pay2win is ok but intrusive p2w is not?!

Hey guys,
After ArcheAge im very susceptible to p2w mechanics. The following might be wrong wording from Steven. Quote from the letter: "A world where choice matters, where risk vs reward can be truly felt, and intrusive pay-to-win monetization has no place."

meaning normal p2w has a place?!

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Professor Posh

Oh no, we are done for.

Damokles

There will be no P2W in AoC. There will be things like cosmetics, imagine GW2's shop. It is not P2W is it now?.

Jahlon

He uses the phrase intrusive Pay to Win, because people have thrown out stuff like being able to buy your levels in APOC and get the level 50 cosmetic without paying as P2W.

The only reward is a cosmetic, so its certainly "Pay to....."

Pay to not grind
Pay to not level
Pay to not deal with a BR mode

But in no way is it P2W.

The problem is you don't win points by quibbling and if the other guy thinks its pay to win, you're not going to convince him.

leamese

Jahlon wrote: »

He uses the phrase intrusive Pay to Win, because people have thrown out stuff like being able to buy your levels in APOC and get the level 50 cosmetic without paying as P2W.

The only reward is a cosmetic, so its certainly "Pay to....."

Pay to not grind
Pay to not level
Pay to not deal with a BR mode

But in no way is it P2W.

The problem is you don't win points by quibbling and if the other guy thinks its pay to win, you're not going to convince him.

i agree, but still.

unknownsystemerror

Undead Canuck

And the important words after the highlighted 'convenience' are the 'impacts gameplay'. How do cosmetics impact gameplay?
I have no problem with 'pay to look good'.

Roko

leamese wrote: »

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

there will always be ways to interpret anything anyone says in multiple ways. Have you ever had a girlfirend? everything you say while she is in a bad mood can and will be used against you.

in other words you are reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't think Steven can stress enough the fact that he doesn't want there to be any P2W in ashes in any way shape or form. He has said it from day one and he has said it in every way there is to say it. he has even used examples of xp boosters, loot pets and inventory expansions as P2W.

Atama

Roko wrote: »

leamese wrote: »

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

there will always be ways to interpret anything anyone says in multiple ways. Have you ever had a girlfirend? everything you say while she is in a bad mood can and will be used against you.

Hmm so the OP is Steven’s girlfriend. I hope you bought him nice sandals for Christmas.

Wandering Mist

Damokles wrote: »

There will be no P2W in AoC. There will be things like cosmetics, imagine GW2's shop. It is not P2W is it now?.

Errrr.....GW2's shop is..interesting. Yes most of it is cosmetics and name changes, etc but there are also a ton of things in there that aren't directly pay2win but do contribute a lot to your overall progression. For example there are certain zones that are great places to farm rare materials, and these zones are locked behind the cash shop. There are things like unlimited gathering tools and supply dumps that can only be purchased through the cash store.

And of course on top of that you can buy in-game gold with real world money which I know some people really don't like. I think it just about works ok in GW2 but only because there are only 2 tiers of gear at max level (exotic and ascended), and getting the best gear isn't that hard, so everyone is on an even playing field from a power perspective.

There are certainly advantages to the GW2 system, the most important being able to convert in-game gold into gems (the currency used in the cash shop). This provides an everlasting gold sink for the game and prevents over-inflation since the devs can change the exchange rate based on real world finances.

WizardTim

Undead Canuck wrote: »

And the important words after the highlighted 'convenience' are the 'impacts gameplay'. How do cosmetics impact gameplay?
I have no problem with 'pay to look good'.

If they work hard on making the unique cosmetics beautiful, and hide them behind paywalls, people wouldn't have any access to them without paying.

The game, to my knowledge, will be bought with an up front price and further paid for via subscription. I'm not at all certain they should have a cash shop at that point. At the very least, content for any such shop should be secondary to actual gameplay performance improvements and content.

Games fail rapidly because players are tricked into throwing money at cash shops for anything (cosmetics or "win" items). It makes for an incredibly boring experience when you can just open your wallet and look awesome. I'd prefer if the cosmetics were purchasable with in-game gold only, and maybe seasonally available. That would provide a fair money sink in the game, and also encourage players to actually PLAY the game.

Even a cash shop for cosmetics really takes away the value of earning customization options and the like. IMO there's no real difference between looking cool at level 1, or being insanely overpowered with epic equipment at level 1. Either way is skipping gameplay with cash.

Noaani

wolfwood82 wrote: »

The game, to my knowledge, will be bought with an up front price and further paid for via subscription. I'm not at all certain they should have a cash shop at that point.

There is no up front cost as far as I know, just the subscription.

unknownsystemerror

@wolfwood82 They have promised parity between the shop and in-game cosmetics. Now I know the next post will be "But they could be lying!" If that is what a person believes at this point, as @Jahlon pointed out above, you are never going to change their mind. The cosmetics available now are meant to be special, to give something extra for those that have their Tinkerbell moment, clap their hands, and believe.

@Undead Canuck The reason convenience is highlighted is that is the word that I used when searching for the quote to screenshot it. I agree, there are other words that have more importance in that one blurb, but that was the one that got me where I needed to be when searching for the quote.

leamese

Roko wrote: »

there will always be ways to interpret anything anyone says in multiple ways. Have you ever had a girlfirend? everything you say while she is in a bad mood can and will be used against you.

in other words you are reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't think Steven can stress enough the fact that he doesn't want there to be any P2W in ashes in any way shape or form. He has said it from day one and he has said it in every way there is to say it. he has even used examples of xp boosters, loot pets and inventory expansions as P2W.

Fair enough. I'm in a Relationship for 7 years now, maybe that's why I see it so 'precise'.🤔 I should relax..
Everything is ok. Shouldn't have made this thread In The first place.

Ravudha

leamese wrote: »

Hey guys,
After ArcheAge im very susceptible to p2w mechanics. The following might be wrong wording from Steven. Quote from the letter: "A world where choice matters, where risk vs reward can be truly felt, and intrusive pay-to-win monetization has no place."

meaning normal p2w has a place?!

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

The adjective may be redundant. If Steven believes all p2w is intrusive, then the adjective may be there simply for emphasis, not to serve as a distinction from other possible kinds of p2w.

"I hate filthy kobolds" doesn't necessarily mean I like or believe in the existence of kobolds who aren't filthy; the adjective may simply be used to emphasise my deep resentment or bigotry toward kobolds.

Rest assured, I just think Steven hates p2w with a passion

leamese

Ravudha wrote: »

leamese wrote: »

Hey guys,
After ArcheAge im very susceptible to p2w mechanics. The following might be wrong wording from Steven. Quote from the letter: "A world where choice matters, where risk vs reward can be truly felt, and intrusive pay-to-win monetization has no place."

meaning normal p2w has a place?!

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

The adjective may be redundant. If Steven believes all p2w is intrusive, then the adjective may be there simply for emphasis, not to serve as a distinction from other possible kinds of p2w.

"I hate filthy kobolds" doesn't necessarily mean I like or believe in the existence of kobolds who aren't filthy; the adjective may simply be used to emphasise my deep resentment or bigotry toward kobolds.

Rest assured, I just think Steven hates p2w with a passion

Yes yes true. It's says intrusive is not OK. But it doesn't say non intrusive is OK. Don't know where I got that from. Carry on guys nothing to see here 🤣

Ravudha

:Totally valid question man, it's a common concern many of us had and are glad they addressed.

Wololo

There will always be this fine line of what is considered p2w.. I mean as dev/publisher its tempting to put items in the shop like inventory slots/mount speed/XP boost or even items that let you chat globally for selling items or recruiting guildys. These indirectly help with power progression for sure but as mentioned above Ashes will shy away from it. I totally trust them on this tbh ^^

voidshadow

I honestly don't even think the "pay to look good" is a thing. Sure you can i guess, but Intrepid has stated that in game items will not fall behind cosmetic shop items in terms of looks. It's really a matter of preference and since the game isnt out yet but cosmetics are, then feel free to purchase if you want to

Professor Posh

Roko wrote: »

leamese wrote: »

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

there will always be ways to interpret anything anyone says in multiple ways. Have you ever had a girlfirend? everything you say while she is in a bad mood can and will be used against you.

in other words you are reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't think Steven can stress enough the fact that he doesn't want there to be any P2W in ashes in any way shape or form. He has said it from day one and he has said it in every way there is to say it. he has even used examples of xp boosters, loot pets and inventory expansions as P2W.

Roko? What happened to s... forgot the previous name...

WizardTim

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

@wolfwood82 They have promised parity between the shop and in-game cosmetics. Now I know the next post will be "But they could be lying!" If that is what a person believes at this point, as @Jahlon pointed out above, you are never going to change their mind. The cosmetics available now are meant to be special, to give something extra for those that have their Tinkerbell moment, clap their hands, and believe.

@Undead Canuck The reason convenience is highlighted is that is the word that I used when searching for the quote to screenshot it. I agree, there are other words that have more importance in that one blurb, but that was the one that got me where I needed to be when searching for the quote.

I'm not one to assume anyone is lying at any given time, however those statements leave quite a bit unsaid.

Regardless, that leaves me with my personal opinion that there just shouldn't be a cash shop to begin with. Even an with upfront cost being questionable, a subscription likely means paying something along the lines of 12.99-14.99 a month for the game, and time being taken away from content FOR said game and put into additional sellable content for additional money.

It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.

Child Item