Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Lots of words, zero examples of other pay to win games

No point in arguying

Why would you expect examples, outside of Star Citizen, when I already said the model has been poorly implemented by the industry up to this point?

1 + 1 = 2

 

[Halo is Back]

Even coming from you, this is a pretty bad take....

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Even coming from you, this is a pretty bad take....

I was right about GAAS.

I'm probably right about this.

 

[Zannegan]

Trolling, an attempt at humor or just drugs? Nobody knows.

Fourth Option: Evilore was playing around alts one day and decided to create an insane devil's advocate, just to see how far he could carry a bass ackwards argument using forum logic. The result was a character that not only inflated clicks through controversy but was actually a fun challenge to write, a modern-day Screwtape if you will. At least that's been my working theory since his last few threads.

It may not be Evilore, but it definitely feels like some sort of social experiment or extremely meta satire. Someone's out there laughing into their sleeve at how Gaf members actually take their posts seriously.

 

[elmos-acc]

As much as I think you are trolling, I wouldn't be mad if a developer tried this. Like, for example, a F2P game like Battlefield where you would have to pay for a plane? If they did it in a way that didn't impact the enjoyment of those people who do not care about planes (like me), it would at least be something else than generic battlepass progression and absolutely ridiculous cosmetics.

I don't know if any game developer could pull that off in a way that makes sense though. Maybe it's just time to accept that almost all multiplayer games will have predatory monetization, are there even any examples of MP games that do not have any microtransactions but have an active playerbase?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

As much as I think you are trolling, I wouldn't be mad if a developer tried this. Like, for example, a F2P game like Battlefield where you would have to pay for a plane? If they did it in a way that didn't impact the enjoyment of those people who do not care about planes (like me), it would at least be something else than generic battlepass progression and absolutely ridiculous cosmetics.

I don't know if any game developer could pull that off in a way that makes sense though. Maybe it's just time to accept that almost all multiplayer games will have predatory monetization, are there even any examples of MP games that do not have any microtransactions but have an active playerbase?

"I think your trolling but your idea sounds interesting."

 

[demented waffle]

OP, you are a treasonous pile of trash for suggesting this.

 

[Last Hearth]

Pay 2 win is one of the most universally despised concepts in gaming. I, like many of you, hissed at it for most of my gaming life.

I was wrong.

The problem with Pay 2 win has always been in its implementation, not in it's concept.

Our favorite movies, TV shows, and books abide by Pay 2 Win rules. Darth Vader spends trillions building his Death Star. He has billions of white helmeted soldiers. He's bribing (I think) politicians across the galaxy. Luke Skywalker enters as a F2P player. Darth Vader has numerous advantages over Luke Skywalker but Luke still has "fun" fighting the empire. All of our favorite stories are asymmetrical. That's Pay 2 Win.

The problem with Pay 2 Win is that it's implementation has been garbage. Up until this point, pay to win has made not paying, unenjoyable. The asymmetry of going against a whale is miserable. So much so that it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the majority of the player base. The correction is simply making the experience fun for the player who doesn't pay anything. Star Wars becomes a much less enjoyable movie if the cheapo Rebel Alliance quite and go play another game. When developers figure out how to make the asymmetry fun...BOOM, there's your industry growth.

I don't think what you said even makes sense, if the game is "fun" for people who don't pay, then there is no incentive to pay. In order for P2W, the W part has be there. Nobody is going to pay in a P2W game where they pay and don't win. In your scenario, the Darth Vadar player would have quit the game and went to a different game and told everyone to avoid the garbage game that allowed a F2P player to beat him despite him having dumped thousands into the game, and all the whales will stay away from the game and the game dies.

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

OP when writing this...

There is absolutely NOTHING good about P2W or GAAS games. Look at MK1 and Suicide Squad and how WB has nearly killed two devs (NRS and Rocksteady) with this type of mentality and you think it's good......big oof on your part.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I don't think what you said even makes sense, if the game is "fun" for people who don't pay, then there is no incentive to pay. In order for P2W, the W part has be there. Nobody is going to pay in a P2W game where they pay and don't win. In your scenario, the Darth Vadar player would have quit the game and went to a different game and told everyone to avoid the garbage game that allowed a F2P player to beat him despite him having dumped thousands into the game, and all the whales will stay away from the game and the game dies.

Dear God. Honestly, pause and just think this through.

You can't envision a game where playing as one type of character is fun...but after a while you want to check out another type of character?

League of Legends does this. They give you a small number of characters to play as. That's your F2P group. They design the game so it's fun to play with those characters...but they entice you by forcing you to pay, or unlocked other characters. People buy characters and skins all the time in one of the most successful videogames in history. League of Legends is more than a decade old.

 

[MiguelItUp]

 

[Hypereides]

You're really living up to that tag, Mibby.

 

[hinch7]

But anyways why would people pay more for a worst experience. That doesn't make sense, at all. The whole concept for live service is to keep the user engaged and playing for long as possible, and the P2W option is there for don't have time to invest into the grind. With the bonus of getting an advantage over others. If you reversed the roles NOONE is going to pay for anything making it moot.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But anyways why would people pay more for a worst experience. That doesn't make sense, at all. The whole concept for live service is to keep the user engaged and playing for long as possible, and the P2W option is there for don't have time to invest into the grind. With the bonus of getting an advantage over others. If you reversed the roles NOONE is going to pay for anything making it moot.

You're describing the old (current) method of how P2W is implemented. Read the OP and check out Star Citizen to catch up to speed.

 

[hinch7]

You're describing the old (current) method of how P2W is implemented. Read the OP and check out Star Citizen to catch up to speed.

The game that sells in game items from hundreds spanning to thousands. And is practically in a purpetual state of vaporware (bordering scam) because the money coming in is too good. Don't think thats a good concept and model to follow. Its the whales and investors keeping CIG open, otherwise it'll SC would be dead in the water.

Highly doubt its bringing in new players on a month to month basis.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Its the whales and investors keeping CIG open, otherwise it'll SC would be dead in the water.

You've stumbled on the point of this thread. Nice.

If the industry wants to grow, they need to cater more to the whales. It's an untapped market.

 

[Last Hearth]

You've stumbled on the point of this thread. Nice.

If the industry wants to grow, they need to cater more to the whales. It's an untapped market.

Why do I "want" the industry to grow. The only thing I want is for the industry to cater to me. The industry grows if there are a lot of people like me out there. Growth is the result that happens naturally from providing good service. If an industry sacrifices qualify of service for growth. They will end up with neither.

 

[hinch7]

You've stumbled on the point of this thread. Nice.

If the industry wants to grow, they need to cater more to the whales. It's an untapped market.

Issue being that once the bubble pops and those whales stop investing you're left with a load of debt. Just look at what happened to NFT's.

The better option is make good products to draw bigger audiences for growth. And keep good quality content going. Keep that pay to win crap to a minimum and save them for skins and everyones happy. Blizzard did that for a while for World of Warcraft before they started fucking up in the later expansions. Adding more monetization to the mix, but still keeping it non P2W and there's millions of subscribers still. They got more money from a single in-game mount than they got from SC2 - which is a fairly depressing thought.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why do I "want" the industry to grow. The only thing I want is for the industry to cater to me. The industry grows if there are a lot of people like me out there. Growth is the result that happens naturally from providing good service. If an industry sacrifices qualify of service for growth. They will end up with neither.

This is merely a theoretical discussion on strategy. Our preferences should be irrelevant here.

 

[Danjin44]

If the industry wants to grow, they need to cater more to the whales. It's an untapped market.

Your idea is not gonna make the industry grow but instead its gonna turn the entire gaming industry to dog shit........maybe that what you want but most us dont.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Your idea is not gonna make the industry grow but instead its gonna turn the entire gaming industry to dog shit........maybe that what you want but most us dont.

That math doesn't work.

If it wouldn't help the industry grow, then why would it bring about the apocalypse? It would be ineffective.

You kind of have to choose one.

 

[nkarafo]

 

[T-800]

Maybe Eve online has the mechanic of stealing p2w shit.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

 

[Last Hearth]

This is merely a theoretical discussion on strategy. Our preferences should be irrelevant here.

Our preference can't be irrelevant because our patronage is what keeps the industry alive.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Dear God. Honestly, pause and just think this through.

You can't envision a game where playing as one type of character is fun...but after a while you want to check out another type of character?

League of Legends does this. They give you a small number of characters to play as. That's your F2P group. They design the game so it's fun to play with those characters...but they entice you by forcing you to pay, or unlocked other characters. People buy characters and skins all the time in one of the most successful videogames in history. League of Legends is more than a decade old.

You should take your own advice, nothing you described here is P2W, the character you grinded or bought isn't some win button, these games are balanced around multiple characters and team synergy, so much in fact that the new character you tried might have a bad matchup against another character, so now you start losing instead of winning like you normally did.
Also LoL isn't a single player game, nothing you buy will just overcome the player skill that lets a character with a bad matchup still win; someone who's got your number will beat your ass no matter how much money you spend, which is directly opposite to "P2W"

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You should take your own advice, nothing you described here is P2W, the character you grinded or bought isn't some win button, these games are balanced around multiple characters and team synergy, so much in fact that the new character you tried might have a bad matchup against another character, so now you start losing instead of winning like you normally did.
Also LoL isn't a single player game, nothing you buy will just overcome the player skill that lets a character with a bad matchup still win; someone who's got your number will beat your ass no matter how much money you spend, which is directly opposite to "P2W"

Stop. Slow down. Count backwards from 10.

I was clearly responding to the poster who said... "I don't think what you said even makes sense, if the game is "fun" for people who don't pay, then there is no incentive to pay."

This concept is so far removed from the reality that a teacher : student relationship is forming in real time. I'm trying to build up his understanding so that he can formulate more valid opinions and concepts. Think: Zone of proximal development.

Once he understands that basic reality, he can engage with the OP on more even footing.

Our preference can't be irrelevant because our patronage is what keeps the industry alive.

Then thought experiments may not be for you.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Once he understands that basic reality, he can engage with the OP on more even footing.

Everyone understands what you're talking about, it's you who's stuck in some twilight zone delusion

I was clearly responding to the poster who said...

No, what you are clearly doing now is ignoring the fact that he responded to you about your insane P2W premise and are conveniently now ignoring the rest of his post:

In order for P2W, the W part has be there. Nobody is going to pay in a P2W game where they pay and don't win. In your scenario, the Darth Vadar player would have quit the game and went to a different game and told everyone to avoid the garbage game

 

[Trogdor1123]

I’m confused how that is pay to win…

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Everyone understands what you're talking about, it's you who's stuck in some twilight zone delusion

No, what you are clearly doing now is ignoring the fact that he responded to you about your insane P2W premise and are conveniently now ignoring the rest of his post:

Yeah, that's all wrong as well. Allow me to explain...

When people purchase products, they don't pass it through a P2W lense. They simply assess a product and estimate how much value they will derive from it.

We see his theory fall flat on its face with Star Citizen.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Yeah, that's all wrong as well. Allow me to explain...

When people purchase products, they don't pass it through a P2W lense. They simply assess a product and estimate how much value they will derive from it.

You're not explaining shit, as said for it to be P2W, the 'win' needs to be there, if you're not winning after paying it's not P2W.

 

[hemo memo]

Poll says it all. I mean that’s like suggesting that online pass should be embraced for the industry to grow. It’s just wrong.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You're not explaining shit, as said for it to be P2W, the 'win' needs to be there, if you're not winning after paying it's not P2W.

Allowing people to purchase items, ships, and abilities with VASTLY different mechanics attached to them would obviously be considerably pay to win. Are you familiar with the Death Star in Star Wars? Try rereading the OP again. Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I needed to.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Try rereading the OP again. Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I needed to.

reading that insane shit once was enough for a lifetime

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Pay 2 win makes games not worth playing in my opinion.

I will admit my imagination might be small on this issue, but there is no changes I could imagine that would make playing a pay 2 win game worth playing unless it's a demo for a paid game.

Playing against people who can pay to have an advantage over you is wack and I don't see a way to make that not suck and still worth paying for. Even if it's limited to eng game activities.

I think the best pay structure is kinda the Destiny 2 and the Eververse store. Buy any cosmetic you want now for a fee, or wait until it's drip feed for a currency you can earn in game.

You pay to feel special for a little while and everyone can earn the same stuf via drip feed later.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Playing against people who can pay to have an advantage over you is wack and I don't see a way to make that not suck and still worth paying for.

What is the difference between an AI who has an advantage over you and a real player who has an advantage over you?

I genuinely can't see the difference.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

What is the difference between an AI who has an advantage over you and a real player who has an advantage over you?

I genuinely can't see the difference.

Maybe this would be considered a console gamer mindset, but outside of cheats, I feel like most people are on a level playing field and it's mostly skill, age and amount of sleep that separates players.

AI is capable of being better, but that I don't think most players compete with AI when playing games. At least that's how I think of it. The AI in games is more of a difficulty setting.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Maybe this would be considered a console gamer mindset, but outside of cheats, I feel like most people are on a level playing field and it's mostly skill, age and amount of sleep that separates players.

AI is capable of being better, but that I don't think most players compete with AI when playing games. At least that's how I think of it. The AI in games is more of a difficulty setting.

I can't wrap my head around "most players don't compete with AI when playing games". It's like...all I did as Link in Zelda was hit AI with swords, bombs, and arrows.

I appreciate your response but I can't wrap my head around that

 

[BlackTron]

Lmao this thread can cure boredom or sadness

Boredom maybe, but not sadness.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

I can't wrap my head around "most players don't compete with AI when playing games". It's like...all I did as Link in Zelda was hit AI with swords, bombs, and arrows.

I appreciate your response but I can't wrap my head around that

Do you feel like your competing with the monsters you fight in Zelda? To me, they are just an obstacle to make the game interesting.

When I think of competing, I'm thinking pvp games like Overwatch, or GT7 Online. Why would you pay to win in a single player game?

 

[Dynasty8]

OP, blink 3 times if Ubisoft's CEO is holding you at gunpoint.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Do you feel like your competing with the monsters you fight in Zelda? To me, they are just an obstacle to make the game interesting.

When I think of competing, I'm thinking pvp games like Overwatch, or GT7 Online. Why would you pay to win in a single player game?

There's two types of multiplayer games now. The old style are competitive "sports" type games. These are your Overwatches, GT7s, Street Fighters etc. I will admit, P2W does not work in this style because they're competitive by nature.

The newer type of multiplayer is story based multiplayer. Think Fortnite, Rust, Helldivers 2. These games are more about experiencing an interactive story arc. This is where P2W can work. See: Star Citizen.

The biggest problem with games like Zelda are that the worlds are dead due to braindead AI. Everyone just waits around for Link to show up and then an asymmetric battle occurs.

You can fix this type of game by replacing ineffective ineffective AI with human intelligence. That Giant Centipede in Tears of the Kingdom would be far more interesting if it was a player who spent $500 dollars on the character.

 

[SHA]

After this thread I think they should create Pay to Post.

BTW, you could still post without payment but free posts gonna be a nothing burger.

 

[MarkMe2525]

So like a monster attack game where it's 100 vs 1. It's $100 bucks for a monster and free for the players attempting to take it down. I can see something like that becoming a thing.

 

[SHA]

Dear God. Honestly, pause and just think this through.

You can't envision a game where playing as one type of character is fun...but after a while you want to check out another type of character?

League of Legends does this. They give you a small number of characters to play as. That's your F2P group. They design the game so it's fun to play with those characters...but they entice you by forcing you to pay, or unlocked other characters. People buy characters and skins all the time in one of the most successful videogames in history. League of Legends is more than a decade old.

PC got it right, it's the closest platform for these types of stuff, console games btw are different, players expect not missing anything major in their copy, I don't see console players could comprehend what's beyond that, not as far as I know.

 

[tylrdiablos]

 

[SHA]

I want you to know that you're swimming in a pool. A pool where all the people think the correction to the industries stagnation...is to make shorter, AA games. Stop swimming in that pool. Those people don't understand how markets evolve. Swim in my pool. Swim in the pool of inevitability.

I swear to God someone will unearth this thread in 1,000 years and people will start worshipping me.

Doom, then, will be playable in drugs with chemicals , given that, each individual will believe their own shit and make it happen but no one will be interested in communicating cause each one's experience is different, it's a different reality, no one will resist, even you.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Doom, then, will be playable in drugs with chemicals , given that, each individual will believe their own shit and make it happen but no one will be interested in communicating cause each one's experience is different, it's a different reality, no one will resist, even you.

I agree completely.

Games/drugs aren't there yet.