They say they reject P2W, but
"but the team may sell "some special items, like specific Relic Weapons, though these will also be "a reasonable way to attain or craft them through normal gameplay as well"
sounds a lot like P2W to me.
normal gear and most Relic Weapons is only earned through adventuring, but the team may sell "some special items, like specific Relic Weapons, though these will also be "a reasonable way to attain or craft them through normal gameplay as well"
This was the only thing that worried me but if you can actually play the game and get them then no problem. Would not have been good to sell weapons that you can only get on the cash shop. Could see them putting some cosmetic things in the shop that you can only get there and have no problem with that though.
Still on the fence though about this one as I only play ARPG as single player games myself. Will have to see how much impact having others in some zones really is.
I'm not thrilled hearing this. Iv come to realize i hate F2P in most but not all games. Cosmetics to me are just as important as the OP items with kick ass stats. Its a 50/50 split when it comes to gear ,Its not good enough just being powerful i want to look the part as well and paying for the cosmetics cheapens the experience. Now i know they listed all these can be obtained in game which is great to hear but me, personally, I'd rather just pay a flat fee for the game and thats that. None of this cash shop crap
I have to be honest I'm a little disappointed.
I agree with this Brother.
When I put hours into a game to get the Item- I also want it to look the part...having these cosmetic bullshit shops does not give me that same satisfaction of obtaining the item and also "obtaining" a cool look.
Same like PoE I love that game- but all the legendary drops look like crap- until you get a cosmetic...You cant have a cool looking char without paying some money for it..and that is not what games and progression is about..If you put in the hours you aught to look the part...not pay to look the part.!
Sounds reasonable enough but I just hate it when developers start playing the semantics game with things like "For one thing, there is no specific "winning""
That's a weak argument I expect from fans of games, not developers.
Why? Because most gamers struggle with the difference between the terms "to win" vs "an advantage?"
Not the developer's fault gamers tend to be willfully ignorant of the difference.
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
Devs interpretations of reasonable is usually my definition of grindy as hell. I hope to be proven wrong but i kinda doubt it.
I don't want to agree with this, but I have to.
Most games' version of "reasonable" basically translates to "only play this game 8 hours a day, seven days a week for a month, and you can have the same thing that your buddy bought in two seconds with their credit card."
For instance, progressing in World of Tanks was absolutely miserable until I became a wallet warrior and simply paid to bypass the tanks I didn't want to miserably grind through, and paid a subscription so that every death didn't lead to losing credits and bought a gold tank so that I could earn enough credits quicker to buy the tanks that I actually wanted to drive.
Most F2P games have a "suffer until you open your wallet" policy.
The absolute worst of these was SWTOR, who literally made you buy back UI elements if you weren't a subscriber. Pieces of the UI, were literally locked away from you for not ponying up the dough. As bad as other games like Planetside 2 were at monetizing their game, none that I have played have ever come remotely close to how bad SWTOR is/was.
Devs interpretations of reasonable is usually my definition of grindy as hell. I hope to be proven wrong but i kinda doubt it.
I don't want to agree with this, but I have to.
Most games' version of "reasonable" basically translates to "only play this game 8 hours a day, seven days a week for a month, and you can have the same thing that your buddy bought in two seconds with their credit card."
For instance, progressing in World of Tanks was absolutely miserable until I became a wallet warrior and simply paid to bypass the tanks I didn't want to miserably grind through, and paid a subscription so that every death didn't lead to losing credits and bought a gold tank so that I could earn enough credits quicker to buy the tanks that I actually wanted to drive.
Most F2P games have a "suffer until you open your wallet" policy.
The absolute worst of these was SWTOR, who literally made you buy back UI elements if you weren't a subscriber. Pieces of the UI, were literally locked away from you for not ponying up the dough. As bad as other games like Planetside 2 were at monetizing their game, none that I have played have ever come remotely close to how bad SWTOR is/was.
Well this is life I guess.... Some people (like) me have to work their butt of you be able to buy a ferrari and some people are simply born with the finances to buy it...
Life isn't always fair and never will be.... as long Ferrari gets the money they want for the car then they don't care how the money is earned.
Sounds reasonable enough but I just hate it when developers start playing the semantics game with things like "For one thing, there is no specific "winning""
That's a weak argument I expect from fans of games, not developers.
Why? Because most gamers struggle with the difference between the terms "to win" vs "an advantage?"
Not the developer's fault gamers tend to be willfully ignorant of the difference.
Because there is no P2W because there is no winning is a dumbass manipulative argument that attempts to distract from the real issue.
If it helps you, think about what they're actually saying: "You can't win our game so we will sell anything we feel like selling because P2W does not exist."
Don't be willfully obtuse.
"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
I just want more permanence and reason to keep playing outside of the typical hardcore and seasonal nonsense. ARPGs need to figure out a way to make keeping a character in the long term meaningful.
Nah... I'll completely disagree here. I'm tired of games being torn apart to include features and things to appeal people who don't like the genre.
If you don't enjoy the gameplay loop of an ARPG that is basically the same old grind over and over then play something else.
This bastardization of everything to appeal everyone is one of the problems that leads to most game genres (including MMORPGs) these days being on the garbage bin.
There is nothing wrong to be done with something. If you finished certain ARPG story and you don't want to re-do it or play a seasonal event... then do something else with your life?
This faulty mindset is how we end up with franchise and genre stagnation.
At any rate, this hypothetical ARPG wouldn't even be the first with permanence, or are we going to pretend that Marvel Heroes never existed. That game had long term progression. It had many characters to keep the story replays fresh. And while it lacked conventional seasons, it did allow you to prestige characters at will and rewarded you for doing so - effectively the same thing. And it was fun.
I just want more permanence and reason to keep playing outside of the typical hardcore and seasonal nonsense. ARPGs need to figure out a way to make keeping a character in the long term meaningful.
Nah... I'll completely disagree here. I'm tired of games being torn apart to include features and things to appeal people who don't like the genre.
If you don't enjoy the gameplay loop of an ARPG that is basically the same old grind over and over then play something else.
This bastardization of everything to appeal everyone is one of the problems that leads to most game genres (including MMORPGs) these days being on the garbage bin.
There is nothing wrong to be done with something. If you finished certain ARPG story and you don't want to re-do it or play a seasonal event... then do something else with your life?
This faulty mindset is how we end up with franchise and genre stagnation.
At any rate, this hypothetical ARPG wouldn't even be the first with permanence, or are we going to pretend that Marvel Heroes never existed. That game had long term progression. It had many characters to keep the story replays fresh. And while it lacked conventional seasons, it did allow you to prestige characters at will and rewarded you for doing so - effectively the same thing. And it was fun.
You say genre stagnation I say genre definition. Nothing stops people from mixing genres or building new things.
But you should know the difference: I don't want to be catered to play Fifa. I hate Fifa and they should keep doing Fifas that I hate. Because what makes me hate Fifa is what makes Fifa fans love Fifa.
Genre definitions are cool and all, but every genre has common mechanics that may not actually be core or essential to that genre's definition and strict adherence to these can be crippling to a genre.
For example, is a three lane DotA style map part of the genre definition for a MOBA? It clearly isn't, as some of the best ones have bucked that trend. But the genre at large adheres to it so strictly, to its detriment, that one would think that it is.
But I digress. I don't care if what I want is genre mixing (ARPG and MMORPG) or simply a black sheep in the ARPG genre. I want what I want and I do not care how that is labelled.
Devs interpretations of reasonable is usually my definition of grindy as hell. I hope to be proven wrong but i kinda doubt it.
I don't want to agree with this, but I have to.
Most games' version of "reasonable" basically translates to "only play this game 8 hours a day, seven days a week for a month, and you can have the same thing that your buddy bought in two seconds with their credit card."
For instance, progressing in World of Tanks was absolutely miserable until I became a wallet warrior and simply paid to bypass the tanks I didn't want to miserably grind through, and paid a subscription so that every death didn't lead to losing credits and bought a gold tank so that I could earn enough credits quicker to buy the tanks that I actually wanted to drive.
Most F2P games have a "suffer until you open your wallet" policy.
The absolute worst of these was SWTOR, who literally made you buy back UI elements if you weren't a subscriber. Pieces of the UI, were literally locked away from you for not ponying up the dough. As bad as other games like Planetside 2 were at monetizing their game, none that I have played have ever come remotely close to how bad SWTOR is/was.
Well this is life I guess.... Some people (like) me have to work their butt of you be able to buy a ferrari and some people are simply born with the finances to buy it...
Life isn't always fair and never will be.... as long Ferrari gets the money they want for the car then they don't care how the money is earned.
That analogy makes no sense, mate! We are talking about virtual goodies....items made out of thin air...a Ferrari is something different - that is a life style..a life style you treat different than a game....Maybe you can use that for Star Citizen..where deep wallets really do matter.....but not in this debate.
I am very interested in this game. Was looking that it would cost to buy but I am not going to complain till after it is out about if free was wrong choice. I watched the video on relic weapons and they are very powerful and level up so just buying is a benefit but they said it should an average of 10 runs of the boss that drops the core needed for a relic weapon. So it is a time advantage but since there is so much in this game that will be time gated then I am not too worried. I get to go at my own pace and don't have to worry about others. When I am making my wood into lumber and have to wait 24 hours for that to be done then grinding other things is not really the worst.
Comments
"but the team may sell "some special items, like specific Relic Weapons, though these will also be "a reasonable way to attain or craft them through normal gameplay as well"
sounds a lot like P2W to me.
This was the only thing that worried me but if you can actually play the game and get them then no problem. Would not have been good to sell weapons that you can only get on the cash shop. Could see them putting some cosmetic things in the shop that you can only get there and have no problem with that though.
Still on the fence though about this one as I only play ARPG as single player games myself. Will have to see how much impact having others in some zones really is.
When I put hours into a game to get the Item- I also want it to look the part...having these cosmetic bullshit shops does not give me that same satisfaction of obtaining the item and also "obtaining" a cool look.
Same like PoE I love that game- but all the legendary drops look like crap- until you get a cosmetic...You cant have a cool looking char without paying some money for it..and that is not what games and progression is about..If you put in the hours you aught to look the part...not pay to look the part.!
mmorpg junkie since 1999
Not the developer's fault gamers tend to be willfully ignorant of the difference.
"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
Most games' version of "reasonable" basically translates to "only play this game 8 hours a day, seven days a week for a month, and you can have the same thing that your buddy bought in two seconds with their credit card."
For instance, progressing in World of Tanks was absolutely miserable until I became a wallet warrior and simply paid to bypass the tanks I didn't want to miserably grind through, and paid a subscription so that every death didn't lead to losing credits and bought a gold tank so that I could earn enough credits quicker to buy the tanks that I actually wanted to drive.
Most F2P games have a "suffer until you open your wallet" policy.
The absolute worst of these was SWTOR, who literally made you buy back UI elements if you weren't a subscriber. Pieces of the UI, were literally locked away from you for not ponying up the dough. As bad as other games like Planetside 2 were at monetizing their game, none that I have played have ever come remotely close to how bad SWTOR is/was.
Joined - July 2004
Life isn't always fair and never will be.... as long Ferrari gets the money they want for the car then they don't care how the money is earned.
If it helps you, think about what they're actually saying: "You can't win our game so we will sell anything we feel like selling because P2W does not exist."
Don't be willfully obtuse.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
At any rate, this hypothetical ARPG wouldn't even be the first with permanence, or are we going to pretend that Marvel Heroes never existed. That game had long term progression. It had many characters to keep the story replays fresh. And while it lacked conventional seasons, it did allow you to prestige characters at will and rewarded you for doing so - effectively the same thing. And it was fun.
For example, is a three lane DotA style map part of the genre definition for a MOBA? It clearly isn't, as some of the best ones have bucked that trend. But the genre at large adheres to it so strictly, to its detriment, that one would think that it is.
But I digress. I don't care if what I want is genre mixing (ARPG and MMORPG) or simply a black sheep in the ARPG genre. I want what I want and I do not care how that is labelled.
mmorpg junkie since 1999