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
Ill manners, arrogance and insults from myself, merely reflect what I have had to deal with on forums such as this as well as this forum. Particularly, given the subject of P2W and related thereto. My personal view is giving respect to those I am indifferent to, and to disrespect those that have earned that disrespect.
As far as another point to make, whereas you stated that "no one is interested in the subject of this thread," that subject of being P2W Reduction Methods... Beyond what I have already stated, consider this:
https://www.google.com/#q=pay+to+win About 354,000,000 results
and this https://www.google.com/#q=p2w About 439,000 results
And those are just links quite possibly holding at least a few pages each on the subject. Given a rational outlook of P2W from the playerbase, as opposed to absolute illogical blind hostility to it, the subject of reducing the advantage of P2W is a good direction for that conversation. Having any sort of true intellect while still opposed to P2W, one would still want to have such a conversation simply based on the systems, concepts and other unforeseen possible concepts that may come out of it.
So whether or not you or anyone else can see that point, such a subject as the P2W Reduction Methods, is where that conversation will eventually end up. I am ahead of my time, what can I say? So of course there will be hostile opposition to it, as there have been throughout the history of many major new ideas. Why should this be different? And then knowing that, why should I not at least push back just as hard if not harder against that opposition?
So do tell me, is it truly arrogant and insulting of me, to want to have a simple conversation? Apparently, to yourself and others here, it is. To myself, it is far more arrogant and insulting that a simple conversation can not be had, simply due to people needing to drown out the conversation post after post after post. And with what do they drown it out with? Complete nonsense that is irrelevant to the conversation stated. Alas, that is the world of primitive creatures I see, and an insult that I should be among those creatures.
I see...
You are unable to rebuttal me, so you change the arguments on each of the points (paragraphs). You are not trying to hold a logical debate, or argument of ideas, you are simply getting lulz of people responding to you.
Read your own post above and look at the outrageous claims you are making (they are quite childish and dumb). You have not refuted anything. You are simply adding more and more obnoxious qualifiers to each of your arguments. EULA are against the laws? You are going way to make very weak points, then if/when made, they do not help your over all stance. You think because you make a single point, it remains valid throughout a debate, but I show you where they break down in reality.
That is when you add another qualifier , or change your point.
Watch how you won't be able to hold this argument:
I agree, anywhere a company sells a goods or service CAN BE paying to win. So what does that have to do with good and services that a company is not selling? Such as the ones you keep bringing up... such as players selling their accounts...
What point are you trying to make? You still have not told us how that impacts other players, or makes other player's character on a lesser playing field. It simply means a Player's character has a new owner, not that that character has some new advantage in game.
You mix and match ideas that do not support each other and thing we are fooled by your line of reasoning.
A Wall Street Banker may want to play a game for its sole challenge. & not want to sit down and go shopping online within a computer game. What does that gain him? He already own real BMW's and Boats and women.. you are just assuming that since he can own 5 accounts and 5 computers and pay 5 people to play for him, that he will. To what end?
You seem to be talking about CHILDREN, who have weak egos and are trying to establish themselves and build an identity. Adults already own real things, and Wall Street Bankers more so. We are after all talking about role playing games. Go look at the big money spent in Shroud of the Avatar. The money spent and advantage there is prestige, not necessarily a better character. That is left up to the player and his in-game antics, not what he can buy for himself.
You make wild assumption with tons of qualifiers to make one point, but will not accept that most simplest of facts. Why? What is your point regarding and defending paying to win? Why do you think a Wall Street Banker would chose a Sub based game, over a Freemium/Item Mall style of game to flex his muscle?
You have no basis to stand on, your own argument can be used against you. And are not logical within a debate.
When you have a more money than the next person, you can buy more.
Ergo: Item Mall games offer Pay to Win for those who can pay to win. Subscription based games cut down on that effect considerably if not all together, minus cheaters and EULA breakers.
That is real easy and simple to understand. And supported by economics and facts.
The reality is:
I am not suggesting pay to win is a function of how goods and services are packages. I do not make that argument. It is just another line of BS that you try to hide behind, while filling your posts with fluff. It is the basis of all of your rhetoric. Look at how you keep line-item-veto'ing everyone's post and change each argument for your purpose, but from 5 pages ago you don't hold your own line. You are trolling and I am burning your bridge.
I am saying "paying to win" is based on selling >individual< good & services that give a player's character an advantage. I am also saying it is only considered "pay to win" of those good & services are provided by the Game company as a business model and source of revenue.
FWIW:
You do not know the laws and you are making wild assumption. Your character is not owned by yourself, but leased. You do not have the right of sale on most (given the individual EULA). Stop trying to pass yourself off as a lawyer. People who own Vanguard character can't sue SOE/DBG, because their can't access their chars anymore. Don't make up stuff to try and rebuttal me, my business partners are laughing at your claims.
You agree to & sign a EULA btw, or you do not play or login. <---
Given it has become painfully obvious that an intelligent conversation can not yet be had surrounding this subject in the public forums, there is no need nor use in it's continuing.
This thread should have been a matter of players and developers coming together on the subject of P2W as was defined, and given the conditions established in the OP.
Such definitions and conditions should have been taken into consideration, toward the purpose of establishing further methods to reduce P2W, while still recognizing that companies also need to create revenue.
This should have been taken as an opportunity toward compromises and understandings, such that may have resulted in mutual agreements, even with some points of disagreement having been expected.
This thread is not having that effect.
So again, as the original poster, I am asking that a Moderator please close this thread...
Thank you.
PS. Any serious discussion involving the P2W Reduction Methods, whether it be serious questions and-or points/systems missed given the definitions (of which can be found in my "P2W Reduction Methods" blog through my signature) and conditions (given specifically a F2P MMORPG with Cash Shop through which are sold tradeable items), feel free to private message me. As far as an optional subscription involved, that can be disregarded for the purpose of this exercise. Thank you.
I am quite sure you really need help with logic and reasoning.
I will take your very first paragraph by sentence and illustrate you have no clue what you are discussing. Ready?
"What the P2W Reduction Methods mean, is that it recognizes what player advantages are and as all stemming from the players' real lives."
That^ is not even a complete thought, nor a logical point, or even a full sentence. It may recognize that certain players have advantages playing games, but how is said player, paying to win? Are you suggesting because a smart player bought a game, he has already won?
ok, lets move on.
"It recognizes groupings of advantaged players, based on the strictly subscription model"
Your pay to win method ONLY recognizes advantages within a subscription model? But not within its own Freemium/Item mall business model? Then your method is invalid. Your method does not function in all games, or within all business models. It is a defunct method.
ok, lets move on.
"Skill comes directly from a player's real life intellect and creativity. The Time advantage comes directly from what would seem to be an excess of time to be able to play."
What is a time advantage? Define who has them and why their time is a qualifier for anything. I can debate that in a roleplaying game, A Player can spend 2 hours watching a in-game wedding take place, while a limited time player may choose to be geared up and log in at a dungeon entrance.
Efficiency of time is an advantage, not necessarily time played. More importantly, how do "excessive time players" have anything to do with paying to win?
ok, lets move on.
"Socially apt players hold the advantage of more quickly bringing and holding together groups (which also becomes an additional advantage to players in those groups). Leader-management advantages also becomes an advantage to those in guilds and-or raids under a leader-manager."
OK, so what? We already discussed that every human is different. That personal skill can not be taken out of anything. You agreed and yet you still bring it up. You are trying to equalize players based on a flawed method.
So Artifice, What have you really said, or tried to say in your opening reply to me?
You are simply regurgitating the same thing over and over, while not defending your facetious "Pay me 2 win" business model & theory. I could let it end here, but I will continue, because you like to WALL an idea to death, instead of actually confronting the crux of your purpose. I have the time.
Now I will get into the meat your of your qualifiers, watch these walls fall down as I use your own line of logic, against your methods.
"The P2W Reduction Methods do NOT reduce any other player advantage type, contrary to the absolute outright BS you keep on stating."
You mean to tell us, that your uber facetious "P2W reduction method" is not trying to reduce a player's advantage of having more time to play? Then why do you list such as a player advantage, or are even discussing it? ...doh!
ok, here are more qualifiers you hide behind:
Where does this help the P2W players? Contrary to what you seem to believe... this particular point allows for a typically financially situated player, to pay less for cash shop items, as they would more likely utilize 100% of what they pay do to generally buying items for themselves. This makes the P2W advantage for those that would tend to use it, twice as expensive to do so.
That^ is not part of this discussion & only a concept you are regurgitating because you can not defend your method outright. So I will bite.
Where does having shop currency help anyone be equal? It doesn't.
It only helps you as a developer to make more money, not to REDUCE the advantages a character, or the player may have.
Secondly, given your own above statements, your whole redux theory is defunct.
Why would it matter to a Wall Street Banker if your method cost him "twice as expensive" to do those things? When money is not a problem for him. All your method does, is make YOU twice as rich, from wealthy people who are frustrated by the "pay wall" you've facetiously built into your method/game.
So if you understand that if I have $500 a month to spend, and you only $20 bucks. The cost of diminishing returns for you being only able to spend $20 bucks is less, than me being able to spend $500. Your ideas have no bearing on someone who doesn't care about blowing $500.
You have it backwards. People with money can spend more, it doesn't matter if they get less for their money. It is still more of an advantage for them.
ok, here are more qualifiers you hide behind:
What does any of that^ have to do with Pay 2 Win -vs- Subscription based business model?
How is any of that refuting my previous posts, or bolstering Paying to Win vs Subscription based business models? It is just yammering to fill a wall of text. That will not work with me. You have to make valid points, not douse your ideas with rhetoric.
Again those are just hearty ideas/methods for any game and many of them (in one form or fashion) already implemented in other games. They are not unique to YOUR method.
More importantly, why do you keep making up questions, then keep asking if it helps "P2W" players?
Watch this:
How does owning a Christmas tree help a P2W players? See no relevance, just like your line of questioning. It is absurd!
And as far as your version of what I said...
"coincidentally mention you do not watch professionals compete, as you find it "boring". So it is rather obvious why you want to build a game where people can not compete based on their personal skills. You want to reduce that."
I have exceptional comprehension, it is in part, how I make my living.
You do not have to defend yourself, just your theories. Though, when discussing yourself it allows us to see whats is behind those ideas. And as you've just said above you do not like to watch competition, or people take their skills to the highest levels. you consider it beneath you.
I can tell you, that by your remarks you are afraid of testing & competing yourself against others. You are afraid of where you stand. It is the sole reason you are trying to develop a game not based on it's story, or game world, or characters, but based on controlling every aspect of the game, so you can govern everyone and put limits on everyone.
Your theories are not trying to reduce paying to win, they are simply trying to filter it, to make more money.
I have read your entire theory weeks after you have presented it. I have not bothered to engage you (since the very beginning) because I have been observing to see if you would learn from all of this. Nobody here is twisting your words, they are using your own logic against your theories and they do not hold up.
I'll ask you one overall question to ponder. What is wrong with a $120/year game?
Given your theory... it is because they can't spend $300 on it? (and you want that money)
OP,
Everyone who engaged within this thread, had issues with your definitions and conditions. Your own definitions did not hold up to scrutiny. They do not hold true and were quite absurd!
ie: smaller pay to win - less pay to win ??
Again, your definitions and conditions were taken into consideration, but given the context outlined, they did not hold up to scrutiny.
You did not establish why pay to win is good, and why reducing it is better. Neither for the Game developer, nor their Customers. You did not establish a business model based on your principles. And when challenged about your pay to win method, you would simple discuss Subscription abusers as a retort, to why your idea will work.
Which is just a "look over here" tactic and defense mechanism. Not an actual defense of how Item Mall games offer any type of level playing field. They do not.
If you understand history, item Mall MMORPGs gained in popularity over the last 5 years, because 20 million disgruntles WoW players where looking for a new challenge. And while waiting for these games to emerge, they fed their egos on throw away Play To Win style of games trying to outdo their friends, only to find big players spending much more. Leaving them dropping those games.
Nobody wants Pay to Win games.
But since most are free to try, many disgruntled people accept their time is worth some investment into playing. (Even if their money is not)
Good luck with your game. You should not be worried about how to monetize it, you should be building it and laying out the game world, so you can present it.
"Recognizing player advantages and particularly as all stemming from the players' real lives"...
Means that ALL player advantages are from specifically outside the game itself. It is in reference to "Skill, Time, Social Aptitude, Lead-Management Coordination of Guild-Raid sized groups, AND Pay to Win (given real life money)." It is also in recognition of the negation of these advantages, through either comparisons and-or strict consideration of taking the advantaged aspect away, which further provides proof to what they are. It is from this, that the P2W Player Advantage is recognized as exactly that, another player advantage.
"What the P2W Reduction Methods mean" also extends to the understanding of what systems allow P2W to have the advantages it does, as well as to the extent it does. This further extends to the fact, that by knowing the systems at work to create and increase this advantage, the P2W Reduction Methods are ultimately through limiting these systems which work toward P2W.
"Are you suggesting because a smart player bought a game, he has already won?" -- Speaking of illogical.
"Recognizing groupings of advantaged players, based on the strictly subscription model" is a description which extends from the previous sentence, in reference to all said stated player advantages (ie -- Skill, Time, Social Aptitude, Lead-Management Coordination of Guild-Raid sized groups), not including the P2W player advantage because it does not include the F2P model. This serves as a control group in identifying "Player Advantages." It is from that control group, that the P2W Player Advantage is easily identified. If that is invalid, you need to truly look at how logic and scientific methodology work. Perhaps now you are starting to follow?
"What is a time advantage?" Really? Ever hear of "grind to win," "no lifing it" or a "no lifer"? These were terminologies used in reference to people that can seemingly not sleep, day in and day out, week after week... seemingly. They have such an abundance of time, that in the strictly subscription model, there was no competing with them as far as in-game currency wealth amassing. The gap between the skilled and these time advantaged groupings was never as extreme as the gap between P2W and everyone else nowadays, thus no one really gave it much thought, but it existed. Again, they allow another player advantage among a control group to be identified, thus allowing a definition of "player advantage" in general to be formed. From this definition of "player advantage" in general, we can then specifically identify the P2W player advantage.
Are you following?
Again, establishing such as the socially apt and lead-management coordination player advantaged groups, specifically from the strictly subscription business model, acts as a control group for the purpose of definition. That definition is to form the basis of being able to specifically define the P2W player advantage from said control groups, without being able to be logically disputed. And no I am not trying to equalize players on flawed methods, I am trying to legitimately find methods (beyond only what I have established so far) of reducing the P2W player advantage, the same P2W player advantage you claim to be against. Yet you are one of two that made me realize, a rational conversation can not be possible based on your insistence to bog down the entire thread.
So what was really said in a few short lines, ends up being the wall of text as seen above.
While all you can see is some "pay me to win" business model, you have in fact destroyed this opportunity to move forward with the issue of P2W. Congratulations, you defeated yourself, you have won in thwarting your own cause. That is nice, because I already flagged this thread to be closed, already double posted that this thread be closed, and already have moved on to another thread.
Watch how your nonsense continues to defeat your stated cause...
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? -- At this point I outright above explained why all of those player advantages were listed, as a control group in order to define the P2W Player Advantage for what it is. But you read the entire OP and the P2W Reduction Methods blog in my sig so well, that you actually can sit here and type that the P2W Reduction Methods somehow reduces any other player advantaged group other than what it's FUCKING TITLE STATES OUTRIGHT? SEE ===>
PAY TO WIN REDUCTION METHODS... I- TO THE FUCKING E - TO REDUCE THE PAY TO WIN ADVANTAGE!!!!!!!!!!
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT THESE METHODS REDUCE ANY OTHER PLAYER ADVANTAGE??????? O.oMaking the Cash Shop Currency 50% Bound and 50% Unbound is part of the discussion, as it is a P2W Reduction Method.
Your logic is so effing flawless that you completely dismiss the FACT that given a F2P business model, a CASH SHOP is part of that business model as it is the only true form of revenue that a F2P business model has, thus the FACT that there IS CASH SHOP CURRENCY. Where in that statement do you see a method of a F2P business model with Cash Shop, that DOES NOT HAVE CASH SHOP CURRENCY? Please do tell. IT is directly from having the CASH SHOP and particularly WITH TRADEABLE ITEMS, that the inequality of P2W presents itself. So the issue already STARTS OUT WITH INEQUALITY. So I truely must ask where the fuck did you pull this question out of?
Not all P2W advantaged players are wall street bankers. Try looking at actual income levels and percentages of, per country and on a global scale, before you start claiming all P2W advantaged players are wall street bankers. By the simple 50-50% Bound-Unbound for cash shop currency, 70% or more of the typical P2W advantaged "merchants" (IE - the ones that all buy cash shop items and just sell them in-game for in-game currency in order to gear up their characters), would be crippled. That is just a matter of understanding income levels, percentages, per country and on a global scale.
You and your "qualifiers" argument... did you learn this word on sesame street today?