Jump to content
Kurock

Pay-2-Win: Does it have a definition at all?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Phaethonas said:

 

Well for starters if you hire other people for real money to manage and play your account you are violating most games' TOS, which is a bannable offense (if you are caught of course). If this is what you mean by "hire people" and not let's say the "meta game" that EVE has.

 

Even so, the more important thing is that the DAC as is, is not an acceptable distance away from  p2w for the vast majority of players. And truth be told, neither of us has any real evidence on their statements, like an official and representative poll. So we won't find out till some months after launch (assuming that the DAC remains as it is), in which case people will speak their minds in public forums, social media and the like. And even then, I am sure that many people will still disagree on the matter, but unfortunately for them, reality will kick in. If indeed the DAC system (as is now) proves to be considered p2w by the vast majority of players, then they will simply leave and DU die. As so many times I have said, DU is neither WoW, nor EVE to survive such a hit.

 

Although I don't have hard evidence for my statement that the vast majority of MMO players associate the PLEX system with p2w, like a representative poll, I do have some arguments; a) the moment crowfall announced its PLEX version (called VIP membership) and its version of skill injectors (called skill tomes), some of its more hardcore fans/supporters rushed in defense of crowfall "assuring" people that it is not p2w. Even before anyone suggesting that it is p2w!! Hence, we understand that people associate p2w negatively and that people associate these mechanics with p2w, and b ) what has been written about EVE. And there is so much ink there. People have argued in both sides, but as to which one is prevailing, that is to the eye of the beholder I suppose, as long as there is no representative poll among the MMO community, something of course which is really hard to do.

No, that's your ignorant face talking. Since you don't got FACTS, the only appropriate thing to do is to stop spewing bullshit. Also, Skill Injectors and PLEX are not the same,.

 

You clearly not understand what DACs are there for, or why Crowfall's version of it is a P2W.

Crowfall is a session MMORPG, with more things in common to DOTA with a few ideas injected from EVE. In Crowfall, there is a "leaderboard" and the match eventually ends. There are tier systems, with strong bodies and weaker bodies and everyone resets eventually. Having Skill Injectors and a method to buy money in-game, is a legitimate P2W for Crowfall.

DUAL Universe is a single-shard MMO. There is no "end-game" you level up to, the end-game is from the moment you step int othe world. There is no "leaderboard". There is no "finish line".  No matter how much DACs you gonna buy and sell for in-game money, the only REAL power you have in such a game (like EVE) is in numbers. Buy all the DAC you want, the alliacne with the more dedicated navy, skilled players and in-game resources will roflstomp you.

Now, you only got anecdotal evidence, from irrelevant games, let me show you how you sound : 

"Hey forums, once I shot a boar with a vintage springfield rifle - good old springfields from WW2 - but the darned thing didn't die at once. So, I had to actually bring out my vintage bazooka - true story - and eventually, DAC is P2W. "

That's how you argue @Phaethonas .


P.S. : DU is a global game, look up its server tech before you start talking out of your rear on "OMG., HOW WILL WE PLAY WITH 200ms ?!?!?!?! " , those reddit posts are making me sad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 9:24 AM, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Ah, the casual forum cancer is still present I see.

@Phaethonas

 

You have spewn so much bullshit on this thread, I am genuinely surprised you haven't gone into septic shock already.

 

[...]


@Phaethonas

 

Σταμάτα να ντροπιάζεις την Ελληνική κοινότητα στα forums, εδραιώνεις το στερεότυπο του κλαρινογαμπρού Ελληνάρα που δεν έχει ιδέα από οικονομικά αλλά συνεχίζει να ωρύεται ότι έχει δίκαιο. Δεν έχεις δίκιο, είσαι μέρος του προβλήματος και το μόνο που κάνεις είναι να στιγματίζεις μια ολόκληρη κοινότητα.

The only one who spawns cancer is you. I have never personally attacked anyone. Unlike you. As such I will completely ignore anything and everything you say from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 11:18 AM, blazemonger said:

 

So, since in your opinion DU is P2W and as you state you want your game to not be P2W, how are you here when the mechanic of DACs has been established and know for a long time and you can really only have come into the game while knowing this, especially when DACs are part of the backers 'rewards'?

 

I never said that DAC is p2w. I have gone to great lengths and have said many times that, "p2w potential" is quite different from "p2w element". Also, I have numerous times said that the DAC will be abused and gone beyond its purpose. Implying that it is not a p2w element. Lastly, the DAC system if it was a p2w system per se, it could not have been corrected, as such seeing me that I want to "make it better", proves that I consider it a non p2w element, per se, that has potential for being abused and turned to p2w.

 

Is this clearer now?

 

PS

 

The DACs purpose from my understanding, reading comments from NQ employees and from players, is twofold; a) Shrink the black market and b ) allow people who want to buy their sub time in-game to do so, instead of paying a "traditional subscription". To that I just add an additional objective; c) make it as less p2w as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Phaethonas said:

The only one who spawns cancer is you. I have never personally attacked anyone. Unlike you. As such I will completely ignore anything and everything you say from now on.

Deal with it, you are wrong. Stop shameing your fellow Greeks with your bullshit arguements. Acting like an ostrich won't change the fact you are wrong,. but it does illustrate lack of maturity AND lack of arguements.

Your type of people are an old cancer on the internet. "OMG , HE PROVES I AM WRONG AND FULL OF CRAP!!!11!!!! HE IS TOXIC!!! SOMEONE PROTECT MY RIGHT TO TALK OUT OF MY REAR!!!"

Get facts already, you agreed you have no evidence to back your arguements, now stop talking on things you know nothing about and stop giving people reasons to believe in the stereotype of the "ignorant greek who knows nothing on economy". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been discussed to death now. It is part of the pay model, it is done. I've seen few (two) complaints about DAC, there are more complaints about being a subscription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 11:41 AM, NanoDot said:

Paying RL money for ingame advantage is a standard feature in most modern MMO's. 

 

In reality, it has always been a feature in MMO's, it just used to be "illegal" previously (i.e. buying "gold" from third-party gold-sellers or buying rare weapons on EBay).

 

Things like PLEX and DAC are relatively benign, because it spreads the "advantage" around a bit, so it's easier to justify.

 

Player A buys DAC from player B with ingame money. Player A saves themselves some RL expenditure on the monthly sub, while player B gains a chunk of game cash to increase their purchasing power ingame. Player A is happy to give player B an advantage in game play, because player A gets to play for "free", which is more important to them than being financially powerful in the game world.

 

Let's face it, nobody would buy PLEX and DAC for RL money if there wasn't an advantage to be gained ! :D

 

I disagree and most players disagree that the PLEX, at least, is benign. I urge you to say the same at any MMO/gaming forum/social media and see for yourself.

 

Granted, the DAC/PLEX isn't the strongest or "most traditional" p2w element, and DU not having an equivalent of skill injectors, helps. But taking into account that quanta (the in game currency) will matter, gaining quanta this way, will also matter. In the end it can be put as simple as that.

 

That said, every time a simplification is made, part of the truth is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Haunty said:

I think this has been discussed to death now. It is part of the pay model, it is done. I've seen few (two) complaints about DAC, there are more complaints about being a subscription.

Hey, don't you dare say to Phaethonas what has been said a billion times! You have no righht to bring facts into his bullshit fiesta.

Rephrase your arguement as "I exist, thus I dream, thus DAC is not P2W". That's the only fair way to argue at this point, or less you are toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 0:43 PM, Kurock said:

Any system that allows payment of RL money for an in-game advantage has the potential to become p2w. Am I worried that this will happen in DU? No. Simply because NQ listens to its players and the players that have posted in this topic would be among the first to point out anything that may negatively effect the game. (Just be a little nicer about it guys ;) )

 

Which is what I am saying.

 

"Any system that allows payment of RL money for an in-game advantage has the potential to become p2w."

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Or if you want me to become absolutely accurate, I focus it a little and say;

 

"Any system that allows payment of RL money for an in-game currency has the potential to become p2w."

 

Am I worried though? Yes! Perhaps primarily because you may NQ more than I. After all I found out about DU like 2-3 weeks ago. Will they listen? I hope so.

 

I have said many times, that my suggestion to regulate the market is just that, a suggestion. I also have said, that I am certain that NQ may find better solutions or polish mine further. I also have said that I would trust NQ with algorithmic problems, that may arise from these solutions, more so than other gaming studios, because of their purely scientific past.

 

One last thing; I once considered backing crowfall, and I have used crowfall as a negative example many times now. If I didn't thought that DU had potential, that NQ may listen, etc then I would have gone the crowfall way. I'd moved on and would not look back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phaethonas said:

 

And yet it is!

Yet still you are argueing agaisnt an entire thread of people who provide you reasons why you are wrong.

And you still have no facts.

Also, the guy was agreeing with ME. Check what you reply to first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plex aren't p2w in eve and since dac work the same way - they're not p2w either. 

As said multiple times now. And since it didn't go p2w in eve, your whole point of "I only said it has the potential" is just wrong tootoo

 

Try buying a better ship with dac and you'll see ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Yet still you are argueing agaisnt an entire thread of people who provide you reasons why you are wrong.

And you still have no facts.

Also, the guy was agreeing with ME. Check what you reply to first.

We have already established that DAC gives the seller an advantage, lol !

 

We know this, because nobody would spend RL money on something that does NOT give an advantage. How many DAC would be bought if it was just "to help NQ improve the game" ?

 

The pro-DAC arguments basically say that the advantage gained from selling DAC to other players will have no effect on game balance. Some of us disagree, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Haunty said:

I think this has been discussed to death now. It is part of the pay model, it is done. I've seen few (two) complaints about DAC, there are more complaints about being a subscription.

 

*sigh*

 

I will say once more, that my argument is not against DAC per se. Yes, I don't like it. Yes, if I was making a game I would not choose it. But that is not in/my argument.

 

I can accept that NQ chose something with which I disagree and move on.

 

What is argued is; a) whether or not it can be turned into a p2w element, b ) how easily it can be abused/converted into a p2w element and how severe this will be and c) in case you don't like p2w elements, how will it be possible to prevent that.

 

That said, I will agree that by this point this has been discussed in depth. I am sure that NQ has seen all points and arguments and will proceed.....well we shall see how they will proceed.

 

PS

 

The alternative financial models (like b2p and f2p) have failed. So there is no arguing whether any new MMO, especially made by indie studios, should have a subscription or not. It should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Plex aren't p2w in eve and since dac work the same way - they're not p2w either. 

As said multiple times now. And since it didn't go p2w in eve, your whole point of "I only said it has the potential" is just wrong tootoo

 

Try buying a better ship with dac and you'll see ;)

 

I have numerous times explained that the context within the DAC becomes p2w is not that of the individual player but that of a guild/organization.

 

And frankly, I have seen many people arguing that the PLEX is p2w. Perhaps primarily because it is accompanied by the skill injector system. Also, I have read the opinions of both groups. That is, EVE players that say that PLEX/skill injectors are p2w and those who disagree. Frankly the former convince me because they have arguments, while the latter just throw the ball of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plex != skill injectors.

 

And numerous ppl argued and explained why dacs aren't p2w even for guilds.

 

And again: it's not p2w in eve. No one ever won a war because of plex. They won it because of in-game money, which couldn't ever be gained via plex (some sunk trillions of isk into battles, which would translate to several hundred thousand dollars). Such a huge amount of plex would not be bought. At all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it's pay to win, you don't have to play.  Simple as that, it's the system we are getting and most of us are happy with it.

 

There are games I have chosen not to play due to the monetization theme.  And that's completely my right, as it is yours.

 

I don't see how further discussion will get anywhere.  You're not going to get some miraculous change to the system.  They need money, this is how.  A pure p2p system no longer works, because it annhilates tons of people who can't pay with real money, but can work for it in game.

 

A pure p2p would probably be dead within 2-3 years, if even that.  Especially when it's a relatively niche game to begin with.

 

As it stands they may have to implement some kind of cosmetic shop that has popped up in discussion every now and then.  They will do everything in their power to keep the game from becoming the old definition of pay to win.  The old definition being that you can't purchase gameplay/stat inducing items with in game currency but you can with real world currency.

 

In the system we are getting people can sell DACs in game, rather than going through a third party who would sell assets to them.  Wins all around imho.  But that's been stated countless times in this thread.

 

End rant I guess.  This new age trend trying to call out every game as pay to win is getting old imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lethys said:

Plex != skill injectors.

 

And numerous ppl argued and explained why dacs aren't p2w even for guilds.

 

And again: it's not p2w in eve. No one ever won a war because of plex. They won it because of in-game money, which couldn't ever be gained via plex (some sunk trillions of isk into battles, which would translate to several hundred thousand dollars). Such a huge amount of plex would not be bought. At all

 

Yes, I know that Plex and skill injectors are not the same, this is why most of the times I am referencing to them at the same time and their added p2w potential. In which cases I always am mentioning a "disclaimer", that you can't tell how much of the p2w is coming from the plex and how much is coming from the skill injectors.

 

Also, in theory you support my fears, in practice you claim they would need " hundred of thousand of dollars". OK even if this is true (although I have read many EVE players' comments that disagree with you, but let's get past that atm), you can't know how the economy will work in DU in order to assure/know that it won't happen at DU as well. It is possible that in DU you will need only a few thousand (let's say 3k) to determine the outcome of the conflict. Which a guild can easily amass. That said, it is more likely, because of the gameplay mechanics, that it will be more difficult (and more expensive?) than at EVE, but this is also theory. 

 

So where do we stand? To something that I have stated from the very beginning;

 

a) It is theoretical possible for the DAC to be abused as a p2w mechanic.

b ) DU gameplay mechanics (in particularly seen in comparison with EVE's equivalents), would most likely reduce the severity of this p2w potential, that the DAC have.

c) As such it is possible that there is nothing to worry about, but also it is possible that there is something to worry about. The critical factor that will determine things will be the economy, which at the moment is essentially impossible to predict.

 

In this context, is it so strange to ask to be proactive and add an additional measure to make things even more difficult for the p2winners?

I don't think so.

DO I know for sure that things will turn this way? NO!

Do you (or anyone for that matter) know that they won't? NO!

It is impossible to know at the moment.

That said, I am leaning towards the opinion that things may go wrong (towards p2w), because I trust the opinion of the EVE players that say that EVE is p2w and not those who say otherwise.

Granted, I may be wrong, but so can you.

So, there are two ways to proceed from here; One is to patch things and fix things if and when they go awry, and the other is to be proactive.

For whatever my opinion weights, I vote for pro-action.

And I suggested a way (regulating the DAC market), and that is the end of it.

As I said earlier, we are spinning in circles the last few messages, as opinions don't differ that much, if everyone pays attention to what the other side really said.

 

In the end of the day, some think that it is an unlikely scenario and there is no need for pro-action and the other side, thinks that there is need for pro-action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hades said:

If you think it's pay to win, you don't have to play.  Simple as that, it's the system we are getting and most of us are happy with it.

 

There are games I have chosen not to play due to the monetization theme.  And that's completely my right, as it is yours.

[...] 

 

You're not going to get some miraculous change to the system.

Here we go once more;

 

Had I thought that the DAC system was p2w I wouldn't even bother and I wouldn't even look back. Just as I did with Crowfall and many other games. I am mentioning Crowfall as a recent example and one with particular similarities with DU.

 

Instead, I think that the DAC system has potential to be abused. That means that it goes beyond the reasons it was created for.

 

It was created for two reasons;

 

a) allow people who don't want to pay with money for their subscription, to still be able to play the game. These people it could be argued that have more time than money and they want to buy their subscription in-game with in-game currency (e.g. quanta).

b ) To combat the black market.

 

and that's it!

 

People though, can abuse this system and turn it to p2w. As such "they will add" a third objective; let's pay2win!

 

That c) is not something that NQ wants, neither is something that NQ announced during its kickstarter, as such it is (probably) something that the backers don't want.

 

So, instead of going down the road of that c), I propose the exact opposite;

 

c) take (further) measures that will reassure that DAC won't become p2w.

 

Had I though it was p2w (and that was the end of it) I would not have proposed something like that, cause it would make no difference.

 

Lastly, I don't want to change the system. I never said that NQ should abandon their system. Quite the opposite, despite my personal preferences, I admitted that this is the system they chose,  and I accept it......

....that said, I proposed an addition to it.

Is it possible for NQ to take my opinion (or yours for that matter) into account? I hope so!

 

tl;dr? This is why I am here! Cause I have hopes, for both DU and NQ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Phaethonas said:

Also, in theory you support my fears,

Nope, I don't - not at all.

8 hours ago, Phaethonas said:

It is possible that in DU you will need only a few thousand (let's say 3k) to determine the outcome of the conflict. Which a guild can easily amass. That said, it is more likely, because of the gameplay mechanics, that it will be more difficult (and more expensive?) than at EVE, but this is also theory. 

Nope you'll need possibly a similar amount as in eve. Because it's the same free market as in EVE. Yes, elements and minerals will be more expensive in DU because of less supply, but that only means that quanta are more valuable as compared to in eve. The basic mechanic here is the free market which is the same.

8 hours ago, Phaethonas said:

That said, I am leaning towards the opinion that things may go wrong (towards p2w), because I trust the opinion of the EVE players that say that EVE is p2w

I played eve for more than 8 years and I NEVER saw evidence of P2W.

So you have to think hard about certain facts here:

- how do those guys define P2W? Are they only butthurt because some guy just buys ship after ship after ship to kill them (which is NOT pay to win as those first group could just COUNTER the ship)?

- are they referring to PLEX ALONE? or to Skill injectors?

 

As this is going in circles for days now, I will just refrain from answering any more - you have your POV and I have mine. Be happy about it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Warning** Nothing more useful I could add!!!

So I actually read this whole thing, Yes all 4 pages and all Ive really gotten is a headache...

But I have to agree I do no think there is anything wrong with the DAC system as I understand its use now but who knows what the future holds so dont quote me on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For games where the play is carefully curated and balanced, p2w is possible to thwart. Take for example a game like counter-strike or something, where every aspect of the game is controlled, and there's no progression/time element when it comes to in game power etc. In these kinds of situations, it's quite easy to prevent RL structures of socioeconomic stratification from bleeding over into the in-game world, and "p2w or not" as well as "is or isn't mechanic X p2w" are valid discussions, whenever you allow people some small avenue of influencing the game with money (cosmetics, boosters, etc).

 

In stark contrast to this, in MMORPGs and the like, I actually believe it's fundamentally impossible to prevent such bleed-over, assuming that it is game mechanically possible to gain power advantages over other players (certainly the case in any game where you can form alliances freely, create almost arbitrarily powerful ships with enough resources, as well as gain control over areas, and so on -- as you can in DU), and that you can arrange to exchange some in-game good for RL money (be that via legal means or not).

 

Arguing whether something is or isn't "pay-to-win" is ultimately just debating (to me) boring semantics. What matters to me is that real-life power and influence can and will bleed into DU no matter what the devs try and do about it, and what the discussion ought to be about is how NQ can make the game enjoyable for everyone despite this fact.

 

If anyone wants more detail on my thought process regarding this RL-to-in-game dynamic, I'll have to find some older posts in which I give some examples etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest a different aspect of pay-to-win.  Instead of considering whether another player has an advantage over me because they sell DACs, I am going to talk about how I feel about selling them myself.  I do not intend to sell any.  When I play a game like DU, it is to see what I can accomplish in it, but it is the struggle that makes it satisfying, not the accomplishment itself.  In the sense that it would allow me to accomplish more with less effort in the game, selling DACs could be called pay-to-win, but it would be more accurate to call it paying someone else to play the game for me.  I only play games if I enjoy them, so to me it does not make sense to pay another player to enjoy it for me.

 

Everyone does not have the same idea of what is enjoyable, so I do not mind if other players sell DACs, but I consider the ones I got as a founder only as a pre-paid subscription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ben Fargo said:

I would like to suggest a different aspect of pay-to-win.  Instead of considering whether another player has an advantage over me because they sell DACs, I am going to talk about how I feel about selling them myself.  I do not intend to sell any.  When I play a game like DU, it is to see what I can accomplish in it, but it is the struggle that makes it satisfying, not the accomplishment itself.  In the sense that it would allow me to accomplish more with less effort in the game, selling DACs could be called pay-to-win, but it would be more accurate to call it paying someone else to play the game for me.  I only play games if I enjoy them, so to me it does not make sense to pay another player to enjoy it for me.

 

Everyone does not have the same idea of what is enjoyable, so I do not mind if other players sell DACs, but I consider the ones I got as a founder only as a pre-paid subscription.

Top definition : Pay to Win :
Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.
Dude, you've spent like 400 bucks on this game so you can beat everyone who hasn't spent any money. Pay-to-win noob!
 
I think people have different ideas of what true pay to win is !
 
Personally I have no problems with the DAC's system and feel that most players will use it as was intended but that being said no matter what system is in place you will always have that small amount of people trying to beat the system and I feel NQ will handle it IMEDIATLY as they see fit ! 
 
So please don't make suggestions that penalize the majority of players that use the system as  intended and it is also strange we are acting like the system is broke even be for it comes out !
 
Everyone has there opinion's and I don't really see this topic really making any ground so maybe we should wait until we get more data from released in-game DU play ?
 
Just Saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...