Potential For Selling Pay To Win - Page 14

Dreamcast · 2012-06-05, 05:11 AM

Planetside 2 must not have long times to unlock weapons/cert.......at least not long enough till a person feels they must buy stuff to unlock shit.

That's really the gamebreaker.

About the Resource booster...It will certainly benifit players with money but would it benifit the team?.....I mean it will have cooldowns...

But yeah it kind of destroys the whole purpose of resources.

Timey · 2012-06-05, 05:15 AM

As long as I will still win 100% of the time the engagement that I should win 100% of the time regardless of how much $ the other player has shoved in to the game I'm content.

e: typo

Winfernal · 2012-06-05, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Timey

As long as I will still win 100% of the time the engagement that I should win 100% of the time regardless of how much $ the other player has shoved in to the game I'm content.

e: typo

This.

Skill>$$$

SKYeXile · 2012-06-05, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Timey

As long as I will still win 100% of the time the engagement that I should win 100% of the time regardless of how much $ the other player has shoved in to the game I'm content.

e: typo

im content aslong as i win 100% of fights, if i dont...MUST BE HACKS.

basti · 2012-06-05, 05:52 AM

The xp boost is fine, no problem with that, it does not matter after a few weeks anyway.
But the resource boost is in fact pay to win. You should not be able to build a large storage of resources, otherwise you cannot deny the enemy resources, making the whole idea of the resource metagame pointless.

Timey · 2012-06-05, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

im content aslong as i win 100% of fights, if i dont...MUST BE HACKS.

I don't seem to locate the funny.

Originally Posted by basti

The xp boost is fine, no problem with that, it does not matter after a few weeks anyway.
But the resource boost is in fact pay to win. You should not be able to build a large storage of resources, otherwise you cannot deny the enemy resources, making the whole idea of the resource metagame pointless.

make this guy a mod... oh.

bullet · 2012-06-05, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by p0intman

The microtransaction game is this: you make your gaming experience enjoyable to start with, but as people progress, unless they pay you, their experience slowly deteriorates into a mindnumbing experience where its next to impossible to get anything done without paying extra for it. That is where they want to go, and that is where it has been stated they want to go for a long time now. It isn't a matter of being reasonable, its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

That is the problem, because that is where gaming stagnates and becomes unsustainable.

So does constantly unlocking stuff = fun to you or is it the fact that you're playing a game with thousands of people? And if we're talking about unlocking stuff, the more certs you have doesnt directly = more wtfpwn.

-Assumption incoming since we have no real data to back this up- <-- Let me bold/underline this for people

You can only utilize X amount of certs at a time due to weapon specific, class specific, vehicle specific certs/mods. You can't tote around dual MCGs with reduced recoil, increased RoF, increased damage, while blasting kids from your tank that has increased armor, increased speed, and increased damage.

I can't imagine they throw you in there only to unlock 2-3 certs then crank that dial up on the required exp to get certs. I would think that they let you get to about mid rank and a decent amount of certs to spend. You can then use those certs gained to specialize into a certain field of play that you enjoy or maybe you can try a little bit of everything, but if their plan of allowing you to unlock all certs is implemented, then there definitely needs to be a steep exp curve on something like that. Edit in: And some people would like to not spend as much time, or have the time, to unlock these things hence the xp booster. But its not as if they are mind numbingly rolling their face on the keyboard to farm those boars or mine that ore. They are actively playing competively with and against other people while having fun.

Meecrob · 2012-06-05, 07:23 AM

I would like to butt in here a bit

. I have been playing League of legends since beta and never ever payed for anything. I also never had the feeling that because i didnt pay i was not able to be competive. All of my friends have paid small (like max 50 dollars) amounts for vanity stuff like skins so i think the F2P model in LoL works extremely well. BattleField: Play4Free on the other hand is a different beast all together. The best weapons of the game are exclusive to people that pay wich is the feared "pay2win". As long as the are only selling booster i don't have the slightest of problem.

Im not saying i like the trend of people that have money and are willing to spend it get to save time. A more illegal form of this was goldselling/character buying in world of warcraft and i was completely opposed to it. But appparently the industry has taken its lesson from this. Nowadays you see this even in non free to play games. Diablo 3 will have its real money auctionhouse for people not willing to spend months farming to be able to complete inferno. Battlefield 3 recently introduced ways to buy equipment / exp boosts. And these are games people actually bought. Again , im not saying i like this trend. I can even say i do not like this trend at all, but it is reality. Games are being made mostly to make money.

I think the current way PS2 is going in this is fine. As stated before the F2P model has one big advantage For a game like PS, it will keep the playerbase at a high level. Because let us not forget why PS1 died, the low population numbers(and bfrs

). As long as they don't have power increasing stuff that is exclusively available for real money im good.

Edit: I do hope the resource boost is only a boost for certain resources needed to purchase upgrades and not for the resources needed to buy vehicles and such.

Coreldan · 2012-06-05, 07:26 AM

Probably said by now, but my thoughts on boosters like the ones mentioned in OP: Not pay2win, not even close.

I'm all up for "pay2skipgrind" which is what the boosters are. If the same thing can be obtained in the game without paying a dime, it is not pay2win.

I'm not OVERLY concerned about the resources either. I don't think it's a baseline problem, but basti did bring up a good point that it might negate the metagame of resource denial when you can go over that by putting in real money. Generally speaking I'm OK with the idea, sort of like a.. busy family man who works hard and doesnt have time to play much, but when he does he wants to play without being restricted by the fact that he doesnt have that much time to play to earn resources.

Satexios · 2012-06-05, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Probably said by now, but my thoughts on boosters like the ones mentioned in OP: Not pay2win, not even close.

I'm all up for "pay2skipgrind" which is what the boosters are. If the same thing can be obtained in the game without paying a dime, it is not pay2win.

I'm not OVERLY concerned about the resources either. I don't think it's a baseline problem, but basti did bring up a good point that it might negate the metagame of resource denial when you can go over that by putting in real money. Generally speaking I'm OK with the idea, sort of like a.. busy family man who works hard and doesnt have time to play much, but when he does he wants to play without being restricted by the fact that he doesnt have that much time to play to earn resources.

Regarding the resource denial thing.

A silly example, lets say you get 100 when you own the entire map and only 10 when you have your sanc.

So when you have a 30% boost (random number) you get 13 resources instead of 10. And the one owning the cont gets 130.

I don't see the real issue here, as you are still being denied your resources. If you are part of a losing faction the boost might just be what you need to keep going.

Either way, it all depends on numbers and data which we do not have so it is all speculation.

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-05, 07:45 AM

I will admit without a cap on the amount of resources people have, boosters could end up being a endless supply. But are there a cap on resource? If not that could eliminate the idea of resource hoarding. Say based on the number of a certain asset you have your pool gets larger. But if one gets taken the pool becomes smaller, so essentially it will take them away if you are topped off.

Food for thought (may add that to the idea vault)