Sony Online Entertainment has unveiled its next project, a massively multiplayer online game called H1Z1 that is set in a post-apocalyptic world. Sony Online Entertainment president John Smedley tweeted that players would be able to play the game "soon".
A teaser site for the game has also gone live, which links to the official subreddit for the game.
According to Sony Online Entertainment, the free-to-play game will see players "fight for survival" in a world ravaged by a fictional virus named H1Z1. Set 15 years after the initial outbreak, players will face the Infected, wild animals, and other survivors. The game will include scavenging and crafting elements.
Smedley also described that the game will feature a "sandbox style of gameplay", allowing players to craft shelters and fortresses.
Addressing questions as to how this game will differ to other post-apocalyptic survival games, Smedley said, "...It’s a persistent MMO that can hold thousands of players on servers we host (yes there will be multiple servers with very different rule sets). Why is that a good thing? It means a thriving economy (oh yes… there’s trading). It also means you have potential allies in the all-out war on the Infected... and many an enemy as well... The Roadmap system that we built for PlanetSide 2 will be used extensively to clearly communicate what features we’re working on and what you can expect and when.
The main thing that differentiates H1Z1 from the other great games in the genre is the emphasis we are putting on player ownership and building. We want you to be able to form roving gangs that are headquartered out of an abandoned warehouse that you’ve taken over... or a house you’ve built from scratch after having cut trees down and secured the resources to make it."
SOE is no stranger to working on MMO games, leading development on EverQuest II, The Matrix Online, and the upcoming EverQuest Next.
On April 26 2014 18:39 ain wrote: Doesn't seem to offer anything new?
You mean besides polished combat and polished gameplay?
Crucial features that dayz severely lacks. The game looks like it was built to be a zombie survival game with crafting. Unlike Dayz(and dayz standalone) which is a buggy half finished mod of a military simulation.
Yeah, this looks good, though to be honest it'll be really hard for it to get to parity with Day Z's intended feature set so it's not like this will come out within the year. It looks a lot more promising than anything else so far, though if Day Z actually perfects everything, I don't think this has a chance of coming close. That's if they do. It'll be interesting to watch it unfold, but it's been way too long waiting for a good zombie game already...
If only dayZ SA had been made on an actual game engine designed for online multiplayer hehe.. I watched the H1Z1 gameplay stream and it definitely looked good, gotta see where they go with it. Planetside was pretty kick ass, so I've good hopes to see this game developing into something worth playing over dayZ.
On April 27 2014 00:27 Blisse wrote: Yeah, this looks good, though to be honest it'll be really hard for it to get to parity with Day Z's intended feature set so it's not like this will come out within the year. It looks a lot more promising than anything else so far, though if Day Z actually perfects everything, I don't think this has a chance of coming close. That's if they do. It'll be interesting to watch it unfold, but it's been way too long waiting for a good zombie game already...
DayZ's intended features are pretty much (more or less) the same as H1Z1 from what I've quickly read/heard. But the thing is, SOE will most likely manage to get these features out much faster and more polished than what Bohemia can do, at least IMO. Also, bear in mind that DayZ is made for only 40 players per servers as opposed to H1Z1 where it will most likely be hundred or even thousand of players. The map will most likely be much bigger too and finally, DayZ is B2P (supposed to hit a 60$ price tag when it's finished apparently) while H1Z1 will be free.
So yeah, even if Bohemia manage to polish DayZ the best they can and fast enough, I doubt it will be anywhere near as polished and as popular as H1Z1. I seriously applaud Bohemia for doing DayZ, but their engine and manpower won't be able to compete against SOE and their upcoming game.
On April 27 2014 00:54 ahswtini wrote: Will this be for console or PC? I just associate Sony with playstation
It's SOE (Sony Online Entertainment), they mostly make mmorpgs for PC. Basically, they are an american studio and publisher that is owned by Sony. They have been around for 15 years or so and make big budget products.
This won;t be like DayZ. This will have money and an experienced team behind it. It might suck, but it wont suck for lack of resources.
So apparantly this game went live in early access *costs something around 20$* and I played it for a bit. reminded me alot of warZ and its clumsy gameplay etc so didnt touch it more. fortunately you can steam refund the game at least thats what I did from the account settings in ur store transactions, thought i'd share this. stay away from this game till it gets f2p.
On January 20 2015 20:10 ffswowsucks wrote: So apparantly this game went live in early access *costs something around 20$* and I played it for a bit. reminded me alot of warZ and its clumsy gameplay etc so didnt touch it more. fortunately you can steam refund the game at least thats what I did from the account settings in ur store transactions, thought i'd share this. stay away from this game till it gets f2p.
Clumsy compared to what? DayZ? DayZ is most clumsy gameplay out there of any FPS game ever made.
On January 20 2015 20:10 ffswowsucks wrote: So apparantly this game went live in early access *costs something around 20$* and I played it for a bit. reminded me alot of warZ and its clumsy gameplay etc so didnt touch it more. fortunately you can steam refund the game at least thats what I did from the account settings in ur store transactions, thought i'd share this. stay away from this game till it gets f2p.
I remember seeing some reddit thread about how it was apparently a pay2win dayz, as in you could pay money to have weapon crates drop on you with guns/ammo/whatever. Any truth to that?
On January 20 2015 20:10 ffswowsucks wrote: So apparantly this game went live in early access *costs something around 20$* and I played it for a bit. reminded me alot of warZ and its clumsy gameplay etc so didnt touch it more. fortunately you can steam refund the game at least thats what I did from the account settings in ur store transactions, thought i'd share this. stay away from this game till it gets f2p.
I remember seeing some reddit thread about how it was apparently a pay2win dayz, as in you could pay money to have weapon crates drop on you with guns/ammo/whatever. Any truth to that?
To a degree, basically you can pay to call in a crate drop. It's fairly obvious to anyone nearby it's coming in and it varies what's inside it. I think I read the devs said in testing that the person who called it in only got it 30% of the time.
What they mean't to say was you can't just buy guys and run around all stacked up like a terminator. It's been misinterpreted (rightly so) and they released a statement clarifying what they mean.
I'm unsure about how I feel about the game, i'll be waiting until it's F2P and play it then.
so pay wait till they shot each other and then shot the survivors . But considering those supply drops p2w is a bit silly. It is a snowball mechanic though.
On January 20 2015 22:20 ahswtini wrote: It's essentially pay 2 cause havoc because kinda like airdrops in Rust, every moderately armed player is going to make a beeline for that drop
I think you mean "Every player with at least a bow and arrow", which is pretty much any new spawn haha
Is this the game that is causing such an uproar about false advertising, and the game getting caught for selling items in game for real life money etc.?
Been playing this game with some friends for 2 days. Gotta say, it's extremely fun when you are in a group, however there is still much to fix as it is alpha version. It's 20EUR for early access, and later it will be free to play.
On January 20 2015 23:12 FeyFey wrote: so pay wait till they shot each other and then shot the survivors . But considering those supply drops p2w is a bit silly. It is a snowball mechanic though.
Actually anyone with a brain with get together with 3 friends, buy 4 tickets, and make sure each player gets one of those while other 3 fight off others there. The feature is still p2w but promotes teamplay at least.
The fix to the loot containers is going to make this game really great in my opinion. It's basically most of the things I liked in DayZ, in a high fps engine with a working netcode and decent servers. I've already had fun so far, and it seems it's only going to get better :D
On January 21 2015 07:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is this the game that is causing such an uproar about false advertising, and the game getting caught for selling items in game for real life money etc.?
Yeah it is, I would argue that it was hardly false advertising though
On January 20 2015 23:12 FeyFey wrote: so pay wait till they shot each other and then shot the survivors . But considering those supply drops p2w is a bit silly. It is a snowball mechanic though.
Actually anyone with a brain with get together with 3 friends, buy 4 tickets, and make sure each player gets one of those while other 3 fight off others there. The feature is still p2w but promotes teamplay at least.
Still not p2w. Like look up Pay to win games, this is far from it. If you could buy weapons and have them asap I would agree.
On January 21 2015 18:23 ahswtini wrote: So what are the specs like for this game? Because my laptop won't run DayZ unless it literally looks like a potato with 5 pixels
As long as there are people defending a game whose developer stated they will only use non-gameinfluencal microtransactions other developers will do it again and again. I should change my career to game developer when your customers are so blindly buying stuff.
On January 21 2015 18:40 bluQ wrote: As long as there are people defending a game whose developer stated they will only use non-gameinfluencal microtransactions other developers will do it again and again. I should change my career to game developer when your customers are so blindly buying stuff.
Have you even been to an airdrop? My squad only had just met up, starving, eating berries. We chased one down it was and agricultural drop. We slayed the two players who had guns easily. Dealt with other new spawns trying to get it and in the end there was only a land mine and stuff to build a farm. Following this post will be a list of what you can get from an airdrop and the chances of getting the one with a gun. Now, let's talk about if you were to call in one yourself. A slow moving plane will drop a crate that will slowly hit the ground, alerting every player in the area to come, after that you have to deal with the zombies + other players for a 10% chance of getting a gun crate. If you think that is P2W you are crazy and should take your refund.
On January 21 2015 18:34 ahswtini wrote: I mean for comparison my laptop funs BF4 on low settings just fine, source games are no problem
You should be fine then, it seems to run pretty well even on low-end computers.I get between 60 and 100 fps on high settings with my i5 2500 bottlenecking, but if you tweak graphic settings it should run well for you if bf4 does.
On January 21 2015 18:23 ahswtini wrote: So what are the specs like for this game? Because my laptop won't run DayZ unless it literally looks like a potato with 5 pixels
I have a fairly great desktop and still don't get great results in DayZ. Chances are you will at the very least get a better looking potato with this game if not a decent resolution potato field.
@NoobSkills: It's still stuff that influences the game and implies that for it to happen SOMEONE has to pay. Paying for ingame features or events to happen is shady design, P2W or not.
People scream P2W way too fast and it breaks the argument. It's not about whether or not you "win" with this(I'd argue you can't win in this game anyway), it's about whether or not you get to do everything equally without dropping additional bucks.
On January 21 2015 21:05 KeksX wrote: @NoobSkills: It's still stuff that influences the game and implies that for it to happen SOMEONE has to pay. Paying for ingame features or events to happen is shady design, P2W or not.
People scream P2W way too fast and it breaks the argument. It's not about whether or not you "win" with this(I'd argue you can't win in this game anyway), it's about whether or not you get to do everything equally without dropping additional bucks.
You don't HAVE to pay. In fact having a drop come in is probably the dumbest waste of money I can think of. The game basically discourages you from doing it. The event is more P2CreateAnIngameEventThatYouHaveLittleChanceOfActuallyReceivingAndInspirePvP. Which you shouldn't have a problem with. Also you do get to do EVERYTHING equally because you can go to their drop and take it. In fact you get to do it better than equally because you didn't pay and have the same chance of getting the goods. The stats alone I listed should tell you that this P2??? event is fair and cool. If you don't like it they offered a refund. If you think it is a big deal then I can only say your reasoning is poor in my opinion.
Seems like developers are getting more creative monetizing in game events/items, testing boundaries till they just stop short of being blatently pay2win. Where games once used to be a test of skill and feat to unlock events/items, has now turned into whoever has more money gets to experience more content. Easy money for the industry sure but gaming as a concept has basically turned into a different (horrible) beast from the past.
On January 21 2015 23:12 Probemicro wrote: Seems like developers are getting more creative monetizing in game events/items, testing boundaries till they just stop short of being blatently pay2win. Where games once used to be a test of skill and feat to unlock events/items, has now turned into whoever has more money gets to experience more content. Easy money for the industry sure but gaming as a concept has basically turned into a different (horrible) beast from the past.
Again I have spent zero dollars and have received the air drop's goods many times. I have had what would be considered a better experience than those who have paid for the air drop without spending any money on them. Yes, in a straight forward view my experience without paying is better than those who have because they wasted their money. And, the company even gave player's an out who don't like this feature by offering a refund. Those left complaining are just looking for something to complain about.
On January 21 2015 22:57 ahswtini wrote: Can airdrops happen without anyone buying them? The wiki entry doesn't make it clear...
That is like complaining, that everyone with money can easily date the hottest chicks. Only problem: While you pay for the date, you 2 are not alone. No, every male single will join the party. You better be good! But then again, you probably wouldn't have needed to all this anyway. Oh, and did I forget to mention... You actually can not chose who you invite... Your invitation will be sent to a random girl out of a few dozen ones. Most of them are good looking etc.. but that doesn't mean that the one who follows your invitation is really who you wanted to date.
I like how you instantly contradict your post with the reply to ahswtini. Oh well fanbois/astroturfers deny paying/p2w in a f2p game, what else is new. As a game developer all I care is the dosh that you WILL eventually give us
On January 21 2015 22:57 ahswtini wrote: Can airdrops happen without anyone buying them? The wiki entry doesn't make it clear...
I think you have to pay for it to happen.
Or we are the ones who have suffered enough from this kind of false-promises and greed. The sole fact that a company even offers a refund to dodge a shitstorm just shows that promises were made (and advertised with) which the product can't live up to.
On January 21 2015 23:50 mahrgell wrote: This p2w complaints...
That is like complaining, that everyone with money can easily date the hottest chicks. Only problem: While you pay for the date, you 2 are not alone. No, every male single will join the party. You better be good! But then again, you probably wouldn't have needed to all this anyway. Oh, and did I forget to mention... You actually can not chose who you invite... Your invitation will be sent to a random girl out of a few dozen ones. Most of them are good looking etc.. but that doesn't mean that the one who follows your invitation is really who you wanted to date.
Bad analogy is bad. Let me fix it for you: "That is like complaining, that everyone with money can spawn a hot chick to date." Which then leads us to a greatly improved chance of evantually gettin laid.
On January 21 2015 23:50 Probemicro wrote: I like how you instantly contradict your post with the reply to ahswtini. Oh well fanbois/astroturfers deny paying/p2w in a f2p game, what else is new. As a game developer all I care is the dosh that you WILL eventually give us
As a game developer you won't see any of that money. I really don't think this system will be used that often, but maybe I am wrong. The drop crates seem like a waste when compared to zombie quests. Also for me I've never been suckered in by the advanced FTP into pay for anything gamestyle. HON(gamelikedota) spent zero dollars on skins, CSGO zero cases opened zero skins bought, hell I won't even buy map packs for COD, but that is becuase I'm sick of the game before they can even release a map pack
On January 21 2015 23:22 NoobSkills wrote: Those left complaining are just looking for something to complain about.
On January 21 2015 22:57 ahswtini wrote: Can airdrops happen without anyone buying them? The wiki entry doesn't make it clear...
I think you have to pay for it to happen.
Or we are the ones who have suffered enough from this kind of false-promises and greed. The sole fact that a company even offers a refund to dodge a shitstorm just shows that promises were made (and advertised with) which the product can't live up to.
On January 21 2015 23:50 mahrgell wrote: This p2w complaints...
That is like complaining, that everyone with money can easily date the hottest chicks. Only problem: While you pay for the date, you 2 are not alone. No, every male single will join the party. You better be good! But then again, you probably wouldn't have needed to all this anyway. Oh, and did I forget to mention... You actually can not chose who you invite... Your invitation will be sent to a random girl out of a few dozen ones. Most of them are good looking etc.. but that doesn't mean that the one who follows your invitation is really who you wanted to date.
Bad analogy is bad. Let me fix it for you: "That is like complaining, that everyone with money can spawn a hot chick to date." Which then leads us to a greatly improved chance of evantually gettin laid.
They offered a refund because people who have nothing better to do other than complain found once instance where a developer said the game wouldn't be p2w and everyone cried so hard about the air drops that they decided it wasn't worth fighting and instead would give people a way out. All of this when in fact MULTIPLE developers in DIFFERENT interviews discussed air drops and how they would work before the release. He simply did not think this would be considered p2w because, well, he has a brain that works. Meanwhile those complaining ignored the several instances of the DEV team explaining air drops and zeroed on on one statement that was poorly worded.
On January 21 2015 23:22 NoobSkills wrote: Those left complaining are just looking for something to complain about.
On January 21 2015 22:57 ahswtini wrote: Can airdrops happen without anyone buying them? The wiki entry doesn't make it clear...
I think you have to pay for it to happen.
Or we are the ones who have suffered enough from this kind of false-promises and greed. The sole fact that a company even offers a refund to dodge a shitstorm just shows that promises were made (and advertised with) which the product can't live up to.
On January 21 2015 23:50 mahrgell wrote: This p2w complaints...
That is like complaining, that everyone with money can easily date the hottest chicks. Only problem: While you pay for the date, you 2 are not alone. No, every male single will join the party. You better be good! But then again, you probably wouldn't have needed to all this anyway. Oh, and did I forget to mention... You actually can not chose who you invite... Your invitation will be sent to a random girl out of a few dozen ones. Most of them are good looking etc.. but that doesn't mean that the one who follows your invitation is really who you wanted to date.
Bad analogy is bad. Let me fix it for you: "That is like complaining, that everyone with money can spawn a hot chick to date." Which then leads us to a greatly improved chance of evantually gettin laid.
They offered a refund because people who have nothing better to do other than complain found once instance where a developer said the game wouldn't be p2w and everyone cried so hard about the air drops that they decided it wasn't worth fighting and instead would give people a way out. All of this when in fact MULTIPLE developers in DIFFERENT interviews discussed air drops and how they would work before the release. He simply did not think this would be considered p2w because, well, he has a brain that works. Meanwhile those complaining ignored the several instances of the DEV team explaining air drops and zeroed on on one statement that was poorly worded.
Well and with this you disqualified yourself from any productive discussion. You seem to be totally ignorant to the development of the gaming industry in the last 5 years and seem to neglect that even Sony as a publisher indentified this as a problem (to offer a refund). Sony could give a flying fuck about some people on reddit. And you are contradicting yourself again "because poeple who have nothing better to do[...]" <-> "and everyhone cried so hard about [...]" what now? a brainless minority or a brainless majority? Well in essence; you say everyone who doesn't agree with you has no brain.
On January 21 2015 23:22 NoobSkills wrote: Those left complaining are just looking for something to complain about.
On January 21 2015 22:57 ahswtini wrote: Can airdrops happen without anyone buying them? The wiki entry doesn't make it clear...
I think you have to pay for it to happen.
Or we are the ones who have suffered enough from this kind of false-promises and greed. The sole fact that a company even offers a refund to dodge a shitstorm just shows that promises were made (and advertised with) which the product can't live up to.
On January 21 2015 23:50 mahrgell wrote: This p2w complaints...
That is like complaining, that everyone with money can easily date the hottest chicks. Only problem: While you pay for the date, you 2 are not alone. No, every male single will join the party. You better be good! But then again, you probably wouldn't have needed to all this anyway. Oh, and did I forget to mention... You actually can not chose who you invite... Your invitation will be sent to a random girl out of a few dozen ones. Most of them are good looking etc.. but that doesn't mean that the one who follows your invitation is really who you wanted to date.
Bad analogy is bad. Let me fix it for you: "That is like complaining, that everyone with money can spawn a hot chick to date." Which then leads us to a greatly improved chance of evantually gettin laid.
They offered a refund because people who have nothing better to do other than complain found once instance where a developer said the game wouldn't be p2w and everyone cried so hard about the air drops that they decided it wasn't worth fighting and instead would give people a way out. All of this when in fact MULTIPLE developers in DIFFERENT interviews discussed air drops and how they would work before the release. He simply did not think this would be considered p2w because, well, he has a brain that works. Meanwhile those complaining ignored the several instances of the DEV team explaining air drops and zeroed on on one statement that was poorly worded.
Well and with this you disqualified yourself from any productive discussion. You seem to be totally ignorant to the development of the gaming industry in the last 5 years and seem to neglect that even Sony as a publisher indentified this as a problem to offer a refund. Sony could give a flying fuck about some people on reddit. And you are contradicting yourself again "because poeple who have nothing better to do[...]" <-> "and everyhone cried so hard about [...]" what now? a brainless minority or a brainless majority? Well in essence; you say everyone who doesn't agree with you has no brain.
They didn't identify anything or else it would have been out of the game before release. They received so many complaints that they decided after it released to offer a refund. Sony might not care about a few people, but those who whined, whined enough about one instance where someone directly said not p2w and harped on it so much that they decided to refund even though they completely 100% described how air drops would work MONTHS before release. Also I would go with a brainless vocal minority. My guess is you haven't played the game, which is fine. Let me tell you my experience, full servers despite the air drops, people receiving agricultural air drops where most people complain about them having guns, key quests from zombies which give you 100% more than a military style air drop. And, yes by comparison, I AM indeed saying that anyone who considers this model P2W when compared to actual P2W games has no brain.
On January 20 2015 23:12 FeyFey wrote: so pay wait till they shot each other and then shot the survivors . But considering those supply drops p2w is a bit silly. It is a snowball mechanic though.
Actually anyone with a brain with get together with 3 friends, buy 4 tickets, and make sure each player gets one of those while other 3 fight off others there. The feature is still p2w but promotes teamplay at least.
Still not p2w. Like look up Pay to win games, this is far from it. If you could buy weapons and have them asap I would agree.
No, your rationalization efforts don't work on me. I been around gaming too long.
And how long after release do you think it will be that they patch the crates so the person that pays is guaranteed them?? They already broke one promise when they said they wouldn't sell in game items like weapons etc. I'm with Archangel on this. How many times do we see the same cycle from devs, breaking promises and then just continuing on as if nothing happened? People still always defend them and continue to throw money at them.
On January 22 2015 01:11 Warri wrote: I dont even get why people are so excited over this game. What features does it have that DayZ doesn't?
DayZ has been in development for forever and a year and still isn't really an adequate zombie survival game. It has done military simulation very well, but a lot of people aren't satisfied with the experience or have been burned out on it. DayZ has the potential to be amazing, but they are moving sloooooow.
I haven't played it, but I've heard H1Z1 described as a more arcade-like DayZ with actual working zombies and much larger servers. Aside from the launch issues and p2w aspect, which is always subject to tweaking in early access, it has received pretty positive feedback overall from what I have seen.
On that note, people saying air drops are not currently p2w are kidding themselves. You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power. That's exactly what air drops are. In their perfect world, and it may be that they can achieve this, every air drop is heavily contested and it is unlikely that the person who spent the money walks away with the whole crate, but you are still paying real money to have supplies put into the world in a survival simulation. The more times that is done, the more powerful everyone gets.
There are varying degrees of P2W, but anything aside from buying cosmetics in an early access game that also has a purchase price should be looked at closely and with scrutiny.
On January 22 2015 00:53 Jockmcplop wrote: And how long after release do you think it will be that they patch the crates so the person that pays is guaranteed them?? They already broke one promise when they said they wouldn't sell in game items like weapons etc. I'm with Archangel on this. How many times do we see the same cycle from devs, breaking promises and then just continuing on as if nothing happened? People still always defend them and continue to throw money at them.
Broke what promise. You cannot buy in game item. You can pay for an air drop. Which will occur, somewhere in the map, which takes forever to hit the ground, that has zombies, that all players on the server can loot, that has only a small chance of containing a weapon. There was no promise that you cannot buy an air drop, because long before release there were interviews about how the drop system would work. The exact details btw not just hints. Full blown you knew EXACTLY how it would work. So, no promise was broken, and your fear of them changing air drops is irrational and stupid (I only say stupid because ignorant implies that you never had a chance to learn). Also these aren't cycles from "devs" if someone else lied to you it was a gaming company that wanted more money. I forget where sony has done this in the past you mind providing me with examples? Also the patch yesterday took the previous air drop, make the airplane slower, the case drop more slowly, and nerfed the gear inside the cases, so much so that if you waste money on an airdrop, I consider you a moron. You will spend money to not receive and die in the process of getting loot that isn't worth your time.
On January 22 2015 01:11 Warri wrote: I dont even get why people are so excited over this game. What features does it have that DayZ doesn't?
Frames, so many more frames per second. More players (though might get annoying later on). Decent crafting and base building. Cars Quick gameplay style. In game events other than the air drops.
Now TBH Dayz should offer most of this once it is complete, but this game as is feels more complete. In the end though DayZ will not have good crafting or base building (probably) and I'm not sure the frames will ever improve. TBH I would compare this game more to rust and then when you ask me that same question I would say not really anything other than real towns to loot.
On January 22 2015 01:11 Warri wrote: I dont even get why people are so excited over this game. What features does it have that DayZ doesn't?
its biggest selling point is that it actually runs well and has been live for less than a week. dayz has been stomping around for a year now, with what must be millions of dollars behind it, and is still a constantly desyncing, buggy and weirdly unfocused mess of a game. I say that with years of experience with the mod and SA and with more than a bit of love, but it's gotten to the point where I can't take the abuse anymore and am totally willing to jump to a more generic engine that makes engaging in the basic survival genre elements a lot more tolerable.
On January 22 2015 01:11 Warri wrote: I dont even get why people are so excited over this game. What features does it have that DayZ doesn't?
its biggest selling point is that it actually runs well and has been live for less than a week. dayz has been stomping around for a year now, with what must be millions of dollars behind it, and is still a constantly desyncing, buggy and weirdly unfocused mess of a game. I say that with years of experience with the mod and SA and with more than a bit of love, but it's gotten to the point where I can't take the abuse anymore and am totally willing to jump to a more generic engine that makes engaging in the basic survival genre elements a lot more tolerable.
You're already trying to survive in game, you don't need the game's engine, net code working against you too!
The p2w in this game is so amazing. Best feeling in the world when someone pays money for something and you can steal it. Adds an awesome feature to the game every time we hear a plane fly overhead on the server. I've played close to 20 hours already so well worth the 20 bucks spent, and with each patch the game gets better and better. Me and my friends haven't had this much fun in a long time.
Except for P2W part the game does seem best at the genre at the moment. It would be better if they charged for it and/or have pure cosmetic stuff to buy like in CS:GO and have these airdrops server events that happen in certain situations.
Wow imagine if you could pay money in DOTA to spawn a double damage rune in 30 seconds but people defend it saying well you can still contest for it even if you didn't pay for it
On January 22 2015 04:37 hariooo wrote: Wow imagine if you could pay money in DOTA to spawn a double damage rune in 30 seconds but people defend it saying well you can still contest for it even if you didn't pay for it
you only get an actual firearm 1/10 times you call in an airdrop. I personally could give a shit less about airdrops and don't find them to be an attractive or cool microtransaction option, but the vast majority of the time they're not going to influence a given server's balance of power in any way. I don't understand your compulsion to make a poor analogical argument on a subject you don't seem to have looked into.
So even though it is p2w it doesn't pass the your personal arbitrary threshold of being "too significant" so you're okay with it. Substitute double damage with a bounty rune or something instead lol. You're confusing the specifics of the analogy with the spirit. Which is fine but at least call a spade a spade. It's paying for something that affects in-game performance or at the very least affects in-game behaviour.
On January 22 2015 05:01 hariooo wrote: So even though it is p2w it doesn't pass the your personal arbitrary threshold of being "too significant" so you're okay with it. Substitute double damage with a bounty rune or something instead lol. You're confusing the specifics of the analogy with the spirit. Which is fine but at least call a spade a spade. It's paying for something that affects in-game performance or at the very least affects in-game behaviour.
it was just kind of a terrible analogy in general and you should have posted this response in its place. I admittedly haven't read the previous pages because this p2w argument spanning multiple sites is really tedious and I apologize if my opinion is equally so, but airdrops in h1z1 are so nerfed and open to outside interference that it's less pay to win and more pay to (maybe?) have fun. I'm not sure I think that's a good idea, mind you, but the scope of the argument seems to be that the game is badly compromised because of the small potential to get loot that only helps you survive and craft more easily most of the time. basically, I don't understand the uproar: if it barely affects anything and probably won't be attractive to most solo players since they can't reliably secure the loot...why is this such a tiny little shitstorm?
On January 22 2015 05:01 hariooo wrote: So even though it is p2w it doesn't pass the your personal arbitrary threshold of being "too significant" so you're okay with it. Substitute double damage with a bounty rune or something instead lol. You're confusing the specifics of the analogy with the spirit. Which is fine but at least call a spade a spade. It's paying for something that affects in-game performance or at the very least affects in-game behaviour.
it was just kind of a terrible analogy in general and you should have posted this response in its place. I admittedly haven't read the previous pages because this p2w argument spanning multiple sites is really tedious and I apologize if my opinion is equally so, but airdrops in h1z1 are so nerfed and open to outside interference that it's less pay to win and more pay to (maybe?) have fun. I'm not sure I think that's a good idea, mind you, but the scope of the argument seems to be that the game is badly compromised because of the small potential to get loot that only helps you survive and craft more easily most of the time. basically, I don't understand the uproar: if it barely affects anything and probably won't be attractive to most solo players since they can't reliably secure the loot...why is this such a tiny little shitstorm?
Well it sounds like they have rapidly adjusted the air drops to be less p2w since release. That's good on them, but the first impression has unfortunately been made. You would think that with their MMO experience, SOE would have made sure airdrops were exactly where they wanted them prior to launching the game, as it was going to be a delicate subject. So forgive people for coming to that conclusion, that SOE had tested air drops and determined that they were right where they wanted them, and only adjusted the results after people had already spent money and raised an internet shit storm. Early Access can be great for developer interaction with the playerbase, but if you offer microtransactions while in Early Access I don't think you get to use it as a shield for those elements. If people are able to pay those features need to be tested, balanced, and OK with your playerbase. Otherwise, you run the risk of this happening.
That's completely disregarding the fact that being able to buy power in a survival game, no matter how little or how much, completely kills immersion for a lot of people. The genre is about using your wits and what you can find to carve out a place in an interesting world, and having magical boxes drop from the sky (even if you aren't the one paying for them) is more than a little immersion breaking. I feel like they could have went with a different model for monetizing the game and it would have been met with far less vitriol.
I mean the end result is that the person paying for it doesn't see a benefit 90% of the time (which is absurd and makes them feel like an idiot) and gets a power boost by paying 10% of the time, the people not paying for it feel like they're at an unfair disadvantage 90% of the time and the other 10% of the time they happen to get some free loot they feel great at basically getting something for nothing. So why is this a gameplay mechanic at all when it doesn't improve the game most of the time for most of the players?
Because it's a very, very easy and straightforward way to generate quick revenue and make the game launch look like a financial success.
Well it sounds like they have rapidly adjusted the air drops to be less p2w since release. That's good on them, but the first impression has unfortunately been made. You would think that with their MMO experience, SOE would have made sure airdrops were exactly where they wanted them prior to launching the game, as it was going to be a delicate subject. So forgive people for coming to that conclusion, that SOE had tested air drops and determined that they were right where they wanted them, and only adjusted the results after people had already spent money and raised an internet shit storm. Early Access can be great for developer interaction with the playerbase, but if you offer microtransactions while in Early Access I don't think you get to use it as a shield for those elements. If people are able to pay those features need to be tested, balanced, and OK with your playerbase. Otherwise, you run the risk of this happening.
That's completely disregarding the fact that being able to buy power in a survival game, no matter how little or how much, completely kills immersion for a lot of people. The genre is about using your wits and what you can find to carve out a place in an interesting world, and having magical boxes drop from the sky (even if you aren't the one paying for them) is more than a little immersion breaking. I feel like they could have went with a different model for monetizing the game and it would have been met with far less vitriol.
ultimately I think the entire concept has met with failure and that after the free airdrop tickets run out, they will become a very rare occurrence, happening maybe at a certain built-in time during the day like rust servers do, or even be discarded entirely. I think early access is an acceptable place to test broad concepts like this out, and SOE has apparently been offering complete refunds if people are that offended at the prospect. I wouldn't say I'm using the early access model as a shield, so much as I think this is one of the most innocuous monetized features I've ever seen in a game I've played personally; it has disclaimers all over it, it's barely pay to do anything but get into a guaranteed battle with other players, which itself is kind of an extension of the built-in battle royale servers.
I think your comment on immersion is more interesting, I guess for my part I've internalized some of the sillier aspects of the zombie survival genre. h1z1 buildings and towns all have snarky, sardonic names and the playerbase is a bunch of dudes shouting WORLDSTAR WORLDSTAR and throwing fisticuffs at anything that comes within a half mile, so...yeah, it's just kind of an impossible game to take seriously even before SOE chose to inherit airdrops and other staples of the genre.
Well it sounds like they have rapidly adjusted the air drops to be less p2w since release. That's good on them, but the first impression has unfortunately been made. You would think that with their MMO experience, SOE would have made sure airdrops were exactly where they wanted them prior to launching the game, as it was going to be a delicate subject. So forgive people for coming to that conclusion, that SOE had tested air drops and determined that they were right where they wanted them, and only adjusted the results after people had already spent money and raised an internet shit storm. Early Access can be great for developer interaction with the playerbase, but if you offer microtransactions while in Early Access I don't think you get to use it as a shield for those elements. If people are able to pay those features need to be tested, balanced, and OK with your playerbase. Otherwise, you run the risk of this happening.
That's completely disregarding the fact that being able to buy power in a survival game, no matter how little or how much, completely kills immersion for a lot of people. The genre is about using your wits and what you can find to carve out a place in an interesting world, and having magical boxes drop from the sky (even if you aren't the one paying for them) is more than a little immersion breaking. I feel like they could have went with a different model for monetizing the game and it would have been met with far less vitriol.
ultimately I think the entire concept has met with failure and that after the free airdrop tickets run out, they will become a very rare occurrence, happening maybe at a certain built-in time during the day like rust servers do, or even be discarded entirely. I think early access is an acceptable place to test broad concepts like this out, and SOE has apparently been offering complete refunds if people are that offended at the prospect. I wouldn't say I'm using the early access model as a shield, so much as I think this is one of the most innocuous monetized features I've ever seen in a game I've played personally; it has disclaimers all over it, it's barely pay to do anything but get into a guaranteed battle with other players, which itself is kind of an extension of the built-in battle royale servers.
I think your comment on immersion is more interesting, I guess for my part I've internalized some of the sillier aspects of the zombie survival genre. h1z1 buildings and towns all have snarky, sardonic names and the playerbase is a bunch of dudes shouting WORLDSTAR WORLDSTAR and throwing fisticuffs at anything that comes within a half mile, so...yeah, it's just kind of an impossible game to take seriously even before SOE chose to inherit airdrops and other staples of the genre.
And maybe it's irresponsible to expect to be immersed in an MMO game for that reason. The Long Dark is a good example of an early access survival game that does immersion very well, but it probably wouldn't be if there were other players running around training wolves on people.
I wasn't saying you are using it as a shield, I'm saying SOE is. Paid elements of early access games should be treated as fully-released in terms of what you are able to critique. It's bad enough that people have to put money down to even play what will eventually be a F2P game, but if your monetization plan is already implemented, that shit needs to be nailed down. Nothing makes people more angry than A) paying for something that doesn't work, or B) feeling like others have an advantage due to real-money purchases. This is where SOE's communication broke down. There were all kinds of conflicting articles about whether it would be p2w, what air drops would contain, etc, to the point where people were obviously confused when the game launched.
If SOE had been very clear all along about what they wanted airdrops to be, chaotic events that resulted in the victors coming away with some useful gear and maybe even weapons and ammo, I think it would have gone over a lot better. Instead we have this interesting combination of people pissed off because they bought an airdrop and didn't get anything, and people who feel like others are spending money and getting everything.
Well it sounds like they have rapidly adjusted the air drops to be less p2w since release. That's good on them, but the first impression has unfortunately been made. You would think that with their MMO experience, SOE would have made sure airdrops were exactly where they wanted them prior to launching the game, as it was going to be a delicate subject. So forgive people for coming to that conclusion, that SOE had tested air drops and determined that they were right where they wanted them, and only adjusted the results after people had already spent money and raised an internet shit storm. Early Access can be great for developer interaction with the playerbase, but if you offer microtransactions while in Early Access I don't think you get to use it as a shield for those elements. If people are able to pay those features need to be tested, balanced, and OK with your playerbase. Otherwise, you run the risk of this happening.
That's completely disregarding the fact that being able to buy power in a survival game, no matter how little or how much, completely kills immersion for a lot of people. The genre is about using your wits and what you can find to carve out a place in an interesting world, and having magical boxes drop from the sky (even if you aren't the one paying for them) is more than a little immersion breaking. I feel like they could have went with a different model for monetizing the game and it would have been met with far less vitriol.
ultimately I think the entire concept has met with failure and that after the free airdrop tickets run out, they will become a very rare occurrence, happening maybe at a certain built-in time during the day like rust servers do, or even be discarded entirely. I think early access is an acceptable place to test broad concepts like this out, and SOE has apparently been offering complete refunds if people are that offended at the prospect. I wouldn't say I'm using the early access model as a shield, so much as I think this is one of the most innocuous monetized features I've ever seen in a game I've played personally; it has disclaimers all over it, it's barely pay to do anything but get into a guaranteed battle with other players, which itself is kind of an extension of the built-in battle royale servers.
I think your comment on immersion is more interesting, I guess for my part I've internalized some of the sillier aspects of the zombie survival genre. h1z1 buildings and towns all have snarky, sardonic names and the playerbase is a bunch of dudes shouting WORLDSTAR WORLDSTAR and throwing fisticuffs at anything that comes within a half mile, so...yeah, it's just kind of an impossible game to take seriously even before SOE chose to inherit airdrops and other staples of the genre.
And maybe it's irresponsible to expect to be immersed in an MMO game for that reason. The Long Dark is a good example of an early access survival game that does immersion very well, but it probably wouldn't be if there were other players running around training wolves on people.
I wasn't saying you are using it as a shield, I'm saying SOE is. Paid elements of early access games should be treated as fully-released in terms of what you are able to critique. It's bad enough that people have to put money down to even play what will eventually be a F2P game, but if your monetization plan is already implemented, that shit needs to be nailed down. Nothing makes people more angry than A) paying for something that doesn't work, or B) feeling like others have an advantage due to real-money purchases. This is where SOE's communication broke down. There were all kinds of conflicting articles about whether it would be p2w, what air drops would contain, etc, to the point where people were obviously confused when the game launched.
If SOE had been very clear all along about what they wanted airdrops to be, chaotic events that resulted in the victors coming away with some useful gear and maybe even weapons and ammo, I think it would have gone over a lot better. Instead we have this interesting combination of people pissed off because they bought an airdrop and didn't get anything, and people who feel like others are spending money and getting everything.
I'm sorry, but they were clear the entire time before people bought the game. People just didn't read or watch the interviews. The only instance that people are bitching about is where someone said it isn't P2W which by games that are P2W standard this isn't. This isn't buying a sick sniper rifle, and sick vest that gives you 500% more health with unlimited ammo and a speed boost.
Also to be clear again spending money on an air drop is a waste. If you feel cheated they gave you a way out, so no need to bitch, get your refund and play whatever you think is better.
The immersion comment is BS as well because no game makes you feel "immersed" in a zombie apocalypse scenario. Cars/planes that still work? Sitting Vege's? Planes that drop care packages(rust)? Who the fuck gives out free gear in an apocalypse via plane?
If your standard for p2w is that high that's great. It's not for most people. If it wasn't p2w why did they change the mechanic? If people were whining about something not legitimate then why are they being offered refunds? Maybe it's because they had a point to begin with. It was p2w and this is just damage control.
Well it sounds like they have rapidly adjusted the air drops to be less p2w since release. That's good on them, but the first impression has unfortunately been made. You would think that with their MMO experience, SOE would have made sure airdrops were exactly where they wanted them prior to launching the game, as it was going to be a delicate subject. So forgive people for coming to that conclusion, that SOE had tested air drops and determined that they were right where they wanted them, and only adjusted the results after people had already spent money and raised an internet shit storm. Early Access can be great for developer interaction with the playerbase, but if you offer microtransactions while in Early Access I don't think you get to use it as a shield for those elements. If people are able to pay those features need to be tested, balanced, and OK with your playerbase. Otherwise, you run the risk of this happening.
That's completely disregarding the fact that being able to buy power in a survival game, no matter how little or how much, completely kills immersion for a lot of people. The genre is about using your wits and what you can find to carve out a place in an interesting world, and having magical boxes drop from the sky (even if you aren't the one paying for them) is more than a little immersion breaking. I feel like they could have went with a different model for monetizing the game and it would have been met with far less vitriol.
ultimately I think the entire concept has met with failure and that after the free airdrop tickets run out, they will become a very rare occurrence, happening maybe at a certain built-in time during the day like rust servers do, or even be discarded entirely. I think early access is an acceptable place to test broad concepts like this out, and SOE has apparently been offering complete refunds if people are that offended at the prospect. I wouldn't say I'm using the early access model as a shield, so much as I think this is one of the most innocuous monetized features I've ever seen in a game I've played personally; it has disclaimers all over it, it's barely pay to do anything but get into a guaranteed battle with other players, which itself is kind of an extension of the built-in battle royale servers.
I think your comment on immersion is more interesting, I guess for my part I've internalized some of the sillier aspects of the zombie survival genre. h1z1 buildings and towns all have snarky, sardonic names and the playerbase is a bunch of dudes shouting WORLDSTAR WORLDSTAR and throwing fisticuffs at anything that comes within a half mile, so...yeah, it's just kind of an impossible game to take seriously even before SOE chose to inherit airdrops and other staples of the genre.
And maybe it's irresponsible to expect to be immersed in an MMO game for that reason. The Long Dark is a good example of an early access survival game that does immersion very well, but it probably wouldn't be if there were other players running around training wolves on people.
I wasn't saying you are using it as a shield, I'm saying SOE is. Paid elements of early access games should be treated as fully-released in terms of what you are able to critique. It's bad enough that people have to put money down to even play what will eventually be a F2P game, but if your monetization plan is already implemented, that shit needs to be nailed down. Nothing makes people more angry than A) paying for something that doesn't work, or B) feeling like others have an advantage due to real-money purchases. This is where SOE's communication broke down. There were all kinds of conflicting articles about whether it would be p2w, what air drops would contain, etc, to the point where people were obviously confused when the game launched.
If SOE had been very clear all along about what they wanted airdrops to be, chaotic events that resulted in the victors coming away with some useful gear and maybe even weapons and ammo, I think it would have gone over a lot better. Instead we have this interesting combination of people pissed off because they bought an airdrop and didn't get anything, and people who feel like others are spending money and getting everything.
I'm sorry, but they were clear the entire time before people bought the game. People just didn't read or watch the interviews. The only instance that people are bitching about is where someone said it isn't P2W which by games that are P2W standard this isn't. This isn't buying a sick sniper rifle, and sick vest that gives you 500% more health with unlimited ammo and a speed boost.
Also to be clear again spending money on an air drop is a waste. If you feel cheated they gave you a way out, so no need to bitch, get your refund and play whatever you think is better.
The immersion comment is BS as well because no game makes you feel "immersed" in a zombie apocalypse scenario. Cars/planes that still work? Sitting Vege's? Planes that drop care packages(rust)? Who the fuck gives out free gear in an apocalypse via plane?
It obviously wasn't clear because more than a small handful of people were confused as a result. You can claim it was their fault all you want, but SOE didn't do a good enough job communicating, period. You are arguing semantics, saying your definition of p2w is more stringent than others. It's subjective. No, you can't buy weapons and ammo in whatever quantities you want and have them show up in your inventory. That would be p2w to the point of being unplayable and garbage, and H1Z1 is neither of those things. That doesn't mean their current model is good, however. At its most basic definition, p2w is buying power in the game, and air drops are just that. Sorry that this makes you mad for whatever reason.
There are plenty of people (like yourself, it seems) who do believe paying money for an air drop is a waste. I would also argue that anyone paying money for it who doesn't realize it may be stolen by other players (which is the whole point) hasn't done their research. That doesn't make them any less pissed off, and SOE could have done a better job advertising air drops as paid chaos rather than focusing on what supplies actually came out of the crate. As for your refund comment, there are a lot of people who love the game and hate that particular aspect of it. You would rather they demand a refund and never touch the game again than make feedback on an Early Access title? Your viewpoint seems to be "I like this Early Access game, nothing needs to change, people who don't like the way it is should go play a different game." What?
And you immediately contradict yourself with your last point. "Who the fuck gives out free gear in an apocalypse via plane" indeed, that was my entire point. The entire reason survival games and the zombie apocalypse genre are popular is because it is cool to speculate about what it would be like to live in such a different world. The game that is able to capture that feeling the best is going to be a fucking gold mine, and breaking immersion by having magic boxes fall from the sky to make your survival easier is a detractor from it.
Other than this P2W shit that people can't stop talking about? how is the game? Watched a couple streams and it seems that it's mostly running around gathering things.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it.
So this is the reason people still tolerate P2W. "it could be worse".
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it.
So this is the reason people still tolerate P2W. "it could be worse".
I don't tolerate it at all. It's just people are blind and they see P2W when it fits them. 10 years ago, that's what P2W was. In shooters, MMO, F2P games etc. Now, people mistake P2W and pay to save time and they see pay to save time as P2W because well, they need to find a reason to bash something that they don't understand.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it.
So this is the reason people still tolerate P2W. "it could be worse".
I don't tolerate it at all. It's just people are blind and they see P2W when it fits them. 10 years ago, that's what P2W was. In shooters, MMO, F2P games etc. Now, people mistake P2W and pay to save time and they see pay to save time as P2W because well, they need to find a reason to bash something that they don't understand.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it.
So this is the reason people still tolerate P2W. "it could be worse".
I don't tolerate it at all. It's just people are blind and they see P2W when it fits them. 10 years ago, that's what P2W was. In shooters, MMO, F2P games etc. Now, people mistake P2W and pay to save time and they see pay to save time as P2W because well, they need to find a reason to bash something that they don't understand.
Time is power.In everything, not just in games.
So? I fail to see your point. Just because you save time by buying something doesn't mean you're winning more than someone who didn't pay. Look at H1Z1, I bet you think the airdrops are P2W right? Well I can assure you that by not spending a dime, I can come to your airdrop, kill you, take your stuff and get out. Who end up winning and who ended up paying? Exactly.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it.
What the actual fuck. This is so wrong on so many levels that i am actually speachless.
Im not convinced of the entire pay for alpha/beta acess bullshit. It works for minecraft since you can be very creative in that game but in dayz it doesnt work for me because at some point you realize that the game will always be clunky and it takes years to get simple updates. Not very motivated to buy into an alpha ever again. Lots of regular titles are buggy at release too but they usually get fixed within a year. So you can get a finished game at a steam sale.
Also micro transactions suck. I just want to enjoy a game and not think about spending more money to have fun. I dont see how h1z1 could possibly be so much fun that you could tolerate such nonsense.
On January 22 2015 10:01 SpikeStarcraft wrote: Im not convinced of the entire pay for alpha/beta acess bullshit. It works for minecraft since you can be very creative in that game but in dayz it doesnt work for me because at some point you realize that the game will always be clunky and it takes years to get simple updates. Not very motivated to buy into an alpha ever again. Lots of regular titles are buggy at release too but they usually get fixed within a year. So you can get a finished game at a steam sale.
Also micro transactions suck. I just want to enjoy a game and not think about spending more money to have fun. I dont see how h1z1 could possibly be so much fun that you could tolerate such nonsense.
Yeah I kinda regret buying the alpha for dayz which is weird since the arma 3 early access was quite well done by BI.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it.
What the actual fuck. This is so wrong on so many levels that i am actually speachless.
Glad you took part in our conversation. It was really helpful. I guess like many others, you've never experienced a real P2W game.
Long time ago i did play Lineage 2 on private server where you could get items for cash (you could get same items like em in game, if you did spend shitton of time and had tons of luck). I did beat those guys, it just took better organization and target calling on TS. I knew it's p2w i just didn't cared. If you think buying a better gun with cash (the example you gave) isn't pay to win, couse if you are better you can still beat your opponent then i don't exactly have anything to discuss with, couse my understanding of a term is completly different than yours.
Whatever, pointless to continue this conversation on P2W since obviously, no one here ever played one and everyone will try to bring up his own definition even if it doesn't make sense from a logic point of view.
Now more on topic, anyone tried H1Z1 with a really old rig? I'm asking because my rig is pretty old and I was wondering if the game could run on my PC. According to systemrequirementslab.com, I should with minimal settings but I would like know if anyone experienced the game with an old rig. I have a core2quad q9450 2.66GHZ, GTX 550Ti and 4 gig of ram.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
the way loot spawns work make very little sense to me as of yet. spent a couple hours on one server not able to find anything more dangerous than a wood axe, log on another out of boredom, walk into apartments in pleasant valley and find:
it kind of goes beyond the concept of an area being looted out and into the question of, well, does loot just simply stop spawning on some servers for extended periods of time? there's more loot in this server's town than an entire server could make off with.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
I think that is a problem with the notion of pay2win and perceived definition. When it it too restrictive of a definition, it poses the problem of letting video games get away with rather Bs business models. Yes it is true, having a view or definition that is somewhat gray can mean the term ends up being twisted and misused simply to attack a game.
I personally am not a fan of the idea of the crate as a purchasable item. It is like they had this good idea of making it potentially a Hunger Games scenario but doing so in such a way that just makes them money. Having air drops and those act as bait is fine as a concept. But the throwing money at it is rather ridiculous. I was planning on getting the Alpha but once I heard the new (which has been around for some time now), I decided not to. Plus, I have a feeling this game is going to have a short shelf life.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
He can. Because he is entilted by his majestiy the canadian queen to do so. And he is omnipresent and allknowing. So back under your rock for your false facts and wrong definitions.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
I was wondering, do you consider LoL to be pay to win? Because you can buy runes with real money that obviously give you an advantage over someone who doesnt have them and it takes a really long time for you to grind out the game currency it takes to buy them (at least it does for me, I still havent got a full rune page and I am level 27 in that game).
I dont consider LoL pay to win and by your definition it should be.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
if it takes you 12 months of 5 hours a day to gather the materials to craft something I paid $10 for and had access to on day one, you're saying that is not by your definition a pay to win model? you're a moron.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
I was wondering, do you consider LoL to be pay to win? Because you can buy runes with real money that obviously give you an advantage over someone who doesnt have them and it takes a really long time for you to grind out the game currency it takes to buy them (at least it does for me, I still havent got a full rune page and I am level 27 in that game).
I dont consider LoL pay to win and by your definition it should be.
you can't buy runes with RP. just stop.
any time you pay money to the developer of a game and in return receive anything at all that affects the outcome of the game in any way, you have entered pay to win territory. you can argue about where in the spectrum your game currently is, and how tolerable that is to some people, but you're absolutely now playing a pay to win game.
it doesn't matter if you can do it legit for free, if you paid money to skip a grind, or advance in the agme, or unlock additional content that requires time, energy, etc. you are now playing a pay to win game. period. end of story. there is no other definition, you're a moron.
'But I played this other game that was way more hardcore P2W than this game is"
stop, you're a moron.
'But after 1500 hours, i'll totally have unlocked everything that other guy had on day one'
stop, you're a moron.
'But if you were just better at the game, and had more skill, you could overcome the disadvantage of..."
Pay to Win is getting an edge with something, anything, that cannot be achieved through normal means in the game. That means in the case of H1Z1, if a paid airdrop would drop anything that cannot be achieved through not paying, it is pay to win.
Ofcourse someone can still win from a person that is stronger, but the odds are lower. H1Z1 has the unique ability to steal your opponents stuff, the case still applies that the person was only able to achieve this stuff because someone paid for it.
In H1Z1 the containers contain nothing unique, everything can be had through normal means. Instead of money, you invest time. The same result can be achieved. Therefore the game is not pay to win.
Damn I didn't think the TL thread would be this same bullshit for so long. Do you really need to debate semantics about the airdrops? Yes it sucks that they said there would be no way to pay to get weapons, which there kind of is now, but does it break the game? Certainly not, and it's the best way they would have introduced loot drops in my opinion as it creates PvP events. Now if you don't like it, don't buy the game, or get it refunded as they offered no-question refunds.
he way loot spawns work make very little sense to me as of yet. spent a couple hours on one server not able to find anything more dangerous than a wood axe, log on another out of boredom, walk into apartments in pleasant valley and find:
That kind of sucks. I hope they'll end up introducing some kind of "progression" like there was in DayZ mod, like you spawn in a more or less empty area, closer to you are towns with civilian loot and light weaponry, and then further are military bases with heavy weaponry. I always really liked this, you always had a clear objective and didn't have to blindly loot tons of shit to end up looting an assault rifle in a school.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
if it takes you 12 months of 5 hours a day to gather the materials to craft something I paid $10 for and had access to on day one, you're saying that is not by your definition a pay to win model? you're a moron.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
I was wondering, do you consider LoL to be pay to win? Because you can buy runes with real money that obviously give you an advantage over someone who doesnt have them and it takes a really long time for you to grind out the game currency it takes to buy them (at least it does for me, I still havent got a full rune page and I am level 27 in that game).
I dont consider LoL pay to win and by your definition it should be.
you can't buy runes with RP. just stop.
but you can buy IP boosts with real money. what about that?
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
if it takes you 12 months of 5 hours a day to gather the materials to craft something I paid $10 for and had access to on day one, you're saying that is not by your definition a pay to win model? you're a moron.
On January 22 2015 18:35 NukeD wrote:
On January 22 2015 11:07 Dracolich70 wrote:
On January 22 2015 09:42 DPK wrote:
On January 22 2015 09:33 TMG26 wrote:
On January 22 2015 09:16 DPK wrote:
On January 22 2015 08:30 TMG26 wrote:
On January 22 2015 08:09 DPK wrote:
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
I was wondering, do you consider LoL to be pay to win? Because you can buy runes with real money that obviously give you an advantage over someone who doesnt have them and it takes a really long time for you to grind out the game currency it takes to buy them (at least it does for me, I still havent got a full rune page and I am level 27 in that game).
I dont consider LoL pay to win and by your definition it should be.
you can't buy runes with RP. just stop.
but you can buy IP boosts with real money. what about that?
If you're level 27 and still don't have flat armor yellows and flat MR blues, you have ADHD. especially now that it takes forever to hit 30, and they reduced to cost of lower tier runes.
play champions on free week until you find something you'd enjoy sticking with for more than 2 games and you won't have IP problems.
unless you're smurfing, you're playing against others who also don't have optimal runes/masteries.
its not like LOL offers a 10th rune slot (red blue yellow)for 99 cents, and a 4th quint for 1.99, or for 3.99 unlock all 4 new slots.
On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power.
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
if it takes you 12 months of 5 hours a day to gather the materials to craft something I paid $10 for and had access to on day one, you're saying that is not by your definition a pay to win model? you're a moron.
On January 22 2015 18:35 NukeD wrote:
On January 22 2015 11:07 Dracolich70 wrote:
On January 22 2015 09:42 DPK wrote:
On January 22 2015 09:33 TMG26 wrote:
On January 22 2015 09:16 DPK wrote:
On January 22 2015 08:30 TMG26 wrote:
On January 22 2015 08:09 DPK wrote: [quote]
Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W.
That is your definition of P2W.
Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense.
How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W.
In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay.
No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
It's not P2W. You can still beat him even if he has a slightly better gun than you. In a real P2W game, the scenario would be, he paid, you didn't, you get kill every single time because the gun he paid for as a aimbot/wallhack to it. Nway, think whatever you want, but you clearly never played a real P2W game and you don't know what it is.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it is pay to win. You can´t sugar coat it, with "Well, you can still lose". Yes, there are different shades, to the worst where you can´t win, unless you pay, what you refer to as "real P2W". It is still paying for an advantage, thus P2W, as opposed to cosmetiques only, as a business model.
I was wondering, do you consider LoL to be pay to win? Because you can buy runes with real money that obviously give you an advantage over someone who doesnt have them and it takes a really long time for you to grind out the game currency it takes to buy them (at least it does for me, I still havent got a full rune page and I am level 27 in that game).
I dont consider LoL pay to win and by your definition it should be.
you can't buy runes with RP. just stop.
but you can buy IP boosts with real money. what about that?
If you're level 27 and still don't have flat armor yellows and flat MR blues, you have ADHD. especially now that it takes forever to hit 30, and they reduced to cost of lower tier runes.
play champions on free week until you find something you'd enjoy sticking with for more than 2 games and you won't have IP problems.
unless you're smurfing, you're playing against others who also don't have optimal runes/masteries.
its not like LOL offers a 10th rune slot (red blue yellow)for 99 cents, and a 4th quint for 1.99, or for 3.99 unlock all 4 new slots.
aren;t you directly contradicting yourself now?
On January 22 2015 20:09 ItsFunToLose wrote: any time you pay money to the developer of a game and in return receive anything at all that affects the outcome of the game in any way, you have entered pay to win territory. you can argue about where in the spectrum your game currently is, and how tolerable that is to some people, but you're absolutely now playing a pay to win game.
it doesn't matter if you can do it legit for free, if you paid money to skip a grind, or advance in the agme, or unlock additional content that requires time, energy, etc. you are now playing a pay to win game. period. end of story. there is no other definition, you're a moron.
I draw special attention to the last paragraph. You say that it doesn't matter if you can unlock everything for free. You say if you can pay to unlock additional content you would otherwise need to put in time and energy, you are now playing a pay to win game. How does this not describe league?? In league you can PAY money to RIOT to unlock a CHAMPION. Are you saying champions don't affect the outcome of a game???
I see a champ I like and I want to buy it but oops oh no I recently bought some Move speed Quints and now I have to play another 15 games before I can afford it.
There's nothing in League you can't grind for, but the grind isn't ridiculously epic and once you have a rune page you're reasonably set to play that position (e.g. I have an AP jungle rune page and that will allow me to play all AP jungle heroes while I build up another page). The page itself doesn't go "PAY MORE OR I DISAPPEAR HUEHUE".
In league, you can't pay money to instantly jump in levels (or even get level boosting?). The only things that make you more powerful are runes and you can only get those by levelling to 30.
The content of the game is hidden behind a pay wall and I'm not that fond of it (Why play 10 champs when I can play 100+ heroes in dota for free?), but power itself is not given for money.
It seems that in H1Z1, though, you can pay money for an immediate boost in power. That would be my definition of P2W. You give money, you get stronger immediately.
On January 22 2015 20:09 ItsFunToLose wrote: any time you pay money to the developer of a game and in return receive anything at all that affects the outcome of the game in any way, you have entered pay to win territory. you can argue about where in the spectrum your game currently is, and how tolerable that is to some people, but you're absolutely now playing a pay to win game.
it doesn't matter if you can do it legit for free, if you paid money to skip a grind, or advance in the agme, or unlock additional content that requires time, energy, etc. you are now playing a pay to win game. period. end of story. there is no other definition, you're a moron.
I draw special attention to the last paragraph. You say that it doesn't matter if you can unlock everything for free. You say if you can pay to unlock additional content you would otherwise need to put in time and energy, you are now playing a pay to win game. How does this not describe league?? In league you can PAY money to RIOT to unlock a CHAMPION. Are you saying champions don't affect the outcome of a game???
I would say no. Champions, in and of themselves, are balanced. Unless YOU know how to play the champ much better than every other champ, you're not getting an advantage by unlocking it. You're paying Riot, there, to have fun, to play a champion you like. You're not paying them to play a champion that can press R and kill everyone on the map.
Levelling up in League is reasonably balanced. By the time you hit 30 you have enough IP to buy Tier 3 runes for a rune page that suits your specialty (and you largely have to have one as you won't have enough IP to by many champs on the way. I now main Nunu in literally every position).
My post was directed at ItsFunToLose to address what I consider to be contradictions in his posts.
I think the way Riot homogenises champion design (at the expense of versatility) means they can get away with locking champions. Although at the highest levels of play, you do see the same few champions picked over and over again, but I don't want to turn this into a discussion about LoL's f2p model.
True, but I think it's a valid discussion to compare H1Z1's P2W model with other games as to whether to define it as such.
For me it's whether it's possible to raise your character to a level unattainable by people who aren't paying. Rather than in the future, in a more immediate light.
If, for example, in a 15 minute period, I can be playing and doing everything right, and someone else can whip out their credit card and after that time smear me against the scenery by being stronger than I could possibly be without doing that, that's Pay to Win for me.
In league you can pay to level faster, but that's besides the point.
I find it odd that in one game people can go "You can just invest time to get power (levels)" But in another people go "WTF YOU CAN BUY GUNS P2W!!" When you can buy levels and invest time to get guns.
I personally like the definition of P2W to be that it gets you things that you cannot get by grinding. There aren't many anymore like this, but for example if you could buy a boost for +50 hp that you cannot earn by playing then that is P2W. I personally consider this model to be unacceptable in any form.
Any other forms where everything is accessible eventually through time is not P2W, it's pay for advantage which I consider different.
Then it just becomes a matter of degree between these two terms. If the advantage from paying gets to the point where the player who doesn't win has little to no chance of winning then I don't think it's good either.
Most games I see have pay for advantage models that are fine.
Specifically to h1z1 I don't see it as P2W, nor do I think that the bought advantage is too high. You aren't even guaranteed the drop, and it doesn't drop anything that you can't get by spending time in the game.
If there is PvP in H1Z1 where you can pay money to get power to keep your opponents down then that is largely bad. You cannot buy levels in league. The only boost you can get to your power is a boost of runes. Past level 30, though, that's largely irrelevant. You pay in league for the content, not for the power.
If you can pay some money and use that power to stop people being able to grind their own stuff, then that isn't good. Winning a game in league doesn't take away rune pages from your opponents, it just makes them lose their game.
You can also end up paying to speed up the other person's grind if he ambushes you and shoots you in the head with a bow and arrow (which you piratically start out with).
It all comes down to how extreme of an advantage it provides and it doesn't seem like it's overkill. It seems like people just use P2W to insult/attack games they don't like and overlook the pay for advantage aspects of games that they do.
On the other hand in league when I tried playing it I felt the P2W to be extremely high. My level 6 or so account facing lvl 30's who basically did double my damage and had access to better spells made me extremely frustrated to the point that I quit. I would never win my lane because it was impossible to do so under those conditions.
On the other hand in league when I tried playing it I felt the P2W to be extremely high. My level 6 or so account facing lvl 30's who basically did double my damage and had access to better spells made me extremely frustrated to the point that I quit. I would never win my lane because it was impossible to do so under those conditions.
If you're playing against level 30 accounts, there's hardly any chance they are P2W. I was playing against level 30 accounts at level 6, too. They were just people that had been playing for ages. It's impossible (as far as I'm aware) to get yourself level boosted. There's nothing that gets you experience faster (as far as I'm aware), so these people have played just many more games to get to 30. That is not Pay to Win in the slightest, it's just shitty Matchmaking.
I think it is safe to say that there is no official definition of pay2win so every persons explanation is good as anyones else. Depends on if you feel you are being screwed over if you are not willing to put in real money.
And the difference between a lvl 6 and a lvl 30 is much much much bigger than a person with a shot gun in h1z1 vs a person with a bow. and the needed time to get to 30 would be far more than to get shotgun.
On January 22 2015 21:39 NukeD wrote: I think it is safe to say that there is no official definition of pay2win so every persons explanation is good as anyones else. Depends on if you feel you are being screwed over if you are not willing to put in real money.
He says it well. I don't think players who don't pay are screwed in H1Z1 (Or LoL).
Out of curiosity now that I've read the rest of this. Has anyone who is calling this p2w actually played the game? Since the patch any one building now gives more than an air drop. Thats right more than an air drop that spawns at a random location, takes forever to drop, is highly contested, and might just have farming supplies. P2AvoidLootingABuilding
On January 23 2015 00:15 hariooo wrote: Isn't that just an admission by the devs that the original iteration of the airdrop was unquestionably P2W or so close as to deserve the change?
I think the change was more to avoid the bad PR. The nerfed speed of the drop allows more players to get there, but before the patch ~20 people would be there almost every time. And the chance now of getting a gun is lower as well, but before it wasn't that high. When you play you realize quickly how fucked you would be if you called in a drop. Also you can't even control the location where it drops, it isn't even like a crew could setup on the drop zone, you have to chase it along with everyone else.
Now even I only go to PvP for amusement because looting buildings and other players and zombies is 10x the loot of an air drop. They zombie system btw is really fucking cool. If a player dies and nobody gets their gear a zombie will walk around with that gear and drop it on their death. I have gone from just having a bow to fully geared so many times off just a couple lucky zombie kills.
On January 23 2015 00:59 ahswtini wrote: Does a dead player actually turn into a zombie (like reanimate), or does a random zombie just spawn with their loot on it?
I am not 100% sure on the mechanic, because you can loot a player after you kill them. This is what I assume happens. You kill player X, player X drops loot if you opt not to loot him entirely the loot bag that drops will eventually spawn a zombie, perhaps on the same location or perhaps nearby. The mechanic isn't, however, as seamless as it should be. Really the body should be there, able to be looted, but after Y time it should rise up as a corpse. That would be cool, but hunting zombies gives you other benefits, so this doesn't bother me.
On January 23 2015 00:59 ahswtini wrote: Does a dead player actually turn into a zombie (like reanimate), or does a random zombie just spawn with their loot on it?
I think the loot goes onto a nearby zombie if nobody claimed it after 5mn. A zombie spawns where a player died every time, though.
On January 23 2015 00:59 ahswtini wrote: Does a dead player actually turn into a zombie (like reanimate), or does a random zombie just spawn with their loot on it?
in terms of game mechanics the latter, but it seems implied that from an internal reality perspective it's supposed to be the player rising as a zombie. I've never seen any kind of animation where a player becomes a zombie, and I've killed a lot of players and zombies around the motels trying to get quest keys (only ever gotten 2, and I lost one when I went afk on a hill to piss and some lucky guy found me).
edit: found a third key, started to go what I thought was west, wandered to the edge of the map where I just instantly died. god fucking damn it.
edit2: log back on a couple hours later on the server where I found an absurd amount of loot, start down the hill I logged off on and am 20 feet from 4 armed people around a fire. mmmk.
I played for a bit yesterday night, on a medium population EU server. There seem to be slightly too many handguns with the new loot system, but as you find very few ammo for them it's fine. However, the game is really fun. The sound is really well made in my opinion, and the atmosphere is great. I shat myself in a building hearing guys running around and shooting people on sight, only to kill them with my 7 .45 bullets and a bow when they got to me. It really felt great, and similar to what I loved in DayZ mod. This game has great potential and is already pretty awesome, and I don't give a shit about airdrops at this point.
I was considering purchasing this game but my friends have been telling me the game is infested with hackers. Are hackers really a big problem right now or is it just a die once in awhile to them type of deal?
On February 28 2015 02:39 jxx wrote: Yeah there are a lot of hackers. But they have been very responsive in dealing with them. This last patch they added a report button as well.
I think the game is worth it nonetheless. I love the battle royale mod more than the actual game though.
Does the report button works ? Or is it like in CSGO ?
Also, how is the community ? 'cause i stopped playing CS after being insulted for 40 minutes 3 times in a row every day for 2weeks or so.
Most hackers stick to certain locations like the police station in Pleasant Valley (the biggest town) and generally stick to the bigger servers. If you stay away from these areas you are less likely to encounter them. But even so you won't run into them too much.
As for the community it seems like a typical online game, you get some shitheads and some genuinely nice people, but a lot of people do kill on sight just because if you try and make random friends they will often turn on you when you least expect it especially if you have good gear. You can lone wolf it but I would recommend running with at least a friend or two because you will run into other groups who are well armed and it can be hard to get multiple kills by yourself.
Also there is a feature where if you kill someone they can keep talking until they push to respawn, leads to some funny rage or conversations.
It's not free to play yet, it will be when it's released. But I'd say it's easily worth the 20 bucks considering you can farm event tickets and air drop tickets right now...
Event tickets you find while playing the normal game allow you to play Battle Royale which is basically just like the Arma Battle Royale. Everyone gets airdropped in and it's a FFA, last man standing wins, and there are way more weapon and ammo spawns than in normal survival mode.
On March 09 2015 07:10 Spiller wrote: Event tickets you find while playing the normal game allow you to play Battle Royale which is basically just like the Arma Battle Royale. Everyone gets airdropped in and it's a FFA, last man standing wins, and there are way more weapon and ammo spawns than in normal survival mode.
Just a note, Event tickets aren't being used at the moment, you can play Battle Royale for free right now. You'll only have to use them after the game releases. That's why I said you can farm them right now.
On March 09 2015 07:10 Spiller wrote: Event tickets you find while playing the normal game allow you to play Battle Royale which is basically just like the Arma Battle Royale. Everyone gets airdropped in and it's a FFA, last man standing wins, and there are way more weapon and ammo spawns than in normal survival mode.
You also have a chance to get one from the mystery bag you get from playing BR, just got one a couple days ago. You can find some while playing the normal game but I wonder how rare they are. I looted 2 recently in like 30mins but haven't found more yet.