You know what, I'm going to have to go back on what I said. It's been awhile since I went looking for sources and information on P2W, and in the time between the last time I went looking and now the prevalent definition is paying for an advantage that makes skill pointless. The first definition was paying for content that you would otherwise not see. I am reasonably sure I did not imagine that.
Paying for content still exists (the example is DCUO, where you can play for free, but you won't finish the content without paying money), but the prevalent example is the difference between paying and non-paying or paying less players and what they can accomplish in the game.
Actually, that's probably a good, general purpose definition. A game is Pay To Win when the players can pay money or pay more money to achieve more in the game, and where that difference between paying and non-paying or paying less customers cannot be overcome by skill.
If I wanted a game to be p2w I could twist that meaning to fit it. It wouldn't really matter what the game was. The only result that ever comes out of these threads is, it's obvious people make the term fit their bias towards a game or payment model. They don't look at the game and see if it fits the term.
Originally posted by SomeHuman Perhaps, we should ask what "win" means, when playing an MMORPG.
That does need to be included in the definition. Players can "win" in many ways.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
If I wanted a game to be p2w I could twist that meaning to fit it. It wouldn't really matter what the game was. The only result that ever comes out of these threads is, it's obvious people make the term fit their bias towards a game or payment model. They don't look at the game and see if it fits the term.
This! You pick the MMO and I will bend the reason why it is pay-to-win. You pick the MMO and I pick the reason why it is NOT pay-to-win.
Eve Online
1. A person can buy isk for real money and equip his ships with the best gear - pay-to-win
2. A person who spent over $1000 (I think that was the number) got ganked in his over-geared ship and lost it. He didnt have any skill so the gear didnt help - NOT pay-to-win
It all comes down to how YOU view winning. Is it ANY advantage? Is it only an advantage if you actually win?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
P2W = When by paying more $ = you get more stuff in-game or/and you get it quicker.
Yes that mean that basically any kind of microtransactions in mmorpg's is p2w.
That is not what it means.
Pay to win only occurs when you pay for an advantage over other players.
Sure. But people play for many reasons. When someone motivation for playing is looks or /and rarity - then getting cosmetic item = getting an advantage. Same with getting an combat item in PVE game or anything in-game basically.
Cosmetics are just looks, right? Looking good or bad is highly subjective. Having higher stats that are taken into account in game mechanics is not subjective. 5 is bigger than 3, clearly, red is not more beautiful than blue (not objectively).
Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by IPolygon
Originally posted by Sulaa
P2W = When by paying more $ = you get more stuff in-game or/and you get it quicker.
Yes that mean that basically any kind of microtransactions in mmorpg's is p2w.
That is not what it means.
Pay to win only occurs when you pay for an advantage over other players.
And where does this definition exist? Because I've looked for it, and in the largest repository of information in the history of the human race, the definition that Loktofeit presented (buying an expansion) is the closest to an official definition there is.
This is another one of those terms that isn't defined. Hence the topic. What does P2W mean to you? If this term was defined, then the topic wouldn't make any sense.
Here you go
"Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying."
You know what, I'm going to have to go back on what I said. It's been awhile since I went looking for sources and information on P2W, and in the time between the last time I went looking and now the prevalent definition is paying for an advantage that makes skill pointless. The first definition was paying for content that you would otherwise not see. I am reasonably sure I did not imagine that.
Paying for content still exists (the example is DCUO, where you can play for free, but you won't finish the content without paying money), but the prevalent example is the difference between paying and non-paying or paying less players and what they can accomplish in the game.
Actually, that's probably a good, general purpose definition. A game is Pay To Win when the players can pay money or pay more money to achieve more in the game, and where that difference between paying and non-paying or paying less customers cannot be overcome by skill.
If I wanted a game to be p2w I could twist that meaning to fit it. It wouldn't really matter what the game was. The only result that ever comes out of these threads is, it's obvious people make the term fit their bias towards a game or payment model. They don't look at the game and see if it fits the term.
Which would explain why there are people on either side of nearly every discussion about whether or not a game is P2W.
It also fits with buying expansions to games as well. You cannot "win" if you cannot complete the content, and you cannot complete the content without buying the expansion.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by DamonVile If I wanted a game to be p2w I could twist that meaning to fit it. It wouldn't really matter what the game was. The only result that ever comes out of these threads is, it's obvious people make the term fit their bias towards a game or payment model. They don't look at the game and see if it fits the term.
This! You pick the MMO and I will bend the reason why it is pay-to-win. You pick the MMO and I pick the reason why it is NOT pay-to-win.
Eve Online
1. A person can buy isk for real money and equip his ships with the best gear - pay-to-win
2. A person who spent over $1000 (I think that was the number) got ganked in his over-geared ship and lost it. He didnt have any skill so the gear didnt help - NOT pay-to-win
It all comes down to how YOU view winning. Is it ANY advantage? Is it only an advantage if you actually win?
While that is certainly 1 scenario, how about 2 equally skilled players?
In your example, the player did buy better gear, giving them an advantage against other equally skilled players that did not pay for better equipment. Sure, there will be some players that can win no matter what because they are that good (or other players that bad)
To answer your question, "Is it ANY advantage?" Yes, in some cases/instances. No, in other cases/instances.
I have a feeling (not facts) that the player that bought better equipment would find they are successful in winning more often than not.
Anyone can take ONE scenario and make an opinion on that ONE scenario. Will it be right? Maybe, but without more data, not likely unless very, very lucky.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Gaming since 1985; Online gaming since 1995; No End in Sight! My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8POVoJ8fdOseuJ4U1ZX-oA
If I wanted a game to be p2w I could twist that meaning to fit it. It wouldn't really matter what the game was. The only result that ever comes out of these threads is, it's obvious people make the term fit their bias towards a game or payment model. They don't look at the game and see if it fits the term.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
This! You pick the MMO and I will bend the reason why it is pay-to-win. You pick the MMO and I pick the reason why it is NOT pay-to-win.
Eve Online
1. A person can buy isk for real money and equip his ships with the best gear - pay-to-win
2. A person who spent over $1000 (I think that was the number) got ganked in his over-geared ship and lost it. He didnt have any skill so the gear didnt help - NOT pay-to-win
It all comes down to how YOU view winning. Is it ANY advantage? Is it only an advantage if you actually win?
Cosmetics are just looks, right? Looking good or bad is highly subjective. Having higher stats that are taken into account in game mechanics is not subjective. 5 is bigger than 3, clearly, red is not more beautiful than blue (not objectively).
Here you go
"Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win
It means I can safely ignore the poster, person using that meaningless term
Which would explain why there are people on either side of nearly every discussion about whether or not a game is P2W.
It also fits with buying expansions to games as well. You cannot "win" if you cannot complete the content, and you cannot complete the content without buying the expansion.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In your example, the player did buy better gear, giving them an advantage against other equally skilled players that did not pay for better equipment. Sure, there will be some players that can win no matter what because they are that good (or other players that bad)
To answer your question, "Is it ANY advantage?"
Yes, in some cases/instances.
No, in other cases/instances.
I have a feeling (not facts) that the player that bought better equipment would find they are successful in winning more often than not.
Anyone can take ONE scenario and make an opinion on that ONE scenario. Will it be right? Maybe, but without more data, not likely unless very, very lucky.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR