"
"
I dare you to reference Wikipedia for any academic paper. Temporary auction tabs or the loot pet still aren't p2w under that definition.
Pay2win quite literally means what it says. You can pay real currency for actual power or ability in a game to gain advantage, power or other in-game benefits that those who do not pay cannot access. It has meant the same thing for years. However, the term has been stretched beyond its original definition to include any number of conveniences that save a person time or effort without giving any actual advantage.
I may be wrong about which term is being stretched thin here. It seems that the definition of "advantage" is what is in play here. Just how minor or major must the easing of a pain point be to qualify as an advantage, or p2w, to people like you? Is an XP booster p2w? What about a movement speed boost consumable or a character slot? Surely those are p2w since you can have a second character to farm with and move faster while doing it but people who don't buy those items can't.
Wikipedia also references their articles. Just scroll down and visit one of the other sources. Often those are more accepted than the wikipedia page, even when wikipedia take the info directly. Any "timesavers" are also p2w. Cosmetics are not p2w because they dont alter gameplay in any way but visually, or atleast shouldnt.
Last edited by Walltrigger on May 21, 2020, 9:42:47 AM
|
Posted byWalltriggeron May 21, 2020, 9:37:08 AM
|
Another one of these threads, referring to these features as "pay to win".
Please explain to me, with proper argumentation, as to how a slightly bigger inventory space or a loot picking pet is "pay to win"?
Or better yet - how do you win in PoE?
Path of Exile has no win condition. None. Nada. You set your win conditions yourself; you either reach your goal, or not. There is no winning involved. Leagues are not races, despite what poe.ninja tries to tell you. The ladder is just there for posterity sake, to show who can spend the most time playing the game, or has best reaction times to avoid on-death effects.
All the features you people mention are pure QoL and nothing else. I would understand if there was stuff like the mentioned CN race in every regular league, e.g. hit level 100 as the first character and get $1000 reward. If this could have been impacted by larger inventory or speeding up looting process - and it definitely would - then yes, that would be considered pay to win, because you would actually win.
"
Wikipedia also references their articles. Just scroll down and visit one of the other sources. Often those are more accepted than the wikipedia page, even when wikipedia take the info directly. Any "timesavers" are also p2w. Cosmetics are not p2w because they dont alter gameplay in any way but visually, or atleast shouldnt.
No, they are not. Mostly, because sometimes wikipedia provides references to proper academic sources. At least on the proper articles, not a term called "pay to win". Sitting in HO spamming alts for 4 hours straight is peak PoE gameplay. Thanks, Chris. Last edited by Ydoum on May 21, 2020, 9:51:02 AM
|
Posted byYdoumon May 21, 2020, 9:45:50 AM
|
"
Or better yet - how do you win in PoE?
You've been here long enough to know that out there, on the world wide webz, a lot of people are defining "P2W" differently. It all comes down to the definition. So to bring this up for the 39873765th time, seems a bit futile. You can look up the "definition" of P2W everywhere, and the word that keeps popping up, is "advantage".
Now, does loot pets give you an advantage? Of course. Stopping to pick stuff up (especially in Delirium) is dangerous. Having someone/something pick shit up for you, is objectively safer - and faster. Now, is that an advantage? Of course it is. Is it "P2W"? NO ONE KNOWS, because the freaking acronym is made up by the pop culture society, and everyone interpret it differently.
Personally, I don't care what we call it. I care how it's being implemented.
And as I've written before; adding loot pets is treating the symptoms and not the cause. The loot system is FUBAR and needs a solid rework. We shouldn't have to wish for a loot pet, because it shouldn't be necessary.
And when it comes to the "backpack"? Well, everything you have to pay for again, each league, is a no-no, no matter what.
Sometimes, just sometimes, you should really consider adapting to the world, instead of demanding that the world adapts to you.
|
Posted byPhrazzon May 21, 2020, 9:56:50 AM
|
"
And as I've written before; adding loot pets is treating the symptoms and not the cause. The loot system is FUBAR and needs a solid rework. We shouldn't have to wish for a loot pet, because it shouldn't be necessary.
This. People are asking to pay enormous amounts of cash for what instead could be a free solution that improves the game for everyone (which I think just not dropping so much trash and dropping lesser currency in stacks would be that).
|
Posted byVolcanoElixiron May 21, 2020, 10:06:42 AM
|
"
Another one of these threads, referring to these features as "pay to win".
Please explain to me, with proper argumentation, as to how a slightly bigger inventory space or a loot picking pet is "pay to win"?
Or better yet - how do you win in PoE?
Path of Exile has no win condition. None. Nada. You set your win conditions yourself; you either reach your goal, or not. There is no winning involved. Leagues are not races, despite what poe.ninja tries to tell you. The ladder is just there for posterity sake, to show who can spend the most time playing the game, or has best reaction times to avoid on-death effects.
All the features you people mention are pure QoL and nothing else. I would understand if there was stuff like the mentioned CN race in every regular league, e.g. hit level 100 as the first character and get $1000 reward. If this could have been impacted by larger inventory or speeding up looting process - and it definitely would - then yes, that would be considered pay to win, because you would actually win.
"
Wikipedia also references their articles. Just scroll down and visit one of the other sources. Often those are more accepted than the wikipedia page, even when wikipedia take the info directly. Any "timesavers" are also p2w. Cosmetics are not p2w because they dont alter gameplay in any way but visually, or atleast shouldnt.
No, they are not. Mostly, because sometimes wikipedia provides references to proper academic sources. At least on the proper articles, not a term called "pay to win".
Guess you didn't read the thread before providing your own input on the argument. That generally doesn't go down well. By the way:
"
"
"
I didn't call it more "winning", I called it more P2W, as in more stuff you "have to" pay for in order get more "QoL", as people call it. This is a clear cut case of something you get used to, and feel forced to buy each league. And unlike stash tabs, you actually have to purchase it each league.
Of course, if they just increased the inventory space for everyone for free, that would be a completely different situation. But people aren't asking for that. They are asking for "what the Chinese client has", because it is "so much better".
It's pay2convenience, just like paying for more stash tabs. Only difference is for inventory size boost it's recurring payment, which is worse sure but at the end of the day, you're not really needed to get them especially once you're used to the default inventory size which is aplenty and starts to play optimally (not picking up every junk that drops in maps).
A larger inventory would indeed be a form of pay2win; apologies if my last post made it seem like I was arguing that it wouldn't. Rather I was saying that the advantage it confers (degree of pay2win, if you prefer) is FAR lower now than it used to be. (And that's what I meant when I said GGG would be especially against it "for historical reasons.")
Incidentally, what you call pay4convenience happens to be one of the most popular forms of monetization in p2w mobile and MMO games. (There are others, of course.)
A simple rule of thumb is this: where "convenience" leads to "advantage" over non-paying players, that feature is pay2win, because the playing field is no longer level for players of varying incomes. Honestly, why else would we care??? Suppress your knee-jerk reactions, people, and think about it.
The idea, popular on these forums, that pay2win requires a discrete winning condition other than "advantage over non-paying players" before it can even exist is disingenuous nonsense.
"What do you win?" is probably the stupidest variant of that argument I've seen.
("There is no winning in a non-pvp game" is probably the second stupidest.)
Wash your hands, Exile!
|
Posted bygibbousmoonon May 21, 2020, 10:07:12 AM
|
|
Also, it is bad enough that GGG is continually pushing to make buying stash tabs a necessary convenience, imagine if they had more incentive to make more leagues like Delirium instead of making the loot allocation problem better for all players.
|
Posted byVolcanoElixiron May 21, 2020, 10:09:07 AM
|
"
Also, it is bad enough that GGG is continually pushing to make buying stash tabs a necessary convenience, imagine if they had more incentive to make more leagues like Delirium instead of making the loot allocation problem better for all players.
"Create the problem, sell the solution," you mean?
Yes indeed. Have you noticed that many common fragments still remain 100% unstackable for no discernible reason other than deliberately making the game more painful to play without the fragment tab, in order to drum up additional sales?
Or that many currency types remain at a ridiculously low stack amount of 10?
I have. And though I am not personally affected, I still find it obnoxious. It is a cynical and contemptuous way to treat your players.
If GGG offered to make those fragments stackable, and remove the stack limit of 10 for many currencies, in exchange for additional money, would that be pay2win?
Oh wait, they already did. And not in the Chinese version, mind you. Make no mistake: These stacking limits would have been fixed long ago if not for the existence of the fragment and currency tabs.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the most common definition of pay2win or not. You can have a non-standard, super-restrictive definition, go right ahead. The question remains: Do you want to play a game in which paying players have any kind of advantage not accessible to non-paying players? Is that OK with you? If so, why do you find it OK? And are you able to understand why others ( including those who can and do pay, such as myself) might see that as effectively leading to bad design decisions for everybody?
Wash your hands, Exile! Last edited by gibbousmoon on May 21, 2020, 9:47:13 PM
|
Posted bygibbousmoonon May 21, 2020, 12:03:28 PM
|
|
i am boycottign EVERYTHING China related.
EJRVBÑJKSBVÑERJVBÑJWERBVÑRWEJFVCÑIERVGLÑIJESFDBVIEWRGICVL3WEGRDVICWDSBCVIJWDBCVWIJDECVILDBWLDEJCHBVWLIDECGWLDICHYVGLWDICHLWDECHVW
DEVGERGVERGWWFVEFVWWEDQWEFCDWEFCWEFVCWEFCWEFWEFWEFWREGFRWREGFW
|
Posted byKopaKabanaon May 22, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
|
"
"
Also, it is bad enough that GGG is continually pushing to make buying stash tabs a necessary convenience, imagine if they had more incentive to make more leagues like Delirium instead of making the loot allocation problem better for all players.
"Create the problem, sell the solution," you mean?
Yes indeed. Have you noticed that many common fragments still remain 100% unstackable for no discernible reason other than deliberately making the game more painful to play without the fragment tab, in order to drum up additional sales?
Or that many currency types remain at a ridiculously low stack amount of 10?
I have. And though I am not personally affected, I still find it obnoxious. It is a cynical and contemptuous way to treat your players.
If GGG offered to make those fragments stackable, and remove the stack limit of 10 for many currencies, in exchange for additional money, would that be pay2win?
Oh wait, they already did. And not in the Chinese version, mind you. Make no mistake: These stacking limits would have been fixed long ago if not for the existence of the fragment and currency tabs.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the most common definition of pay2win or not. You can have a non-standard, super-restrictive definition, go right ahead. The question remains: Do you want to play a game in which paying players have any kind of advantage not accessible to non-paying players? Is that OK with you? If so, why do you find it OK? And are you able to understand why others ( including those who can and do pay, such as myself) might see that as effectively leading to bad design decisions for everybody?
I'm quoting this one, but also talking about the other one. I 100% agree with you. Its almost like players here have been in a time capsule for 20 years with their archaic, restrictive definition of P2W. Almost every single mobile game out there operates in a pay-for-convenience model, and they are widely accepted as the most P2W games. Most of the popular games do not sell direct power; they sell stash space, play-time, slots, VIP packs, which amount to QoL features(One game I'm dabbling in now sells a VIP pack that gives you 2x auto speed instead of 1.5). Almost none of them sell direct power. And, most of them are primarily PVE, much like PoE. Most of them you are basically collecting units, killing monsters, and rinse repeat. There is very little PVP in tehse games, yet they are considered heavily P2W.
P2W is an umbrella term. Its almost asinine watching people define the umbrella term by the word "win." Paid advantages, and namely QoL features, are the primarily selling points in most P2W games. But for whatever reason, people here literally cherry pick the most rediculous Korean MMO example they can think of to define P2W. If "winning" was the only barometer to label something P2W, there would be only a handful of actual P2W games in existence. Most games have varying degrees of P2W features, and most of those are in the convenience category.
|
Posted byDestructodaveon May 22, 2020, 12:59:06 AM
|
"
i am boycottign EVERYTHING China related.
Well, since GGG is China related, so is this forum. So bye.
|
Posted byLennyLenon May 22, 2020, 2:17:05 AM
|
