game wedding, etc
We all understand time is a commodity, and when you can invest more time into developing your character, he has the potential to outpace his peers. But again, that is everyone's choice. I like to say that MMORPG are a lifestyle.
We understand that not all people use their time wisely in game, so the value or perceived notion someone is casual, or hardcore based on time played, is flawed. It is what you do with your time. To someone who spends their time getting ahead of others, means he sees EXP boost as unfair. Because he spends all his time in lush EXP areas, being efficient with his time.
But like noted above, nearly everyone sees paying for an EXP boost, as an obvious advantage over others. Water is water, no matter how much.
The discussion we are having is two-fold, defining a "win", then applying that toward paying for it.
That is the current subject. They are 2 things.
And many here never took logic or debates in school, so they do not know how to parley and/or debate logically, & instead uses qualifiers, because they can not perceive Another's perception. Unable to imagine their own ideas played out upon another. Many people are not critical thinkers and do not have this ability. It is just human nature. So they latch on to ONE idea of how an exp boost doesn't fit the over-all description and then myopically try to use that, as some argument.
In reality, many do not even understand the context is which they are actually arguing.
Now, if you can not back up and read all of what has been said, you are not doing us any favors.
Because water is water... it is definable and it doesn't matter how much you have of it, or how little, you still call it water. Same applies to a perceived "win". It doesn't matter if you see it is small or insignificant, or someone else see it as a massive win, and substantial.. they are just degrees of "win".
Many can't accept that.. because it becomes personal at that point (& it is when they get irrational) . You can see this happen in their posting, when they have to confront, little or big..? And have to accept an advantage is an advantage. Additionally, continually comparing it's advantage to something else, only makes you understand how little, or small that advantage is. Not whether or not it is one.
That is how definition works. Plastic is Plastic, doesn't matter if it is shavings, or a truck full of it. How much, or the severity of it, does not weigh in on the definition. Only if it is, or is not.
You can not debate it, we know what a definition means and is.