Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
I won’t try to convince you otherwise. To me it’s simply slippery slope.
You may have noticed there isn’t a lot of grey in my world view
There's been ample evidence over the past year to prove that these changes will keep getting more egregious until consumers actually realize "Oh, they're not going to stop at benign XP boosters." and push back against the practices.
It's a sliding scale. The scale can range anywhere from something slight.... like 5% faster XP gain to something huge... like paying money to become the King. They are all steps down the same slippery slope in my mind.
Other people may pick a point on the slope and say "That's OK but no further...". To me that line is drawn at the first step.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's a sliding scale. The scale can range anywhere from something slight.... like 5% faster XP gain to something huge... like paying money to become the King. They are all steps down the same slippery slope in my mind.
Other people may pick a point on the slope and say "That's OK but no further...". To me that line is drawn at the first step.
I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, I don't see things like XP boosters going away anytime soon. Realistically, the line won't recede from there. However, it's worth noting how we got here in the first place to ensure it doesn't slide further.
It's a sliding scale. The scale can range anywhere from something slight.... like 5% faster XP gain to something huge... like paying money to become the King. They are all steps down the same slippery slope in my mind.
Other people may pick a point on the slope and say "That's OK but no further...". To me that line is drawn at the first step.
Not being rude, just calling it as I see it, but you strike me as the kind of player that would say "Git Gud" at the first chance you got, and whine about needing more challenge to get more exclusive rewards in game that made you more powerful then other players, and then piss on them like the peons that you would look upon them as, and truth be told, if a loot box keeps you out of a game, ll gladly deal with the loot boxes and wallet winners.
As I see it, the people that paid for their place in the game are at the very least, not delusional or egotistical about how great they are, they know they had to buy their way to where they are.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
It's a sliding scale. The scale can range anywhere from something slight.... like 5% faster XP gain to something huge... like paying money to become the King. They are all steps down the same slippery slope in my mind.
Other people may pick a point on the slope and say "That's OK but no further...". To me that line is drawn at the first step.
Not being rude, just calling it as I see it, but you strike me as the kind of player that would say "Git Gud" at the first chance you got, and whine about needing more challenge to get more exclusive rewards in game that made you more powerful then other players, and then piss on them like the peons that you would look upon them as, and truth be told, if a loot box keeps you out of a game, ll gladly deal with the loot boxes and wallet winners.
As I see it, the people that paid for their place in the game are at the very least, not delusional or egotistical about how great they are, they know they had to buy their way to where they are.
LOL you couldn't be more wrong. About your first point and your second point. Here's a hint: The second you start to personalize your argument you have lost.
But luckily there are plenty of loot box games you can play in so you should be fine
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
It is probably quite subjective. I'm playing Pokemon Go right now casually. Didn't think a second to spend money. When I play it hardcore, I keep spending money.
I also spend lots of money on Atlantica Online. I was playing 50 hours a week so it make sense to buy all the booster. If I'm only playing a few hours a week, I probably won't care.
If you really want to know some pretty bad p2w games you probably have better luck creating another thread and ask. Most mainstream games have relatively reasonable cashshop. You probably need to go into more niche games, like nexon games for the worse offender.
I searched google on the most p2w mmorpg, most of the answer is on older games.
Pay-to-win is a buzzword that is so overused it really means nothing to me anymore. It's hard to think of an MMO that doesn't fit many people's definition of pay to win. Much less an MMO that is actually successful right now.
Most people think any game where you can pay to get ahead in any way is pay-to-win. To the extent even a few people cry P2W when they see a cosmetic cash shop because looking prettier than other people is a "win". EVEs whole "monoclegate" where people were super fired up they offered a 200$ purely cosmetic item is proof of how shrill the anti-pay-to-win banshees can be.
If I can't compete in a game spending only 15$ a month it's too pay-to-win for me. If I can, I'm fine with it. And a lot of the time people "not being able to compete" has more to do with them not understanding the game mechanics and blaming it all on pay to win. For instance most people accuse ArcheAge of being "pay to win" but you would have to drop 560$ a month on that game to equal what I make if I play 30 minutes a day.
It's a sliding scale. The scale can range anywhere from something slight.... like 5% faster XP gain to something huge... like paying money to become the King. They are all steps down the same slippery slope in my mind.
Other people may pick a point on the slope and say "That's OK but no further...". To me that line is drawn at the first step.
Not being rude, just calling it as I see it, but you strike me as the kind of player that would say "Git Gud" at the first chance you got, and whine about needing more challenge to get more exclusive rewards in game that made you more powerful then other players, and then piss on them like the peons that you would look upon them as, and truth be told, if a loot box keeps you out of a game, ll gladly deal with the loot boxes and wallet winners.
As I see it, the people that paid for their place in the game are at the very least, not delusional or egotistical about how great they are, they know they had to buy their way to where they are.
LOL you couldn't be more wrong. About your first point and your second point. Here's a hint: The second you start to personalize your argument you have lost.
I'm not telling you not to pay to win. I'm simply saying that to me it's cheating just the same as an aim bot.
Wonder why you would even make a point to say that I pay to win... if you felt that it was important to not make things personal.
But here is a question, if the game it not about a display of your personal prowess and a form of self validation, hence your claim to not say "git gud" which is what anyone that seeks personal fame in a game would say, why would you care what someone else bought?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Not even close to the same and anyone who cares (which is likely nobody)can go back and see the context for themselves.
You’ve been trying to pick a fight the whole time. Wonder why? Well actually no I don’t.
It's not really that different, just because I defend item malls, and thus you say I must use them, but then you go to equate such things to being on par to cheating and using aim bots.
in sort you called me a cheater.
And you Wonder why I would not take that well.. Hummmmm wondering... wondering...
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Ungood said Of course I only play for fun, its' not like playing an MMO is going to give me some kind of deep spiritual growth or teach me life trade skills.
I play an MMO for the same reasons I would go to the movies, or play a board game. Entertainment.
Let me give you an example, I was playing Fortnight, and getting shot out of nowhere is not fun, even if the game was the most balanced and fair game, they have a rifle.. I have a rifle.. while I am playing, it seems they always hit me, and I can never hit them. That game is just not fun for me, and it would not matter how "fair" things might be, it could be the most fair game ever made, and their ability to shoot me down like I was standing still is purely due to their skill and nothing more, I simply do not like how that combat works. So it's not fun for me, as such, everything else, is irrelevant if I am not having fun.
On the flip side of that, I also play Eternal Crusade, which sells Elite Classes, which are distinctly more powerful then standard and even Veteran units.. I love it when we drop one of those units, even better if I can pull it off solo, just because they have bigger numbers does not mean they are always going to win in that game, the way the combat works in Eternal Crusade is visceral, it's engaging, win or lose, it was a brutal fight. so yah, more often then not the Elites crush me, but, I am having fun, and that is all that matters.
I also played Dungeons and Dragons Online. it has a process called Reincarnating, which allows you to re-level your character and gain a bit more power, they also sell EX boosts, and even EX level items, so people can churn though the process faster. I was on my 7th life with my main, and truth be told, I didn't care that people could buy their way tough the process, to me, I played the game to pass time and play the game. Too often people worry about some mystical "end game or turn the game into a race, sucks to be them. I play to to play a game, I don't play a game to somehow be done with it. I quit DDO when they screwed with the rare gear, in a game with rare dropped named gear, that people can run the same raid and dungeon 100 times just for a chance, and they go and start screwing with that, AKA: Nurfing it... not cool. That was why I quit, they screwed with what I earned in game, it didn't bother me that they sold stat tomes and EX boons.
Anyway. yes, I consider myself a gamer, because I enjoy playing games.
There is more to playing games than fun, but I play for that reason too. Now the games I will mention may not be for you, but just to show you can get more out of games than fun.
The first game you mentioned Fortnight, it takes be back to by first competitive shooters. I was quite awful to begin with, but over time I developed the skill and anticipation needed to be quite good. You could try to learn how the combat works, and if you do the sense of achievement will be up there with any amount of fun. But I see your point about EC, an easier learning curve is easier to stick with, but the sense of achievement is just not as great.
You mentioned spiritual growth. Try the Talos Principle for a game that makes you think about the meaning of life, spirituality and much more.
Many adventure/detective/puzzle style can get your deductive processes going. Keeping brushed up on your ability to reason is always a good thing.
You can get a grasp of economics by looking at the economics of commodities in a game, I include the cash shop here. Not saying you are going to pass any exams with such knowledge but if you have none at all it could be an eye opener.
If you take part in a games community you can learn everything from social skills to making some online friends.
If you become an officer in a guild you can learn about management, leadership and PR.
Now none of this may be for you, all I am saying is games can be more than just fun if you want them to be
And when it comes to fun, that $100,000 Wyrm biting my head off without contest because he paid to do so, does rather take the wind out of your fun. So by your definition and it is one that I would partly adhere to, I would not be a gamer in such a game because I was not enjoying it. Nor would I think it was a game, as there comes a point when P2W makes games an exercise in power shopping, or more like online gambling.
a few points.
Combat. Eternal Crusades combat is far more dynamic and engaging then Fortnights. EC combat is far beyond Point an Shoot, as such it's learning curve is endless as it's responsive to what other players are doing, what worked with one person or loadout might be vastly weak against another. I am not a fan of Point and Shoot games because all too often it feels like the other people are cheating. I've come to just embrace in our world of Aim Bots and Overlays, that if it feels like cheating, it most likely is.
You don't learn puzzles in games, if you like puzzles then games with them excite you, but you don't learn anything from the game itself unless you found aspect of the game fun to start with. if it was not fun for you to start with, it would turn you off from the game, not teach it to you.
You don't lean market in a game either, if you liked those things then games give you something to play with, ergo, you do what you find fun. If you do not enjoy market games then no game will teach it to you, if you enjoy them, then some games will have things for you to play with.
Now you brought up a point, about being killed, well, Since a lot of PvP MMOs' games like BDO and the like allow ganking, I don't see how having some high level character gank me who got their gear and levels for free is any more or less fun then someone using an expensive Wurm to kill me.. in both ways, it's bad game design and not fun at all for me.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Ungood said Of course I only play for fun, its' not like playing an MMO is going to give me some kind of deep spiritual growth or teach me life trade skills.
Let me give you an example, I was playing Fortnight, and getting shot out of nowhere is not fun, even if the game was the most balanced and fair game, they have a rifle.. I have a rifle.. while I am playing, it seems they always hit me, and I can never hit them. That game is just not fun for me, and it would not matter how "fair" things might be, it could be the most fair game ever made, and their ability to shoot me down like I was standing still is purely due to their skill and nothing more, I simply do not like how that combat works. So it's not fun for me, as such, everything else, is irrelevant if I am not having fun.
On the flip side of that, I also play Eternal Crusade, which sells Elite Classes, which are distinctly more powerful then standard and even Veteran units.. I love it when we drop one of those units, even better if I can pull it off solo, just because they have bigger numbers does not mean they are always going to win in that game, the way the combat works in Eternal Crusade is visceral, it's engaging, win or lose, it was a brutal fight. so yah, more often then not the Elites crush me, but, I am having fun, and that is all that matters.
I also played Dungeons and Dragons Online. it has a process called Reincarnating, which allows you to re-level your character and gain a bit more power, they also sell EX boosts, and even EX level items, so people can churn though the process faster. I was on my 7th life with my main, and truth be told, I didn't care that people could buy their way tough the process, to me, I played the game to pass time and play the game. Too often people worry about some mystical "end game or turn the game into a race, sucks to be them. I play to to play a game, I don't play a game to somehow be done with it. I quit DDO when they screwed with the rare gear, in a game with rare dropped named gear, that people can run the same raid and dungeon 100 times just for a chance, and they go and start screwing with that, AKA: Nurfing it... not cool. That was why I quit, they screwed with what I earned in game, it didn't bother me that they sold stat tomes and EX boons.
Anyway. yes, I consider myself a gamer, because I enjoy playing games.
There is more to playing games than fun, but I play for that reason too. Now the games I will mention may not be for you, but just to show you can get more out of games than fun.
The first game you mentioned Fortnight, it takes be back to by first competitive shooters. I was quite awful to begin with, but over time I developed the skill and anticipation needed to be quite good. You could try to learn how the combat works, and if you do the sense of achievement will be up there with any amount of fun. But I see your point about EC, an easier learning curve is easier to stick with, but the sense of achievement is just not as great.
You mentioned spiritual growth. Try the Talos Principle for a game that makes you think about the meaning of life, spirituality and much more.
Many adventure/detective/puzzle style can get your deductive processes going. Keeping brushed up on your ability to reason is always a good thing.
You can get a grasp of economics by looking at the economics of commodities in a game, I include the cash shop here. Not saying you are going to pass any exams with such knowledge but if you have none at all it could be an eye opener.
If you take part in a games community you can learn everything from social skills to making some online friends.
If you become an officer in a guild you can learn about management, leadership and PR.
Now none of this may be for you, all I am saying is games can be more than just fun if you want them to be
And when it comes to fun, that $100,000 Wyrm biting my head off without contest because he paid to do so, does rather take the wind out of your fun. So by your definition and it is one that I would partly adhere to, I would not be a gamer in such a game because I was not enjoying it. Nor would I think it was a game, as there comes a point when P2W makes games an exercise in power shopping, or more like online gambling.
a few points.
Combat. Eternal Crusades combat is far more dynamic and engaging then Fortnights. EC combat is far beyond Point an Shoot, as such it's learning curve is endless as it's responsive to what other players are doing, what worked with one person or loadout might be vastly weak against another. I am not a fan of Point and Shoot games because all too often it feels like the other people are cheating. I've come to just embrace in our world of Aim Bots and Overlays, that if it feels like cheating, it most likely is.
You don't learn puzzles in games, if you like puzzles then games with them excite you, but you don't learn anything from the game itself unless you found aspect of the game fun to start with. if it was not fun for you to start with, it would turn you off from the game, not teach it to you.
You don't lean market in a game either, if you liked those things then games give you something to play with, ergo, you do what you find fun. If you do not enjoy market games then no game will teach it to you, if you enjoy them, then some games will have things for you to play with.
Now you brought up a point, about being killed, well, Since a lot of PvP MMOs' games like BDO and the like allow ganking, I don't see how having some high level character gank me who got their gear and levels for free is any more or less fun then someone using an expensive Wurm to kill me.. in both ways, it's bad game design and not fun at all for me.
Having not played either of the games you have mentioned I will defer to your overall impression of them. But we cannot as gamers just put losing down to cheating, it does occur but if you were correct we would never get better in competitive games. And we do, so the impression it is there is overblown.
You like and learn from puzzle games, they teach you new ways of approaching problems and solving them. They are limited in how much you can get out of them because they are games, but you can say that about anything we mentioned, including fun.
You can learn about markets, you don't have to like them before. You might look into a games economy because you are a crafter etc. It becomes and interest, not necessarily something you like.
You are reminding me of an expression: "He knows what he likes and he likes what he knows." We do not like everything in life we are going to enjoy before we experience it. Games are not all about liking and fun anyway, as I pointed out they can make you grow.
Take your point on BDO, but you have a chance, even if it is only a chance to run. Not sure I could outrun that $100,000 Wrym from Cryomatrix's awful P2W game design.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
ESO did well on only a subscription, it went to a cash shop eventfully. Not sure why, it had to or just to make the maximum amount of profit, I don't know. But you can at least start your game, in this case a MMO, on that fair playing field we mentioned.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
ESO did well on only a subscription, it went to a cash shop eventfully. Not sure why, it had to or just to make the maximum amount of profit, I don't know. But you can at least start your game, in this case a MMO, on that fair playing field we mentioned.
I am curious to know how you knew they did very well with only a subscription.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
ESO did well on only a subscription, it went to a cash shop eventfully. Not sure why, it had to or just to make the maximum amount of profit, I don't know. But you can at least start your game, in this case a MMO, on that fair playing field we mentioned.
I am curious to know how you knew they did very well with only a subscription.
The Elder Scrolls Online was the top-selling game in the United Kingdom for the week of April 5, 2014, for individual formats, and number two across all formats.[58] When the game was released on consoles, the game once again became the top-selling game in the United Kingdom for the week of June 15, 2015, across all formats, becoming the year's second best-selling game at retail[59] The game was ranked the best-selling digital PlayStation 4 game of June 2015 in the United States and Europe.[60][61] In the United States, the game was the second and sixth best-selling game of June and July 2015, respectively.[62][63][64]
I said they did well, not very well. What I think you are referring to is down the line it did not go well for them, presumably the reason they turned to a cash shop? But my question to you is what is a success? In the current world of gaming, can we now expect any game to be a success years after launch?
If the answer to continued "success" is to make a game P2W, then it is no longer a game, it is more akin to buying a better car to keep up with the Jones's or going to a betting shop. That's not gaming.
It might not be gaming but they owe a greater responsibility to their employees and their families and to their shareholders. If indeed they were not suppose to increase their profits than how could they continue to fulfil those obligations or are we merely arguing about this from a singular point of view or shall we let practical concerns come in.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
ESO did well on only a subscription, it went to a cash shop eventfully. Not sure why, it had to or just to make the maximum amount of profit, I don't know. But you can at least start your game, in this case a MMO, on that fair playing field we mentioned.
I am curious to know how you knew they did very well with only a subscription.
They probably sold enough copies they don't even need subscription to stay afloat. That is my pure guessing.
There isn't official number but people guess and speculate and ESO is one of the more promising mmorpg which have decent number.
There are videos on youtube about it, just watch a few video on what people think is popular and how they reach that conclusion. Usually people have some numbers for example steam to backup their claim.
It might not be gaming but they owe a greater responsibility to their employees and their families and to their shareholders. If indeed they were not suppose to increase their profits than how could they continue to fulfil those obligations or are we merely arguing about this from a singular point of view or shall we let practical concerns come in.
Well that's just it, it is not gaming. So as a gamer am I going to play something that makes me a gambler or something else? No.
Now lets get practical. What you are saying would be an issue, but lets look at the history:
There was a time when games were profitable and fulfilled all the obligations you mentioned, yet did not need algorithms to put players together to sell more.
Before that there was a time when games were profitable without loot boxes.
Before there was a time when games were profitable without a skin economy.
Before that there was a time when games were profitable without game breaking MT's.
Before there was a time when games were profitable without MT's.
Before that there was a time when games only needed a box sale.
So you have to ask, is this being done to "fulfil obligations" or is a corporate led approach that puts maximising profit, any way they can, as the only priority?
As you can imagine I think its the later, or gaming would have never survived its hugely unprofitable box sale years.
And the spin off to this is that indie games now use P2W as standard practice because that's what the big guys do. Regardless of the fact that they may or may not be run in the same way the big industry players are.
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
Today’s corporate behemoths are looking for massive profits but there are a few smaller games on the way that are going the sub route. That games like CU have been able to attract investors is promising to me. Those investors did their due diligence and determined that they felt they could make their money back and a reasonable profit off of a subscription model. That doesn’t guarantee success by any means and if MJ doesn’t end up with a fun game it will fail no matter what the monetization. It does however mean that there are valid posibilities between “nothing” and P2W.
Crowfall is another interesting attempt. Spend gobs of money on your private “eternal kingdom” which is pretty much just a glorified private housing area but have campaign rule sets that prevent you from bringing anything from your EK. Then charge an optional VIP sub which allows you to train multiple skills but you can only have 1 slotted at a time in game.
There are are others on the way as well. Maybe they all fail... maybe they thrive. But to think there is simply no option to the status quo is just foolish. The only way to be surely wrong is to assume that nothing changes. Heck I can see a return to the per hour pricing of years gone by being attempted at some point.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Battlefront 2 had precisely such a system, until consumers realized it and told EA, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off with that bullshit.
Ok.. No.
Getting an "edge" is not like what Slapshot is saying.
Lets use Golf.
Battlefront 2 allows you to buy the best golf balls and clubs, but.. if you miss the shot.. you still missed. if someone else gets a hole in one.. you still lose.
Slapshot is talking like Evony style stuff that kind of P2W died over a decade ago.. so..
Does anyone have this magical P2W where people can spend money to have ensured victories, I wll accept an MOBA or MMO only, that is playable by me, right now, that is not a decade old?
So you're not interested in debating the issue or considering anything other than your own viewpoint. You could've just said so up front, instead of wasting my time.
It's also painfully obvious you have no fucking clue how the progression system in Battlefront 2 worked prior to the push back from consumers.
I had no clue at all, I didn't play it, only saw what I could find in a Wiki and some game articles. Seemed kinda "meh" to be honest, like.. Oh my ship has a bigger shield, I have a stronger light saber...pretty benign looking things, nothing really major like, "I can just ignore all damage and one shot kill you" kind of stuff. But I admit I have no idea how much stronger the light sabers were for example, so they could have been one shot kills and I would have no clue.. I also can't log in and find out as it seems it's been fixed.
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
20% turn rate and 20% fire rate boosts for Starfighters is a straight upgrade and is significant. It compromises the integrity of a competitive multiplayer game.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Again, we both know that money needs to be made, if you have some realistic solution, by all means, pitch it and market it. But we both know people will only part with their money for self serving reasons, the question at this point is purely a matter of what is fair.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
ESO did well on only a subscription, it went to a cash shop eventfully. Not sure why, it had to or just to make the maximum amount of profit, I don't know. But you can at least start your game, in this case a MMO, on that fair playing field we mentioned.
I am curious to know how you knew they did very well with only a subscription.
The Elder Scrolls Online was the top-selling game in the United Kingdom for the week of April 5, 2014, for individual formats, and number two across all formats.[58] When the game was released on consoles, the game once again became the top-selling game in the United Kingdom for the week of June 15, 2015, across all formats, becoming the year's second best-selling game at retail[59] The game was ranked the best-selling digital PlayStation 4 game of June 2015 in the United States and Europe.[60][61] In the United States, the game was the second and sixth best-selling game of June and July 2015, respectively.[62][63][64]
I said they did well, not very well. What I think you are referring to is down the line it did not go well for them, presumably the reason they turned to a cash shop? But my question to you is what is a success? In the current world of gaming, can we now expect any game to be a success years after launch?
If the answer to continued "success" is to make a game P2W, then it is no longer a game, it is more akin to buying a better car to keep up with the Jones's or going to a betting shop. That's not gaming.
Games are a tool to generate money for their creators, a product for sale, so of course they will be changed in various ways including monetization models throughout their lifecycle.
What works well at launch doesn't 6 months later and what may work on one platform (i.e.PCs) may not be optimal on another. (Consoles)
I believe Zenimax always had a long term strategy to migrate from subs in the PC launch to cash B2P / microtransaction for the console market.
Like any smart developer who wants long term financial success they continuously revisit and revise the monetization model to keep revenues flowing in.
This is the current model for the modern, successful MMO and I look on with great concern at those indie studios which state they will always and forever maintain one sort of payment model, especially one that has long since fallen out of favor with most games.
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
Comments
I mean lets be honest with ourselves, if there is no reward for spending money, people won't do it, and we both know what happens to games that people don't spend money on?
So we both know there would need to be some reward given, the question is purely a matter of how much is fair.
Your attempts to downplay it do not change that fact. The "oh it's not so bad" is exactly how EA got to that point in the first place. You give companies like EA an inch on compromising integrity of gameplay for more quick cash, they're going to take a mile.
Other people may pick a point on the slope and say "That's OK but no further...". To me that line is drawn at the first step.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
As I see it, the people that paid for their place in the game are at the very least, not delusional or egotistical about how great they are, they know they had to buy their way to where they are.
But luckily there are plenty of loot box games you can play in so you should be fine
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I also spend lots of money on Atlantica Online. I was playing 50 hours a week so it make sense to buy all the booster. If I'm only playing a few hours a week, I probably won't care.
If you really want to know some pretty bad p2w games you probably have better luck creating another thread and ask. Most mainstream games have relatively reasonable cashshop. You probably need to go into more niche games, like nexon games for the worse offender.
I searched google on the most p2w mmorpg, most of the answer is on older games.
The purpose of P2W is to "Pay to win." Similar to capitalism; no fair way to satisfy everyone. Those with the most will always win.
Most people think any game where you can pay to get ahead in any way is pay-to-win. To the extent even a few people cry P2W when they see a cosmetic cash shop because looking prettier than other people is a "win". EVEs whole "monoclegate" where people were super fired up they offered a 200$ purely cosmetic item is proof of how shrill the anti-pay-to-win banshees can be.
If I can't compete in a game spending only 15$ a month it's too pay-to-win for me. If I can, I'm fine with it. And a lot of the time people "not being able to compete" has more to do with them not understanding the game mechanics and blaming it all on pay to win. For instance most people accuse ArcheAge of being "pay to win" but you would have to drop 560$ a month on that game to equal what I make if I play 30 minutes a day.
Wonder why you would even make a point to say that I pay to win... if you felt that it was important to not make things personal.
But here is a question, if the game it not about a display of your personal prowess and a form of self validation, hence your claim to not say "git gud" which is what anyone that seeks personal fame in a game would say, why would you care what someone else bought?
You’ve been trying to pick a fight the whole time. Wonder why? Well actually no I don’t.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
in sort you called me a cheater.
And you Wonder why I would not take that well.. Hummmmm wondering... wondering...
Now you brought up a point, about being killed, well, Since a lot of PvP MMOs' games like BDO and the like allow ganking, I don't see how having some high level character gank me who got their gear and levels for free is any more or less fun then someone using an expensive Wurm to kill me.. in both ways, it's bad game design and not fun at all for me.
To think "Nothing" is fair is the foolish notions of delusional idealist. So between us realist, the only real question is, how much and what kind of advantage should be given.
You like and learn from puzzle games, they teach you new ways of approaching problems and solving them. They are limited in how much you can get out of them because they are games, but you can say that about anything we mentioned, including fun.
You can learn about markets, you don't have to like them before. You might look into a games economy because you are a crafter etc. It becomes and interest, not necessarily something you like.
You are reminding me of an expression: "He knows what he likes and he likes what he knows." We do not like everything in life we are going to enjoy before we experience it. Games are not all about liking and fun anyway, as I pointed out they can make you grow.
Take your point on BDO, but you have a chance, even if it is only a chance to run. Not sure I could outrun that $100,000 Wrym from Cryomatrix's awful P2W game design.
ESO did well on only a subscription, it went to a cash shop eventfully. Not sure why, it had to or just to make the maximum amount of profit, I don't know. But you can at least start your game, in this case a MMO, on that fair playing field we mentioned.
The Elder Scrolls Online was the top-selling game in the United Kingdom for the week of April 5, 2014, for individual formats, and number two across all formats.[58] When the game was released on consoles, the game once again became the top-selling game in the United Kingdom for the week of June 15, 2015, across all formats, becoming the year's second best-selling game at retail[59] The game was ranked the best-selling digital PlayStation 4 game of June 2015 in the United States and Europe.[60][61] In the United States, the game was the second and sixth best-selling game of June and July 2015, respectively.[62][63][64]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_Online
I said they did well, not very well. What I think you are referring to is down the line it did not go well for them, presumably the reason they turned to a cash shop? But my question to you is what is a success? In the current world of gaming, can we now expect any game to be a success years after launch?
If the answer to continued "success" is to make a game P2W, then it is no longer a game, it is more akin to buying a better car to keep up with the Jones's or going to a betting shop. That's not gaming.
There isn't official number but people guess and speculate and ESO is one of the more promising mmorpg which have decent number.
There are videos on youtube about it, just watch a few video on what people think is popular and how they reach that conclusion. Usually people have some numbers for example steam to backup their claim.
Well that's just it, it is not gaming. So as a gamer am I going to play something that makes me a gambler or something else? No.
Now lets get practical. What you are saying would be an issue, but lets look at the history:
There was a time when games were profitable and fulfilled all the obligations you mentioned, yet did not need algorithms to put players together to sell more.
Before that there was a time when games were profitable without loot boxes.
Before there was a time when games were profitable without a skin economy.
Before that there was a time when games were profitable without game breaking MT's.
Before there was a time when games were profitable without MT's.
Before that there was a time when games only needed a box sale.
So you have to ask, is this being done to "fulfil obligations" or is a corporate led approach that puts maximising profit, any way they can, as the only priority?
As you can imagine I think its the later, or gaming would have never survived its hugely unprofitable box sale years.
And the spin off to this is that indie games now use P2W as standard practice because that's what the big guys do. Regardless of the fact that they may or may not be run in the same way the big industry players are.
Crowfall is another interesting attempt. Spend gobs of money on your private “eternal kingdom” which is pretty much just a glorified private housing area but have campaign rule sets that prevent you from bringing anything from your EK. Then charge an optional VIP sub which allows you to train multiple skills but you can only have 1 slotted at a time in game.
There are are others on the way as well. Maybe they all fail... maybe they thrive. But to think there is simply no option to the status quo is just foolish. The only way to be surely wrong is to assume that nothing changes. Heck I can see a return to the per hour pricing of years gone by being attempted at some point.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What works well at launch doesn't 6 months later and what may work on one platform (i.e.PCs) may not be optimal on another. (Consoles)
I believe Zenimax always had a long term strategy to migrate from subs in the PC launch to cash B2P / microtransaction for the console market.
Like any smart developer who wants long term financial success they continuously revisit and revise the monetization model to keep revenues flowing in.
This is the current model for the modern, successful MMO and I look on with great concern at those indie studios which state they will always and forever maintain one sort of payment model, especially one that has long since fallen out of favor with most games.
"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