Originally posted by AlBQuirky Really? I choose to make 10 mil a year. Why am I not?
I guess you are mistaking a choice for wish - you wish to make that money but you choose not to make an effort.
I'll give you that. But what can I do "effortwise" to guarantee/choice I make 10 mil a year?
It doesn't matter, because it's an irrelevant extreme example in the first place.
Think it though:
You could apply the same tactic on the other side and say "I choose to live in the White House with the Buckingham Palace as summer residence, but I can not"
So if we stick with using extreme examples as valid arguments, your "everything is a choice, but money isn't" premise becomes obsolete.
If you agree that using extreme examples is bad in this case, the 10 mil argument from above just fell flat.
Wait, what about marring a royal and becoming president ? I can choose to try. Problem with any of this is it wont guarantee success.
Yep, exactly. It's just like his 10 mil per year example (he could try), but applied on the other side of the argument.
We have to apply the same standards on both sides, which in this case kinda renders his basic premise moot if we go by the standards he used against the other side. That's all I am saying.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Really? I choose to make 10 mil a year. Why am I not?
I guess you are mistaking a choice for wish - you wish to make that money but you choose not to make an effort.
I'll give you that. But what can I do "effortwise" to guarantee/choice I make 10 mil a year?
It doesn't matter, because it's an irrelevant extreme example in the first place.
Think it though:
You could apply the same tactic on the other side and say "I choose to live in the White House with the Buckingham Palace as summer residence, but I can not"
So if we stick with using extreme examples as valid arguments, your "everything is a choice, but money isn't" premise becomes obsolete.
If you agree that using extreme examples is bad in this case, the 10 mil argument from above just fell flat.
Wait, what about marring a royal and becoming president ? I can choose to try. Problem with any of this is it wont guarantee success.
Yep, exactly. It's just like his 10 mil per year example (he could try), but applied on the other side of the argument.
We have to apply the same standards on both sides, which in this case kinda renders his basic premise moot if we go by the standards he used against the other side. That's all I am saying.
Earning 10M in a year is possible. People do it. So to choose to do it, one must make the proper choices required to get there.
If you have an idea that could make 10M but you need to start cold calling investors out of the phone book to get backing and you choose not to do that, since it's a required step in the process, you have thus chosen NOT to make 10M that year.
Originally posted by nariusseldon There is no way in hell that everyone can play 10 hours of games everyday, particularly for those who have 8 hours job. Are you seriously telling me that there is a choice of not going to work and play games?
Of course there is a choice. If you choose to flip burgers for 4 hours a day, you can easily play games for 10 hours. But most do not choose this way. EVERYONE has that choice, though, unless they are physically or mentally unable to flip burgers.
flipping burger 4 hours a day won't play the rent, and can't afford a computer, electricity, utility and so ... no the choice is not there.
You flip burger 4 hours a day, you don't have the choice to play 10 hours of games because you can't afford it ... and this applies to those who have to support themselves.
In fact, this argument of everyone has 24 hours a day and they can choose what to do in those 24 hours is pure fantasy.
For example, no one can "choose" to play 23 hours of games a day for 3 months because the human body just can't handle it.
Thinking there is no constraint, other than 24 hours, per day on what one can do in his/her leisure time ... is just silly.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Really? I choose to make 10 mil a year. Why am I not?
I guess you are mistaking a choice for wish - you wish to make that money but you choose not to make an effort.
I'll give you that. But what can I do "effortwise" to guarantee/choice I make 10 mil a year?
It doesn't matter, because it's an irrelevant extreme example in the first place.Think it though: You could apply the same tactic on the other side and say "I choose to live in the White House with the Buckingham Palace as summer residence, but I can not"So if we stick with using extreme examples as valid arguments, your "everything is a choice, but money isn't" premise becomes obsolete.If you agree that using extreme examples is bad in this case, the 10 mil argument from above just fell flat.
Wait, what about marring a royal and becoming president ? I can choose to try. Problem with any of this is it wont guarantee success.
Try being nice and this is what you get. I lied. I will not "give him that." Is making 10 mil a year IMPOSSIBLE?
My point is "choosing does not make it happen", which seems to be the concept these 2 can not grasp.
I've failed as an educator. I give up my end...
- 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
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Really? I choose to make 10 mil a year. Why am I not?
I guess you are mistaking a choice for wish - you wish to make that money but you choose not to make an effort.
I'll give you that. But what can I do "effortwise" to guarantee/choice I make 10 mil a year?
It doesn't matter, because it's an irrelevant extreme example in the first place.
Think it though: You could apply the same tactic on the other side and say "I choose to live in the White House with the Buckingham Palace as summer residence, but I can not"
So if we stick with using extreme examples as valid arguments, your "everything is a choice, but money isn't" premise becomes obsolete.
If you agree that using extreme examples is bad in this case, the 10 mil argument from above just fell flat.
Wait, what about marring a royal and becoming president ? I can choose to try. Problem with any of this is it wont guarantee success.
Try being nice and this is what you get. I lied. I will not "give him that." Is making 10 mil a year IMPOSSIBLE?
My point is "choosing does not make it happen", which seems to be the concept these 2 can not grasp.
I've failed as an educator. I give up my end...
Noone argued money magically appears. Misrepresenting what others argued is bad form. Also a nice attached badly camouflaged wannabe ad hominem. Style point deductions for that.
Anyway, I merely pointed out that the extreme argument was flawed (applies to both sides, thus is kinda pointless). Isn't even close to what you implied. Doesn't matter, I don't care. I suggest we move on.
The original issue Gdemami and you were arguing was if money is different from the other things you mentioned in your list in terms of being a "choice". You listed them all as "choice" but then said money is different.
Most of those things have limits, not just the money you are able to earn. Just like for money, choosing them doesn't make them magically happen or infinitely available. You have some control, but not unlimited control. Just like it is the case with money.
Originally posted by Gaendric The original issue Gdemami and you were arguing was if money is different from the other things you mentioned in your list in terms of being a "choice". You listed them all as "choice" but then said money is different.Most of those things have limits, not just the money you are able to earn. Just like for money, choosing them doesn't make them magically happen or infinitely available. You have some control, but not unlimited control. Just like it is the case with money.
The point is still there, after all the smoke and mirrors: Everyone has 24 hours a day. How they choose to spend those hours is the variable.
F2P is strangely overlapping between the "have nots" (actually playing for free) and the "have lots" (spending loads of cash sometimes because they do not have the time to actually play).
Since I view entertainment in all of its forms as "wasting time", time is the most important factor, in my opinion. If one does not have the time to "waste", they should find other, more productive activities for their amusement. Others disagree.
My apologies if I did not convey that thought very well. I agree, this has gone on much too long.
- 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
F2P is strangely overlapping between the "have nots" (actually playing for free) and the "have lots" (spending loads of cash sometimes because they do not have the time to actually play).
Since I view entertainment in all of its forms as "wasting time", time is the most important factor, in my opinion. If one does not have the time to "waste", they should find other, more productive activities for their amusement. Others disagree.
I agree on the time issue.
There is nothing wrong with people valuing their time differently than some of us do. I understand why they would want to buy shortcuts in a game they don't really have enough time for. Their free choice.
(Kinda brings us back to the main thread topic:) It becomes a tricky thing though, as soon as their bought advantages influence other people's gameplay / enjoyment of the game. That is where I would start calling it "P2W".
There are ofcourse clear cut cases like bought powerful endgame armor/items, access to buy-only skills, things that give an advantage in PvP (special pots and other boosts) etc. Those are P2W for me. I avoid games that have these. But others may like them. Just preference.
On the other hand, if someone just buys an xp pot in a PvE game, I personally couldn't care less. That's not P2W from my personal viewpoint, he didn't win anything. I am not racing him to top level. (I am assuming usual unlimited endgame here, so who cares when someone else reaches it)
But we are in the grey area here. Someone else may see this differently than I do and regard the race to top level and the pride they get from reaching it quickly as an integral part of their enjoyment of the game. So from their viewpoint, that same xp pot is indeed P2W. And there is nothing wrong with that viewpoint either.
So yeah, grey area mush near the fringes. Can't exactly pin it down universally.
In the end devs have to evaluate for each game what the target audience will or won't accept. (and this is ofcourse not a binary all or nothing thing either)
Originally posted by AlBQuirky F2P is strangely overlapping between the "have nots" (actually playing for free) and the "have lots" (spending loads of cash sometimes because they do not have the time to actually play).Since I view entertainment in all of its forms as "wasting time", time is the most important factor, in my opinion. If one does not have the time to "waste", they should find other, more productive activities for their amusement. Others disagree.
I agree on the time issue.There is nothing wrong with people valuing their time differently than some of us do. I understand why they would want to buy shortcuts in a game they don't really have enough time for. Their free choice.(Kinda brings us back to the main thread topic:) It becomes a tricky thing though, as soon as their bought advantages influence other people's gameplay / enjoyment of the game. That is where I would start calling it "P2W".There are ofcourse clear cut cases like bought powerful endgame armor/items, access to buy-only skills, things that give an advantage in PvP (special pots and other boosts) etc. Those are P2W for me. I avoid games that have these. But others may like them. Just preference.On the other hand, if someone just buys an xp pot in a PvE game, I personally couldn't care less. That's not P2W from my personal viewpoint, he didn't win anything. I am not racing him to top level. (I am assuming usual unlimited endgame here, so who cares when someone else reaches it)But we are in the grey area here. Someone else may see this differently than I do and regard the race to top level and the pride they get from reaching it quickly as an integral part of their enjoyment of the game. So from their viewpoint, that same xp pot is indeed P2W. And there is nothing wrong with that viewpoint either.So yeah, grey area mush near the fringes. Can't exactly pin it down universally.In the end devs have to evaluate for each game what the target audience will or won't accept. (and this is ofcourse not a binary all or nothing thing either)
I am on the same page as you (especially about "affecting me") and had another long-winded post and decided to shorten it up, leaving the following:
I'm just an old fuddy-duddy that misses the days when I bought an MMO and got the whole game in the box. Everyone paid the same amount of money to play and got the same game, sans (optional) expansions. Player A had the same opportunities as Player B, with time being the only variable.
It is hard for me to grasp anyone wanting to pay money to finish a game. I wonder if they would pay more money to see just the end of a film or book. But then again, there are "hobbyists" that pay for the finished product rather then doing the project themselves, like restorations (houses/cars/boats) or models (trains/planes/automobiles.
- 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
The point is still there, after all the smoke and mirrors: Everyone has 24 hours a day. How they choose to spend those hours is the variable.
nah ... the 24 hours argument *is* the smoke and mirrors.
no one on earth can choose to play 24 hours game a day for 7 days straight. That is physically impossible for a human being, and your "choice" has hidden constraints (physical, social, work and so on ...) that you just ignore and hope no one will notice.
The point is still there, after all the smoke and mirrors: Everyone has 24 hours a day. How they choose to spend those hours is the variable.
nah ... the 24 hours argument *is* the smoke and mirrors.
no one on earth can choose to play 24 hours game a day for 7 days straight. That is physically impossible for a human being, and your "choice" has hidden constraints (physical, social, work and so on ...) that you just ignore and hope no one will notice.
the physiological ones affect everyone equally.
the socio-economical ones are individual choices.
playing field is still equal.
your argument is invalid.
My logic is undeniable.
How can the playing field be equal when different people have different physiology? That is just silly.
Don't tell me a 50 years old is the same as a 20 years old with respect to staying up at night. This is no different than their earning powers are different.
Again, smoke and mirrors.
And socio-economical ones are individual choices? Really? Anyone chose to born in the poor urban neighborhoods?
I personally don't define p2w cause there's nothing in that shop that will give a person actual in-game skill and ability to play the game better.
"Pay to Win" is not at all, whatsoever about "buying in-game player skill"... THAT would actually take practice... It IS about buying things that make skill unnecessary. You know, aka Godmode?
The equivalents of "Pay to Win" in Chess :
Buying an extra King.
Buying an extra Queen.
Buying an extra move.
Buying the ability for a Pawn to move as a Rook or Castle.
The equivalents of "Pay to Win" in Super Mario Bros :
Buying an extra Life.
Buying an extra Mushroom.
Buying an extra Invincibility Star.
Buying and extra Fireball Throwing Flower.
Buying a Bridge to cross a pit.
The equivalents of "Pay to Win" in Baseball :
Buying a Reduction of Outs.
Buying an additional Base Placement.
Buying a Homerun.
WTF is so difficult to understand about P2W? The words are self explanatory... PAY (ie real money)... to Win (ie, "Win What?" Answer : "the Game"... Extended question : "What is the game about?" PVP and PVE).
What is so difficult is the people making money off of this system, want to keep making money off this system.
What is so difficult is the people gaining advantages within their chosen games by paying to win, want to keep on having that advantage.
What is so difficult is the people who do not benefit from either of those categories, ... really?
And actually, in light of this particular group of people...
The ones that are neither making money nor gaining any advantage in games that are P2W...
Why support or defend P2W?
This idea contradicts everything you've said up until now. Previously you've said that selling, essentially, anything in-game through a cash shop is P2W. Now you're saying that it's like buying an extra Queen in chess? I would agree, that is P2W, but there are zero or very few, equivalents in any MMORPG out there.
If you could list 5 games that sell a distinct advantage, like buying a Queen in chess, then I would concede, but they just aren't out there.
I can tell you one thing involving real money that i DONT see as p2w, and that is Mortal Online.
There, you can be f2p but have your skills capped at 60, or you can go sub and have your skills capped at 100. I don't see this as p2w though, they have to make money somehow, and here f2p really is free, there's no skill potions, xp potions, swords etc to spend money on, and sub is sub, still nothing else to spend money on.
And socio-economical ones are individual choices? Really? Anyone chose to born in the poor urban neighborhoods?
No but he chose to smoke weed instead of studying.
Except I grew up in an impoverished area, chose to study most my life and eventually got a university degree in Biology Honours and I still work for 9.50 an hour, less than minimum wage in my province. Soooo...Come again? I've never done any drugs of any type either.
I'm not the only one in this boat or a vessel similar.
--Custom Rig: Pyraxis--- NZXT Phantom 410 Case Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0 Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB
Originally posted by nariusseldon And socio-economical ones are individual choices? Really? Anyone chose to born in the poor urban neighborhoods?
No but he chose to smoke weed instead of studying.
Except I grew up in an impoverished area, chose to study most my life and eventually got a university degree in Biology Honours and I still work for 9.50 an hour, less than minimum wage in my province. Soooo...Come again? I've never done any drugs of any type either.I'm not the only one in this boat or a vessel similar.
This is way off topic and I am NOT picking on you, but did you choose the area you live in now, or were you forced to? Do you have a sick family member that keeps you close by? Is there no job in your field that pays better anywhere else?
How can you work for less then minimum wage? Is it not a law, or am I mistaken? Or are you a "commission" worker, like waitstaff or salesperon? Or did you mean "average" instead of minimum?
You are right that many people are in your boat, especially here in America. Lots of "over qualified" at or near minimum wage earners out there. However, many of these people choose to live where they do for many varied reasons and refuse to look elsewhere for better jobs.
@nariusseldon: The ONE choice we do not have in life is who our parents are, so that little snippet about "choosing to be born in poverty"... Looks like you still do not get my point. I do not recall saying people can choose to play 24/7/365 or 6 (leap years). I think I may have gone as high as 20 hours a day in my example. However, name me ONE person on this planet that has less or more then 24 hours in 1 day. Just one, out of the 6 or 7 billion.
- 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
@nariusseldon: The ONE choice we do not have in life is who our parents are, so that little snippet about "choosing to be born in poverty"... Looks like you still do not get my point. I do not recall saying people can choose to play 24/7/365 or 6 (leap years). I think I may have gone as high as 20 hours a day in my example. However, name me ONE person on this planet that has less or more then 24 hours in 1 day. Just one, out of the 6 or 7 billion.
Ignoring the point about physiological limitations, uh? Ignoring the point about sociological limitations, uh?
No one has less than 24 hours in a day. Many has less than 24 hours of GAME TIME in a day because of physical limitations (need of sleep), sociological limitation (cannot afford food if not working) and so on.
See, you put up the smoke and mirrors again. No one says anything about people don't have 24 hours a day. But certainly they are not free to choose all that time for games.
Hell .. if you have a baby, do you really think you have the same amount of time to play games as a college student? Realistically?
Don't tell me letting the baby starve and go to jail to play games is a "choice".
Pay to Win is anything in game that can be bought with real cash that effects the actual ability to play the game. So if you can buy a better weapon, armor, more potions, more storage, this is all pay to win.
This is way off topic and I am NOT picking on you, but did you choose the area you live in now, or were you forced to? Do you have a sick family member that keeps you close by? Is there no job in your field that pays better anywhere else?
How can you work for less then minimum wage? Is it not a law, or am I mistaken? Or are you a "commission" worker, like waitstaff or salesperon? Or did you mean "average" instead of minimum?
You are right that many people are in your boat, especially here in America. Lots of "over qualified" at or near minimum wage earners out there. However, many of these people choose to live where they do for many varied reasons and refuse to look elsewhere for better jobs.
@nariusseldon: The ONE choice we do not have in life is who our parents are, so that little snippet about "choosing to be born in poverty"... Looks like you still do not get my point. I do not recall saying people can choose to play 24/7/365 or 6 (leap years). I think I may have gone as high as 20 hours a day in my example. However, name me ONE person on this planet that has less or more then 24 hours in 1 day. Just one, out of the 6 or 7 billion.
I'm a waitstaff and bartender which means I make less than minimum wage because of supposed tips, however we don't get much traffic at the bar I work. So I might get 10 dollars in tips a shift, and have two tables at the most. And then I make about 180$ weekly in wages, because they can pay under the provincial minimum wage.
As to why I live where I do, it's cause I simply can't afford to live anywhere else at the moment with my pay and I couldn't even afford the actual move. I stayed in the cities for two years after I graduated looking for work, but all entry level positions require "5 to 10" years of experience and they expect you to work an unpaid internship for three or four years. I'm not wealthy so I can't do what my friends from money did, I can't work for free. I need to pay bills and feed myself, I was sick of sleeping on the street and couches while looking for an entry level career position or even a min wage job. So I moved back home where I could help my folks with the rent and find a job. ((That's cause my home-area as problems with drugs and businesses find it hard to keep reliable staff around, so I was able to find a job. No track marks is a good selling feature here.))
If I could leave I'd do it in a heartbeat, but I actually can't afford the move or anything. Even if I saved for a year it'd only be worth perhaps a month of time in Toronto before I was once again on the streets or couch surfing? Even if I managed to slap myself into some flat with 7 or 9 strangers. And Toronto is pretty much where the jobs in my field are, I studied Molecular Biology and Genetics and focused on laboratory research.
--Custom Rig: Pyraxis--- NZXT Phantom 410 Case Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0 Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB
Well, for me pay to win is gaining huge advantage for spending money, and "huge" is a keyword here. Also, the money required to get this advantage should be quite high, in hundreds of bucks preferably. For example, a "premium account" for $1 / month with some boosts is not pay to win, but paying $10 for permanent +10 damage (stackable) in Diablo would be pay to win.
Few years ago I used to play a text-based mmorpg with premium accounts that allowed to make 2x more actions with premium account. Well, I have mixed feelings about it now, because on the one hand it was not possible to compete with premium guys without premium account, but on the other hand it was like just $1 or $2 per month, so it didn't bother me too much at that time...
Furry Quest Online - New Independent MMORPG comming soon! See more at http://www.vaktu.com
Comments
Yep, exactly. It's just like his 10 mil per year example (he could try), but applied on the other side of the argument.
We have to apply the same standards on both sides, which in this case kinda renders his basic premise moot if we go by the standards he used against the other side. That's all I am saying.
agreed.
Earning 10M in a year is possible. People do it. So to choose to do it, one must make the proper choices required to get there.
If you have an idea that could make 10M but you need to start cold calling investors out of the phone book to get backing and you choose not to do that, since it's a required step in the process, you have thus chosen NOT to make 10M that year.
flipping burger 4 hours a day won't play the rent, and can't afford a computer, electricity, utility and so ... no the choice is not there.
You flip burger 4 hours a day, you don't have the choice to play 10 hours of games because you can't afford it ... and this applies to those who have to support themselves.
In fact, this argument of everyone has 24 hours a day and they can choose what to do in those 24 hours is pure fantasy.
For example, no one can "choose" to play 23 hours of games a day for 3 months because the human body just can't handle it.
Thinking there is no constraint, other than 24 hours, per day on what one can do in his/her leisure time ... is just silly.
My point is "choosing does not make it happen", which seems to be the concept these 2 can not grasp.
I've failed as an educator. I give up my end...
- 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
Yeh .. that is why there is no real choice in using that 24 hours you mentioned.
You can choose to play a game 50 hours straight .. but it won't happen. You probably will collapse some time sooner.
Noone argued money magically appears. Misrepresenting what others argued is bad form. Also a nice attached badly camouflaged wannabe ad hominem. Style point deductions for that.
Anyway, I merely pointed out that the extreme argument was flawed (applies to both sides, thus is kinda pointless). Isn't even close to what you implied. Doesn't matter, I don't care. I suggest we move on.
The original issue Gdemami and you were arguing was if money is different from the other things you mentioned in your list in terms of being a "choice". You listed them all as "choice" but then said money is different.
Most of those things have limits, not just the money you are able to earn. Just like for money, choosing them doesn't make them magically happen or infinitely available. You have some control, but not unlimited control. Just like it is the case with money.
F2P is strangely overlapping between the "have nots" (actually playing for free) and the "have lots" (spending loads of cash sometimes because they do not have the time to actually play).
Since I view entertainment in all of its forms as "wasting time", time is the most important factor, in my opinion. If one does not have the time to "waste", they should find other, more productive activities for their amusement. Others disagree.
My apologies if I did not convey that thought very well. I agree, this has gone on much too long.
- 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
I agree on the time issue.
There is nothing wrong with people valuing their time differently than some of us do. I understand why they would want to buy shortcuts in a game they don't really have enough time for. Their free choice.
(Kinda brings us back to the main thread topic:) It becomes a tricky thing though, as soon as their bought advantages influence other people's gameplay / enjoyment of the game. That is where I would start calling it "P2W".
There are ofcourse clear cut cases like bought powerful endgame armor/items, access to buy-only skills, things that give an advantage in PvP (special pots and other boosts) etc. Those are P2W for me. I avoid games that have these. But others may like them. Just preference.
On the other hand, if someone just buys an xp pot in a PvE game, I personally couldn't care less. That's not P2W from my personal viewpoint, he didn't win anything. I am not racing him to top level. (I am assuming usual unlimited endgame here, so who cares when someone else reaches it)
But we are in the grey area here. Someone else may see this differently than I do and regard the race to top level and the pride they get from reaching it quickly as an integral part of their enjoyment of the game. So from their viewpoint, that same xp pot is indeed P2W. And there is nothing wrong with that viewpoint either.
So yeah, grey area mush near the fringes. Can't exactly pin it down universally.
In the end devs have to evaluate for each game what the target audience will or won't accept. (and this is ofcourse not a binary all or nothing thing either)
I'm just an old fuddy-duddy that misses the days when I bought an MMO and got the whole game in the box. Everyone paid the same amount of money to play and got the same game, sans (optional) expansions. Player A had the same opportunities as Player B, with time being the only variable.
It is hard for me to grasp anyone wanting to pay money to finish a game. I wonder if they would pay more money to see just the end of a film or book. But then again, there are "hobbyists" that pay for the finished product rather then doing the project themselves, like restorations (houses/cars/boats) or models (trains/planes/automobiles.
- 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
nah ... the 24 hours argument *is* the smoke and mirrors.
no one on earth can choose to play 24 hours game a day for 7 days straight. That is physically impossible for a human being, and your "choice" has hidden constraints (physical, social, work and so on ...) that you just ignore and hope no one will notice.
How can the playing field be equal when different people have different physiology? That is just silly.
Don't tell me a 50 years old is the same as a 20 years old with respect to staying up at night. This is no different than their earning powers are different.
Again, smoke and mirrors.
And socio-economical ones are individual choices? Really? Anyone chose to born in the poor urban neighborhoods?
This idea contradicts everything you've said up until now. Previously you've said that selling, essentially, anything in-game through a cash shop is P2W. Now you're saying that it's like buying an extra Queen in chess? I would agree, that is P2W, but there are zero or very few, equivalents in any MMORPG out there.
If you could list 5 games that sell a distinct advantage, like buying a Queen in chess, then I would concede, but they just aren't out there.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
p2w = buying an ingame advantage with real money.
I can tell you one thing involving real money that i DONT see as p2w, and that is Mortal Online.
There, you can be f2p but have your skills capped at 60, or you can go sub and have your skills capped at 100. I don't see this as p2w though, they have to make money somehow, and here f2p really is free, there's no skill potions, xp potions, swords etc to spend money on, and sub is sub, still nothing else to spend money on.
Except I grew up in an impoverished area, chose to study most my life and eventually got a university degree in Biology Honours and I still work for 9.50 an hour, less than minimum wage in my province. Soooo...Come again? I've never done any drugs of any type either.
I'm not the only one in this boat or a vessel similar.
--Custom Rig: Pyraxis---
NZXT Phantom 410 Case
Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz
Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard
Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0
Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB
How can you work for less then minimum wage? Is it not a law, or am I mistaken? Or are you a "commission" worker, like waitstaff or salesperon? Or did you mean "average" instead of minimum?
You are right that many people are in your boat, especially here in America. Lots of "over qualified" at or near minimum wage earners out there. However, many of these people choose to live where they do for many varied reasons and refuse to look elsewhere for better jobs.
@nariusseldon:
The ONE choice we do not have in life is who our parents are, so that little snippet about "choosing to be born in poverty"... Looks like you still do not get my point. I do not recall saying people can choose to play 24/7/365 or 6 (leap years). I think I may have gone as high as 20 hours a day in my example. However, name me ONE person on this planet that has less or more then 24 hours in 1 day. Just one, out of the 6 or 7 billion.
- 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
still .. some of the important socio-economical ones are not choices. So what if there are some that are choices.
Ignoring the point about physiological limitations, uh? Ignoring the point about sociological limitations, uh?
No one has less than 24 hours in a day. Many has less than 24 hours of GAME TIME in a day because of physical limitations (need of sleep), sociological limitation (cannot afford food if not working) and so on.
See, you put up the smoke and mirrors again. No one says anything about people don't have 24 hours a day. But certainly they are not free to choose all that time for games.
Hell .. if you have a baby, do you really think you have the same amount of time to play games as a college student? Realistically?
Don't tell me letting the baby starve and go to jail to play games is a "choice".
=============================
I have a soap box and I am not afraid to use it.
I'm a waitstaff and bartender which means I make less than minimum wage because of supposed tips, however we don't get much traffic at the bar I work. So I might get 10 dollars in tips a shift, and have two tables at the most. And then I make about 180$ weekly in wages, because they can pay under the provincial minimum wage.
As to why I live where I do, it's cause I simply can't afford to live anywhere else at the moment with my pay and I couldn't even afford the actual move. I stayed in the cities for two years after I graduated looking for work, but all entry level positions require "5 to 10" years of experience and they expect you to work an unpaid internship for three or four years. I'm not wealthy so I can't do what my friends from money did, I can't work for free. I need to pay bills and feed myself, I was sick of sleeping on the street and couches while looking for an entry level career position or even a min wage job. So I moved back home where I could help my folks with the rent and find a job. ((That's cause my home-area as problems with drugs and businesses find it hard to keep reliable staff around, so I was able to find a job. No track marks is a good selling feature here.))
If I could leave I'd do it in a heartbeat, but I actually can't afford the move or anything. Even if I saved for a year it'd only be worth perhaps a month of time in Toronto before I was once again on the streets or couch surfing? Even if I managed to slap myself into some flat with 7 or 9 strangers. And Toronto is pretty much where the jobs in my field are, I studied Molecular Biology and Genetics and focused on laboratory research.
--Custom Rig: Pyraxis---
NZXT Phantom 410 Case
Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz
Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard
Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0
Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB
Well, for me pay to win is gaining huge advantage for spending money, and "huge" is a keyword here. Also, the money required to get this advantage should be quite high, in hundreds of bucks preferably. For example, a "premium account" for $1 / month with some boosts is not pay to win, but paying $10 for permanent +10 damage (stackable) in Diablo would be pay to win.
Few years ago I used to play a text-based mmorpg with premium accounts that allowed to make 2x more actions with premium account. Well, I have mixed feelings about it now, because on the one hand it was not possible to compete with premium guys without premium account, but on the other hand it was like just $1 or $2 per month, so it didn't bother me too much at that time...
Furry Quest Online - New Independent MMORPG comming soon! See more at http://www.vaktu.com