Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

That all fine its your definitions of it
But how do you win by that? and what or who do you win over?

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

Because there are "official sources," for industry analysis. Right. And, for reference, I'm building off of years of looking at the industry, and the decisions made by various developers.

I would not consider ESO a p2w game. You could argue about the scrolls, but you can still obtain exp potions in game so it cancels it out.

I consider P2W items that is better than in game obtainable items. Or something wich speeds up your progress more than a non paying member. Tbh the most p2w in game is horse riding lessons.

This dead horse is beginning to look like a giant pile of hamburg

Not Warden

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

I did not define it that way. That is what P2W actually means. You, on the other hand, can give it whatever meaning you choose, as you have, but it is still incorrect.

Awesome. Glad to know you have the official definition of pay to win.

So, by your definition if Zos sells the best gear in the store which would make a character very likely to win in pvp etc., then it's not pay to win so long as there is a chance, however small, that someone with less means could obtain the item in game.

Cool, awesome. I hope i can buy VMA weapons in the store at some point so i don't have to play the content.

*Edit*

Here is a Wiki definition:

"Pay-to-win mechanics
In some games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free who, for example, would otherwise need to spend time progressing in order to unlock said items.."

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

Because there are "official sources," for industry analysis. Right. And, for reference, I'm building off of years of looking at the industry, and the decisions made by various developers.

Thanks just wanted to clarify that the reason you think my opinion is incorrect is because you think your opinion is correct. Gotcha.

No, I think your opinion is incorrect because your "definition," is little more than a misrepresented example, and indicates a lack of understanding of both P2W and how to play ESO. That I also happen to know what I'm talking about is completely incidental to your position.

Here are sources that support my definition:

"In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" (p2w) games. A common suggestion for avoiding pay-to-win is that payments should only be used to broaden the experience without affecting gameplay."
- Wikipedia

"Pay To Win. When you are paying for advantage which normal players don't have access to unless they either pay too or will have to grind very long (weeks and months)."
- Urban Dictionary

"When money provides an objectively better experience when playing, meaning that if the purchasable content creates a noticeable distinction between the haves and the have-nots.

“Better Experience” includes in game advantages, stronger in game gear or anything that makes the paying players stand above the free players.
This is especially a major deal in games with competitions or PVP play."
- Game-Wisdom

You can find an article on the subject here: https://allods.my.com/forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=72663

For reference, i have been in the industry for the better part of 17 years. I have played ESO since beta.

Isn't it both?

I don't want new players to skip to max level even if that would only make them "my level" and I don't want paying players have a higher potential maximum than non-paying.

Amdar_Godkiller wrote: »

No such thing. We all paid to play at some point.

Sure there is. Imagine a game where the amount of money you pay proportionally increases a damage multiplier (just a made up example). Or mobile games where you would have to spend hundreds each season to always have energy to be at the top of some leaderboard that gives BiS gear you can get elsewhere--a very common occurrence in mobile games.

The key to those examples is that the amount spent isn't fixed. The more you spend, the more powerful your character gets. The only way others can keep pace with your power increases is to try to outspend you. Some of those mobiles games are barely interactive.

Perhaps another good way to look at it is people would like to buy competitive games where they buy the game and then compete. They spend AAA prices for those. What many don't want is that they can no longer beat bad players because the bad players were able to spend a few hundred bucks. The good thing about mobile games is they don't pretend to not be P2W. People know what they are getting into. But when they buy a AAA FPS game, they expect it to be a level playing field. They don't expect that, for example, a basketball team can pay money for a wider hoop at their offensive end.

Ragebull wrote: »

Aren’t the 2 options the same thing?

No they arent and that is problem, as most people genuinely do not understand what p2w is.

The first option is paying for a way to circumvent a grind time or simply playing for a form of expedienc that non payers cant get and thus puts them at a deficit in reaching the same goal as said player who pays money. While that can be taken to really scummy levels, it is not pay to win by definition.

The second option is that of providing a statistical advantage on a pay wall where said advantage is objectively impossible to obtain through in game methods in any way whatsoever. This is exactly what pay to win means. This is strictly in power advantage.
Early korean f2p games (before f2p was even a term in the west) were notorious for practicing.

Over the years, many people began conflating the two. Often confusing convenience pay items as pay to win. Again it must be stressed, no matter how *** it is, selling instant power that is otherwise available in game via a long grind is not pay to win.

Also worth noting, self imposed win conditions have nothing to do with p2w. The need to aquire mounts and minions does not make that a win condition designed by the developers. The WIN in p2w is not open to interpretation when actually discusing the origins of the game design practice. There is actual history to the term. It wasnt made up based on feelings. A post leage of legends online gaming world where f2p and mobile gaming have ballooned globally has cause many inexperienced younger generation players to pin the term on cash shop practices that in any way make it harder for those that chose not to spend to compete in said game. I cant think of a single game online right now that is trully pay to win outside of the bowels of the korean and chinese game markets.

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

Because there are "official sources," for industry analysis. Right. And, for reference, I'm building off of years of looking at the industry, and the decisions made by various developers.

Thanks just wanted to clarify that the reason you think my opinion is incorrect is because you think your opinion is correct. Gotcha.

Its not an opinion. There are tangible elements that demonstrate the practice of pay to win in the industry, those that have been around to see it when it actually existed know this. It is real, it was a thing, and its not based on personal opinions.

Pay To Win (aka P2W)

When you can buy for real money something, that would give you an advantage over someone who didn't bought that stuff.
And this 'something' can't be achieved in other ways - only with real money.
Note: if 'something' can be found in the game, but has something like 0.001% chance to drop - this is equal to 'can't be found in game'

Examples:
Premium subscription in the TERA, that gives a few % more to combat stats.
Premium underwear in the ArcheAge that has combat stats, while ordinary underwear hasn't
Loot-boxes with the crazy OP stuff like in the most MMOs

You can trust me, I know MMO-world pretty well.

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

Because there are "official sources," for industry analysis. Right. And, for reference, I'm building off of years of looking at the industry, and the decisions made by various developers.

Thanks just wanted to clarify that the reason you think my opinion is incorrect is because you think your opinion is correct. Gotcha.

No, I think your opinion is incorrect because your "definition," is little more than a misrepresented example, and indicates a lack of understanding of both P2W and how to play ESO. That I also happen to know what I'm talking about is completely incidental to your position.

Here are sources that support my definition:

"In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" (p2w) games. A common suggestion for avoiding pay-to-win is that payments should only be used to broaden the experience without affecting gameplay."
- Wikipedia

"Pay To Win. When you are paying for advantage which normal players don't have access to unless they either pay too or will have to grind very long (weeks and months)."
- Urban Dictionary

"When money provides an objectively better experience when playing, meaning that if the purchasable content creates a noticeable distinction between the haves and the have-nots.

“Better Experience” includes in game advantages, stronger in game gear or anything that makes the paying players stand above the free players.
This is especially a major deal in games with competitions or PVP play."
- Game-Wisdom

You can find an article on the subject here: https://allods.my.com/forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=72663

For reference, i have been in the industry for the better part of 17 years. I have played ESO since beta.

Technically, one source. As the bulk of that is copied verbatim from the post you linked. In 17 years, I would have hoped you'd be able to quickly, and efficiently, articulate your own positions regarding P2W, rather than simply regurgitating a forum post from two years ago, while engaging in borderline plagiarism. (I say, "borderline," because, while you did cite the original post, you attempted to present the text as if these were multiple, independent, sources.) If you'd wrapped the entire mess in quote tags, it would have been no big deal, but as written, not so much.

For example, here are some of my thoughts on plagiarism.

The definitions provided are fine. They're not your definition, but that's academic at the moment. More than that, your vampire example does not fit them.

Buying a bite from the store is not substantially faster than obtaining a bite from another player, or being in the right place, at the right time, to obtain a natural infection. As a result, normal players do in fact, have access to that advantage without extensive grinding.

More than that, Vampirism isn't, really, an upgrade. Yes, depending on who you're interacting with, you may be left with the impression that Vampirism will make you more powerful. That's not entirely true. It can be useful, if applied correctly, however far more often, the game of internet telephone reduces it down to, "vampires are meta!" without a critical thought, or any idea how to apply it to a build.

The Game-Wisdom definition is somewhat dubious, because it's excessively broad. Following that definition to the letter would make normal content expansions Pay to Win, simply for the sake of them being added. For example, that would classify Vvardenfell as Pay to Win, because it provides an improved and refined play experience, over content outside of that zone, with a similar argument for Clockwork City owing, exclusively, to the unique aesthetics. Arguing that those elements are pay to win is farcical. The intent is sound, but the test, as written, is unusable.

Were Battlegrounds Pay to Win when they were introduced, because they were paywalled and provided a superior small scale PvP experience? Game Wisdom's definition says yes.

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

So, by your definition if Zos sells the best gear in the store which would make a character very likely to win in pvp etc., then it's not pay to win so long as there is a chance, however small, that someone with less means could obtain the item in game.

Cool, awesome. I hope i can buy VMA weapons in the store at some point so i don't have to play the content.

If you're hoping a vMA bow will be your key to victory in PvP... I've got some bad news for you. The Destro staves are alright, but you'd be far better off with a Perfected Asylum staff for PvP.

Now, if ZOS did choose to start selling endgame gear in the store, then sure, accusing them of P2W would be entirely reasonable. But that's a hypothetical that hasn't occurred, and almost certainly won't.

As a developer you should be entirely familiar with the idea that some players will gleefully classify everything and anything behind a paywall as P2W if they want it. I mean, these boards have had people calling the Frostcaster motif Pay to Win. That Game-Wisdom definition sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify those arguments.

So, no, if you have a position that isn't based in hypotheticals, or your own definition, I'd invite you to share it. Though, at this point, I'll admit, it would be a little suspect.

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Say for example, the meta is being a vampire for regen and damage resistance and escape via mist form.

Now if say you could buy a vampire bite in the crown store that would be pay to win.

@Mattock_Romulus

Incorrect. If vampire was only available vid the crown store or if it was a better version than what was available in game the yiu could call it P2W. As it is a vampire bite in game is very easy to obtain.

Sure. You can define it that way. For me pay to win is paying money for items or power without playing the game. The OP asked us what we thought pay to win is. That's my definition. My opinion.

Did you get your definition from an official source or is everyone just pulling their definitions out of their arses?

Because there are "official sources," for industry analysis. Right. And, for reference, I'm building off of years of looking at the industry, and the decisions made by various developers.

Thanks just wanted to clarify that the reason you think my opinion is incorrect is because you think your opinion is correct. Gotcha.

No, I think your opinion is incorrect because your "definition," is little more than a misrepresented example, and indicates a lack of understanding of both P2W and how to play ESO. That I also happen to know what I'm talking about is completely incidental to your position.

Here are sources that support my definition:

"In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" (p2w) games. A common suggestion for avoiding pay-to-win is that payments should only be used to broaden the experience without affecting gameplay."
- Wikipedia

"Pay To Win. When you are paying for advantage which normal players don't have access to unless they either pay too or will have to grind very long (weeks and months)."
- Urban Dictionary

"When money provides an objectively better experience when playing, meaning that if the purchasable content creates a noticeable distinction between the haves and the have-nots.

“Better Experience” includes in game advantages, stronger in game gear or anything that makes the paying players stand above the free players.
This is especially a major deal in games with competitions or PVP play."
- Game-Wisdom

You can find an article on the subject here: https://allods.my.com/forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=72663

For reference, i have been in the industry for the better part of 17 years. I have played ESO since beta.

Technically, one source. As the bulk of that is copied verbatim from the post you linked. In 17 years, I would have hoped you'd be able to quickly, and efficiently, articulate your own positions regarding P2W, rather than simply regurgitating a forum post from two years ago, while engaging in borderline plagiarism. (I say, "borderline," because, while you did cite the original post, you attempted to present the text as if these were multiple, independent, sources.) If you'd wrapped the entire mess in quote tags, it would have been no big deal, but as written, not so much.

For example, here are some of my thoughts on plagiarism.

The definitions provided are fine. They're not your definition, but that's academic at the moment. More than that, your vampire example does not fit them.

Buying a bite from the store is not substantially faster than obtaining a bite from another player, or being in the right place, at the right time, to obtain a natural infection. As a result, normal players do in fact, have access to that advantage without extensive grinding.

More than that, Vampirism isn't, really, an upgrade. Yes, depending on who you're interacting with, you may be left with the impression that Vampirism will make you more powerful. That's not entirely true. It can be useful, if applied correctly, however far more often, the game of internet telephone reduces it down to, "vampires are meta!" without a critical thought, or any idea how to apply it to a build.

The Game-Wisdom definition is somewhat dubious, because it's excessively broad. Following that definition to the letter would make normal content expansions Pay to Win, simply for the sake of them being added. For example, that would classify Vvardenfell as Pay to Win, because it provides an improved and refined play experience, over content outside of that zone, with a similar argument for Clockwork City owing, exclusively, to the unique aesthetics. Arguing that those elements are pay to win is farcical. The intent is sound, but the test, as written, is unusable.

Were Battlegrounds Pay to Win when they were introduced, because they were paywalled and provided a superior small scale PvP experience? Game Wisdom's definition says yes.

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

So, by your definition if Zos sells the best gear in the store which would make a character very likely to win in pvp etc., then it's not pay to win so long as there is a chance, however small, that someone with less means could obtain the item in game.

Cool, awesome. I hope i can buy VMA weapons in the store at some point so i don't have to play the content.

If you're hoping a vMA bow will be your key to victory in PvP... I've got some bad news for you. The Destro staves are alright, but you'd be far better off with a Perfected Asylum staff for PvP.

Now, if ZOS did choose to start selling endgame gear in the store, then sure, accusing them of P2W would be entirely reasonable. But that's a hypothetical that hasn't occurred, and almost certainly won't.

As a developer you should be entirely familiar with the idea that some players will gleefully classify everything and anything behind a paywall as P2W if they want it. I mean, these boards have had people calling the Frostcaster motif Pay to Win. That Game-Wisdom definition sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify those arguments.

So, no, if you have a position that isn't based in hypotheticals, or your own definition, I'd invite you to share it. Though, at this point, I'll admit, it would be a little suspect.

The source I properly cited listed the sources their supports came from. If you spend any time searching the topic you will see that some define Pay to Win as the ability to buy an item or skill or power that gives an advantage over someone who does not have the means to buy said item.

I would argue that the ability to purchase riding speed would give a clear advantage in PVP over someone who has to spend 60 days leveling up the skill in game. Imagine you are riding back to your keep, with a group of enemies behind you, if they purchased 60 riding speed and you have only 10 speed since you don't have the will or means to by the riding skill with real money, good luck getting back to safety.

At any rate I don't really care. The OP didn't ask if we thought ESO is pay to win. I don't believe it is. However, I disagree that the consensus on pay to win is as clear as you make it out to be.