Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Starting a thread off using a line from Fox News is the worst way to start off a thread...following it up with what is basically you stating that you dont want to hear anyone that disagrees with you basically proves that anything you will be saying is worthless talking points that wont stand up to counterpoints.

Congrats.

GW2 should be a great game since its going to keep certain types of gamers away, the epeen waving gamers that are elite only in their own minds.

I have 2 good gaming friends I've gamed with for over 15 years........thru MANY games.

We start a new game and, let's say we get to level 5 in our first session.  I log in the next day, and they are both level 10 to my still level 5!  Gadzooks!  How can this be?

Ahhhh, now i see how!  No, not any cash shop or tricks......they logged back in and played again!  How UNFAIR is THAT!  I had to go to work and spend some family time and they took UNFAIR advantage and played more!

This was/is a most interesting thread.......cut the cake anyway you wish, a few simple facts should be self evident.  

A game must be profitable to stay alive.  We cannot begrudge a company wanting to make money and for continuing to develop it's games, now can we?

AND.........MONEY and TIME are both forms of currency!  Simple as that.

I say if you do not want to allow a person to use a cash shop......then limit everyones play time to 90 minures a day.......that's my normal in game time, so why should YOU get ANY advantage over me?

Yes......a silly solution.  But to a VERY hot and heavily debated topic.  There is no easy answer, save allowing our pocketbooks to speak for us.........perhaps if someone could devise a cash shop that somehow was more beneficial to those of us with limited time, it would be fairer.......

I do chuckle at the folks that protest the cash shops, yet feel that they get to play 75 hours a week to my 10 is NOT an unfair advantage.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by st4t1ck

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by st4t1ck

Originally posted by RefMinor
The only hope for GW2 is that those who are in Beta are less spineless than those on these boards.

So people are spineless if they dont see things they way some of you do.  They cant just actually like the way the system is. They cant be happy that they can buy cosmetics and account services with in game gold.

 

 

Really, cosmetic and account services ONLY?

thats not the point, i used what im gonna buy in the shop.  no matter whats in the shop if someone actually likes it its there choice to stand up for it.  If they sold weapons more powerfull then anything in the game I think it would be wrong but someone else who doesnt isnt spineless for saying so

It's very much EXACTLY the point.

Anet originally stated it would be limited to cosmetic and account services, but from what's been leaked this is very much not the cast.

They're a company out to make money, I get that. They will push the cash sho boundries as far as they can until gamers push back and draw the line in the sand as to what it generally found acceptable. Not speaking up against where you feel the line is and simply 'putting up' with things without saying a word is as RefMinor said, spineless.

Where your line is and where others are could be miles away.  Someone isnt "putting up" with things if they like the addidtion. spinelss would be doing nothing about thing you are against, and as i stated not  everyone is against whats happening.

eventually you will have to understand that because you feel its wrong not eveyone else does, and thoes that dont feel its wrong are not spineless but someone who likes things different then the way you do.

There are many people that stand up for things you dont believe in, things you feel wrong, immoral or unjustified.  And that does not give you the right to call them spineless

Originally posted by st4t1ck

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by st4t1ck

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by st4t1ck

Originally posted by RefMinor
The only hope for GW2 is that those who are in Beta are less spineless than those on these boards.

So people are spineless if they dont see things they way some of you do.  They cant just actually like the way the system is. They cant be happy that they can buy cosmetics and account services with in game gold.

 

 

Really, cosmetic and account services ONLY?

thats not the point, i used what im gonna buy in the shop.  no matter whats in the shop if someone actually likes it its there choice to stand up for it.  If they sold weapons more powerfull then anything in the game I think it would be wrong but someone else who doesnt isnt spineless for saying so

It's very much EXACTLY the point.

Anet originally stated it would be limited to cosmetic and account services, but from what's been leaked this is very much not the cast.

They're a company out to make money, I get that. They will push the cash sho boundries as far as they can until gamers push back and draw the line in the sand as to what it generally found acceptable. Not speaking up against where you feel the line is and simply 'putting up' with things without saying a word is as RefMinor said, spineless.

Where your line is and where others are could be miles away.  Someone isnt "putting up" with things if they like the addidtion. spinelss would be doing nothing about thing you are against, and as i stated not  everyone is against whats happening.

eventually you will have to understand that because you feel its wrong not eveyone else does, and thoes that dont feel its wrong are not spineless but someone who likes things different then the way you do.

There are many people that stand up for things you dont believe in, things you feel wrong, immoral or unjustified.  And that does not give you the right to call them spineless

Of course people's opinions differ, but if no one speaks up about where they feel where the line is and what they do and don't like, then how is Anet supposed to know how far they can push cash shops before pissing off a lot of potential customers?

I'm certain that Anet wants feedback from potential customers so they can come up with the most appropriate solution.

Yes it will eventually end up to where the Anet feels they can get the most money in the long run, but again, to do so they need feedback.

I personally dont like cash shops.

I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems.  I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me.

About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? )

Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.

I never have any problem with the idea of paying for advantages.

Usually i am on the other side playing for free. And if so, i think it is only fair for those who subsidize my gaming with some advantages. No problem at all.

#3 is a big no-no for me.

The other ones in reasonable moderation I don't care about.

Any of those not in reasonable moderation is bad.

I prefer sub games, with no cash shop myself...But I will be buying GW2, unless the final version of the cash shop is too much imo.

I am not getting into any of the hype over it, due to it being in flux...

Originally posted by Silverchild

I personally dont like cash shops.

 

I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems.  I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me.

 

About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? )

 

Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.

 

 

But that's exactly what a subs game does. 

Personally its wrong to have a sub and cash shop!

Originally posted by nariusseldon

I never have any problem with the idea of paying for advantages.

Usually i am on the other side playing for free. And if so, i think it is only fair for those who subsidize my gaming with some advantages. No problem at all.

Originally posted by Silverchild

I personally dont like cash shops.

 

I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems.  I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me.

 

About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? )

 

Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.

 

 

Actually it is worse in that D3 is not a MMO so the real money is leaking into single player games.. plus D3 will have a server and that is blurring the difference between single player and MMO even more.  Pretty much a case of  Companies worshipping at the throne of More Money, in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by darkehawke

Originally posted by Silverchild

I personally dont like cash shops.

 

I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems.  I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me.

 

About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? )

 

Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.

 

 

But that's exactly what a subs game does. 

Personally its wrong to have a sub and cash shop!

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.

Advantage (n.) (cash shops)

Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:

1. Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
2. Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
3. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
4. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)

I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.

That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise.  Thanks for reading!

Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages.  What about those who get advantages from having more game time?  If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well.  There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.

After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences?  Mental differences?

There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages.  Address all of them OR none of them.

WHY?

In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.

Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of  ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.

Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.

At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.

If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.

The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.

You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.

That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."

The only time I have a problem with cash shops is when they offer items NOT AVAILABLE in-game, or earnable by any other method (such as say golden ammo) that can be used against me/adversley affect my character specifically.

I dont particularly like it when the sell usable equipment(such as armor/weapons) unless its very standard(not rare/epic).

I was upset by Eve and thier monocles, but really cosmetic things I couldnt care less. If someone wants to pay money to paint thier tank green, or ride that rainbow pony, I couldnt care less. If they want bonus experience gains, I couldnt care less. a %experience/gold/fame gain doesnt effect my character in anyway. Sure they level faster, but all it means is theyll reach max faster. Same as someone who say gamed 24hrs a day for a month. Would you really be able to compete vs that type of player(I think not).

This isnt something that will be tied to a single definition, as its so variable from person to person and from game to game. I dont have a problem with it, it allows the consumer to support the business if they think the item is worth it.

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.

Advantage (n.) (cash shops)

Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:

1. Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
2. Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
3. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
4. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)

I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.

That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise.  Thanks for reading!

Actually, the amount is relevant. It's in fact so relevant as to determine if someone will answer yes or no to your question. Would you really be against the devs selling a +0.1% damage boost in the cash shop? Really? or 1%? That's equal to 0 or no change in any MMO combat system. Or speaking about experience boosts, not only the amount is relevant, but the experience system and game model. For example 25% experience boost in say WoW or any other old MMO may be signifcant and a clear advantage, but, the same 25% boost in a modern game like GW2 is a non issue, and irrelevant, since the end-game starts at level 1 and the leveling curve is linear. Therefore applying the logic of your definition fails, as it can't be justly aplied to all types of MMO's out there. Therefore I can not answer your question because..

Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in WoW/LOTRO/AoC/.. is an unfair advantage? Yes, because the endgame starts at max level.

Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in GW2 is an unfair advantage? No.. because it does not matter. I have no reason to rush to max level.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.

Advantage (n.) (cash shops)

Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:

1. Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
2. Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
3. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
4. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)

I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.

That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise.  Thanks for reading!

Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages.  What about those who get advantages from having more game time?  If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well.  There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.

After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences?  Mental differences?

There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages.  Address all of them OR none of them.

WHY?

In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.

Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of  ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.

Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.

At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.

If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.

The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.

You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.

That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."

 

 

Well then paid for advantages should be ok. 

Originally posted by darkehawke

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.

Advantage (n.) (cash shops)

Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:

1. Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
2. Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
3. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
4. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)

I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.

That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise.  Thanks for reading!

Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages.  What about those who get advantages from having more game time?  If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well.  There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.

After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences?  Mental differences?

There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages.  Address all of them OR none of them.

This.

How that?That's like saying you work much more and much harder than me but i have the same salary as you.

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

---

Originally posted by Distopia

---

Originally posted by Badgered86
 
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post.

---

This isn't how a discussion works, if a person can't use their own rationale to approach a topic, rather they are held to a strict and forced rule of the topic, there's no discussion that will come of it, only you pushing your subjective reasoning on others.

---

 

The point of this thread is not to discuss the goal post, but rather how you would feel about cash shops selling advantages as defined in this thread. Please stay on topic. There are a myriad of other threads out there (especially on the Guild Wars 2 forum) about what does and doesn't qualify as buying an advantage, so I suggest going there if you want to argue about that.

That's just the thing even on this topic there's another side of the story as that would be the reasoning in voting yes or no to begin with. The question isn't is this okay, it's is this okay to you, that answer will vary based on what you view as an advantage over another or an "advantage" over time and frustration. That's the real question here, is it an advantage over other players or is it a convienence you take advantage of? How you answer this question, would greatly effect the answer to your question.

Well, it could be a situation where people don't like paying for advantage but have no problem playing 80 hours per  week.  Basically saying they support the advantage they current have and oppose advantages they don't have or can't afford.

Welcome to every game/sport/contest/hobby ever designed or concieved.  Essentialy with every activity that involves some degree of success or failure or some INTENDED differntiation in results..... there are certain areas which are intended to be measured and others which aren't.

For instance...in Scrabble it's perfectly acceptable to wear reading glasses to better see the board...as eyesight isn't something that's intended to be measured.... it's not acceptable to look up a word in a dictionary before placing your tiles.....as spelling and vocabulary are something that are intended to be tested.

People who are horrible spellers probably aren't, on average as interested in playing Scrabble as those who are.

Personaly, I'm a horrible speller....but have a decent vocabularly. I enjoy playing scrabble once inawhile but accept that I'm at a disadvantage when I do so due to my poor spelling.....I've lost plenty of games due to that.  Naturaly there are other games that I prefer over Scrabble.... where my poor spelling skills are not as much an issue.

Doesn't mean that I think the rules of scrabble should be ammended to allow me to look up the spelling of words before placing them. I still have fun when I play Scrabble..... but I go into it fully knowing that I'm at a disadvantage. When I don't feel like suffering that disadvantage... I pick a different game to play (something I frequently do)......where spelling doesn't matter.

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.

Advantage (n.) (cash shops)

Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:

1. Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
2. Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
3. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
4. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)

I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.

That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise.  Thanks for reading!

Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages.  What about those who get advantages from having more game time?  If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well.  There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.

After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences?  Mental differences?

There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages.  Address all of them OR none of them.

WHY?

In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.

Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of  ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.

Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.

At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.

If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.

The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.

You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.

That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."

 

 

Well then paid for advantages should be ok. 

If that's the INTENT of the design....and the type of game you want to play..... ABSOLUTELY.   Just don't expect ME to want to participate in that same game with you.....because even though I have more then enough money to be able to do it if I want....it's not something I actualy ENJOY factoring into games.

If I was interested in that, I'd probably goto a RL auction instead.....don't really find any enjoyment in that element...so I don't participate in those either. YMMV.

Originally posted by gladosrev2

Originally posted by Badgered86

 

You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!

Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.

Advantage (n.) (cash shops)

Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:

1. Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
2. Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
3. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
4. Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)

I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.

That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise.  Thanks for reading!

Actually, the amount is relevant. It's in fact so relevant as to determine if someone will answer yes or no to your question. Would you really be against the devs selling a +0.1% damage boost in the cash shop? Really? or 1%? That's equal to 0 or no change in any MMO combat system. Or speaking about experience boosts, not only the amount is relevant, but the experience system and game model. For example 25% experience boost in say WoW or any other old MMO may be signifcant and a clear advantage, but, the same 25% boost in a modern game like GW2 is a non issue, and irrelevant, since the end-game starts at level 1 and the leveling curve is linear. Therefore applying the logic of your definition fails, as it can't be justly aplied to all types of MMO's out there. Therefore I can not answer your question because..

Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in WoW/LOTRO/AoC/.. is an unfair advantage? Yes, because the endgame starts at max level.

Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in GW2 is an unfair advantage? No.. because it does not matter. I have no reason to rush to max level.

I think the amount is only relevant in terms of level of tolerance for the activity. What the OP is asking about is more related to the Principle at question.

For example, on Principle, I believe cheating on ones taxes is wrong. If a guy making $40K a year claimed a $10 deduction that he wasn't entitled to...I'd still think, on Principle, that it was wrong....but the degree to which it bothered me would hardly be worth a shrug. On the other hand, a person who was making $40 Million per year and claimed $39.995 Million in deductions they werent entitled to is theoreticaly engaged in the same activity, in Principle....but the degree to which it bothered me would be VASTLY different.... So much so, that I'd probably report that person to the IRS.

MMO companies tend to live off that level of tolerance. They realize that alot of us (though clearly not all) really don't like the practice on Principle...but they try to find a point that is just within most peoples level of tolerance in order to maximize thier proffits (in other words, have their cake and eat it too) ....and many of them constantly test the edges of that envelope, to see just what they can get away with.