Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A Moderator can Close this Thread... Thank you.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
When you make the right decisions and beat your opponents in LoL, you have won. When you do the same thing against opponents in MMORPGs, you've won. The root of it is the direct competition.
All formalized competitions are games. The implication that some aren't is strange.
The non-combat parts of MMORPGs aren't "unexplained". They're just not competitions where winning exists.
So if you want to bemoan capitalism, you use the term "capitalism". You don't use a term that doesn't apply.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In football, when you make the right decisions, you beat your opponent, so when you do the same thing while playing house you win? Your LoL example doesn't even make sense, as other than in PVP, which is the least played part of an MMO if an MMO has PVP at all, you are not in a direct or implied competition with other players, especially in regards to progression which most of this is about.
Is your stance that if I buy an XP boost and get to the level cap before you, I have won WOW?
"All formalized competitions are games. The implication that some aren't is strange."
No one said they weren't, Axehilt. You're making the illogical leap in the opposite direction, suggesting that all MMOs (games) are formalized competitions, specifically against other players.
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
I agree that LoL is not an MMORPG. It has a distinct beginning and end for each competition, and has clear 'win' conditions. MMORPG's dont have this stucture, so it does not apply. If you are out grinding mobs to make levels, does getting killed mean you lost? Does each mob kill count as a win? Where are these rules available?
I agree that formalized competitions are often games... but not that all games are formalized competitions.
As for non combat parts of MMO's, there is plenty of winning and losing, and even some formal competition. These portions are just as often the point of complaint for P2W as the combat portion.
As for the use of derogitories or insults... you cant dictate their use, as they are designed to be used liberally.
LoL might not be a P2W game. I don't know much about it, but I see their cash shop does not sell in-game things. I just want to get that part out of the way first.
As far as defining "winning", how many times haven't we heard that these games are designed for players to win? I'll grant you that you still have to figure out the way to "win", and you can still fail, in most "End Game" content as well as other "Quests". So I'll grant you that would certainly be considered "win".
But that is not the only way to "win" in almost all MMO's. Many gamers like to win at trade, at collecting things, etc. Some of those things, depending on the game, don't offer any special power-ups and have nothing to do with being batter at the "win" you are talking about. What about matching gear sets? Many of them don't really do much for your "win", they are just there to provide a "collections" aspect. And that also is considered "win" by many players.
So the PvX content is not the only way to "win" in MMO's.
Once upon a time....
I'm not sure if you are talking about me, the OP, or some specific post by someone else.
But I thought I'd speak about my own reasons here.
First, the MMO industry is stagnated. We're getting the "same ol' same ol' ". Gamers have been calling for "something different" for years and in growing numbers. Most gamers won't even pay for any one game anymore, while they jump from one to another seeking something they just aren't finding. They are settling into "what my friends are playing" and nothing more.
Normally, this stagnation in an industry would cause it to start folding in on itself. But MMO's have discovered Cash Shops and "Whales" as a means to fund their efforts. Efforts that otherwise would fail, because they just aren't worth paying for anymore. Not in nearly enough numbers. But making up that shortfall in dollar terms via Whales is working to some extent, and that extent is shrinking as gamers are getting tired of THAT same ol' same ol' too.
If nothing changes, the whole industry is going to cave in on itself. There won't be anything new. All that will be left, in time, will be the "best of the best(?)" in a market that's drying up.
Now for the part that pizzes me off. And believe me, I don't feel threatened by these guys. There's a Real Life out there with plenty of real threats. These guys are not a threat by any means.
What pizzes me off are two things.
1) That the situation I've spelled out above, the stagnation of MMO's, is being dragged out by this P2W situation. That's providing almost enough money to continue the same ol' same ol'. In the meantime, we gamers are NOT GETTING any change. Anything better to play. Anything worth paying for.
2) The efforts by some, including those who work inside this industry, to curtail talk on message boards about "something different". Sandbox. We've all seen it. Every thread that starts out talking about how to do Sandbox, what we want, what would be fun, devolves quickly into "that won't work", "can't be done", and "no one wants that" (despite the fact that people are saying right there that they do want "that"). It's like banging your head against a brick wall. And the names are always the same. The few killing a thread. And this happens over and over again. Every damn time.
2A) Meanwhile, while it's quite obvious that gamers are buying "win" in cash shops (the means to continue this dissolving MMO industry as is), we get this constant arguments from the same people that it's not P2W. You can spend your money like this, it's ok, it's not P2W.
The whole thing stinks of a Con Game. Not legally speaking. It's a ruse more than a con. It's deception. All to continue with a failing situation. And we ALL are losing because of it. Except for the people who are making money off of it, of course. (There's no blame here cast on some, but for some others there's a RMT (Real Money Trade) thing going on behind the scenes that does cast a blame on them.)
I, and many of us, want change. Something better. Something worth paying for. But we aren't getting it because of the current situation. That's got to change first.
Once upon a time....
The OP was made to to get to the point, without too much explanation, as people do not have a tendency to read (as has been proven throughout over 300 posts in this thread at this point). By this point, most people squatting on this thread already know what I have defined as P2W, as I have defined P2W multiple times in this thread alone (let alone elsewhere). And I will define it again :
Pay to Win -- (defined) -- The player advantage in-game, which is acquired by real money from outside the game, directly and-or indirectly. The P2W Player Advantage is defined in the same manner as any other player advantage, as stemming from the players' real life. Consider "Skill," "Time," "Social Aptitude" and "Organization / Management of Guild-Raid Scale Groups."
The negation of each of the stated player advantages, will further allow one to understand each as an advantage in practice. Take away skill from a player, time, social abilities, organization/ management of guilds/ raids... Take away money. Now consider that player in an MMORPG.
When we view Pen & Paper / Tabletop RPGs in comparison to any other non-computer game, it can be recognized that said RPGs have no true "Win Condition." By extension, "Win" within the P2W term, does not imply a "Win Condition" nor does it guarantee the Purchaser will "Win" simply because they utilized P2W as an advantage. They can in fact lose.
P2W in this context excludes RMT / Black Market, as by definition these transactions are considered illegal, and thus "dealt with" by the company.
P2W in this context also does not include the "Subscription Without Cash Shop" business model, as all players in-game are on equal footing, beyond the other stated player advantages.
It is in fact based on the definition of P2W that I gave, that P2W Reduction Methods beyond those delivered in the OP are being asked for. There is no discussion about the definition of P2W at this point, not by those whom claim to be all about logic, as the definition was given from the perspective of development. It is on that basis, that all such discussion "on either side of some debate over the definition of what P2W is or is not," is actually irrelevant.
Just because you ask "how to reduce something," does not imply that it was inbuilt with malicious intention by those involved with a system. Consider the real life example of inflation. Inflation exists in the real world, independent of any system, of any civilization, anywhere in the universe, with or without a currency-based economic system... But we can certainly ask how to reduce it. It is not an insult. It is not an insult to ask how all of the inhabitants of the world can afford to live better, or how to help them live better.
Asking the same question about P2W however, it is somehow an insult? The real insult is in those that could care less about their entire playerbase, so much in fact, that to even ask the question of how to grant an MMORPG actual integrity for the majority... well, you can clearly see throughout this thread. THAT is insulting.
What should be presupposed, is that "I intend on creating my own mmorpg eventually, and that a particular element is unwanted as being specifically unlimited." Anything after that, I say that maybe, perhaps... there is a good reason for their guilty consciences.
This is the second time in this thread you've written that so I'm curious... me? If so, I'm further interested in what posts I may have made that indicated to you I was against sandbox style games and gameplay. How that relates to this thread is also a curiosity, as it seems you are saying you are against certain posters (not their stance but the posters themselves) in this thread because of stances they've taken on completely irrelevant topics. If not then... carry on.
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
And when you get the time to actually return to the thread topic, this link delivers the topic as short as possible :
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6712370#6712370
No. I've noted that you are not against Sandbox. And I have very good reason to believe that there are many others working in the industry who are the same as you. On the other hand, you haven't exactly been a champion of Sandbox either. Sort of neutral, or less involved than you could be.
However, you have been one who has defended this situation I spoke of by defending P2W as not being P2W. You've had a part in this. But no, you are not one of "those guys" in that comment.
I understand that's all about funding. I know the problems there. But things aren't going to get better if they stay the same. Those funding problems will always be there unless change is accomplished.
Once upon a time....
On that pay-to-win point, I stated above that there are clearly some items and even games (cited above) that are built around paying for an advantage. However, if we are going to say "any payment for in-game items is P2W" then we can't be selective on the definition of "any", right? That's where the argument seems to fall apart... well, that and the overly-braod definition of P2W.
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
You should both read the response I gave between the **** - **** (that includes everyone else reading this thread).
So in fact, I do understand why cash shops exist, I understand their effects on MMORPGs, and I understand how they work. It is exactly that understanding by which, the intended goal of this thread (to find more P2W Reduction Methods based on the definition I delivered of P2W), came to the making of this thread.
As far as my profits (when the time comes), I understand the "subscription without cash shop" business model to be equal to 100% revenue, while the "F2P with cash shop" business model is equal to ~250% revenue in comparison. The way I am seeing this is, it gives +/- ~150% revenue that I would be willing to lose, in order to maintain what I see as being "the integrity of my work." That to myself at least, is more important than simply "making more money." The idea that I could simply go subscription only without a cash shop is likely one that I will attempt when the time comes, but this thread and the information it is seeking, is necessary as a fallback.
So the arguments that are ongoing in this thread, certainly stand as proof to what you two and many others have already stated. However, that still has nothing to do with this thread's intention, ie - it's irrelevant (as I also explained in that reply between the **** - ****).
That includes you too btw...
That's really all you need to do.
Any means any. That's pretty clear.
Look, if there's vanity items in a cash shop that players want but can't afford they are not getting the "win" like those who can.
It's not an overly broad definition on my part. It's a narrow definition on yours.
Now, see? We've talked about this several times, gone back and forth in this one thread alone. And yet here you are, still arguing this point, which helps to continue the stagnation of this industry and prevent change in MMO design which is sorely needed.
Just stop this. Whether you want to call it "win" or not, some players get things other players don't because they pay more. Call it something else if you want but admit this is the case. And admit this isn't the "fairest" way to go. And admit that this is the only reason many MMO's can fund themselves. And admit that there's something wrong with MMO's if they can only fund themselves in such an "unfair" manner.
Once upon a time....
2. It's only unfair if again you believe that there is a win for buying and getting something that someone else doesn't regardless of whether that actually helps you or not.
3. There is only something wing with mmo"s if you subscribe to #2.
I disagree with number one. So the other points are moot.
Playing house doesn't involve direct competition. There is no opponent in house to directly compete against. That's the underlying reason it sounds so ridiculous to talk about "winning" in playing house.
PVE and PVP are both terms describing direct competition against the environment or other players. The opponents you face in these competitions are who you beat (achieve victory against; win against.) In the former they're AI. In the latter, they're other players.
"Competitions/Contest have a clearly defined 'win' scenario, even if they are not a game." implied that some competitions or contests aren't games. But both words describe activities played according to rules and decided by strength, skill, or luck (ie games.) (The only exception would be if competition was the natural selection form of competition, but he removed any doubt by narrowing it down to those which "have a clearly defined win scenario".)
But you can compete against AI, and win or lose against it. And that's where the majority of MMORPG's winning exists.
And again, all of this would cease to be a discussion if people dropped the faulty P2W term and simply used "capitalism" as their critique, or some other word that better describes their true criticism.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Are you suggesting fights in MMORPGs never end?
They do end. Fights in MMORPGs have a beginning, middle, and end. They have clear win conditions (reduce enemy HP to zero.) They involve direct competition against an opponent.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You say that the system as is so far is "unnecessarily complex." However, that is due to not truly understanding how deeply intertwined throughout an MMORPG that the P2W player advantage system truly runs. It is a complex interweaving system. It would only be "unnecessarily complex," if and only if, the players would be expected to need to "deal with that system." If I am to be the one producing the game, and I am the one whom needs to deal with the system, (then to me at least) it is not seen as "unnecessarily complex."
Again, it comes down to the definition of P2W which I delivered. That definition includes all cash shop items that are tradeable in-game, including cosmetic / vanity items, as those can be traded for in-game currencies. That allows for in-game wealth to be indirectly purchased (and to me, not that indirect as it appears blatantly obvious, as I have used it myself). With that accumulated in-game wealth, any purchasable advantage (combat equipment, buff items, etc) can be bought. That is what I am looking to truly place limits on, without eliminating it entirely.
Such as experience potions go, those are considered progression items. Progression items would not at all be found in the cash shop, but instead would drop in-game as loot, and would be tradeable. This allows those playing the game to compete no matter where they stand on the "pay scale," and would not make the company money directly from the cash shoppers. It places power into the hands of those actually playing the game. It places the decision to use or sell said items into the hands of those playing the game.
So no, that is not all I really need to do.
Agreed, especially hobbies and entertainment where people invest more money the more they are emotionally invested in it. It's more than just "let's make MORE money." It's also customer service. It's improving the experience.
I went to an Atlanta Braves game not long ago and there were games for the kids and an entire shopping area for souvenirs, swags and food. Food and drink stalls were on every floor. Tickets were like at any arena event, offered everything from basic seating to box, pavllion, and behind/above the dugout.
And, hey, I think a $90 baseball jersey is crazy, for the guy that's a big Braves fan, it's worth it. Or how about an autographed ball; a ball that you never intend to throw or catch? To me, that's nuts, but I would never consider the person that bought it a 'sucker' because the game is their thing, their jam, their passion. And it would be pretty unreasonable and irrational of me to feel that he has some advantage because he owns that ball or that he is beating me at watching the Braves game because he's got the jumbo soda, pretzel and three-weiner special.
An MMO is no different. If a player created their own arbitrary win condition, that's irrelevant to the game and of no concern to the other players who more than likely aren't even trying to compete with that player, let alone at that player's personal imaginary competition.
Dropping the personal win conditions and arguments based off of scenarios that don't even exist (or are, at best, a trivial number of cases in the genre) will go a long way toward staying on track with productive discussion.
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
The other points are moot...to you. That doesn't change anything.
They are not moot to me. That doesn't change anything either.
I can call it "win", you can say it's not. That too doesn't change anything.
They are what they are. Pay-to-"Win", or Pay-to-"Get", or Pay-for-Faster, whatever.
Once upon a time....
You all need to get back to the thread topic...
Based on the definition given above,
what other P2W Reduction Methods can be considered?
(The OP has a list of examples)
Yes, you can compete against AI. I don't disagree at all, but what does that have to do with the conversation? The complaint is that someone can pay to win agaisnt them. Are you presenting that their issue is that people are complaining thatothers can pay money to do something that doesn't even remotely affect the complainer outside of aiding the complainer if that person is grouped with or benefitting from the person who paid to 'win' against the AI? Are you suggesting that the individual battles against mobs are what their issue is with?
You can assign 'win' to any individual element of anything, and yes you can eventually wear everyone down and 'win' the discussion that way, but I don't think the OP and others are being that trivial and minutia-obsessed with their concerns of win. Are you saying they are?
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
Again i think you are making fat more complicated than it is. Its either no cash shop, full cash shop, It cash shop with limits abd the limits are no tradeable items cosmetic and or very small stat bonuses. That's it.