- Viewing Profile: Reputation: MazingerZ
MazingerZMember Since 31 Aug 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 05:22 AM
- Group Curse Premium
- Active Posts 2220
- Profile Views 9172
- Member Title Golem Rider
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted raspberry jam on 14 April 2014 - 04:35 PM
Posted raspberry jam on 14 April 2014 - 02:07 PM
Posted Miragee on 11 April 2014 - 08:53 PM
I would call it an unethical cash grab.
Remove the effect of money on game-play. Segregate the RMT from the game-play. No amount of game-play will get you cash shop items and no amount of money (to the devs) will get you in-game items.
Once that's done, the game has to survive on merit. Because you're not going to pay for extras a game that doesn't have fun, rewarding game-play unless that money makes the game-play fun and rewarding (boosting, creates gold).
In this instance there isn't any way to change that with your wallet, so it comes down to bad design rather than egregiously adding piss to the water so you'll occasionally pay for a clean glass when you're tired of drinking piss. And since you cannot buy your cash shop items with gold, you don't have to balance your in-game economy with the RL economy.
If you find yourself enjoying the game, you spend real money for items in the cash shop because that's an enhancement to your experience without affecting the other rewards in the game. Pretty much how if you're enjoying a game, you pay each month to continue enjoying it. Especially if you're expecting additional content for free.
The only time they can ever get in trouble is when they're releasing cash shop armors at a ratio of 6 for every one in-game armor set. Your players should never feel like they're being backed into a corner when it comes to spending cash.
Create parity. Do your best to create parity (armors in the cash shop and game that people will like equally). People enjoy a fair system.
I like the core of this post. Extra Credits just did a video on f2p done wrong and in the end they had a perfectly fitting statement: Make a good game (first) and the money will come. If the game is good and I enjoy playing the hell out of it I like to support the dev's. And if you want to spend money on the game, sub-only games are very fair because everyone is the same in this system. Fair f2p/b2p system sacrifice a bit of the fairness in favor of other things like little start investment to get into the game etc which make up for it. Sadly, gw2 is in the categorie of f2p shops done wrong imho.
Posted raspberry jam on 11 April 2014 - 07:53 AM
the 12 minutes statistic was derived by the reddit post's OP, based on the number of "active" players per week and hours played per day. it is by no means valid, because it makes a number of baseless assumptions.
the number of minutes played "on average" by no means tells you what the typical number of minutes a "typical" player plays. trying to calculate for it is pointless, as is bringing it up in any meaningful discussion.
as myself and yugas have already pointed out, it is easily possible to have fully decked out characters within two weeks, starting with nothing on your account. we tend be to fairly hardcore, so a more casual player can do the same in maybe 2-3 times that amount. a fully decked out character within a month, even for casuals? how is this "P2W" again?
I fail to see how the average time played can be anything but a pointer to how the typical player plays. The nature of averages is that it usually takes on a value near a typical one. Comparing to the median is always worthwhile, but the average is an important value.
Posted raspberry jam on 11 April 2014 - 07:26 AM
i'm failing to see how legendaries are supposed to be good, or even worth getting. sounds like you people are chasing after something, that's actually giving you a DOWNgrade.
But go beyond that, get more specific and into the finer details and suddenly agreeing on time isn't easy. How much gold should we make in an hour with casual play, for example. Is it cool to only get a few gold a day, or should we get a few gold an hour? Maybe one gold every ninety minutes? Fifty minutes? Forty five minutes? That is when "common sense" starts turning into pointless arguments and you need an objective baseline of what is and isn't okay to start building your subjective changes off of. I guess you could say this thread isn't about fleshing out what we do and don't want from Guild Wars 2; its about agreeing on the skeleton. We're building a foundation, not putting up walls, and some of the more...over zealous, posters here have been getting a bit ahead of the discussion.
Posted raspberry jam on 10 April 2014 - 10:39 PM
When distilled down to its essence gold, like karma, is just another path to skins. And skins are not themselves objectively advantageous. So logically obtaining skins, however you do so and however rapidly, is objectively irrelevant to every other player in every game mode. Thus pay-to-obtain-skins-faster (buying gold) is not objectively pay-to-win, especially with upcoming changes.
And that is a slow process unless you pay.
Posted raspberry jam on 10 April 2014 - 10:30 PM
GW1 you could buy skill unlocks. (Pay 2 win?).
In WoW you can buy experience scrolls.... how is that not pay 2 win if leveling is my goal?
In GW1 you could buy skill unlocks, but IIRC it was only core skills and (not sure about this part) it didn't unlock elite skills in PvE? That's not really pay2win I think, but I admit it's borderline.
WoW's exp scrolls I didn't know about. Regardless, leveling in WoW, while arduous, isn't really considered a major goal (for other characters than your first) compared to all the stuff that you do when you are at max level.
I don't think you understand what that term means.
In order to understand what p2w stands for, you should first define "winning" <insert a Charlie Sheen pic here>. Now, that's a toughie because the meaning of this word varies greatly in gaming; games are won differently depending on the genre! So it can mean simply becoming good at the game, achieving highest rank on the ladder or simply killing the final boss.
But... How do you win an MMORPG? Gosh, that's even a bigger toughie!
I'm sure some will have their own definitions that are different from mine, but in my opinion you win an MMORPG simply by being waaaay stronger than everyone else. Do you have 10k more hp than everyone else? Can you take on 10 people and win effortlessly with the power of your dragonrage supersteelstar gear? Are you the only one on the server with "xX 3p1c N00B PwNz0R Xx" title? Yes? Then congrats, you have won a MMORPG! Obviously I'm exaggerating here, but this should give you an idea. I'm writing this from experience playing MMOs (lots of p2w ones at that).
Some games let players become so strong just by playing a lot, others not so much. Regardless, now that this is out of the way we can look at the term "pay 2 win". What word do you think is more important here, "pay" or "win"? I'm guessing you will answer "win" because thats what your posts focus on. In your view, as long as there is any amount of win as a result of pay, the game is p2w. That's not necessarily true.
The word we should focus on is in fact "pay", that's the keyword here! In a pay 2 win game there can be no win without pay. Just say pay 2 win out loud and it will instantly become clear to you. Pay is the key! In such games an average freeloader will be able to play as much as he wants but will have almost no chance to get that nice, shiny dragonrage supersteelstar gear that CS users have. Why? Because the unobtainium required to craft it is only availible from the Cash Shop. That player won't even be able to join any dungeon runs because his +1 dirty napkin gear he managed to get after 1300 hours of playing normally is simply far too weak. Not that it would matter anyway, because the final boss won't drop that T0gg4f Slasher of Eternal Doom unless he buys a 100000x droprate booster.
There, now you should get an idea. =)
Posted Desild on 09 April 2014 - 09:22 AM
No, you're saying "♥♥♥♥ logic, I am right because I want to be". You can respect whatever you want but don't expect anyone to respect your standpoint if you can't present reasons for it.
Now now raspberry, the man conceeded. Be a good sport. I don't agree with him anymore than you do, but the examples you both are using are getting silly.
Farmville is a much better example. I think... Is there even a winning condition? You pay money there just to gain some form of advantage over the others. Upgrades finish faster, among other things I have no idea on how they work since Facebook is the Devil's spawn!
Point is, Farmville is a casebook suspect of P2W. If Guild Wars 2 has aspects of Facebook games P2W, then by proxy, it is a P2W game.
Posted Mordakai on 08 April 2014 - 03:40 PM
That said, there were some good moments: Kiel letting the consortium ship get blown up, for example: http://wiki.guildwar...yak_to_the_ship
Problem is: it was hidden as an epilogue of the LS. Some people didn't even know about it!
Posted raspberry jam on 07 April 2014 - 07:41 AM
So now the stuff in the gemstore is also a problem?
Yeah, some people will use gems to get gold.
I wouldn't but someone might just want to get that legendary skin or speed up their ascended gear or whatever and pay for it.
In return people will be able to acquire gems at a cheaper price.
Posted Desild on 05 April 2014 - 03:54 PM
I understand if you would still like to give feedback about the game because you're passionate about it and want it to become better (however you think it can be better).
But what on earth are you doing here if you've given up on the game?
You got so much spare time on your hands you go on the internet to complain about a game you don't even like/care about?
That's a sketchy cold reading of my motivations that you got there, Gilles. How did you manage to dredge all that from a single sidehanded comment?
Instead of assuming, or use gross broadstrokes to paint me, you ought to just ask candidly of what drives me. In this case, it would be the "holier than thou" attitude from ArenaNet and the "can do no wrong" approach they have been taking over the past two years than made me quit this "feedback" thing you mentioned. Specially predominant in the micro-transaction department, if go back on how Mike O'Brien pulled our legs two years ago. Not once were we asked what approach we prefered, and every "feedback" we provided was brushed aside.
And how I spend my five minute breaks between study/gaming sessions is not of your business, than you very much.
Posted Gyre on 04 April 2014 - 06:23 PM
Posted raspberry jam on 04 April 2014 - 12:39 PM
Nevermind most games these days monetize, regardless of payment model. Those concepts apply to nearly every game in every genre. The Battlefield series started offering "shortcut packs" with BF3 and continue with BF4. Does that make BF4 P2W? Even cosmetic options are considered P2W now under these definitions, therefore nearly every game is P2W. DLC, microtransactions, shortcut packs, lock-out removals; there's no way around it these days. Games are made to make money, that doesn't mean it's P2W. If it becomes unbearable you stop playing, but some are far too attached to ever give it up but have enough time to complain about it in multiple threads.
If you consider unlocking all horizontal-progression options a win, then shortcut packs are pay2win. But in Battlefield, the victory concept is strongly tied to the official victory condition, so horizontal progress isn't really win. GW2 however is a very easy game, and the official victory condition is fulfilled so easily that no one actually considers it winning; it is just something that is assumed and expected to happen anyway. This makes people focus on other things, such as getting legendaries or such.
Of course there is a way around it, as there are still games that are sold as-is, for profit, without microtransactions and lock-outs, and where any DLC that appears was developed after the main release.
In GW2 the 'make $$$' mechanics and the high focus on getting rewards is what enables the official-RMT, free-to-play-like business model. It is built into the game mechanics, just like was suggested by that Chinese dev in the talk I linked to.
The Asian style of games are coming to the west and the only thing we can do to stop it is to not buy bad games. Fortunately, that's also all we need to do: free-to-play games with cash shops are (almost) universally bad.
Finally objective advantage does exist in real life too; I'm sure you've heard the old joke "never bring a knife to a gun fight." In this case the guy with the gun has the objective advantage. Likewise having an advantage in a game of soccer, to use your example, has nothing to do with the level of engagement a given audience member may have. Soccer is a competitive sport, and as such anything that one team has beyond the other that helps them win, or improves their odds, is an objective advantage. For example having a star player with lots of experience and natural skill is an advantage, and an objective one at that. It isn't an opinion that said star player has more experience; that can be statistically tracked. As can be his skill and talent.
In reality objective advantage is the only advantage that actually exists; subjective advantage is an illusion. A type of self hypnosis that exists only within the minds of those who believe, in error, that it ever existed at all. Subjective advantage is at best psychosomatic, and at worst a paranoid delusion.
No, subjective advantage is the only advantage that exists. Example: Soccer is a competitive sport. Having a star player on the team is an advantage only if you play by the rules of soccer and if you aim at winning a soccer match/championship. It is not an advantage for the coach of the team if he is trying to solve a crossword puzzle. That might sound like a silly example, but it is not; the presence of advantages depends on your goals, and since those are subjective, so are the advantages.
Most people win GW2 content so easily that they don't really care about it, instead caring about stuff that they can buy (with in-game money).
Posted Gyre on 03 April 2014 - 07:05 PM
Along this train of thought...wouldn't it make sense then that the time sink exists specifically to encourage gem purchasing? After all, you can't encourage someone to pay for a shortcut if the path there is already reasonable.
Posted Gyre on 03 April 2014 - 06:28 PM
I thought this was a really well written post so +1 from me there. It got a 6 from me using your scale but even so there are quite a few 0's. Your second and third bullets are what really sunk it in terms of score.