I think this is an interesting and relevant question since it appears cash shops are here to stay. And up front I should say I haven't formed an opinion yet, though the imbalance of it makes me a bit queasy.

Back years ago when I was playing WoW, a friend said he and his wife had spent close to $7,000 in the cash shop playing EQ. They had multiple accounts but still... $7K??? He said it was the only way to get the best stuff and still keep their jobs. I added up everything I had spent for all those years in WoW, including expansions, fluff items and the sub; I'd spent about $650.

Ultimately, I think my opinion won't change anything. There will be P2W in some games and they will appeal to P2W players. But if AAA titles end up going this way, I probably will find something else to do.

The problem with all of these definitions of pay to win is that they're only defining Win in relation to combat. MMOs have many, many more features than combat and people play for many different reasons, so while your new little red dress purchase hasn't given you an advantage over your combat enemy, it has obliterated my crafting empire.

What is your definition of 'Win' ?

It's funny, all of these seething debates stem from one basic principle to me. MMOs were supposed to be virtual worlds. All of these perversions have greatly increased the market value of the MMO to heights MUD developers probably could have cared less about 15 years ago. This is a good thing overall I guess .. but it leaves a lot of us displeased.

Fedex questing is cool when you want to log in for 30 minutes and feel like you have accomplished something, but what is there like CiS from Vanguard in most games (long group oriented quest chains that require learning, patience and teamwork, at lvl 20 out of 50)?

Same thing happens when you talk about pay to win. Yes it will help connect a certain percentage of the population in ways they haven't before, but if things can be bought, it kind of ruins the achievement others have invested in. Neither is right. People without the time or desire to raid shouldn't be at a disadvantage ... but where does it end?

The killer for me is that Im apparently part of a minority of people who would prefer immersive communities to instant gratification ... but its also the killer of the otehr argument because they are a minority as well. The majority appears to be one big grey area that consists of as many people as publishers can cater to as possible, regardless of what that means for the core mechanics of the genre in general.

Even if it split, the genre would still be, as it is now, in the throws of a major identity crisis. It's not the Warcraft genre anymore, and it's not what it was before warcraft either. It's everything to everyone with an email address. It used to be something special to a core or people that enjoyed the challenge, and even in a lot of cases the "broken mechanics" that made them challenging. It wants to be able to offer RMT services to those that want that.

So yes I think there is room for pay to win .. just not in the games I play. Or more to the point, games that have pay to win are not likely to get any money from me, or playtime.

Hey, I have no objections if someone wants to open up an Opium Den and other consenting adults want to go in thier and throw away thier money. It's not my place to tell them what they can/can't do with thier own money.

But don't expect to find ME in there any time soon....and don't try to pawn off the idea that it's actualy somehow a GOOD thing for people or the hobby.

I look at those type of MMO's the same way I look at the sleezy casino's that ply senior citizens with free booze as they sit gambling away thier retirement savings, mindlessly pulling a lever on a brighyly lit slot machine in a room without windows or clocks.

They (the casino's) have a right to exist, but that doesn't mean they aren't rotten scumbags.

people only  played korean f2ps because there was nothing else unless u wanted to play a  monthly sub  game.  pay 2 win has ever only been liked by people who spend thousands on  the game everyone else stayed because there was no other option

I really have to wonder why it's acceptable to spend hundreds of hours in a game - to get the best gear/buffs/etc - and that be considered OK, while others who spend hundreds of dollars in a game to get the best gear/buffs/etc are looked down upon?

 Up until the late 90's - ALL games were effectively pay to win - and during those times of vastly smaller populations and far more robust communities - most of us never looked down upon those who could spend more money - and thus more time.

  What's changed, and why?

Seriously don't evenknow where to begin.

Its pay to win, once the free to play games came to North America...

Originally posted by Popple

Its pay to win, once the free to play games came to North America...

 

  It was "pay to win" long before there even was such a thing as a 'korean' grinder

     P2W is fine for the game makers, its the customers that get screwed by it......I'd imagine alot of the f2p games that have used it have made alot of money from it.......Praying upon the players that "just have to be first, the best, the strongest, etc is a good way to make money....ITs not just cash shops but also pay for beta access, early launch, etc is also a form of p2w that most people dont consider......Many of these people that are crying about cash shop p2w are the same ones that are buying early access so their characters can get a 2-3 day head start......

No, there is NEVER a "place" for Pay-To-Win. We play video games to get away from RealWorld imbalances because of money, actions, etc. 

Pay-To-Win will always be frowned upon, sorry.

There is no place for any P2W games on my computers HD at least. Others can do what they want. But I refuse to play games like that or support that business model in any way. My fair play and level playing field principles would prevent me from even thinking about it.

Reality is Pay 2 Win.

Thats enough of that.

There's a place for p2w....for teh people that want to play that kind of game. And they can stick to the skadillion crappy Adian grinders out there that cater to them, and stay out of the games I like.

What I HATE is games that bill themselves as not being p2w, but turn out to be just that. APB...looking at you.

they all got it wrong. wow was the last bastion of hope. i feel like they tried to get it right and failed but we all bought it and they've all since become lethargic. Entropia is the worst pay to play game ever.

to me the next best attempt was company of heroes which failed before the lead designer unfortunatley died.

these copycat browser games in the grind model suck so bad it seems hopeless.

Another massive cash grab is MTGO

It s our fault really for playing and paying for inferior products

Originally posted by Eliandal

I really have to wonder why it's acceptable to spend hundreds of hours in a game - to get the best gear/buffs/etc - and that be considered OK, while others who spend hundreds of dollars in a game to get the best gear/buffs/etc are looked down upon?

 Up until the late 90's - ALL games were effectively pay to win - and during those times of vastly smaller populations and far more robust communities - most of us never looked down upon those who could spend more money - and thus more time.

  What's changed, and why?

 

While I don't look down on people who bought their way to power, I can explain why it is ok for people to spend time to get their equips: because we have accepted that you gain stuff inside the game by playing it. It has been that way at least since NES was released.

I don't like the pay to win system, because A. I cannot buy myself advantages without personally feeling like I've undermined my achievements since money is not an issue for me and B. it automatically makes me ask myself: should I spend 10 hours inside the game or just 1 hour of real work (random numbers, just pointing out the large difference in effort).

Originally posted by Eliandal

I really have to wonder why it's acceptable to spend hundreds of hours in a game - to get the best gear/buffs/etc - and that be considered OK, while others who spend hundreds of dollars in a game to get the best gear/buffs/etc are looked down upon?

 

 Up until the late 90's - ALL games were effectively pay to win - and during those times of vastly smaller populations and far more robust communities - most of us never looked down upon those who could spend more money - and thus more time.

 

  What's changed, and why?

 

pretty sure people who spend 100s of hours are looked down on too :)

is there a place where people stop complaining about how other people want to go about there lives? apparently not.

good article. maybe it'll make one of the anti-f2p troll brigade think for the first time in their lives. maybe i'll wake up able to spit rainbows tomorrow.

Originally posted by atticusbc

is there a place where people stop complaining about how other people want to go about there lives? apparently not.

good article. maybe it'll make one of the anti-f2p troll brigade think for the first time in their lives. maybe i'll wake up able to spit rainbows tomorrow.

 

Not as long as what an individual does affects the rest, which clearly happens in MMORPGs.

Is There a Place for Pay to Win?

 

If you answered "No" well

I don't want to burst your bubble, but it's just not the way the world works. You have games that are full cash shop get your advantage here games from the standard devs. It's who they are, it's what they do, there is no surprise you get what you get and you know it when you play. In these games, you have those who pay and those who don't. And frankly, in the eyes of those who pay and the developers, those who don't pay ARE the content for the paying customer. That's how it is and that's how it should be. WTF do you want for free? Why the hell should you be able to log into a game that someone else makes happen so that you can have a fair game? You want someone else to pay for the cake and you expect the same size slice? Hehe. 

GW2 will be in it's own class. Boxed fee, no sub, cash shop. Don't think it's been done by anyone else as of yet. TBH I am a bit concerned. They say nothing "evil" but that's not a very descriptive definitiion and we all would describe it differently. They Mike O also used the term "Unfair advantage" not "advantage", but  "Unfair Advantage" So what 's a "fair advantage"? Again, not a good definition and very subjective. 

There are games that had/have/still want subs but also have a free trial. They have to be very careful how they generate revenue since they still want subs. So they basically give you what amounts to a limited-extended "free" trial of the game.

Then you have the total non P2W/Non-cash shop/Non-RMT games that charge a sub. Only 1 to 2 years ago, anything other than this was Taboo.....That is until a certian new game comming out announced a cash shop. And the more info about it we got, the more acceptable cash shops became. 

Which brings me to the double and tripple dippers. Yeah FunCom, I'm looking at you with your AAA sub fees and P2W cash shops in the same game. LOL...Fail. Hybrid games suck IMO, the only P2W there is for the developers. Or people with lots of money.

We pay Subs for Equal Opprotunity and to throw a cash shop in there while charging a sub is outrageous and I'll never play a game like that again.

Funny thing is, I'd even consider an all out P2W game if 15-20 a month would give me loads of fun playing it. Just not sure of any.