Have ESO become pay to win ?

zoltarg

Buying ESO is pay to win - eventually... after grinding, crafting, harvesting, dungeon diving, you can get the best gear in the game.

IC comes out.

Buying IC is pay to win - eventually... after grinding, crafting, harvesting, dungeon diving, you can get the best gear in the game.

Continue on forever...

exeeter702

Aimora wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

hehe.. you guys like that chart a lot! THANKS GOOGLE!

@exeeter702 , you say the P2W is NOT a subject term and has a very simple and very clear meaning... Is this clear the meaning:

"A game in which players who spend more money are offered statistical advantages that are in no way otherwise obtainable in-game." ?

Does the above statement derived from your comments need more to properly clarify the meaning of P2W?

Well technically that is an accurate summary. I'm not sure what your angle is.

I like how mistrusting people on the forum and internet in general are. This isn't the first time that's happened to me.

I genuinely want to know!

I said on the FIST page of this thread that I struggle with this definition and right now I'm thinking ESO is pay to win. But... I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and change my opinion if I'm presented with compelling evidence.

The FIST page (Let's add that one to your concept repository )

On topic

"A game in which players who spend more money are offered statistical advantages that are in no way otherwise obtainable in-game." ?

I would add "statistical advantage necessary to complete the game's goal or beat the game" and that definition would be quite fitting to me.

The problem with ESO is that we don't all agree on the meaning of "win" because we have different goals.

- The player who stays in the game for his guild and social contact and loves running dungeons and stuff with his friends will "win" just by having his social requirement fulfilled => no P2W in this case, you don't buy friends.

- The "RP" or "fashion-show" player will want to be able to "make his character" perform and show as much as possible in the game, possibly make him charismatic and famous and sought after, that's what "win" will mean to him => to him the game is clearly P2W. Luckily, most of these people are not "competitive" by nature but rather the cooperative-interactive kind.
(Speaking of which, I wonder why they don't sell new emotes in the crown store, that would make tons of money to ZOS).

- The "streamer" would seek to "win" by making interesting content and widen his audience. I don't think there's anything in the Crown Store that could help him achieve this, so it's not P2W to that type of player.

- The "trader" who enjoys making gold, playing the market... to him, "win" would mean having the most gold of the entire playerbase, creating a monopoly... nothing in the Crown Store will help him either so it's not P2W (rather the opposite, whenever crown store stuff comes in direct competition with ingame tradeable stuff, i.e. ambrosia).

- The competitive PvE player : for him, "winning" means fighting for N°1 in the leaderboards. Do they need some specific BiS items ? Yes. Are these items available in the crown store ? No. But you have to buy the DLC or at least sub for a month to get them. So yes it's P2W, not because some boosting item is directly purchasable in dollars, but because it's gated. I don't think anyone in this category minds : staying "competitive" implies "in the game's current state" and it's obvious that a competitive PvE player will have access to all DLCs anyway.

- The competitive PvP player : for him, "winning" is being able to 1v1, 1vX, zergVzerg as many other players as possible, dominate his campaign, become and stay emperor, etc... I'm less versed in this community so I should let them answer : do you feel there's any aspect of the game that is P2W for competitive PvP players ?
(for me I'd say yes, referring to the riding lessons scrolls : a fast horse IS a MUST in Cyrodiil and nothing in the game lets you bypass the 2 months needed to max your horse, so these scrolls for me are a convenience item in PvE but P2W in PvP).

.

Brilliant post

Its a terrible post.

Bob is never going to win a game of monopoly if all he cares about is seeing how many times he can get sent to jail or pass go.

The point is at the end if the day no one can tell you what type of values you get out of a given game, that is purely subjective and undisputable.

However for the sake of p2w and game development / balance, the above logic is absolute hot garbage. There are very real, completely objective win conditions in most games, especially if the competitive kind.

Going down that awful rabbit hole argument that player A "wins" at the game because the only goal they are interested in is collecting vanity rewards always undermines and basically invalidates any argument here as it suggests that ANY game with a microtransaction of ANY kind is inherently p2w, which is wrong on so many levels.

This point is utterly seperate from what the "win" that is part of "pay to win" means, which literally is referring to player advantage / disadvantage compared to peers in game facing the same obstacles.

If you all want to get into the whole "winning" as it applies to the philosophy of "winning at life" have fun but that is not the case with game development with a very cut and dry challenge / reward / progression in strength system. Especially not as it applies to "p2w"

gen_reynard2050

MMO is always P2W game...so ESO is no different... TQ DLC!

Wolfshead

Axorn wrote: »

Jaeysa wrote: »

No. Buying an expansion to receive access to its' content is not the same as pay to win. Pay to win is if those weapons were on the crown store and you could purchase them.

Yes its not directly but its pay to win to me

So if you would play a MMO that P2P mean you would pay a subscribe fee every month and when the game get a expansion dont you buy so you can keep play. Are that MMO also a P2W game or not??

Samething here every DLC is basically a small expansion which you need to buy so you play newest content for everyone have same chance to get best gear and weapon.

So if i get this right in your mind all expansion to any MMO is P2W for the will always drop best gear and best weapon for game.

Honest P2W is when game start sell Gear and Weapon in the game store then you have a P2W just for you need buy DLC dont mean the game is/become P2W for then all MMO that every made expansion to the original game a P2W

khele23eb17_ESO

I think theyre going for the P4L (pay for looks) model instead of the P2W one.

anitajoneb17_ESO

exeeter702 wrote: »

Bob is never going to win a game of monopoly if all he cares about is seeing how many times he can get sent to jail or pass go.

The point is at the end if the day no one can tell you what type of values you get out of a given game, that is purely subjective and undisputable.

However for the sake of p2w and game development / balance, the above logic is absolute hot garbage. There are very real, completely objective win conditions in most games, especially if the competitive kind.

Monopoly is a game with a start where ALL players are in the exact same situation, at the same time, and with an end where one player, called "winner", still has money (usually a lot of it) whereas all other players have run out of it. Once that ending is reached, either you stop playing or you start a new game : the game will not "create" extra goals to pursue.
ESO is a multi-activity game with a start and NO END. Some of these activities - but not all - have a temporary "winner status" to aim for (emperorship, max rank, leaderboards, achievements, etc...). Such winner status is doomed to be temporary due to the neverending nature of the game : developers are expected to provide new activities and expand on the existing ones. Sometimes players create their own rules and activities in order to have fun playing beyond the completion of current content. Activities without "winners" are not less popular than "competitive" activities.

How can you even compare the two games ? And how you can define "P2W" for ESO without taking into consideration its neverending and multi-activity aspects which makes "winning" a very vague and subjective concept ?

It looks like you need an absolute definition of P2W, a "hard coded line", some sort of standard after which you could classify all games as being on the "good" side or the "bad" side. Question is, why would you need that in the first place ? I don't think there's a need for such a thing to be determined externally. I say : let developers make their choices as they see fit for their game and their playerbase. And let players choose to pay or not, as they see fit.

ESO is fair because ZOS wants it to be a fair game, and because they know that the playerbase would be extremely unforgiving if they weren't.

Gidorick

zoltarg wrote: »

Buying ESO is pay to win - eventually... after grinding, crafting, harvesting, dungeon diving, you can get the best gear in the game.

IC comes out.

Buying IC is pay to win - eventually... after grinding, crafting, harvesting, dungeon diving, you can get the best gear in the game.

Continue

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Bob is never going to win a game of monopoly if all he cares about is seeing how many times he can get sent to jail or pass go.

The point is at the end if the day no one can tell you what type of values you get out of a given game, that is purely subjective and undisputable.

However for the sake of p2w and game development / balance, the above logic is absolute hot garbage. There are very real, completely objective win conditions in most games, especially if the competitive kind.

Monopoly is a game with a start where ALL players are in the exact same situation, at the same time, and with an end where one player, called "winner", still has money (usually a lot of it) whereas all other players have run out of it. Once that ending is reached, either you stop playing or you start a new game : the game will not "create" extra goals to pursue.

I'd totally pay extra REAL WORLD money for "Player Expansions" to Monopoly! How about these expansion ideas?

• Made Men: Access to organized crime that drives other players off of their property.
• Barons & Moguls: More expensive hotel types that give players more revenue per hotel.
• Boys in Blue: Dirty cops that can arrest other players.
• Political Pockets: A portion of all taxes paid goes directly to the player. The percentage is dependent on how many other players also own the Political Pockets expansion pack.

Mojmir

If P2W means things get fixed more timely and properly, who do i make the check out to?

anitajoneb17_ESO

Gidorick wrote: »

I'd totally pay extra REAL WORLD money for "Player Expansions" to Monopoly! How about these expansion ideas?

• Made Men: Access to organized crime that drives other players off of their property.
• Barons & Moguls: More expensive hotel types that give players more revenue per hotel.
• Boys in Blue: Dirty cops that can arrest other players.
• Political Pockets: A portion of all taxes paid goes directly to the player. The percentage is dependent on how many other players also own the Political Pockets expansion pack.

GIDORIIIIIIICK !!!!!!!!!! You.are.incurable. LOL !!

(please someone tell me : where's the button to turn Gidorick's imagination off ??? doesn't exist... kk... )

EDIT : joke apart, technically speaking those are not expansions, but variants, and most of them - player created - exist already as such. Like many extremely popular games, Monopoly has one official set of rules, and then about 1 different set of rules per house hold / family tradition).

.

khele23eb17_ESO

Mojmir wrote: »

If P2W means things get fixed more timely and properly, who do i make the check out to?

Why would it?

Aldruin

So your logic is that DLCs shouldn't bring us any sets that are better than the ones you can craft/obtain in the base game. Yes let's don't improve the game, let's stop at a point and release pointless DLCs with no content or incentive to play and pretend that a game can perfectly run without any kind of income. Hell let's go to the forums and make a topic about this brilliant idea. Oh wait..

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

I think people are missing something here. You dont need the new dlc to buy the stuff. I dont own IC but I have IC gear because I bought it with in game gold.

JamilaRaj

Aldruin wrote: »

So your logic is that DLCs shouldn't bring us any sets that are better than the ones you can craft/obtain in the base game. Yes let's don't improve the game, let's stop at a point and release pointless DLCs with no content or incentive to play and pretend that a game can perfectly run without any kind of income. Hell let's go to the forums and make a topic about this brilliant idea. Oh wait..

On the other hand, if the main reason, if not the only reason, of playing and paying for DLCs is that superior sets (remarkably, unless relative difficulty of the game drops with each round of expanding, new sets are superior only when compared to sets of non-paying players, i.e. only in terms of P2W) are there, supposed "improvement" is exactly...where? That is pretty much an admission of, aside from P2W, non-improvement.

exeeter702

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Bob is never going to win a game of monopoly if all he cares about is seeing how many times he can get sent to jail or pass go.

The point is at the end if the day no one can tell you what type of values you get out of a given game, that is purely subjective and undisputable.

However for the sake of p2w and game development / balance, the above logic is absolute hot garbage. There are very real, completely objective win conditions in most games, especially if the competitive kind.

Monopoly is a game with a start where ALL players are in the exact same situation, at the same time, and with an end where one player, called "winner", still has money (usually a lot of it) whereas all other players have run out of it. Once that ending is reached, either you stop playing or you start a new game : the game will not "create" extra goals to pursue.
ESO is a multi-activity game with a start and NO END. Some of these activities - but not all - have a temporary "winner status" to aim for (emperorship, max rank, leaderboards, achievements, etc...). Such winner status is doomed to be temporary due to the neverending nature of the game : developers are expected to provide new activities and expand on the existing ones. Sometimes players create their own rules and activities in order to have fun playing beyond the completion of current content. Activities without "winners" are not less popular than "competitive" activities.

How can you even compare the two games ? And how you can define "P2W" for ESO without taking into consideration its neverending and multi-activity aspects which makes "winning" a very vague and subjective concept ?

It looks like you need an absolute definition of P2W, a "hard coded line", some sort of standard after which you could classify all games as being on the "good" side or the "bad" side. Question is, why would you need that in the first place ? I don't think there's a need for such a thing to be determined externally. I say : let developers make their choices as they see fit for their game and their playerbase. And let players choose to pay or not, as they see fit.

ESO is fair because ZOS wants it to be a fair game, and because they know that the playerbase would be extremely unforgiving if they weren't.

First of all you missed my point. The monopoly analogy was simply to give reference to what objective winning is. It has nothing to do with balance or to compare it to how an mmo functions.

There simply is a hard coded line which p2w represents. This needs to be the case because of how ridiculously vague and abstract the definition can be in these arguments which is exactly what has happened over the years withave a more younger generation of online gamers that were not around when p2w was an actual thing that meant only one thing.

Yes mmos are more of a sandbox nature and thus players naturally end up having a wider variety of actives that they feel are rewarding.

In the case of mmos and this game in particular, the literal win conditions which reward the player for victory are clearing pve encounters and pvp.

Now I know what you are going to say -"player A beats a tough quest at lvl 30 and is rewarded experience and loot therefore he is is technically winning". This is where the genre muddies the water, but ultimately the pinnacle of difficulty has to come from end game which is where definitive win conditions are usually based.

If you disagree with that, then the whole use of rabbit hole logic is made apparent. We go back to square one where many people feel wining is simply subjective to the individual ie questing in this example and thus any form of convenience or exp boosting is viewed as p2w.

This is why the hard definition needs to be in place. P2w as it was conceptualized represented one and only one type of online game cash shop practice.

Jar_Ek

Traditionally pay to win is the ability to buy upgrades to a character through a cash shop that are unavailable through play. However dlc content is generally not considered pay to win, despite the fact that gear best in slot may only be available through the dlc because it must still be earnt through gameplay.
Now this does mean that someone who doesn't fork out for a dlc may not have the best in slot but they will generally still be competitive.

nimander99

GET A GOSHDARN JOB FOR CRIPES SAKE!!!!

If I see one more post about how $20 is to much to spend when the game itself was $60 I'm going to lose my mind.

Now let me tell you how I really feel...

Edit: And no buying a game is NOT nor will it ever be any form of p2w. P2w is buying power directly from an ingame store for cash... anything else is not p2w.

Aelthwyn

Speaking as one who has done very little PVP (so I fully admit I have no opinion on the necessity (or not) of having the latest armor sets in that regard), my personal take on the issue is that it rather depends on how you define ‘win,’ or how important competing with the most powerful players is to you. To me ‘winning’ is feeling competent while still challenged, but I’m not personally concerned with being the most powerful player out there, though I understand for some people that is the point of playing.

I can see the argument for ‘pay to win’ if you’re unable to succeed at non-DLC content, that you were previously able to be competent at, after the release of sets that you must buy a DLC to obtain. The ‘bottom line’ is yes you have to pay something to have the opportunity to obtain the ‘best’ gear, but it’s not a simple matter of buying the set in the store and not having to actually Play to Earn it - a distinction I greatly appreciate.

If the content you did ‘buy-to-play’ is not impossible/unplayable without the new sets then I don’t think it could really be called ‘pay to win’. The main content of the base game should not have changed so that you can’t play it without new sets, but what will have changed of course will be the player population, some of whom have the newest sets and some who don’t - so it is the PVP portion of the game that becomes more difficult without them. I have no idea whether it becomes impossible to play against people with the new sets or not, but I can definitely see that would be a problem. I find it a little hard to believe that someone without the latest set would have No hope of succeeding against a person who has it, but if that truly is the case then I do think those sets ought to be rebalanced with the other sets in the game. If the group content used to be playable without the new sets, not being chosen for groups because you don’t have the latest set is the player-community’s fault for being snooty about it, not so much a fault of the game.

Personally I’m more of the view that the DLCs are a bit different from the other crown store items. Just like the base game that you ‘buy to play,’ you buy to play the expansions of the game (wherein you can play to earn new things which are only a small part of what you’re getting for the price). Regarding experience scrolls and horse/bank upgrades these only get you what you could earn in game faster. It may give new characters a slight edge with horse speed/stamina they wouldn’t have been able to start out with immediately, but it’s certainly not necessary to buy them rather than training in game over more time. You can of course make tri-restoration potions and food in game, obtain soul gems, etc. The rest of the store things are all for looks. There isn’t anything that you can simply buy and then be Considerably more powerful than others without putting any actual play-time in, there’s no catalogue of over-powered weapons to choose from or anything. And it doesn’t seem to me like there is anything in the store currently that Should have been included in the base game. I honestly feel like they’ve done a good job at not making you feel like you have to make a bunch of extra transactions just to be able to actually play the game you bought.

KramUzibra

It's not really pay to win just pay to look awesome!! I already spent close to $2000 on this game! I wish they would put more mounts, pets, costumes and motifs in the crown store so I can buy them up.

IamNoobee

Axorn wrote: »

Best weapons drops from vMSA best dps monster set Molag Kena drops from vWGT and other items and they all bound and all DLC content so how come someone can compete againts a dps having these items ? And we know all DLC items will be bound in future too. Raid leaders always choose the best DPS for trials without these items there is no way to compete. For example i usually do 25-27k dps with my sorc he only uses crafted items but other dps in the party was doing 32k dps cuz he/she was wearing molag kena.

so basically what you're saying is if you bought your edition of the game elder scrolls online, you're a pay to winner. if you wouldnt have payed for the game, you wouldn't be getting 25-27k dps. of course im assuming you payed for it and you're not a steal to winner.

Tonturri

As someone who has not bought the game, how can I possible compete with someone who has? They get access to all this stuff they can use....they even have more abilities than me, and can level up but I can't! ZOS please fix this is pay to win.

anitajoneb17_ESO

exeeter702 wrote: »

It looks like you need an absolute definition of P2W, a "hard coded line", some sort of standard after which you could classify all games as being on the "good" side or the "bad" side. Question is, why would you need that in the first place ? I don't think there's a need for such a thing to be determined externally. I say : let developers make their choices as they see fit for their game and their playerbase. And let players choose to pay or not, as they see fit.

ESO is fair because ZOS wants it to be a fair game, and because they know that the playerbase would be extremely unforgiving if they weren't.

First of all you missed my point. The monopoly analogy was simply to give reference to what objective winning is. It has nothing to do with balance or to compare it to how an mmo functions.

There simply is a hard coded line which p2w represents. This needs to be the case because of how ridiculously vague and abstract the definition can be in these arguments which is exactly what has happened over the years withave a more younger generation of online gamers that were not around when p2w was an actual thing that meant only one thing.

Yes mmos are more of a sandbox nature and thus players naturally end up having a wider variety of actives that they feel are rewarding.

In the case of mmos and this game in particular, the literal win conditions which reward the player for victory are clearing pve encounters and pvp.

Now I know what you are going to say -"player A beats a tough quest at lvl 30 and is rewarded experience and loot therefore he is is technically winning". This is where the genre muddies the water, but ultimately the pinnacle of difficulty has to come from end game which is where definitive win conditions are usually based.

If you disagree with that, then the whole use of rabbit hole logic is made apparent. We go back to square one where many people feel wining is simply subjective to the individual ie questing in this example and thus any form of convenience or exp boosting is viewed as p2w.

This is why the hard definition needs to be in place. P2w as it was conceptualized represented one and only one type of online game cash shop practice.

OK now I'm sure you understand what I meant and vice-versa ;-)

I'll stick to my preference of "P2W" being evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on which game and which player, but I also understand your need for and the overall usefulness of some sort of "standard", which you say already exists.

The mere existence of the original post on this thread tends to prove you right. However, the entire thread also proves that this "hard coded line" isn't that efficient at making everyone happy or agree, or that it is not widely known and recognized by the current gamers' world.

.

Nirvava4EM

Haha, some of you guys crack me up.

"I had to pay $60 dollars for the game at GameStop, that's pay to win guys...seriously."

JapanesePlayer

this is example of P2W

Waseem

pay to win game would have everything you see in guild stores at crown store
and everything you see at crown store would be at guild store
you can suggest ,however, that ZOS remove crown store and put a link/mail so we can donate them canned food and life supplies to continue financing servers

Elsonso

.

JapanesePlayer wrote: »

this is example of P2W

http://i.imgur.com/sXKSsQ4.jpg

No. Since when does available bag space equate to winning?

gen_reynard2050

DLC is P2W???....

• DLC give more skill points..?
• DLC give more skill trees...?
• DLC give more weapon choices...?
• DLC give more armor choices...?
• DLC give more experiences...?
• DLC give more golds...?
• DLC give more p2w...?

so ESO DLC is P2W?




yes... eso is p2w. Good nitez..

Julianos

gen_reynard2050 wrote: »

DLC is P2W???....

• DLC give more skill points..?
• DLC give more skill trees...?
• DLC give more weapon choices...?
• DLC give more armor choices...?
• DLC give more experiences...?
• DLC give more golds...?
• DLC give more p2w...?

so ESO DLC is P2W?




yes... eso is p2w. Good nitez..

lol

Reeko

I pay to play ths game (subbed) and i havnt won any maelstrom weapons? I got kena shoulder from gold key and did not have sub then.

NewBlacksmurf

Maybe Play to get nerf?

clayandaudrey_ESO

JapanesePlayer wrote: »

this is example of P2W

just no...