If you are stating that personal goals are not winning... then you are stating that MMORPG's do not have winning... and that there is no Pay to Win possible (by your definition).
That is why p2w is a personal thing.
I play MMORPGs pretty much like a solo game ... so ... how is p2w possible for me?
I am ok with each deciding for themselves what is/isnt P2W. I am just clarifying Axehilt's position, so that it it is clear.
Yeh ... i am also supporting what you said by my personal experience.
Why not? If a player sets as a goal to read a series of in-game books and they do, did they win? No competition here. They were not the first. They won't be the last.
I understand that "winning" has an element of "competition." But even solitaire can be won or lost.
Solitaire has a formalized win condition.
Books don't.
Personal goals aren't winning. That's why it felt so weird for you to question whether someone "won" by reading a bunch of books, because win just isn't used in that way.
If you are stating that personal goals are not winning... then you are stating that MMORPG's do not have winning... and that there is no Pay to Win possible (by your definition).
PVP?
I think p2w is most relevant to pvp ... but not all players engage in pvp, right?
Why not? If a player sets as a goal to read a series of in-game books and they do, did they win? No competition here. They were not the first. They won't be the last.
I understand that "winning" has an element of "competition." But even solitaire can be won or lost.
Solitaire has a formalized win condition.
Books don't.
Personal goals aren't winning. That's why it felt so weird for you to question whether someone "won" by reading a bunch of books, because win just isn't used in that way.
If you are stating that personal goals are not winning... then you are stating that MMORPG's do not have winning... and that there is no Pay to Win possible (by your definition).
PVP?
I think p2w is most relevant to pvp ... but not all players engage in pvp, right?
Correct. Even in the PVP focused MMOs, not all engage in it. To head off a bit of stupid before it happens (not referring to you, narius): By PVP, I am referring specifically to PVP combat.
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
If you are stating that personal goals are not winning... then you are stating that MMORPG's do not have winning... and that there is no Pay to Win possible (by your definition).
That is why p2w is a personal thing.
I play MMORPGs pretty much like a solo game ... so ... how is p2w possible for me?
I am ok with each deciding for themselves what is/isnt P2W. I am just clarifying Axehilt's position, so that it it is clear.
I have already done that.
He simply does not understand colloquialisms. He pretends not to understand slang, or human social interaction. He Is 100% literal. There is nothing to be said to someone who doesn't try and understand others around them, or learn socially. His position is clear, he does not care what others think.
If you are stating that personal goals are not winning... then you are stating that MMORPG's do not have winning... and that there is no Pay to Win possible (by your definition).
Personal goals are irrelevant. Only formalized win conditions are relevant.
In chess, the game rules say that if you checkmate your opponent's King, you win. That's the win condition of the game, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to get all of your pawns past the halfway point of the game board isn't a formalized part of chess' rules, so it isn't winning.
In MMORPGs, the game rules say that if you reduce your opponent's HP to zero, you win. That's the win condition of each battle, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to have the nicest hat on the server isn't part of any win condition, so it isn't winning.
So MMORPGs do have winning, and quite a lot (given that combat is the single most common gameplay activity.) But activities that lack a win condition aren't winning, and that includes all of the personal goals you're talking about (and most of the non-combat activities too.) So until the game runs an official contest to have the nicest hat, having the nicest hat isn't winning.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you are stating that personal goals are not winning... then you are stating that MMORPG's do not have winning... and that there is no Pay to Win possible (by your definition).
Personal goals are irrelevant. Only formalized win conditions are relevant.
In chess, the game rules say that if you checkmate your opponent's King, you win. That's the win condition of the game, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to get all of your pawns past the halfway point of the game board isn't a formalized part of chess' rules, so it isn't winning.
In MMORPGs, the game rules say that if you reduce your opponent's HP to zero, you win. That's the win condition of each battle, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to have the nicest hat on the server isn't part of any win condition, so it isn't winning.
So MMORPGs do have winning, and quite a lot (given that combat is the single most common gameplay activity.) But activities that lack a win condition aren't winning, and that includes all of the personal goals you're talking about (and most of the non-combat activities too.) So until the game runs an official contest to have the nicest hat, having the nicest hat isn't winning.
Please point to the rules of an MMORPG that states that there is a formal contest, defined by the HP. I can easily point to the rules of chess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess) where it is clear that no single loss of a piece is considered a 'win' for the game. Why would this be any different in an MMORPG.. in fact, where are the formal rules for the MMORPG?
Why would the rules that you make up be any more valid than the rules someone else makes up. I can understand the argument that without a formal contest, and the rules that outline it, there is no formal win. However, that means that by denying others the ability to define thier own informal contest, you are denied that as well.
MMORPG's devolved into lobby shooters, because that was the intended audience of the executives who wanted to tap into the console gamers. They wanted to grow the playerbase by adding a new segment of non MMO'ers to it.
It shouldn't be hard to see why so many MMORPG players are not happy with the direction their genre of game has gone. It's also not right to tell them to accept that their games have to turn into shooter-minded games just because. Maybe people should be able to have their own genre without it being pulled out from under them.
Also, the attacks on this site against on the small groups who are trying to reinvent MMORPG's on a shoestring budget are ridiculous. There is a manifest failure of the so called AAA studios to serve this market, and various entities here are kicking the startup puppies rather than taking the big money to task. This constant refrain from certain people that "everything is fine, there is more variety than ever" is quite curious.
Hmm I think you are in the wrong thread...or do you just run around and post this in every thread?
Oh btw the genre has never been more popular, there has never been more people playing and enjoying MMORPGS and there has never been more quality MMORPGS. Sorry it's the facts and yes those like you have been left behind and no offense that's not a bad thing.
Why are you attacking him for standing up for the MMORPG gamers and the small companies designing true MMORPGs ..?
The MMO genre has never been bigger. But the MMORPG genre has shrink to the point where they only exist in project form and are rebuilding the entire genre from the grass up.. There are no quality MMORPG released in the last few years.
User547 has it correct. The agenda here at MMORPG.com is amazing on how they try and promote MMOs and Candyshop games. Instead of center around quality MMORPGs and the new era.
To use my expertise in Human physiology (this is an inside joke...its should be phychology I know) everyone including you has an agenda. User547 isn't correct...
He stated "so many players aren't happy" that is an incorrect statement. The correct statement is a very small minority is not happy.
There are more quality MMORPGS then ever before because you and a few others on this site don't agree won't stop it from being FACT. Now we can delve into the human physiology (this is an inside joke...its should be phychology I know) of it but it would probably be over your head.
The good news we can point out the facts without getting into that.
More people are enjoying mmos then ever before FACT.
All these quality mmos continue to push out new content FACT.
A small minority of old vets are upset the genre is leaving them behind FACT.
Now I know you won't like my comment but posting FACTS is what I do. Get used to it.
Physiology. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Unless you're trying to say being a gym/health instructor has given you unique insight into the world of psychology.
It's an inside joke ...somebody gets it...that somebody sent me a PM in my 1st week here telling me how he was an expert on 'human physiology' and somehow that translated into being and expert on mmorpgs. I explained exactly what you said to me to that person.
And im not sure you know what 'Physiology' mean either. I typical job for a person with a physiology degree would be:
Biomedical Scientist Clinical Research associate Healthcare Scientist (audiology) Heathcare Schientist (physiology) Pharmacologist Research Scientist
Please point to the rules of an MMORPG that states that there is a formal contest, defined by the HP. I can easily point to the rules of chess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess) where it is clear that no single loss of a piece is considered a 'win' for the game. Why would this be any different in an MMORPG.. in fact, where are the formal rules for the MMORPG?
Why would the rules that you make up be any more valid than the rules someone else makes up. I can understand the argument that without a formal contest, and the rules that outline it, there is no formal win. However, that means that by denying others the ability to define thier own informal contest, you are denied that as well.
The rules are implicit: because skill challenges (monsters/players) are set up by the game itself with a win condition (you achieve victory when you reduce the health of your opponent to 0), that's what makes it winning.
As for the second bit the rules of the game are the rules of the game. Any arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please point to the rules of an MMORPG that states that there is a formal contest, defined by the HP. I can easily point to the rules of chess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess) where it is clear that no single loss of a piece is considered a 'win' for the game. Why would this be any different in an MMORPG.. in fact, where are the formal rules for the MMORPG?
Why would the rules that you make up be any more valid than the rules someone else makes up. I can understand the argument that without a formal contest, and the rules that outline it, there is no formal win. However, that means that by denying others the ability to define thier own informal contest, you are denied that as well.
The rules are implicit: because skill challenges (monsters/players) are set up by the game itself with a win condition (you achieve victory when you reduce the health of your opponent to 0), that's what makes it winning.
As for the second bit the rules of the game are the rules of the game. Any arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
Define: Implicit> implied though not plainly expressed.
This is NOT how formal contest are defined.. they are how player defined contest come about. You have chosen a set of challenges, and defined a win condition for them. This was not presented to you as part of the game.. and as such is not a formal challenge. This makes your defined contest just as valid as all other player defined contests.... which allows you to honor either all/none, or just be biased.
As someone just said arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
Define: Implicit> implied though not plainly expressed.
This is NOT how formal contest are defined.. they are how player defined contest come about. You have chosen a set of challenges, and defined a win condition for them. This was not presented to you as part of the game.. and as such is not a formal challenge. This makes your defined contest just as valid as all other player defined contests.... which allows you to honor either all/none, or just be biased.
As someone just said arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
A player defined contest is defined by players. A game's rules are defined by the game. You realize these are two separate entities, right?
It's the game rules that determine whether something is winning in a game, not players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
He simply does not understand colloquialisms. He pretends not to understand slang, or human social interaction. He Is 100% literal. There is nothing to be said to someone who doesn't try and understand others around them, or learn socially. His position is clear, he does not care what others think.
hmm .. didn't you say quite a lot to him?
And isn't that how the internet works ... people don't care what other thinks ... or only care to the extent of how they are right and the others are wrong?
Define: Implicit> implied though not plainly expressed.
This is NOT how formal contest are defined.. they are how player defined contest come about. You have chosen a set of challenges, and defined a win condition for them. This was not presented to you as part of the game.. and as such is not a formal challenge. This makes your defined contest just as valid as all other player defined contests.... which allows you to honor either all/none, or just be biased.
As someone just said arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
A player defined contest is defined by players. A game's rules are defined by the game. You realize these are two separate entities, right?
It's the game rules that determine whether something is winning in a game, not players.
If your stance is that the games rules determine a win scenario, then your examples are not valid, as they are not determined by the games rules... but were rather determined by you, a player.
A win in chess is only when the King is taken, not when another piece is taken (even if done so within the rules of the game). Even if a player (such as yourself) felt that this was a win, it would not be true, using your definition.
He simply does not understand colloquialisms. He pretends not to understand slang, or human social interaction. He Is 100% literal. There is nothing to be said to someone who doesn't try and understand others around them, or learn socially. His position is clear, he does not care what others think.
hmm .. didn't you say quite a lot to him?
And isn't that how the internet works ... people don't care what other thinks ... or only care to the extent of how they are right and the others are wrong?
Well keep in mind...
1. My definition isn't literal. Literal "pay to win" would be that if you pay you win. No exceptions.
2. Instead, my definition is the obvious implication: you're paying for advantages which make winning easier.
3. Critically, the literal definition of "win" is involved. Otherwise the term would be useless, because anything might subjectively be considered winning, which means every purchase is P2W, which means the term completely fails to distinguish itself from "purchase". Objectively, his definition is less useful because it fails to provide a distinct purpose from existing words.
4. If I didn't care, why would I post? I'd let others use a useless illogical definition of a word and simply ignore them. Instead, I care enough to educate people on the objectively clearer, objectively more useful definition of the phrase, which is also almost certainly the original intent of the phrase (because if he/she meant "any purchase" he would've simply used the word "purchase" instead!) By using clear terms, players are better able to communicate what should or shouldn't be in games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Physiology. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Unless you're trying to say being a gym/health instructor has given you unique insight into the world of psychology.
It's an inside joke ...somebody gets it...that somebody sent me a PM in my 1st week here telling me how he was an expert on 'human physiology' and somehow that translated into being and expert on mmorpgs. I explained exactly what you said to me to that person.
And im not sure you know what 'Physiology' mean either. I typical job for a person with a physiology degree would be:
Biomedical Scientist Clinical Research associate Healthcare Scientist (audiology) Heathcare Schientist (physiology) Pharmacologist Research Scientist
NOT A gym teacher
You really spent some time trying to find a way to give a "smart" response to a sarcastic comment.
A half hour of research just to throw that at me even though only 26% of physiology graduates are employed as health professionals. Good on ya.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
*glances over to the other corner at Superman and Axehilt*
At the rate you guys are going, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple pages you're questioning whether or not it's still winning if you don't inhale. And if I may make a suggestion on that matter... inhale. And hold it for about ten seconds, then come back to the thread and just maybe you'll see how silly this is getting.
In the meantime, here's a related image from over at MMO Attack:
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
He simply does not understand colloquialisms. He pretends not to understand slang, or human social interaction. He Is 100% literal. There is nothing to be said to someone who doesn't try and understand others around them, or learn socially. His position is clear, he does not care what others think.
hmm .. didn't you say quite a lot to him?
And isn't that how the internet works ... people don't care what other thinks ... or only care to the extent of how they are right and the others are wrong?
I am here for earnest discussion.
This is a forum to speak and discuss MMORPGs. I am aware of the shills and agenda many people here hold. They are slowly outing themselves and their agendas are falling apart.
I can tell their agenda is falling apart, because I have been cordial in all my posts, yet Mods keep deleting posts and issuing warnings. (I have them all printed up.)
The amount and frequency in which mods contact me, tells me Mike B is following these discussions. Good things are coming.
When the developers (publishers, CEO's, everyone involved) are living substantially better lives than a vast majority of the people who consume their product... You, as a consumer, should probably learn to start calling bullsh*t when they ask for more money or say it's not enough.
I think the better question would be, are the prices, money grabbing methods, and unfair advantages offered by these Pay2Win (pretty much all of them qualify for that title) really necessary?
I really dislike WoW these days but it's one of the very few solid AAA titles that doesn't let you buy your way to the top... I take that back you can buy level 90 characters now... but that's just a boost to reduce some early grinding, actual gear and power near the top requires playing the game....
What I have found is, that for certain people, they find the concept of winning someone's trust, an impossible idea. There is no personal goals or victory involved because he said so.
When in fact, even a child understands the concept of earning non-tangible things. Yet, certain people claim not to understand this concept.
At the rate you guys are going, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple pages you're questioning whether or not it's still winning if you don't inhale. And if I may make a suggestion on that matter... inhale. And hold it for about ten seconds, then come back to the thread and just maybe you'll see how silly this is getting.
Eh, shutting down the silly was sort of the point of the discussion. After all, he's arguing that buying a nice looking hat is "pay to win".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When the developers (publishers, CEO's, everyone involved) are living substantially better lives than a vast majority of the people who consume their product... You, as a consumer, should probably learn to start calling bullsh*t when they ask for more money or say it's not enough.
I think the better question would be, are the prices, money grabbing methods, and unfair advantages offered by these Pay2Win (pretty much all of them qualify for that title) really necessary?
I really dislike WoW these days but it's one of the very few solid AAA titles that doesn't let you buy your way to the top... I take that back you can buy level 90 characters now... but that's just a boost to reduce some early grinding, actual gear and power near the top requires playing the game....
I do agree that if the developers/publishers were making a disproportional living, that would be an indicating that they are profiting unfairly off their games. However, most people in the gaming industry are making a lot LESS than comparable in other industries. Many eventually have to leave the industry, just to support themselves. The hours are long, the pay is low, and the recognition is minimal. People are in this industry because they truly enjoy it.
I will agree that executives (in most industries) make a disproportional amount of money. The gaming industry is no different.
At the rate you guys are going, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple pages you're questioning whether or not it's still winning if you don't inhale. And if I may make a suggestion on that matter... inhale. And hold it for about ten seconds, then come back to the thread and just maybe you'll see how silly this is getting.
Eh, shutting down the silly was sort of the point of the discussion. After all, he's arguing that buying a nice looking hat is "pay to win".
And you are saying that you get to determine what others feel is 'pay to win'.
When the developers (publishers, CEO's, everyone involved) are living substantially better lives than a vast majority of the people who consume their product... You, as a consumer, should probably learn to start calling bullsh*t when they ask for more money or say it's not enough.
I think the better question would be, are the prices, money grabbing methods, and unfair advantages offered by these Pay2Win (pretty much all of them qualify for that title) really necessary?
I really dislike WoW these days but it's one of the very few solid AAA titles that doesn't let you buy your way to the top... I take that back you can buy level 90 characters now... but that's just a boost to reduce some early grinding, actual gear and power near the top requires playing the game....
I do agree that if the developers/publishers were making a disproportional living, that would be an indicating that they are profiting unfairly off their games. However, most people in the gaming industry are making a lot LESS than comparable in other industries. Many eventually have to leave the industry, just to support themselves. The hours are long, the pay is low, and the recognition is minimal. People are in this industry because they truly enjoy it.
I will agree that executives (in most industries) make a disproportional amount of money. The gaming industry is no different.
Is there any proof of this? It seems a lot of developers used to make games out of their own homes / garage for a pittance. They may not have even been paid at all.
Now many of those people have degrees in programming, 3D art, game design, etc. They get a hefty pay increase for that. It is shown by how much more games cost to make now IMO.
I'm sure there are still indie companies working for a small amount of cash, but now there are some big companies making triple AAA games that didn't exist originally. It was mostly indie at the start. Those triple AAA companies like Bioware, Bethesda, CD Red Projekt, etc. probably pay a fairly large sum to their employees.
Comments
I think p2w is most relevant to pvp ... but not all players engage in pvp, right?
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 have already done that.
He simply does not understand colloquialisms. He pretends not to understand slang, or human social interaction. He Is 100% literal. There is nothing to be said to someone who doesn't try and understand others around them, or learn socially. His position is clear, he does not care what others think.
In chess, the game rules say that if you checkmate your opponent's King, you win. That's the win condition of the game, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to get all of your pawns past the halfway point of the game board isn't a formalized part of chess' rules, so it isn't winning.
In MMORPGs, the game rules say that if you reduce your opponent's HP to zero, you win. That's the win condition of each battle, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to have the nicest hat on the server isn't part of any win condition, so it isn't winning.
So MMORPGs do have winning, and quite a lot (given that combat is the single most common gameplay activity.) But activities that lack a win condition aren't winning, and that includes all of the personal goals you're talking about (and most of the non-combat activities too.) So until the game runs an official contest to have the nicest hat, having the nicest hat isn't winning.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why would the rules that you make up be any more valid than the rules someone else makes up. I can understand the argument that without a formal contest, and the rules that outline it, there is no formal win. However, that means that by denying others the ability to define thier own informal contest, you are denied that as well.
He stated "so many players aren't happy" that is an incorrect statement. The correct statement is a very small minority is not happy.
There are more quality MMORPGS then ever before because you and a few others on this site don't agree won't stop it from being FACT. Now we can delve into the human physiology (this is an inside joke...its should be phychology I know) of it but it would probably be over your head.
The good news we can point out the facts without getting into that.
More people are enjoying mmos then ever before FACT.
All these quality mmos continue to push out new content FACT.
A small minority of old vets are upset the genre is leaving them behind FACT.
Now I know you won't like my comment but posting FACTS is what I do. Get used to it.
Unless you're trying to say being a gym/health instructor has given you unique insight into the world of psychology.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And im not sure you know what 'Physiology' mean either. I typical job for a person with a physiology degree would be:
Biomedical Scientist
Clinical Research associate
Healthcare Scientist (audiology)
Heathcare Schientist (physiology)
Pharmacologist
Research Scientist
NOT
A gym teacher
As for the second bit the rules of the game are the rules of the game. Any arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is NOT how formal contest are defined.. they are how player defined contest come about. You have chosen a set of challenges, and defined a win condition for them. This was not presented to you as part of the game.. and as such is not a formal challenge. This makes your defined contest just as valid as all other player defined contests.... which allows you to honor either all/none, or just be biased.
As someone just said arbitrary personal goals aren't the rules of the game, they're just personal goals.
It's the game rules that determine whether something is winning in a game, not players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And isn't that how the internet works ... people don't care what other thinks ... or only care to the extent of how they are right and the others are wrong?
A win in chess is only when the King is taken, not when another piece is taken (even if done so within the rules of the game). Even if a player (such as yourself) felt that this was a win, it would not be true, using your definition.
1. My definition isn't literal. Literal "pay to win" would be that if you pay you win. No exceptions.
2. Instead, my definition is the obvious implication: you're paying for advantages which make winning easier.
3. Critically, the literal definition of "win" is involved. Otherwise the term would be useless, because anything might subjectively be considered winning, which means every purchase is P2W, which means the term completely fails to distinguish itself from "purchase". Objectively, his definition is less useful because it fails to provide a distinct purpose from existing words.
4. If I didn't care, why would I post? I'd let others use a useless illogical definition of a word and simply ignore them. Instead, I care enough to educate people on the objectively clearer, objectively more useful definition of the phrase, which is also almost certainly the original intent of the phrase (because if he/she meant "any purchase" he would've simply used the word "purchase" instead!) By using clear terms, players are better able to communicate what should or shouldn't be in games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A half hour of research just to throw that at me even though only 26% of physiology graduates are employed as health professionals. Good on ya.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
*glances over to the other corner at Superman and Axehilt*
At the rate you guys are going, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple pages you're questioning whether or not it's still winning if you don't inhale. And if I may make a suggestion on that matter... inhale. And hold it for about ten seconds, then come back to the thread and just maybe you'll see how silly this is getting.
In the meantime, here's a related image from over at MMO Attack:
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 am here for earnest discussion.
This is a forum to speak and discuss MMORPGs. I am aware of the shills and agenda many people here hold. They are slowly outing themselves and their agendas are falling apart.
I can tell their agenda is falling apart, because I have been cordial in all my posts, yet Mods keep deleting posts and issuing warnings. (I have them all printed up.)
The amount and frequency in which mods contact me, tells me Mike B is following these discussions. Good things are coming.
I think the better question would be, are the prices, money grabbing methods, and unfair advantages offered by these Pay2Win (pretty much all of them qualify for that title) really necessary?
I really dislike WoW these days but it's one of the very few solid AAA titles that doesn't let you buy your way to the top... I take that back you can buy level 90 characters now... but that's just a boost to reduce some early grinding, actual gear and power near the top requires playing the game....
F2P games can be rather expensive, if you want it all
my last puchase was 250$ in STO and 100 in warships
at the end of the day..devs dont work for free
When in fact, even a child understands the concept of earning non-tangible things. Yet, certain people claim not to understand this concept.
*yawn*
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I will agree that executives (in most industries) make a disproportional amount of money. The gaming industry is no different.
Now many of those people have degrees in programming, 3D art, game design, etc. They get a hefty pay increase for that. It is shown by how much more games cost to make now IMO.
I'm sure there are still indie companies working for a small amount of cash, but now there are some big companies making triple AAA games that didn't exist originally. It was mostly indie at the start. Those triple AAA companies like Bioware, Bethesda, CD Red Projekt, etc. probably pay a fairly large sum to their employees.