|
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 05:11 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 22 2015 05:23 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
|
On January 22 2015 05:41 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 05:23 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
|
On January 22 2015 05:57 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 05:41 TheExile19 wrote:On January 22 2015 05:23 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
|
On January 22 2015 06:59 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 05:57 ZasZ. wrote:On January 22 2015 05:41 TheExile19 wrote:On January 22 2015 05:23 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
|
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.
So anyone saying that H1Z1 is P2W never experienced a real P2W game in their entire life.
|
On January 22 2015 08:09 DPK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 08:30 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
I watch summit stream it, looks pretty fun if you have friends
|
On January 22 2015 09:16 DPK wrote:Show nested quote +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 $$, i could farm in game currency for it, but i did not have the time. We played the same amount of time, he has a better gun because he spent dollars, giving him a edge.
You might call that situation small P2W, but it is still P2W. After all he did just that, he paid to win.
|
On January 22 2015 09:33 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 09:16 DPK wrote:On January 22 2015 08:30 TMG26 wrote:On January 22 2015 08:09 DPK wrote:On January 22 2015 01:35 ZasZ. wrote: You can narrowly define p2w however you want, but the basic definition is paying real-life money for power. Nope that's not what P2W is, P2W is paying for power that can't be acquired by just playing the game. That's the real definition of P2W. That is your definition of P2W. Nope that's what P2W really is. Anyone who says otherwise never experienced a real P2W game in their life, I'm 100% positive of this. Any other definition of P2W doesn't make sense. How can a game be considered P2W when I can just play and also win? Just because you paid for something doesn't automatically mean you're "winning" more than me. Sure it took you less time to get it but it doesn't make you win more. It's pay to save time, not P2W. In a P2W game, you don't have the choice to pay if you want to win/stay competitive. The cash shop will usually sell stuff that can't be acquired while playing and it's better than everything you can get while playing. That's what a REAL P2W game is. Every other definition isn't P2W since I can also win even if I don't pay. No. Scenario: Me and a friend start to play a game, we go into a vs match and he goes with a better gun that he got with $$, 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.
|
On January 22 2015 09:42 DPK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So this is the reason people still tolerate P2W. "it could be worse".
|
On January 22 2015 09:45 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
|
|
|