Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Why would you expect examples, outside of Star Citizen, when I already said the model has been poorly implemented by the industry up to this point?
1 + 1 = 2
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
If the games industry wants to grow, they should embrace PAY 2 WIN. Yeah yeah, calm down...
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
1 + 1 = 2
Halo is Back
Member
Even coming from you, this is a pretty bad take....
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Zannegan
Member
Fourth Option: Evilore was playing around alts one day and decided to create an insane devil's advocate, just to see how far he could carry a bass ackwards argument using forum logic. The result was a character that not only inflated clicks through controversy but was actually a fun challenge to write, a modern-day Screwtape if you will. At least that's been my working theory since his last few threads.
It may not be Evilore, but it definitely feels like some sort of social experiment or extremely meta satire. Someone's out there laughing into their sleeve at how Gaf members actually take their posts seriously.
elmos-acc
Member
As much as I think you are trolling, I wouldn't be mad if a developer tried this. Like, for example, a F2P game like Battlefield where you would have to pay for a plane? If they did it in a way that didn't impact the enjoyment of those people who do not care about planes (like me), it would at least be something else than generic battlepass progression and absolutely ridiculous cosmetics.
I don't know if any game developer could pull that off in a way that makes sense though. Maybe it's just time to accept that almost all multiplayer games will have predatory monetization, are there even any examples of MP games that do not have any microtransactions but have an active playerbase?
I don't know if any game developer could pull that off in a way that makes sense though. Maybe it's just time to accept that almost all multiplayer games will have predatory monetization, are there even any examples of MP games that do not have any microtransactions but have an active playerbase?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
demented waffle
Member
Last Hearth
Member
I don't think what you said even makes sense, if the game is "fun" for people who don't pay, then there is no incentive to pay. In order for P2W, the W part has be there. Nobody is going to pay in a P2W game where they pay and don't win. In your scenario, the Darth Vadar player would have quit the game and went to a different game and told everyone to avoid the garbage game that allowed a F2P player to beat him despite him having dumped thousands into the game, and all the whales will stay away from the game and the game dies.Pay 2 win is one of the most universally despised concepts in gaming. I, like many of you, hissed at it for most of my gaming life.
I was wrong.
The problem with Pay 2 win has always been in its implementation, not in it's concept.
Our favorite movies, TV shows, and books abide by Pay 2 Win rules. Darth Vader spends trillions building his Death Star. He has billions of white helmeted soldiers. He's bribing (I think) politicians across the galaxy. Luke Skywalker enters as a F2P player. Darth Vader has numerous advantages over Luke Skywalker but Luke still has "fun" fighting the empire. All of our favorite stories are asymmetrical. That's Pay 2 Win.
The problem with Pay 2 Win is that it's implementation has been garbage. Up until this point, pay to win has made not paying, unenjoyable. The asymmetry of going against a whale is miserable. So much so that it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the majority of the player base. The correction is simply making the experience fun for the player who doesn't pay anything. Star Wars becomes a much less enjoyable movie if the cheapo Rebel Alliance quite and go play another game. When developers figure out how to make the asymmetry fun...BOOM, there's your industry growth.
sloppyjoe_gamer
Gold Member
OP when writing this...
There is absolutely NOTHING good about P2W or GAAS games. Look at MK1 and Suicide Squad and how WB has nearly killed two devs (NRS and Rocksteady) with this type of mentality and you think it's good......big oof on your part.
There is absolutely NOTHING good about P2W or GAAS games. Look at MK1 and Suicide Squad and how WB has nearly killed two devs (NRS and Rocksteady) with this type of mentality and you think it's good......big oof on your part.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Dear God. Honestly, pause and just think this through.
You can't envision a game where playing as one type of character is fun...but after a while you want to check out another type of character?
League of Legends does this. They give you a small number of characters to play as. That's your F2P group. They design the game so it's fun to play with those characters...but they entice you by forcing you to pay, or unlocked other characters. People buy characters and skins all the time in one of the most successful videogames in history. League of Legends is more than a decade old.
Last edited:
MiguelItUp
Member
Hypereides
Member
You're really living up to that tag, Mibby.
Last edited:
hinch7
Member
But anyways why would people pay more for a worst experience. That doesn't make sense, at all. The whole concept for live service is to keep the user engaged and playing for long as possible, and the P2W option is there for don't have time to invest into the grind. With the bonus of getting an advantage over others. If you reversed the roles NOONE is going to pay for anything making it moot.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
You're describing the old (current) method of how P2W is implemented. Read the OP and check out Star Citizen to catch up to speed.
hinch7
Member
The game that sells in game items from hundreds spanning to thousands. And is practically in a purpetual state of vaporware (bordering scam) because the money coming in is too good. Don't think thats a good concept and model to follow. Its the whales and investors keeping CIG open, otherwise it'll SC would be dead in the water.
Highly doubt its bringing in new players on a month to month basis.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
You've stumbled on the point of this thread. Nice.
If the industry wants to grow, they need to cater more to the whales. It's an untapped market.
Last edited:
Last Hearth
Member
Why do I "want" the industry to grow. The only thing I want is for the industry to cater to me. The industry grows if there are a lot of people like me out there. Growth is the result that happens naturally from providing good service. If an industry sacrifices qualify of service for growth. They will end up with neither.
hinch7
Member
Issue being that once the bubble pops and those whales stop investing you're left with a load of debt. Just look at what happened to NFT's.
The better option is make good products to draw bigger audiences for growth. And keep good quality content going. Keep that pay to win crap to a minimum and save them for skins and everyones happy. Blizzard did that for a while for World of Warcraft before they started fucking up in the later expansions. Adding more monetization to the mix, but still keeping it non P2W and there's millions of subscribers still. They got more money from a single in-game mount than they got from SC2 - which is a fairly depressing thought.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
This is merely a theoretical discussion on strategy. Our preferences should be irrelevant here.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Your idea is not gonna make the industry grow but instead its gonna turn the entire gaming industry to dog shit........maybe that what you want but most us dont.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
That math doesn't work.
If it wouldn't help the industry grow, then why would it bring about the apocalypse? It would be ineffective.
You kind of have to choose one.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Last Hearth
Member
Our preference can't be irrelevant because our patronage is what keeps the industry alive.
Reizo Ryuu
Gold Member
You should take your own advice, nothing you described here is P2W, the character you grinded or bought isn't some win button, these games are balanced around multiple characters and team synergy, so much in fact that the new character you tried might have a bad matchup against another character, so now you start losing instead of winning like you normally did.
Also LoL isn't a single player game, nothing you buy will just overcome the player skill that lets a character with a bad matchup still win; someone who's got your number will beat your ass no matter how much money you spend, which is directly opposite to "P2W"
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Stop. Slow down. Count backwards from 10.
I was clearly responding to the poster who said... "I don't think what you said even makes sense, if the game is "fun" for people who don't pay, then there is no incentive to pay."
This concept is so far removed from the reality that a teacher : student relationship is forming in real time. I'm trying to build up his understanding so that he can formulate more valid opinions and concepts. Think: Zone of proximal development.
Once he understands that basic reality, he can engage with the OP on more even footing.
Then thought experiments may not be for you.
Last edited:
Reizo Ryuu
Gold Member
Everyone understands what you're talking about, it's you who's stuck in some twilight zone delusion
No, what you are clearly doing now is ignoring the fact that he responded to you about your insane P2W premise and are conveniently now ignoring the rest of his post:
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
I’m confused how that is pay to win…
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Yeah, that's all wrong as well. Allow me to explain...
When people purchase products, they don't pass it through a P2W lense. They simply assess a product and estimate how much value they will derive from it.
We see his theory fall flat on its face with Star Citizen.
Reizo Ryuu
Gold Member
You're not explaining shit, as said for it to be P2W, the 'win' needs to be there, if you're not winning after paying it's not P2W.
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Allowing people to purchase items, ships, and abilities with VASTLY different mechanics attached to them would obviously be considerably pay to win. Are you familiar with the Death Star in Star Wars? Try rereading the OP again. Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I needed to.
Reizo Ryuu
Gold Member
Roxkis_ii
Member
Pay 2 win makes games not worth playing in my opinion.
I will admit my imagination might be small on this issue, but there is no changes I could imagine that would make playing a pay 2 win game worth playing unless it's a demo for a paid game.
Playing against people who can pay to have an advantage over you is wack and I don't see a way to make that not suck and still worth paying for. Even if it's limited to eng game activities.
I think the best pay structure is kinda the Destiny 2 and the Eververse store. Buy any cosmetic you want now for a fee, or wait until it's drip feed for a currency you can earn in game.
You pay to feel special for a little while and everyone can earn the same stuf via drip feed later.
I will admit my imagination might be small on this issue, but there is no changes I could imagine that would make playing a pay 2 win game worth playing unless it's a demo for a paid game.
Playing against people who can pay to have an advantage over you is wack and I don't see a way to make that not suck and still worth paying for. Even if it's limited to eng game activities.
I think the best pay structure is kinda the Destiny 2 and the Eververse store. Buy any cosmetic you want now for a fee, or wait until it's drip feed for a currency you can earn in game.
You pay to feel special for a little while and everyone can earn the same stuf via drip feed later.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
What is the difference between an AI who has an advantage over you and a real player who has an advantage over you?
I genuinely can't see the difference.
Roxkis_ii
Member
Maybe this would be considered a console gamer mindset, but outside of cheats, I feel like most people are on a level playing field and it's mostly skill, age and amount of sleep that separates players.
AI is capable of being better, but that I don't think most players compete with AI when playing games. At least that's how I think of it. The AI in games is more of a difficulty setting.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I can't wrap my head around "most players don't compete with AI when playing games". It's like...all I did as Link in Zelda was hit AI with swords, bombs, and arrows.
I appreciate your response but I can't wrap my head around that
BlackTron
Member
Boredom maybe, but not sadness.
Roxkis_ii
Member
Do you feel like your competing with the monsters you fight in Zelda? To me, they are just an obstacle to make the game interesting.
When I think of competing, I'm thinking pvp games like Overwatch, or GT7 Online. Why would you pay to win in a single player game?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
There's two types of multiplayer games now. The old style are competitive "sports" type games. These are your Overwatches, GT7s, Street Fighters etc. I will admit, P2W does not work in this style because they're competitive by nature.
The newer type of multiplayer is story based multiplayer. Think Fortnite, Rust, Helldivers 2. These games are more about experiencing an interactive story arc. This is where P2W can work. See: Star Citizen.
The biggest problem with games like Zelda are that the worlds are dead due to braindead AI. Everyone just waits around for Link to show up and then an asymmetric battle occurs.
You can fix this type of game by replacing ineffective ineffective AI with human intelligence. That Giant Centipede in Tears of the Kingdom would be far more interesting if it was a player who spent $500 dollars on the character.
Last edited:
BTW, you could still post without payment but free posts gonna be a nothing burger.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
So like a monster attack game where it's 100 vs 1. It's $100 bucks for a monster and free for the players attempting to take it down. I can see something like that becoming a thing.
PC got it right, it's the closest platform for these types of stuff, console games btw are different, players expect not missing anything major in their copy, I don't see console players could comprehend what's beyond that, not as far as I know.
tylrdiablos
Member
Doom, then, will be playable in drugs with chemicals , given that, each individual will believe their own shit and make it happen but no one will be interested in communicating cause each one's experience is different, it's a different reality, no one will resist, even you.