It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
That and the fact that money is, indeed, not finite.
You do not understand the notion of finite. It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it. Infinite doesn't mean "a lot". It means there is no upper bound, not even really enormous upper bounds.
Nilden said: Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
See, same thing - you either make money or play game.
It is your choice how to spent your time, that does not mean everyone should spent their time like you do. The no-lifer is no more entitled than the one with life and less spare time.
We went through this argument already several times...it is a moot argument.
So you can't have someone filthy rich who does nothing but play video games?
I find how you call someone able to dedicate their time a no-lifer an obvious sign of jealousy.
Just a guess but I'm betting you never go to twitch and watch streamers. Are the people playing video games for a living no-lifers too?
Exactly the thought I had as I watched some guy streaming NMS who complained people were slamming him for it. Well, that and "get a real job"
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
It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
Some people die young. Even over the short term, some people are busier with other, non-gaming things than others. It's not a fluke that, at least in America, working longer hours is pretty strongly correlated with making more money.
Salaries are stagnant, but the cost for everything has continued to go up. People work longer to stay on par. This is the new reality for the majority.
It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
That and the fact that money is, indeed, not finite.
You do not understand the notion of finite. It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it. Infinite doesn't mean "a lot". It means there is no upper bound, not even really enormous upper bounds.
Money circulates, you can always make more. Sure on a technical level if you stack all the money in a country into a pile there is a finite amount, but like I said you can always make more so for all intents and purposes you endlessly earn it.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
It's funny how your definition of grinding is what gameplay was before quick rewards and cash shops took in.
Nonsense. I'm not claiming that all MMORPGs from 15 years ago were pure grind. I'm only claiming that heavy grinding used to be more common in the industry than it is now. My definition of grinding is basically, being required to do something many more times in order to advance after you've already demonstrated that you can do it pretty consistently. What I'm after is interesting gameplay, not quick rewards.
Then play sand box's You people want all these game play mechanics and want developers to make the game for free....and it better look great , graphically... That is the issue, you guys want and want it all, but not willing to pay for it..This is todays gamers compared to the older game back then..
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
That and the fact that money is, indeed, not finite.
You do not understand the notion of finite. It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it. Infinite doesn't mean "a lot". It means there is no upper bound, not even really enormous upper bounds.
Money circulates, you can always make more. Sure on a technical level if you stack all the money in a country into a pile there is a finite amount, but like I said you can always make more so for all intents and purposes you endlessly earn it.
But it is only possible to print so much money. Sure, the US M0 money supply is a little under $4 trillion now, and the Fed could print more to make that $40 trillion or $4 quadrillion. But they couldn't print more to make it $9^(9^9) while still having the same $1 granularity as before. There's not enough matter in the known universe, even if you could make a $1 bill out of a single electron. Therefore, money is finite.
It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
That and the fact that money is, indeed, not finite.
You do not understand the notion of finite. It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it. Infinite doesn't mean "a lot". It means there is no upper bound, not even really enormous upper bounds.
The above post is the epitome if typing a lot of words yet saying nothing. You say I don't understand the notion of finite, then you proceed to add the sentence "It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it" ... which is just another way of admitting that it is you who doesn't understand the notion of finite. You then proceed to add that "infinite" doesn't mean "a lot," followed by defining its meaning as "there being no upper bound, and not even really enormous upper bounds."
This may come as a surprise to you, but there actually exists accurate definitions for the words "finite" and "infinite." I have listed them below for your convenience.
fi·nite : Having limits or bounds. in·fi·nite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calcute.
It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
That and the fact that money is, indeed, not finite.
You do not understand the notion of finite. It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it. Infinite doesn't mean "a lot". It means there is no upper bound, not even really enormous upper bounds.
The above post is the epitome if typing a lot of words yet saying nothing. You say I don't understand the notion of finite, then you proceed to add the sentence "It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it" ... which is just another way of admitting that it is you who doesn't understand the notion of finite. You then proceed to add that "infinite" doesn't mean "a lot," followed by defining its meaning as "there being no upper bound, and not even really enormous upper bounds."
This may come as a surprise to you, but there actually exists accurate definitions for the words "finite" and "infinite." I have listed them below for your convenience.
fi·nite : Having limits or bounds. in·fi·nite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calcute.
You have just demonstrated that the ability to quote a definition is not the same as the ability to understand it. The definition you quote backs up my claim and contradicts yours. I'll concede that the reason you don't understand it is that infinity is a tricky concept that tends to break human intuition.
Unless you think it's possible that a quantity of money greater than the 100th Ackermann number could be printed, money is finite. Some references on what that means:
It's a level playing field because time is a constant. You only get 24 hrs in a day no matter how much you pay.
Money is also finite...
Your argument is moot.
Everyone has to manage the same amount of time, not the same amount of money.
That and the fact that money is, indeed, not finite.
You do not understand the notion of finite. It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it. Infinite doesn't mean "a lot". It means there is no upper bound, not even really enormous upper bounds.
The above post is the epitome if typing a lot of words yet saying nothing. You say I don't understand the notion of finite, then you proceed to add the sentence "It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it" ... which is just another way of admitting that it is you who doesn't understand the notion of finite. You then proceed to add that "infinite" doesn't mean "a lot," followed by defining its meaning as "there being no upper bound, and not even really enormous upper bounds."
This may come as a surprise to you, but there actually exists accurate definitions for the words "finite" and "infinite." I have listed them below for your convenience.
fi·nite : Having limits or bounds. in·fi·nite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calcute.
You have just demonstrated that the ability to quote a definition is not the same as the ability to understand it. The definition you quote backs up my claim and contradicts yours. I'll concede that the reason you don't understand it is that infinity is a tricky concept that tends to break human intuition.
Unless you think it's possible that a quantity of money greater than the 100th Ackermann number could be printed, money is finite. Some references on what that means:
Quizzical said: You have just demonstrated that the ability to quote a definition is not the same as the ability to understand it. The definition you quote backs up my claim and contradicts yours. I'll concede that the reason you don't understand it is that infinity is a tricky concept that tends to break human intuition.
Unless you think it's possible that a quantity of money greater than the 100th Ackermann number could be printed, money is finite. Some references on what that means:
"Grinding" is subjective. What one player considers a "grind" and an inconvenience, another will consider a necesseary challenge and a requirement of "playing the game" and enjoyable. If you don't have time to play a game (grind), then don't play it. It's really just that simple.
Asking for a crutch whereby a "player" (sic) is allowed to "buy" a benefit or advantage, of whatever kind, to circumvent from actually playing, earning, or otherwise putting forth the required effort of achieving and therefore fairly competing on their own merit based on their own inherent qualities, skills, and ability with another player who has actually played, earned, or otherwise put forth the required effort to achieve based on their own qualities, skills, and abilities goes against the very foundation of fair and competitive play, and a game simply not worth playing.
If we look at the original term of "grinding" and how it was applied to the genre, then no, it's not subjective, unless you're willing to apply the "entertainment" factor of it.
In the older days of the genre, grinding meant staying in one area, grinding on mobs repetitively ad-nauseum for that elusive rare drop or mob.
I find it sad that people still don't understand the origins of grind and p2w in the genre. They throw those terms around too loosely. Same with sandbox. Then people wonder why there's always arguments about them.
In the early days of MMORPGs, it was common that whoever spends the most time grinding something stupid gets the best gear, the highest levels, or whatever. More recently, it has become common that whoever spends the most money gets the best gear. I'm not a fan of the latter, but the former is even worse. Publishers often prefer pay to win over grind to win because it makes them more money.
I'm sure you've heard it said that time is money. But if that is so, then why do billionaires get old and die? They had plenty of money, but ran out of time because it's not the same thing as money. Rather, time can be converted to money (get a job), but not the other way around. Time, not money, is the precious resource in life.
Pay to win tries to lay claim on your money. It's reasonable to dislike that. But grind to win tries to claim your time, which is even worse. Ultimately, either of them is a pretty good reason to quit a game and find another. But grind to win is more insidious and harder to spot, as it's much easier to keep track of exactly how much money something costs than how much time.
All of this goes out the window if the activity is fun in itself, of course. If you're having fun, it's not grinding. Not just hoping that it will be fun to eventually have what you're grinding for, but doing an activity for fun that you might still do even if it gave no experience or loot. Doing what you like to do and getting in-game rewards as a bonus is the ideal situation, of course, but it's hard to design that into a game very consistently.
Grind to win is making you play the game as intended, whereas pay to win is not making you play the game and get significant advantage over players that grind to win. P2W games die whether you like it or not community wise, look at archeage or lineage 2, the only players that are left are the whales and those whom have spent too much time that would feel like a waste if they left. I know several players in WoW that just don't want to stop playing, they played it too much already to just stop playing.
Look at Black desert online for example, it's a huge grind but slowly turning p2w and many players being turned off by it. It's more factual that opinionated to be honest, p2w will always target big whales and inexperienced casual crowd. It's just how it is.
A game where the intended way to play is to do something stupid a zillion times to advance is a bad game.
If you can't handle repetition boy are you in the wrong genre.
Or you know, the genre can evolve due to better concepts and technology. Or it can stay stagnant and die. There's a reason people left EQ in droves.
In the early days of MMORPGs, it was common that whoever spends the most time grinding something stupid gets the best gear, the highest levels, or whatever. More recently, it has become common that whoever spends the most money gets the best gear. I'm not a fan of the latter, but the former is even worse. Publishers often prefer pay to win over grind to win because it makes them more money.
I'm sure you've heard it said that time is money. But if that is so, then why do billionaires get old and die? They had plenty of money, but ran out of time because it's not the same thing as money. Rather, time can be converted to money (get a job), but not the other way around. Time, not money, is the precious resource in life.
Pay to win tries to lay claim on your money. It's reasonable to dislike that. But grind to win tries to claim your time, which is even worse. Ultimately, either of them is a pretty good reason to quit a game and find another. But grind to win is more insidious and harder to spot, as it's much easier to keep track of exactly how much money something costs than how much time.
All of this goes out the window if the activity is fun in itself, of course. If you're having fun, it's not grinding. Not just hoping that it will be fun to eventually have what you're grinding for, but doing an activity for fun that you might still do even if it gave no experience or loot. Doing what you like to do and getting in-game rewards as a bonus is the ideal situation, of course, but it's hard to design that into a game very consistently.
Grind to win is making you play the game as intended, whereas pay to win is not making you play the game and get significant advantage over players that grind to win. P2W games die whether you like it or not community wise, look at archeage or lineage 2, the only players that are left are the whales and those whom have spent too much time that would feel like a waste if they left. I know several players in WoW that just don't want to stop playing, they played it too much already to just stop playing.
Look at Black desert online for example, it's a huge grind but slowly turning p2w and many players being turned off by it. It's more factual that opinionated to be honest, p2w will always target big whales and inexperienced casual crowd. It's just how it is.
A game where the intended way to play is to do something stupid a zillion times to advance is a bad game.
If you can't handle repetition boy are you in the wrong genre.
Or you know, the genre can evolve due to better concepts and technology. Or it can stay stagnant and die. There's a reason people left EQ in droves.
The reason people left EQ in droves was because of WOW. Which created a different kind of grind that attracted tens of millions. Grind by any other name is still a grind.
Not only did you surprise me by doing your due diligence and defining "grind" but you surprised me by coming up with a definition i agree with.
Unfortunately the remainder of the post overlooks the fact that the equation is significantly more complicated than simply grind verses not grind. Any given activity can be any given proportion of grind vs. Fun.
This leads to the following conundrum is it better to suffer one minute of 100% grind for 10 minutes of fun or 10 minutes of 10% grind for one minute of fun?
Also of Interest is that there is another variable in the equation. Adversity. Human psychology is clear pain in certain contexts can boost pleasure. So depending on the importance of the goal it can actually be beneficial to force a human to suffer punishment in order to make the reward more enjoyable.
There are 3 ways that things can turn out: Grinding: The more you play the more stats and gear you will get and the better will your toon be. Pay2win: The more real world cash you sink into the game the better will your toon be. Skillbased: Characters are pretty equal and the difference is how good you play your toon.
And still do I think pay2win is the worst of the three. Personally do I want something in between grinding and skillbased. Just being good because you pay more then the average players seems pretty silly to me. Just being good because you can spend more time then the average players is not that great either but it at least make some sense.
The CCG game "Magic the gathering" got all 3 of those things BTW. People who played a long time tend to have awesome cards and have learned tactics and combos new players never heard of. The best cards are dang expensive but still a good player will make an awesome deck and play it better then others. Yeah, off topic...
Anyways, when people spend hundreds or thousand of dollars to be a top player something is wrong. That people who pay a sub is better then people who play for free is one thing but the point of most MMOs is to get top tiered gear nowadays. When they just sell that gear the whole game becomes meaningless.
In the early days of MMORPGs, it was common that whoever spends the most time grinding something stupid gets the best gear, the highest levels, or whatever. More recently, it has become common that whoever spends the most money gets the best gear. I'm not a fan of the latter, but the former is even worse. Publishers often prefer pay to win over grind to win because it makes them more money.
I'm sure you've heard it said that time is money. But if that is so, then why do billionaires get old and die? They had plenty of money, but ran out of time because it's not the same thing as money. Rather, time can be converted to money (get a job), but not the other way around. Time, not money, is the precious resource in life.
Pay to win tries to lay claim on your money. It's reasonable to dislike that. But grind to win tries to claim your time, which is even worse. Ultimately, either of them is a pretty good reason to quit a game and find another. But grind to win is more insidious and harder to spot, as it's much easier to keep track of exactly how much money something costs than how much time.
All of this goes out the window if the activity is fun in itself, of course. If you're having fun, it's not grinding. Not just hoping that it will be fun to eventually have what you're grinding for, but doing an activity for fun that you might still do even if it gave no experience or loot. Doing what you like to do and getting in-game rewards as a bonus is the ideal situation, of course, but it's hard to design that into a game very consistently.
It doesn't make them more money. P2P games still make more money overall, and the conversion rate in an F2P is around 10 - 11%. The hard truth is that WoW came out in 2004 and kicked everyones ass. What happened was that many developers started seeing no one play their games...So they turned their games into F2P games and cheap knock-offs designed to be P2W scams came out.
Also, I agree with you in regards to time. Time is what everyone is after and time is the reason everyone tries to claim your time with money. This is why although I played games, I did what I had to do you know....
I tell people at times...
Life is like an MMORPG.. A person starts out as a D-Ranked Child and tries to grow. If the child grows, then he or she might become a AAA or S ranked child and then class-change into an A-Rank - S-Ranked Adult. However, if a person spends 12 hours a day blowing their time in an MMORPG and doing nothing else during their child phase, they stay a D-RANKED and maybe grow to a C or B-Ranked person... then when they grow and class change to an Adult... Sure, both would be at the same "character experience level" but the S-Ranked child will have more ability slots, attribute points, better gear, and a much better guild in real life...
"Grind" is part of all mmorpgs simply because they are meant to keep you entertained for a long time. Don;t enjoy that? Well maybe you're in the wrong genre. There are other types of games with less grind and more immediate rewards.
Payment is just what it costs to play a game.
Payment to avoid the grind in mmorpgs is just plain idiocy akin to using console commands in Skyrim to give yourself unlimited items, gold, health, invulnerability, etc: you're undermining what the game is and you should really be asking yourself just what the hell you're doing playing it in the first place.
Promoting #3 as a publisher is just a moneymaking scheme. Promoting it as a player... well that's just drinking the kool-aid and asking for more.
And all the rationalizations by far the dumbest is "well in real life I can get advantages with money always"... no shit Sherlock, but games are supposed to be a separate finite fantasy universe where RL reality is modified. They have, or rather should have, an internal set of rules and conventions separate from RL paradigms. That's what gives the game integrity.
But it's hard to convince fat-ass first worlders used to throwing their money around to bypass hard work and effort in RL that this should not apply to everything they dabble in - and that's all they are, dabblers who think Skyrim console commands are cool and RMT to bypass grind is their entitlement.
"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 think players are changing the way advancement in MMORPGs work. The mood about paying for advantages is changing. People are more willing to accept payments to cut the grind. That is something that has gradually changed over the years.
Not sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize but it rubs me the wrong way too.
I think players are changing the way advancement in MMORPGs work. The mood about paying for advantages is changing. People are more willing to accept payments to cut the grind. That is something that has gradually changed over the years.
Not sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize but it rubs me the wrong way too.
I agree. The opinions about buying gold is changing in gaming forums but I don't think players are getting there all by themselves. They have been bombarded with PR and handy rationalizations for years by amoral companies promoting just this sort of thing in order to maximize their profits.
I think it still rubs most of us the wrong way because consciously or not, we understand that it undermines the game.
"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
Sorry its not the same. Playing the game is not the same as paying to get around playing. Gameplay is what games are even if its grinding. Paying to bypass gameplay is essentially the antithesis of gaming.
Comments
"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
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Same with "24 hours argument", it only applies on a "technical level".
Like I said, it is a moot argument based on a case that never happens.
The above post is the epitome if typing a lot of words yet saying nothing. You say I don't understand the notion of finite, then you proceed to add the sentence "It's likely that everything in this universe is finite, and even if something isn't, we'd have no way of knowing it" ... which is just another way of admitting that it is you who doesn't understand the notion of finite. You then proceed to add that "infinite" doesn't mean "a lot," followed by defining its meaning as "there being no upper bound, and not even really enormous upper bounds."
This may come as a surprise to you, but there actually exists accurate definitions for the words "finite" and "infinite." I have listed them below for your convenience.
in·fi·nite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calcute.
Unless you think it's possible that a quantity of money greater than the 100th Ackermann number could be printed, money is finite. Some references on what that means:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AckermannNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KnuthUp-ArrowNotation.html
uh huh ... Keep digging that hole lol
Money is just a number...it is fiat money, the value is intrinsic and has nothing to do with medium they are printed on.
You can have all the money in the world and be a poor bastard.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
In the older days of the genre, grinding meant staying in one area, grinding on mobs repetitively ad-nauseum for that elusive rare drop or mob.
The reason people left EQ in droves was because of WOW. Which created a different kind of grind that attracted tens of millions. Grind by any other name is still a grind.
Unfortunately the remainder of the post overlooks the fact that the equation is significantly more complicated than simply grind verses not grind. Any given activity can be any given proportion of grind vs. Fun.
This leads to the following conundrum is it better to suffer one minute of 100% grind for 10 minutes of fun or 10 minutes of 10% grind for one minute of fun?
Also of Interest is that there is another variable in the equation. Adversity. Human psychology is clear pain in certain contexts can boost pleasure. So depending on the importance of the goal it can actually be beneficial to force a human to suffer punishment in order to make the reward more enjoyable.
Grinding: The more you play the more stats and gear you will get and the better will your toon be.
Pay2win: The more real world cash you sink into the game the better will your toon be.
Skillbased: Characters are pretty equal and the difference is how good you play your toon.
And still do I think pay2win is the worst of the three. Personally do I want something in between grinding and skillbased. Just being good because you pay more then the average players seems pretty silly to me. Just being good because you can spend more time then the average players is not that great either but it at least make some sense.
The CCG game "Magic the gathering" got all 3 of those things BTW. People who played a long time tend to have awesome cards and have learned tactics and combos new players never heard of. The best cards are dang expensive but still a good player will make an awesome deck and play it better then others. Yeah, off topic...
Anyways, when people spend hundreds or thousand of dollars to be a top player something is wrong. That people who pay a sub is better then people who play for free is one thing but the point of most MMOs is to get top tiered gear nowadays. When they just sell that gear the whole game becomes meaningless.
P2P games still make more money overall, and the conversion rate in an F2P is around 10 - 11%. The hard truth is that WoW came out in 2004 and kicked everyones ass. What happened was that many developers started seeing no one play their games...So they turned their games into F2P games and cheap knock-offs designed to be P2W scams came out.
Also, I agree with you in regards to time.
Time is what everyone is after and time is the reason everyone tries to claim your time with money. This is why although I played games, I did what I had to do you know....
I tell people at times...
Life is like an MMORPG..
A person starts out as a D-Ranked Child and tries to grow. If the child grows, then he or she might become a AAA or S ranked child and then class-change into an A-Rank - S-Ranked Adult. However, if a person spends 12 hours a day blowing their time in an MMORPG and doing nothing else during their child phase, they stay a D-RANKED and maybe grow to a C or B-Ranked person... then when they grow and class change to an Adult... Sure, both would be at the same "character experience level" but the S-Ranked child will have more ability slots, attribute points, better gear, and a much better guild in real life...
Promoting #3 as a publisher is just a moneymaking scheme. Promoting it as a player... well that's just drinking the kool-aid and asking for more.
And all the rationalizations by far the dumbest is "well in real life I can get advantages with money always"... no shit Sherlock, but games are supposed to be a separate finite fantasy universe where RL reality is modified. They have, or rather should have, an internal set of rules and conventions separate from RL paradigms. That's what gives the game integrity.
But it's hard to convince fat-ass first worlders used to throwing their money around to bypass hard work and effort in RL that this should not apply to everything they dabble in - and that's all they are, dabblers who think Skyrim console commands are cool and RMT to bypass grind is their entitlement.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Not sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize but it rubs me the wrong way too.
I think it still rubs most of us the wrong way because consciously or not, we understand that it undermines the game.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED