Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by zaxxon23

It's been fun times discussing RMT lately, but I wanted to bring up another issue just as important and unbalancing.  Time.  The anti-rmters think it's ok for someone to have more time to play a mmo than someone else and reap those rewards.  Yet, the moment someone spends some real cash to catch up to those who have the time advantage, it is suddenly cheating.  IMO, time is just as unbalancing a factor in mmo gameplay as rmt supposedly is.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that rmt is more of a balancing factor than an unbalancing factor.

 

So, disucss.  Is the fact that one person has more time to play than another an unbalancing factor in mmos?  If so, should time be regulated to make the game fair for everyone?  If the anti-rmters are so concerned about fairness in mmos, shouldn't they be just as concerned about fairness in playtime as they are about rmt?

 

 

 

I think it's important to note that I am not advocating restricting time in mmos.  I am just saying that to me any argument against rmt on the basis of "fairness" is completely illogical given the inherent unfairness of the time variable.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this. I fi work 40 hours a week doing construction work and decide to work overtime for another 20 hours with overpay..i should get more money than somebody only able to put in 40 hours because i worked harder. Thats the natural order of things and it is quite fair. The guy that cannot put in the extra hours have no reason to complain he doesn't get paid as much since he doesn't put in the hours.

 

RMT is a whole other issue that can't be compared with time. Time for most of us is free..money isn't. A gamer that can't put in the hours to get better gear than those that can shouldn't be able to obtain the same level of gear period.

 

I'm vehmently against RMT and i have absolutely no desire of evening the playingfield when it comes to gear. I'm a stout believer in everybody earning what they are willing or able to work for. If that creates an unbalance from rich to poor then i am fine with that. It is how it should be

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by zaxxon23

It's been fun times discussing RMT lately, but I wanted to bring up another issue just as important and unbalancing.  Time.  The anti-rmters think it's ok for someone to have more time to play a mmo than someone else and reap those rewards.  Yet, the moment someone spends some real cash to catch up to those who have the time advantage, it is suddenly cheating.  IMO, time is just as unbalancing a factor in mmo gameplay as rmt supposedly is.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that rmt is more of a balancing factor than an unbalancing factor.

 

So, disucss.  Is the fact that one person has more time to play than another an unbalancing factor in mmos?  If so, should time be regulated to make the game fair for everyone?  If the anti-rmters are so concerned about fairness in mmos, shouldn't they be just as concerned about fairness in playtime as they are about rmt?

 

 

 

I think it's important to note that I am not advocating restricting time in mmos.  I am just saying that to me any argument against rmt on the basis of "fairness" is completely illogical given the inherent unfairness of the time variable.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this. I fi work 40 hours a week doing construction work and decide to work overtime for another 20 hours with overpay..i should get more money than somebody only able to put in 40 hours because i worked harder. Thats the natural order of things and it is quite fair. The guy that cannot put in the extra hours have no reason to complain he doesn't get paid as much since he doesn't put in the hours.

 

RMT is a whole other issue that can't be compared with time. Time for most of us is free..money isn't. A gamer that can't put in the hours to get better gear than those that can shouldn't be able to obtain the same level of gear period.

 

I'm vehmently against RMT and i have absolutely no desire of evening the playingfield when it comes to gear. I'm a stout believer in everybody earning what they are willing or able to work for. If that creates an unbalance from rich to poor then i am fine with that. It is how it should be

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

You don't get the sentiment because you want everybody to be on an even playing field no matter how much time spent in the game. Then what do you need loot for. sounds like you need a game where loot isn't a factor since you want it to be easily obtainable...then why have it at all?. If characters doesn't use items then everybody is equal..sounds like a better solution for you if you ask me

I believe in working for what you get IN the game.

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by zaxxon23

 

I don't get your sentiment on this. If i work 40 hours a week doing construction work and decide to work overtime for another 20 hours with overpay..i should get more money than somebody only able to put in 40 hours because i worked harder. Thats the natural order of things and it is quite fair. The guy that cannot put in the extra hours have no reason to complain he doesn't get paid as much since he doesn't put in the hours.

 

RMT is a whole other issue that can't be compared with time. Time for most of us is free..money isn't. A gamer that can't put in the hours to get better gear than those that can shouldn't be able to obtain the same level of gear period.

 

I'm vehmently against RMT and i have absolutely no desire of evening the playingfield when it comes to gear. I'm a stout believer in everybody earning what they are willing or able to work for. If that creates an unbalance from rich to poor then i am fine with that. It is how it should be. This idea that we all should be equal is nonsense. Society doesn't work like that and neither should virtual worlds in MMORPGS with their own economy

Although I don't necessarily agree with the OP's premise, your counterargument seems to be flawed and contradictory.  If you don't think people necessarily need to be equal, then the premise of your last paragraph turns on its head a bit.   People don't always get ahead in real life simply because of hard work, and they don't always obtain fancy belongings through hard work.  If you want a game to work like a real society, then that's something you'll probably find more in RMT games than P2P games, regardless of how much one might individually prefer either paradigm.

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by zaxxon23

It's been fun times discussing RMT lately, but I wanted to bring up another issue just as important and unbalancing.  Time.  The anti-rmters think it's ok for someone to have more time to play a mmo than someone else and reap those rewards.  Yet, the moment someone spends some real cash to catch up to those who have the time advantage, it is suddenly cheating.  IMO, time is just as unbalancing a factor in mmo gameplay as rmt supposedly is.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that rmt is more of a balancing factor than an unbalancing factor.

 

So, disucss.  Is the fact that one person has more time to play than another an unbalancing factor in mmos?  If so, should time be regulated to make the game fair for everyone?  If the anti-rmters are so concerned about fairness in mmos, shouldn't they be just as concerned about fairness in playtime as they are about rmt?

 

 

 

I think it's important to note that I am not advocating restricting time in mmos.  I am just saying that to me any argument against rmt on the basis of "fairness" is completely illogical given the inherent unfairness of the time variable.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this. I fi work 40 hours a week doing construction work and decide to work overtime for another 20 hours with overpay..i should get more money than somebody only able to put in 40 hours because i worked harder. Thats the natural order of things and it is quite fair. The guy that cannot put in the extra hours have no reason to complain he doesn't get paid as much since he doesn't put in the hours.

 

RMT is a whole other issue that can't be compared with time. Time for most of us is free..money isn't. A gamer that can't put in the hours to get better gear than those that can shouldn't be able to obtain the same level of gear period.

 

I'm vehmently against RMT and i have absolutely no desire of evening the playingfield when it comes to gear. I'm a stout believer in everybody earning what they are willing or able to work for. If that creates an unbalance from rich to poor then i am fine with that. It is how it should be

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

 

You don't get the sentiment because you want everybody to be on an even playing field no matter how much time spent in the game. Then what do you need loot for. sounds like you need a game where loot isn't a factor since you want it to be easily obtainable...then why have it at all?. If characters doesn't use items then everybody is equal..sounds like a better solution for you if you ask me

 

I believe in working for what you get IN the game.

I believe in letting YOU play the game that suits you best, and letting all others do the same.  Yeah, I'm really strange that way with all of that personal choice and freedom and stuff. 

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by zaxxon23

 

I don't get your sentiment on this. If i work 40 hours a week doing construction work and decide to work overtime for another 20 hours with overpay..i should get more money than somebody only able to put in 40 hours because i worked harder. Thats the natural order of things and it is quite fair. The guy that cannot put in the extra hours have no reason to complain he doesn't get paid as much since he doesn't put in the hours.

 

RMT is a whole other issue that can't be compared with time. Time for most of us is free..money isn't. A gamer that can't put in the hours to get better gear than those that can shouldn't be able to obtain the same level of gear period.

 

I'm vehmently against RMT and i have absolutely no desire of evening the playingfield when it comes to gear. I'm a stout believer in everybody earning what they are willing or able to work for. If that creates an unbalance from rich to poor then i am fine with that. It is how it should be. This idea that we all should be equal is nonsense. Society doesn't work like that and neither should virtual worlds in MMORPGS with their own economy

Although I don't necessarily agree with the OP's premise, your counterargument seems to be flawed and contradictory.  If you don't think people necessarily need to be equal, then the premise of your last paragraph turns on its head a bit.   People don't always get ahead in real life simply because of hard work, and they don't always obtain fancy belongings through hard work.  If you want a game to work like a real society, then that's something you'll probably find more in RMT games than P2P games, regardless of how much one might individually prefer either paradigm.

You are right they don't. See my example of two construction workers doing the same thing ..this would be equal to playing the same game and putting in different hours. Somebody born into richness is not part of the equation..i would equal that as being given a game account with a fully geared character. A Doctor earning more than a construction worker has put in more work in getting his education than what a blue collar construction worker has. I don't see any flaws in my statement. I could have used any profession. The premise of the example is that both work in the same job at the same place. Just as two gamers are playing the same game with the same opportunities. They are both gamers..they are both playing the same game..see the comparison?

Although you may not want a game to work the same way as society that is inevitable when you have an ingame economy and items obtained through work. People will deal and trade as they do in real life albeit with a few freedoms since virtual goods doesn't have the same value.

The reason you see more RMT games than P2P is because they do not have the same amount of content nor the same costs to make. This makes for a good profit vs investment. I could make a F2P RMT game myself..infact there is one on Facebook right now called Texas Hold'em. It only deals in virtual money but you can buy them with rl money. How many man hours and money do you think a texas hold'em game took to make? Yet they have 12.387.576 users..I'm willing to bet that with over 12 million users you will see somebody buying virtual money to keep playing. F2P RMT games works much the same way. Less content and production costs vs profit

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

This is the hardest part for people to understand:

I"m not worried YOU can buy items, I don't want the game to let ME buy items. Telling me "just don't buy it' doesn't work.

Why do you assume that it's hard for people to understand when someone has no willpower or self-control?  That seems like a bit of an odd statement - I'm sure there are quite a few people in the thread who understand that quite well. 

 

It's not about a lack fo self control. It's about making the challenge artificial, not real.

Let's say someone wants a game that is difficult. You COULD play WoW naked, with no gear, and that would make it much more difficult.

So if a person is asking for a more difficult game, would you say they shoujld be satisfied to play WoW naked, which would certainly make it more difficult, and if they do not do that, they lack self control?

It's exactly the same thing.

Yes I COULD group in a game that doesnt' require it, just like I COULD play WoW with no gear to make it harder. But that sounds retarded to me, maybe you would do it and think it was the same has a harder game, but I wouldn't.

 

So, when you're playing a game that has Easy, Medium, Hard, and God-Help-Me-This-Is-Impossible settings, do you only pick the Easy setting, just because it is there?

I recall playing Fable in the arena, and getting bonuses for going in with no armor.  Funny, having that option never upset me.

Perhaps this is an example you can understand.

From my perspective, the "easy" mode is always on. It CANNOT be turned off. If there was a different server to go to with different rules, that would be turning off the easy mode.

What you are saying, is I should play Fable on Easy mode, but then do stupid things to gimp myself so it will be like Hard mode.

Originally posted by madeux

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

It really depends on the item, the importance of the items and the other game mechanics. Some of it is simply envy. Some of it is that allowing people to buy the trappings of success cheapens success to an unacceptable level. I mean if anyone can buy it for a couple of bucks what's sweet about it? It's just every day crap. Do you think anyone would want to race in the Indianapolis 500 if you could buy Borg-Warner trophies at Wal-mart for $59.95? Part of the thrill is in doing something not everyone can or is willing to do.

Yes time can be unbalancing in games where time sinks and grinding are prevalent but a certain amount of that is unavoidable in any game. All RMT is avoidable by design. 

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

This is the hardest part for people to understand:

I"m not worried YOU can buy items, I don't want the game to let ME buy items. Telling me "just don't buy it' doesn't work.

Why do you assume that it's hard for people to understand when someone has no willpower or self-control?  That seems like a bit of an odd statement - I'm sure there are quite a few people in the thread who understand that quite well. 

 

It's not about a lack fo self control. It's about making the challenge artificial, not real.

Let's say someone wants a game that is difficult. You COULD play WoW naked, with no gear, and that would make it much more difficult.

So if a person is asking for a more difficult game, would you say they shoujld be satisfied to play WoW naked, which would certainly make it more difficult, and if they do not do that, they lack self control?

It's exactly the same thing.

Yes I COULD group in a game that doesnt' require it, just like I COULD play WoW with no gear to make it harder. But that sounds retarded to me, maybe you would do it and think it was the same has a harder game, but I wouldn't.

 

So, when you're playing a game that has Easy, Medium, Hard, and God-Help-Me-This-Is-Impossible settings, do you only pick the Easy setting, just because it is there?

I recall playing Fable in the arena, and getting bonuses for going in with no armor.  Funny, having that option never upset me.

 

Perhaps this is an example you can understand.

From my perspective, the "easy" mode is always on. It CANNOT be turned off. If there was a different server to go to with different rules, that would be turning off the easy mode.

What you are saying, is I should play Fable on Easy mode, but then do stupid things to gimp myself so it will be like Hard mode.

Yup, that is obviously exactly what I am saying.  Thank you for the brilliant summary.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

 

It really depends on the item, the importance of the items and the other game mechanics. Some of it is simply envy. Some of it is that allowing people to buy the trappings of success cheapens success to an unacceptable level. I mean if anyone can buy it for a couple of bucks what's sweet about it? It's just every day crap. Do you think anyone would want to race in the Indianapolis 500 if you could buy Borg-Warner trophies at Wal-mart for $59.95? Part of the thrill is in doing something not everyone can or is willing to do.

Yes time can be unbalancing in games where time sinks and grinding are prevalent but a certain amount of that is unavoidable in any game. All RMT is avoidable by design. 

Whatever trophy they give you for winning the Indy 500, I could have an identical one built.  I could buy it, and display it.  In fact, some obnoxious race fan has probably done it.  Does that take anything away from the person who actually wins it?

If Bob gets joy from having it, and Ed gets his joy from earning it, can't we just let them both enjoy themselves?

Originally posted by madeux

Whatever trophy they give you for winning the Indy 500, I could have an identical one built.  I could buy it, and display it.  In fact, some obnoxious race fan has probably done it.  Does that take anything away from the person who actually wins it?

If Bob gets joy from having it, and Ed gets his joy from earning it, can't we just let them both enjoy themselves?

Your argument is flawed. If the trophy actually made his car go faster your comparison would make more sense. Gear and loot makes you stronger and makes you survive and kill faster. It's not just the prestige of getting it. That is secondary at best.

Look at it this way. Every race car had to use the exact same engine model. The winner gets to put in a stronge engine..that's the price. That would be a better comparison. Then imagine having that winning price system and somebody just going out and buying a more powerful engine then that system falls apart. People liking the winning price system will naturally get upset.

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

This is the hardest part for people to understand:

I"m not worried YOU can buy items, I don't want the game to let ME buy items. Telling me "just don't buy it' doesn't work.

Why do you assume that it's hard for people to understand when someone has no willpower or self-control?  That seems like a bit of an odd statement - I'm sure there are quite a few people in the thread who understand that quite well. 

 

It's not about a lack fo self control. It's about making the challenge artificial, not real.

Let's say someone wants a game that is difficult. You COULD play WoW naked, with no gear, and that would make it much more difficult.

So if a person is asking for a more difficult game, would you say they shoujld be satisfied to play WoW naked, which would certainly make it more difficult, and if they do not do that, they lack self control?

It's exactly the same thing.

Yes I COULD group in a game that doesnt' require it, just like I COULD play WoW with no gear to make it harder. But that sounds retarded to me, maybe you would do it and think it was the same has a harder game, but I wouldn't.

 

So, when you're playing a game that has Easy, Medium, Hard, and God-Help-Me-This-Is-Impossible settings, do you only pick the Easy setting, just because it is there?

I recall playing Fable in the arena, and getting bonuses for going in with no armor.  Funny, having that option never upset me.

 

Perhaps this is an example you can understand.

From my perspective, the "easy" mode is always on. It CANNOT be turned off. If there was a different server to go to with different rules, that would be turning off the easy mode.

What you are saying, is I should play Fable on Easy mode, but then do stupid things to gimp myself so it will be like Hard mode.

 

Yup, that is obviously exactly what I am saying.  Thank you for the brilliant summary.

It's pretty obvious. You can make faster progress solo. But you should group anyway (gimp yourself) and pretend it's a good grouping game.

Why would anyone gimp themselves, and think that's the same as a challenging game where you don't have to gimp yourself?

I don't want to gimp myself, that's retarded. Let's lower the basket in basketball, and make all the tall guys tie one hand behind their backs. It's exactly the same right? Uh, no, it isn't.

That's the same as, let's make it solo friendly, but if you want to gimp yourself and group you can. That's the same as a good grouping game right? Uh, no, it isn't.

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

 

It really depends on the item, the importance of the items and the other game mechanics. Some of it is simply envy. Some of it is that allowing people to buy the trappings of success cheapens success to an unacceptable level. I mean if anyone can buy it for a couple of bucks what's sweet about it? It's just every day crap. Do you think anyone would want to race in the Indianapolis 500 if you could buy Borg-Warner trophies at Wal-mart for $59.95? Part of the thrill is in doing something not everyone can or is willing to do.

Yes time can be unbalancing in games where time sinks and grinding are prevalent but a certain amount of that is unavoidable in any game. All RMT is avoidable by design. 

 

Whatever trophy they give you for winning the Indy 500, I could have an identical one built.  I could buy it, and display it.  In fact, some obnoxious race fan has probably done it.  Does that take anything away from the person who actually wins it?

If Bob gets joy from having it, and Ed gets his joy from earning it, can't we just let them both enjoy themselves?

Actually you can't. They'll confiscate it an everything else you own after you lose the court case from the 5,000 lawyers they'll put on your ass. It is a unique historical artifact. It literally cannot be bought at any price. Even the people who win the race never get ownership of it. That's what makes it so special. Even if you could buy it everyone would know you didn't earn it and that would make it worthless. The winners are a community of people who have accomplished something significant to them and millions ofothers. To try to buy your way in would make you a poser beneath contempt. 

If Ed buying it cheapens Bob's joy of getting it no they can't both enjoy it. Let me put it this way. If everyone is special no one is.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

 

It really depends on the item, the importance of the items and the other game mechanics. Some of it is simply envy. Some of it is that allowing people to buy the trappings of success cheapens success to an unacceptable level. I mean if anyone can buy it for a couple of bucks what's sweet about it? It's just every day crap. Do you think anyone would want to race in the Indianapolis 500 if you could buy Borg-Warner trophies at Wal-mart for $59.95? Part of the thrill is in doing something not everyone can or is willing to do.

Yes time can be unbalancing in games where time sinks and grinding are prevalent but a certain amount of that is unavoidable in any game. All RMT is avoidable by design. 

 

Whatever trophy they give you for winning the Indy 500, I could have an identical one built.  I could buy it, and display it.  In fact, some obnoxious race fan has probably done it.  Does that take anything away from the person who actually wins it?

If Bob gets joy from having it, and Ed gets his joy from earning it, can't we just let them both enjoy themselves?

 

Actually you can't. They'll confiscate it an everything else you own after you lose the court case from the 5,000 lawyers they'll put on your ass. It is a unique historical artifact. It literally cannot be bought at any price. Even the people who win the race never get ownership of it. That's what makes it so special. Even if you could buy it everyone would know you didn't earn it and that would make it worthless.

 

If Ed buying it cheapens Bob's joy of getting it no they can't both enjoy it. :Let me put it this way. If everyone is special no one is.

 Then perhaps Bob needs to make some personal decisions about where he is gaining his self worth.  If he is always basing it on the actions of others, Bob will never be happy.

Bob needs to learn to just take some satisfaction in a job well done.  :)

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by madeux

 

So, when you're playing a game that has Easy, Medium, Hard, and God-Help-Me-This-Is-Impossible settings, do you only pick the Easy setting, just because it is there?

I recall playing Fable in the arena, and getting bonuses for going in with no armor.  Funny, having that option never upset me.

 

Perhaps this is an example you can understand.

From my perspective, the "easy" mode is always on. It CANNOT be turned off. If there was a different server to go to with different rules, that would be turning off the easy mode.

What you are saying, is I should play Fable on Easy mode, but then do stupid things to gimp myself so it will be like Hard mode.

 

Yup, that is obviously exactly what I am saying.  Thank you for the brilliant summary.

It's pretty obvious. You can make faster progress solo. But you should group anyway (gimp yourself) and pretend it's a good grouping game.

Why would anyone gimp themselves, and think that's the same as a challenging game where you don't have to gimp yourself?

I don't want to gimp myself, that's retarded. Let's lower the basket in basketball, and make all the tall guys tie one hand behind their backs. It's exactly the same right? Uh, no, it isn't.

That's the same as, let's make it solo friendly, but if you want to gimp yourself and group you can. That's the same as a good grouping game right? Uh, no, it isn't.

All I'm really getting out of this conversation is an aura of selfishness.  Game developers, tailor your game to exactly what I want, but don't give anyone else what they want if it's different than what I want.  It's a selfish and unrealistic stance to take.  Most businesses are not going to cater to just one group if they don't think that group is large enough to give them the success they desire.

There are a lot of leaps of logic above, including the "gimping" that are hard to make when speaking in generalities rather than about specific games.  The bottom line is, if you don't like someone else having options that you personally don't want to choose, you really need to examine your motivations for playing.  The game and/or the genre may just not be for you, and that's ok.

Originally posted by madeux

 Then perhaps Bob needs to make some personal decisions about where he is gaining his self worth.  If he is always basing it on the actions of others, Bob will never be happy.

Bob needs to learn to just take some satisfaction in a job well done.  :)

Maybe it's Ed that needs to learn that rewards for any endeavor are not bought but earned. Satisfaction for a job well done is the cake. The rewards that job well done earns is is the icing.

Suppose we had an RMT gane where bought items were gold colored and earned items were silver with  no other differences. Which do you imagine would be more desirble to players and earn greater respect?  How much would you care to bet the RMT players wouldn't demand to be able to buy silver items too.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

 

the unbalance it creates is not from rich to poor, it is from those who have lives outside of gaming and those who do not.

Fact: More people play F2P games with RMT than play subscriptions games.

 

I don't get your sentiment on this.  If my mage walks past your mage, and we both have the same sweet staff, how does it hurt you if you spent 10 hours getting it, and I spent 2 dollars?

 

It really depends on the item, the importance of the items and the other game mechanics. Some of it is simply envy. Some of it is that allowing people to buy the trappings of success cheapens success to an unacceptable level. I mean if anyone can buy it for a couple of bucks what's sweet about it? It's just every day crap. Do you think anyone would want to race in the Indianapolis 500 if you could buy Borg-Warner trophies at Wal-mart for $59.95? Part of the thrill is in doing something not everyone can or is willing to do.

Yes time can be unbalancing in games where time sinks and grinding are prevalent but a certain amount of that is unavoidable in any game. All RMT is avoidable by design. 

 

Whatever trophy they give you for winning the Indy 500, I could have an identical one built.  I could buy it, and display it.  In fact, some obnoxious race fan has probably done it.  Does that take anything away from the person who actually wins it?

If Bob gets joy from having it, and Ed gets his joy from earning it, can't we just let them both enjoy themselves?

 Actually you can't. They'll confiscate it an everything else you own after you lose the court case from the 5,000 lawyers they'll put on your ass. It is a unique historical artifact.

Someone is obviously not a juris doctor.  I've agreed with your posts before, Zymu, but this is just silly and wrong on so many counts.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

 Then perhaps Bob needs to make some personal decisions about where he is gaining his self worth.  If he is always basing it on the actions of others, Bob will never be happy.

Bob needs to learn to just take some satisfaction in a job well done.  :)

 

Maybe it's Ed that needs to learn that rewards for any endeavor are not bought but earned. Satisfaction for a job well done is the cake. The rewards that job well done earns is is the icing.

Maybe Bob should live his own life, and let Ed do the same.

Originally posted by ianubisi

Nothing with stop someone with too much time and not enough money from striking a deal with someone with too much money and not enough time.

This is the best statement right from the first page.

Time = Money

I'd say this is true for many markets... and is really only becoming an issue now as MMO's become a larger market.

Time = Money

but remember... money != experience

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by zymurgeist

 Actually you can't. They'll confiscate it an everything else you own after you lose the court case from the 5,000 lawyers they'll put on your ass. It is a unique historical artifact.

Someone is obviously not a juris doctor.  I've agreed with your posts before, Zymu, but this is just silly and wrong on so many counts.

 

It's literally protected by law. You can look it up. It's trademarked, copywrited, and registered as a Indiana State and National treasure and God knows what else.  You can't even publish a picture of it without permission.

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by madeux

 Then perhaps Bob needs to make some personal decisions about where he is gaining his self worth.  If he is always basing it on the actions of others, Bob will never be happy.

Bob needs to learn to just take some satisfaction in a job well done.  :)

 

Maybe it's Ed that needs to learn that rewards for any endeavor are not bought but earned. Satisfaction for a job well done is the cake. The rewards that job well done earns is is the icing.

 

Maybe Bob should live his own life, and let Ed do the same.

Maybe human beings should stop being human? I don't think that will ever happen nor should it.