Jump to content

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


Kurock
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2017 at 3:39 AM, GunDeva said:
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.  

 

No matter what people may want to pass as true, p2w is p2w and in context of this OP, yes p2w has a definition. From my experience people who will insist otherwise are just those who want to stretch what is p2w and what is not, in order to use p2w, without having to deal with the negative repercussions of it.

 

That said, p2w is not the same for all games though. So, while p2w can be defined as "one person or group of persons, gain(s) an advantage on other players by means of real money, who could not  equalize (in due time),", that is differently applied in different games. For example sandbox MMOs and theme parked MMOs are vastly different and as a result this same p2w definition will be applied differently.

 

So the question is, can the DAC be used, or rather abused, in a p2w way?

 

In order to answer that, and taking into account that DU isn't even in open pre-alpha yet, we will have to rely at EVE which is the game with which the best comparison can be made.

 

Currently you can buy from CCP 2800 PLEX for $100.

 

The current price for PLEX is 3 million ISK per PLEX.

 

This means that with the 2800 PLEX you can have 8,400,000,000 ISK.

 

Assuming that the average whale spends $200 per month that would mean that the average whale would get 16,800,000,000 ISK per month.

 

That means that in a year an average whale would make 201,600,000,000 ISK

 

Now If you have just 10 whales in the same guild/organization/alliance who are willing to spend that money (which are average for whales), then you get 2,016,000,000,000 ISK.

 

From what I am reading, during WWB at EVE, one alliance attacked another cause they were given 1 trillion ISK, also recently, the biggest heist at EVE happened with an estimated worth of 1.5 trillion ISK, which resulted in an alliance's dissolution.

 

Put that into perspective; 5 people can be preparing for war for the duration of a year and amass the necessary wealth to buy another guild's services, or alternatively, they can be 10 people for the duration of just 6 months. And exactly because this is being done in the passage of time, they will have more than enough time to sell these PLEXes.

 

It could be argued that the other/enemy alliance could just farm the same amount of ISK. Even if that is true, farming ISK is something that both guilds can do. As such the p2w guild doesn't have 2 trillion, it has 2 trillion more, and the only way for the other guild to equalize is for them to be willing to be in the PLEX market.

 

Someone may say that this is a exaggeration. I beg to differ. We all have read stories about EVE and how far people have gone at this game (see "metagame"). As such planning a war 6-12 months beforehand is nowhere near an exaggeration, in EVE's context. Alas even in my mind it is not an exaggeration, to plan for a conflict 6-12 months beforehand, if you exclude any p2w and "metagame" elements.

 

As such, EVE is pure p2w, plain and simple. And I haven't even touched the skill injectors yet, as these will not be at DU.

 

Now, is this scenario possible or at the very least plausible, at DU's case?

 

It looks more than plausible to me, hence measures need to be taken in order for this not to happen. In other words, NQ needs to work on a solution before launch. As they need to make crystal clear that this kind of gameplay behavior will not be acceptable. Unless it is acceptable. But NQ needs to make clear where they stand, in order for people to make an informed decision of whether to buy their game or not, and to know what game they are buying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phaethonas said:

 

In order to answer that, and taking into account that DU isn't even in open pre-alpha yet, we will have to rely at EVE which is the game with which the best comparison can be made.

 

Currently you can buy from CCP 2800 PLEX for $100.

The current price for PLEX is 3 million ISK per PLEX.

This means that with the 2800 PLEX you can have 8,400,000,000 ISK.

Assuming that the average whale spends $200 per month that would mean that the average whale would get 16,800,000,000 ISK per month.

That means that in a year an average whale would make 201,600,000,000 ISK

 

 

You seem to be good with a calculator but seem to lack an understanding of what you are talking about.

If you are actually trying to make a point it must be that a 'whale' will buy 17B ISK /month in EVE based on your assumption that one spends $200 in PLEX.

 

While not easy, it is not that hard either to make that much ISK in game for a single person spending a reasonable amount of time in the game. Making 4-5B a month is fairly simple and can be done by a new player instantly with no need for any real world $$ investment. The argument that PLEX can be used in a P2W scenario is really trivial and frankly nonsense IMO. Paying your way into a ship by means of Skill injectors will not put you in a position to win fights and there is no 'winning the game' in EVE. All Whales do really is provide content for experienced players by losing their investment as they are clueless how to fly it. Alliances and big corporations honestly do not need to buy plex with $$, they will make more than they need from activities in game.

 

I am not a big EVE player by any means but make roughly 35B ISK a month without breaking a sweat from Exploration, Trading, PI and Industry alone. I do not do PVP unless you consider some of the market tactics PVP, which some will. I have not invested any $$ in EVE since maybe 3 months after starting EVE which is about 18 Months ago.

 

The way you talk about 'Whales' it seems you think there is a good number of players in EVE spending hundreds of $$ a month, this is simply not the case. I'd be interested to hear your sources if you claim different.

 

I know some of the EVE players who have financed wars (including WWB) and met them personally. They do not need to buy PLEX for $$, they make so much in game they are just looking for ways to sink the ISK they make and have fun with it.

 

You assume a lot, but obviously have no idea what you are saying nor do you have anything to back it up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

You seem to be good with a calculator but seem to lack an understanding of what you are talking about.

If you are actually trying to make a point it must be that a 'whale' will buy 17B ISK /month in EVE based on your assumption that one spends $200 in PLEX.

 

While not easy, it is not that hard either to make that much ISK in game for a single person spending a reasonable amount of time in the game. Making 4-5B a month is fairly simple and can be done by a new player instantly with no need for any real world $$ investment. The argument that PLEX can be used in a P2W scenario is really trivial and frankly nonsense IMO. Paying your way into a ship by means of Skill injectors will not put you in a position to win fights and there is no 'winning the game' in EVE. All Whales do really is provide content for experienced players by losing their investment as they are clueless how to fly it. Alliances and big corporations honestly do not need to buy plex with $$, they will make more than they need from activities in game.

 

I am not a big EVE player by any means but make roughly 35B ISK a month without breaking a sweat from Exploration, Trading, PI and Industry alone. I do not do PVP unless you consider some of the market tactics PVP, which some will. I have not invested any $$ in EVE since maybe 3 months after starting EVE which is about 18 Months ago.

 

The way you talk about 'Whales' it seems you think there is a good number of players in EVE spending hundreds of $$ a month, this is simply not the case. I'd be interested to hear your sources if you claim different.

 

I know some of the EVE players who have financed wars (including WWB) and met them personally. They do not need to buy PLEX for $$, they make so much in game they are just looking for ways to sink the ISK they make and have fun with it.

 

You assume a lot, but obviously have no idea what you are saying nor do you have anything to back it up.

 

 

 

And you completely overlooked this

 

Quote

 

It could be argued that the other/enemy alliance could just farm the same amount of ISK. Even if that is true, farming ISK is something that both guilds can do. As such the p2w guild doesn't have 2 trillion, it has 2 trillion more, and the only way for the other guild to equalize is for them to be willing to be in the PLEX market.

 

Funny thing? I had it bolded and underlined, yet you still missed it.

 

Now as for how many whales there are at EVE?

 

Hmmmm let's see.

 

The prime reason behind any system like DAC/PLEX is that people go to the black market. If these were a few, no-one would bother with adding a system to discourage the black market. But these people are enough for CCP to introduce the PLEX after years without it, and NQ to introduce it from day -x. Before launch that is. We can assume that 100% of these people will start trading in the PLEX/DAC market, as they are willing to trade in the black market with its dangers, it makes sense to opt to trade "legally". After all, once more, this is the idea behind PLEX/DAC. But perhaps more importantly, people who were discouraged from trading in the black market, because of its dangers, now won't be discouraged and start trading in the legal market.

 

So, if

 

i) X = the amount of people who would be willing to trade in the black market,

ii) Y = the amount of people who would not be willing to trade in the black market but now are willing to trade in the legal market and

iii) Z = the total amount of people who will trade in the legal market,

 

then,

 

Z = X + Y ---> Z > X

 

And as X is more than enough to catch the attention of Blizzard, CCP, ACE (that makes Crowfall) and NQ, it makes sense for Z to be......a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phaethonas said:

 

And you completely overlooked this

 

Here we go again with the calculator thing.. Man, you really have no idea do you..

And now you come here making the claim the PLEX/DAC are set up for the purpose of preventing a black market (not sure here as your comments are ferociously vague)..

 

You obviously have no idea what you are saying and are just blabbing on, trying to justify whatever misaligned though process goes on in your head. There is _no need_ and certainly _no benefit_ to buy extreme amounts of PLEX for $$ as they do not give you what will drive success in the game, in fact it will mostly backfire and only feed those who do have the experience and understanding of the game to beat you every time.

 

You also seem to not have a clue about how much ISK in game alliances make on a daily basis. The big alliances in EVE do not need nor rely on PLEX except for maybe as a commodity to make even more profit. You seem to like numbers, you should look at the monthly economic reports  CCP puts out on EVE.. 

 

 

At best your opinions (I would not even call them arguments as they have no base or relation to any sort of actual fact) rely on way to many assumptions to have any actual meaning or relevance to the subject of what is Pay2Win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a never ending run on topic ?  I will be nice and just say lets just agree to disagree , but I have 100% confidence that when some one crosses that line NQ will step in and handle it!

 

Yes I have 100% confidence that NQ and the Dev's  will take care of any Pay-2-Win situations that may accrue and they seem to already be working on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

 

Here we go again with the calculator thing.. Man, you really have no idea do you..

And now you come here making the claim the PLEX/DAC are set up for the purpose of preventing a black market (not sure here as your comments are ferociously vague)..

 

You obviously have no idea what you are saying and are just blabbing on, trying to justify whatever misaligned though process goes on in your head. There is _no need_ and certainly _no benefit_ to buy extreme amounts of PLEX for $$ as they do not give you what will drive success in the game, in fact it will mostly backfire and only feed those who do have the experience and understanding of the game to beat you every time.

 

You also seem to not have a clue about how much ISK in game alliances make on a daily basis. The big alliances in EVE do not need nor rely on PLEX except for maybe as a commodity to make even more profit. You seem to like numbers, you should look at the monthly economic reports  CCP puts out on EVE.. 

 

 

At best your opinions (I would not even call them arguments as they have no base or relation to any sort of actual fact) rely on way to many assumptions to have any actual meaning or relevance to the subject of what is Pay2Win.

1) My "opinions" are based on numbers! And numbers don't lie!

2) You never argued against my arguments. All you (plural) have said; "You know shit, we play EVE we know better", without making a counter-argument. As such, if someone has an opinion and not an arguments, that would be you (plural).

3) The DAC is set up to prevent the black market as said by NQ. If you want me to be 100% accurate, their goal is twofold; a) prevent the black market, b ) allow players with more time than money to play the game.

 

And according to NQ's official announcement;

 

Quote

Because if we are totally honest here, if DACs are not implemented, the players having significant amounts of real money to spend and wanting quickly a lot of in-game currency will get it anyway from shady websites. Waging wars against goldfarming website is an eternal battle that can't be won because there will always be demand from some players. In that case, what's the best compromise? The one that has already been implemented in 3 MMORPGs among the most popular: EvE Online (with the PLEX), World of Warcraft (WoW Time Token) and Wildstar (with the CREDD). That way, those who will spend real life money to get in-game currency will help at least those who have a lot of spare time to play but not the necessary budget to pay a monthly fee to keep them playing. Not a perfect solution, but the best compromise we found so far, as this system has been proven quite efficient to keep goldfarmers away too.

 

(emphasis added)

 

As such, what I am saying is simple; NQ wants the DAC system? OK, let's have the DAC system. But as NQ recognizes that this system is not perfect, let's try to get it as perfect as possible. Or as I put it previously, there is no need for collateral damage. Battle the black market, but cover any possible loophole that would allow the DAC system to be abused, out of its intended purpose, and be turned to p2w. Is my idea of regulating the DAC market, bad? I am fine with that. From the very first moment I recognized that this could be the case. But this does not undo the fact that the DAC is a non perfect system that needs an addition (or more) to become better.

 

4) Regardless how else ISK is being made at EVE, ISK can be made in huge numbers with PLEX. And by planning ahead, 6-12 months, will allow the prevention of any inflation as well. So in the end, it doesn't matter that Alliance [A] will make 1 trillion by selling PLEX, it matter that it will make 1 trillion more!! And as proven, ISK wins wars.

5) OK, let's assume that I am wrong, why are you so eager to just state that I am wrong? You bring nothing more into the conversation other than; "You are wrong", "you are still wrong", "still wrong", without even explaining in reality why I am wrong!! Other than perhaps the "you don't know". And I'll ask again, why are you so eager to point my wrongdoings? OK, you did so, once, twice, thrice, why continue? Am I ranting? OK, let me! I am not ranting to you, am I? My last comment, to which you answered, did not quote you! So it is either that (which would be kinda crazy and you don't seem crazy to me), or.....I don't know, you want these p2w implications. Then again, I could be wrong, and for a third option to be on the table. Present it! Why do you bother that much?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GunDeva said:

This seems like a never ending run on topic ?  I will be nice and just say lets just agree to disagree , but I have 100% confidence that when some one crosses that line NQ will step in and handle it!

 

Yes I have 100% confidence that NQ and the Dev's  will take care of any Pay-2-Win situations that may accrue and they seem to already be working on it.

 

Why? Why are you so confident?

 

Have they explicitly said that they will not allow people to turn DU in p2w? Cause I haven't seen any such statement. Direct me to that, and I will become confident as well. Till that time, I am skeptical, and I am worried. And I'll say again; Had DU been any other game I wouldn't bother. But DU seems good enough to me, to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Phaethonas said:

1) My "opinions" are based on numbers! And numbers don't lie!

2) You never argued against my arguments. All you (plural) have said; "You know shit, we play EVE we know better", without making a counter-argument. As such, if someone has an opinion and not an arguments, that would be you (plural).

 

  1. Your opinions are based on numbers you make up/assume to be correct and not factual numbers. Several times you have been asked to provide the basis of them and you have not. You probably would not even know where to look (as there are actual reports with factual number on this and they do not match your guesses or assumptions).
  2. You do not argue, you voice your opinion. There is no arguing with an opinion as it does not need to be based on fact(s) one believes to be true so arguing is pointless.

 

Do you play EVE? For how long? care to share IGN and/or alliance/corp?

Based on what you have said my guess is no, never have and have none

 

As said, I know the people who funded the last two wars in EVE, I know where their ISK comes from and how they spent it. I have met and spoken with them in person and will do so again in about a week. I also know and speak with the leader of the largest alliance in EVE. What/who are your sources?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blazemonger said:

 

You do not argue, you voice your opinion.

There is no arguing with an opinion as it does not need to be based on fact(s) one believes to be true so arguing is pointless.

 

Do you play EVE? For how long? care to share IGN and/or alliance/corp?

Based on what you have said my guess is No, never have and none

 

First of all I made 5 arguments, not 2!!

 

Secondly, I don't need to have played EVE! Reading about it and making some associations, is enough. I don't need to have had cholera in order to talk about cholera! (I am not implying that EVE is cholera, I just named a disease that came to my mind. I am often making these parallelisms because of my work). Are my associations incomplete, wrong, or whatever? OK, how about you correct them instead using the argument "I play EVE, you don't, I know better, you don't". Which is juvenile at best.

 

Thirdly, even if you want to call it an "opinion" my opinion is based on some thoughts, some examples, etc. Your opinion on the other hand is not based on that either.

 

Fourthly and more importantly. I repeat myself;

Quote

5) OK, let's assume that I am wrong, why are you so eager to just state that I am wrong? You bring nothing more into the conversation other than; "You are wrong", "you are still wrong", "still wrong", without even explaining in reality why I am wrong!! Other than perhaps the "you don't know". And I'll ask again, why are you so eager to point my wrongdoings? OK, you did so, once, twice, thrice, why continue? Am I ranting? OK, let me! I am not ranting to you, am I? My last comment, to which you answered, did not quote you! So it is either that (which would be kinda crazy and you don't seem crazy to me), or.....I don't know, you want these p2w implications. Then again, I could be wrong, and for a third option to be on the table. Present it! Why do you bother that much?

Or should I assume that you omitting this part of my comment was an admission of some sort? To which, I am unsure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have given several actual examples of how I know you are wrong, I have provided sources and numbers.. You have only provided what you assume to be the case as you have no factual data to back up anything you think is correct.

 

Mind you, you are free to think and assume what you like, we're mostly arguing semantics and generally just wasting time here for no reason .. That's all fine.. 

Still.. so far all I have from you is guesses, assumptions and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

I have given several actual examples of how I know you are wrong, I have provided sources and numbers.. You have only provided what you assume to be the case as you have no factual data to back up anything you think is correct.

 

Mind you, you are free to think and assume what you like, we're mostly arguing semantics and generally just wasting time here for no reason .. That's all fine.. 

Still.. so far all I have from you is guesses, assumptions and opinions.

 

Actually you haven't given any example or any explanation. I literally checked just to make sure. In short, your arguments to what I have said were; a) "You are not a backer, I am, so shut up", b ) " you are wrong, I am right", c) "you haven't played EVE, I have" and d) "there are other ways to make ISK at EVE". Nothing substantial, and absolutely no numbers, which by the way you have made fun of. Kinda at least.

 

Am I trying to convince you? No! SO, I'll agree that we have nothing else to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phaethonas said:

 

Actually you haven't given any example or any explanation. I literally checked just to make sure. In short, your arguments to what I have said were; a) "You are not a backer, I am, so shut up", b ) " you are wrong, I am right", c) "you haven't played EVE, I have" and d) "there are other ways to make ISK at EVE". Nothing substantial, and absolutely no numbers, which by the way you have made fun of. Kinda at least.

 

 

a/ Never said that

b/ I have provided sources and examples

c/ From your comments I can only deduct you are not (actively) playing EVE and you have not given me any reason to think different. I have not

d/ Not my argument at all

 

You sir obviously only take out of any sort of communication that which suits your assumptions. Since they are so far off the mark you pretty much ignore whatever anyone provided to show you are incorrect. But you are right, there is no point trying to discuss with someone without room for anything but their own opinion. I'll just leave it at that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I will agree (once more) that there isn't much more to tell, especially with you and people like you, who have no arguments, even though they say they do, I will say one thing. You may have any opinion you like, you may even have any opinion you like about me, but you can't lie. And in the context of forums, it is easy to prove that you lie. All I have to do is to quote you! So.....

50 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

a/ Never said that

 

As a reminder!

 

On 9/17/2017 at 11:18 AM, blazemonger said:

Oh.. wait, you are not a backer. So again, why  are you here exactly?

 

With at least one person voicing his/her concerns about your attitude, after that comment of yours.

 

So please, do tell me that your "argument" wasn't that as I am not a backer I should not voice my opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UnderhandAerial said:

What the.. You guys still discuss 'bout p2w or not in that way?

You miss the Topic! It's still Pre-Alpha and we have such toxic thread here!

 

Please return to a reasonable, logic discussion below my post. Thank you.

 

ikr Underhand Aerial. This has been the most hostile thread in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, there is really no more need for this kind of discussion. NQ has pretty clearly laid out how they want to proceed with monetization, and even though they are borrowing from EVE's system, enough of DU is wildly different form EVE that I don't think this is really going to be an issue. Even at release, there is no way that the player population will be able to support players (plural) injecting $200 worth of DAC into the market at a time and still value the DAC highly as a commodity. We have no idea how much quanta will actually be floating around, or how easy it will be to get given that its introduction to the market will be carefully restricted. NPC's will not be a bottomless supply of money in DU, that makes it pretty much impossible to compare the two game's economies, especially since the DU economy hasn't formed yet.

 

Plus DU has to go through alpha AND beta before DAC's even exist in the economy. Whole versions of the game will be playable without the impact of DAC's whatsoever.

 

Given that Quanta will not be readily available, and that we don't really know what the capacity will be for the NPC traders to distribute quanta, I suspect that DAC's will likely be traded for raw or finished goods instead, or as payment for a fulfilled contract. *mostly* I suspect it'll boil down to DAC's being traded for time not spent mining/refining material. I suspect that the players that are willing to inject money into DAC's as a currency will be using it to "catch up" to players who have more free time, probably professionals and/or people with a family or other hobbies (like myself).

 

Now that being said, this has been discussed to death, but there isn't going to be a way to form a valid argument that the monetization scheme is somehow bad for players without any good data. DU is different enough from EVE that data from EVE is bad data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wizardoftrash said:

Indeed, there is really no more need for this kind of discussion. NQ has pretty clearly laid out how they want to proceed with monetization ....

I have to say that I probably was in the wrong here :(

 

I should have paid more attention to what was said between the lines

 

Quote

We're not going to be Pay-to-Win, at least not what we define as "Pay-to-Win", you seem to think that trading a month for in-game currency is a Pay to Win mechanics. In our books, it's not. What is really pay to win (from our point of view) is the following: If an item gives an advantage to a player against other players, and this item is obtainable ONLY by paying real life money... then yes you are in a case of Pay-to-Win. That's the exact, original definition of Pay-to-Win

(From a related NQ announcement, -some emphasis added-)

 

As NQ does not consider purchasing in-game currency with real money, p2w, then there is absolute no reason for them to even consider any of my (or similar) arguments. Acknowledging, or defining if you wish, that p2w includes purchasing in-game currency with real money, would allow for the DAC system to be implemented, but with the necessary accompanied mechanics that would make sure it would not turn p2w.  But that is not the case.

 

What NQ considers and what not p2w, should not be the real question, and in practice is not important actually. What players consider p2w is the real question. Cause when (and if) the players won't consider playing or leave DU cause they will think it will be/is p2w, then these people won't come back because NQ defines p2w differently. And the question that arises is; What definition the vast majority of players have, if any?

 

I wish NQ, DU and its community the best, but DU is not for me. For me DU will be p2w. Plain and simple. And unfortunately, (for NQ and DU), from my experience I'd say that most players have a similar definition to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phaethonas said:

I wish NQ, DU and its community the best, but DU is not for me. For me DU will be p2w. Plain and simple. And unfortunately, (for NQ and DU), from my experience I'd say that most players have a similar definition to me.

Bye, nice chatting with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Phaethonas said:

I wish NQ, DU and its community the best, but DU is not for me. For me DU will be p2w. Plain and simple. And unfortunately, (for NQ and DU), from my experience I'd say that most players have a similar definition to me.

 

We'll see. My guess is there is one head out the door at this time.. Meanwhile the rest of us can't wait for Saturday to arrive.

But most of us here count on you not leaving really.

 

Just in case I'm wrong.. all the best.. hope you find what you are looking for elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Phaethonas said:

I have to say that I probably was in the wrong here :(

 

I should have paid more attention to what was said between the lines

 

(From a related NQ announcement, -some emphasis added-)

 

As NQ does not consider purchasing in-game currency with real money, p2w, then there is absolute no reason for them to even consider any of my (or similar) arguments. Acknowledging, or defining if you wish, that p2w includes purchasing in-game currency with real money, would allow for the DAC system to be implemented, but with the necessary accompanied mechanics that would make sure it would not turn p2w.  But that is not the case.

 

What NQ considers and what not p2w, should not be the real question, and in practice is not important actually. What players consider p2w is the real question. Cause when (and if) the players won't consider playing or leave DU cause they will think it will be/is p2w, then these people won't come back because NQ defines p2w differently. And the question that arises is; What definition the vast majority of players have, if any?

 

I wish NQ, DU and its community the best, but DU is not for me. For me DU will be p2w. Plain and simple. And unfortunately, (for NQ and DU), from my experience I'd say that most players have a similar definition to me.

Sad, but if you feel that way....fair enough. Not true to many people, but that's your opinion. Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p2hf - pay to have fun

p2cu- pay to catch up

obydss-overpay because you did something stupid

obyal-overpay because you are lazy

bsaeig-be smart and earn in game

blsh-buy low sell high

 

Heck. nothing catchy so far. Anybody came up with some more acronyms of possibilities?

 

I actually hit like buttons on both sides of this spectrum because this is what it is for me. It's obvious how Visa works and as long as you can pay with it for in game goodies you can benefit. But as long as game provides equal opportunities and possibilities to earn in game there is always a chance it's a Visa Uber players that feeds a market but its them being ripped off by skilled players. Usually because they too lazy, ignorant, not skilled enough, because they can or simply... people playing for fun and want to catch up. 

 

I don't care about definitions. As long as there is no item shop that will put Visa guy ahead of me because there is some gear I will not be able to acquire any other way, most of people are happy with it. Sure, maybe more cash will give you more raw materials faster, you can employ some workforce etc. But at the same time, there is not guarantee for Visa player of success on any level here. I do agree however this should be transparent and obvious to anybody who making decisions.

 

And I believe DU will provide more opportunities for fair chances to everybody to compare to EVE. But there is no way to have a perfect solution. One have more cash another time on his hands. Both are precious commodities in MMO games. Period.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...