Gamescom 2012: SWTOR will sell statted gear, debating new planet monetization

[vizzle]

It's not Pay to Win if the competitive boost can be out leveled. The "Win" part only comes at the top-end, when it matters.

The difference, if I need to explain, is that lowbie boosts that you can buy don't matter in the end of the game. You're not paying to win anything, because eventually you can be out leveled and your boosts will be out leveled. However, if the boosts come at the top-end, nobody can ever out level you and thus the only way to get stronger than the boosts is to either buy the boosts or to not get stronger at all. There is no other option.

Do you understand? One of them (lowbie $$$ boosts) doesn't change the game, it just makes it more convenient for people while they're leveling. The other one (the real P2W, top end $$$ boosts) changes the fundamentals of the game because the only way to become the strongest you can be is by Paying to get there.

[jbombard]

It's not Pay to Win if the competitive boost can be out leveled. The "Win" part only comes at the top-end, when it matters.

The difference, if I need to explain, is that lowbie boosts that you can buy don't matter in the end of the game. You're not paying to win anything, because eventually you can be out leveled and your boosts will be out leveled. However, if the boosts come at the top-end, nobody can ever out level you and thus the only way to get stronger than the boosts is to either buy the boosts or to not get stronger at all. There is no other option.

Do you understand? One of them (lowbie $$$ boosts) doesn't change the game, it just makes it more convenient for people while they're leveling. The other one (the real P2W, top end $$$ boosts) changes the fundamentals of the game because the only way to become the strongest you can be is by Paying to get there.

Do you understand? There is no actual winning in an MMORPG as far as PvE is concerned. PvP happens starting from the second you are allowed in whatever game you are playing. PvP is no more important at max level than any other level, because some people enjoy PvP just as much in lower levels.

The abbreviation isn't P2W4MLC(pay to win for max level characters). There is absolutely nothing wrong with making leveling easier. If you are however giving a competitive advantage to a player that spends cash at any point in time however it is P2W.

[vizzle]

You don't seem to get it.

PvP is no more important at max level than any other level, because some people enjoy PvP just as much in lower levels.

Yes it is. Why? Because PvP at max level is the end. If something is unbalanced at level 30 or if there's someone at level 30 who's dominating with paid boosts, all you have to do is get to level 31 or 32 and all his boosts are null. If something is unbalanced at max level, if there's a boost at max level, there is no way around it, you either pay for the boosts or you just suffer being weaker.

[jbombard]

You don't seem to get it.



Yes it is. Why? Because PvP at max level is the end. If something is unbalanced at level 30 or if there's someone at level 30 who's dominating with paid boosts, all you have to do is get to level 31 or 32 and all his boosts are null. If something is unbalanced at max level, if there's a boost at max level, there is no way around it, you either pay for the boosts or you just suffer being weaker.

No apparently you don't get it. There is no end it is an MMORPG. Or are trying to say that a game is always in flux between P2W and not P2W as new content gets released and the gear available in game exceeds store gear until a store update comes surpassing the game gear? Because I have never heard of this sometimes P2W theory, a game is or isn't and the only qualifier to being a P2W game is giving a competitive advantage for cash at *any* point in time.

It seems you want to complicate the definition by throwing in all these arbitrary requirement, but the definition is not that complex quit trying to change it to suit your own beliefs.

[vizzle]

The difference between (using WoW as an example) level 30 for fun BGs and 2.4k rated PvP is more than arbitrary. If you can't understand that then I don't think you understand enough of the genre that you're talking about.

[jbombard]

The difference between (using WoW as an example) level 30 for fun BGs and 2.4k rated PvP is more than arbitrary. If you can't understand that then I don't think you understand enough of the genre that you're talking about.

Once again you are talking about player skill which is arbitrary to the definition. Quit trying to saddle the definition with arbitrary requirements you make up on the spot. If it provides a competitive advantage at any point in time it is P2W.

[Kelimbror]

Once again you are talking about player skill which is arbitrary to the definition. Quit trying to saddle the definition with arbitrary requirements you make up on the spot. If it provides a competitive advantage at any point in time it is P2W.

/facepalm...His point is entirely valid. There is no competition because you can vastly outmatch someone by leveling higher. Regardless of how much gear you pay for at that level, someone who has put just a little time and no money whatsoever, can eradicate that difference. They don't even need skill. There is no level playing field already. If there is no constant to compare to, then there can be no observable exceeding going on.

When you are max level, the only things that distinguish you are gear and skill. You cannot overcome gear and/or skill by outleveling someone. I don't know if you are just smashing your face against a wall over there or arguing just to argue. Whatever the guess, you are disregarding logic for misplaced emotions. You are arbitrarily arbitrating the arbitration of using the same big word over and over, while continuing to not listen to what someone is telling you.

[Forsedar]

Once again you are talking about player skill which is arbitrary to the definition. Quit trying to saddle the definition with arbitrary requirements you make up on the spot. If it provides a competitive advantage at any point in time it is P2W.

Competitive advantage and "slight" advantage are two different things.

[jbombard]

Competitive advantage and "slight" advantage are two different things.

I agree completely. And we don't know which SWTOR will be.
Really we are just arguing over the definition, so I don't think anyone is taking anything personally, at least I'm not.
But by the very nature of MMORPGs there is no end, so saying that P2W only applies to the non existent end is somewhat silly.

[Edge-]

But by the very nature of MMORPGs there is no end, so saying that P2W only applies to the non existent end is somewhat silly.

There isn't a traditional end, you're correct. But there are definitive "ends" dictated by the available content and character level. You can clear all available content and have the best possible PvE gear and you've reached an "end" in that you can no longer progress the your characters power in PvE through in-game means. The same applies for PvP, once you have the highest quality gear in a game like SWTOR, you can no longer progress your characters power in PvP through in-game means.

P2W applies to those exact situations where you are "power capped" by available content, allowing for a situation that allows players to exceed the current power cap imposed within the game through the use of real world currency. The players are buying power that isn't available in the game, which allows them to "win" by having an advantage that other players don't have access to within the game world.

It's not complex.

[Redblade]

The only really true sucesses for subscription games have been WoW and EVE, who have actually shown increases in player numbers for any length of time, every other subscription game has lost players, unless you know of any other "sucessfull" subscription games?

Well I'd say that Rift is successful enough as they keep pushing content at the highest rate in the genre.

they're going to have too at their investor calls,

They will find a way to apply positive language to it or just not account for it individually, while they could be asked about it and I do hope they are, I do think they have lots of room to hide the numbers if it's bad, we shall see in a couple of months though.

No, but like so many times before you are trying to say it isn't viable. If you have a stance in a debate, regardless of your stance, it is your burden to prove your side. You have no evidence that these games haven't made lots of money. In fact, people siding that F2P transitions are successful have 1 shred of evidence more than you...and that is the games continue to exist and to produce content.

And I established that keeping a 100man development crew around to maintain a game doesn't require much in a, as far as I know, very expensive country to employ people.

Not to mention that I'm asking people that are claiming it's success to show me proof that it actually is just that, I don't see why the burden of proof should be on me when I'm the one getting dismissed just for asking them to clarify where they got the information of this success. If it had been the other way around you can bet your ass the same people would be here using the same arguments, would it be ok with you to demand them to pony up proof then?

I'll leave you with a few quotes here of what I'm questioning:

Plenty of other games have transitioned away from the subscription based revenue model and increased active players and income.

given how stiff competition from free to play, buy to play, and freemium games is.

Yet time and again we've seen free to play models be excessively lucrative, even more so than a subscription game.

You said that you wanted a list of F2P games that increased active paying players and revenue over an extended period. I gave you two.

All without any hard evidence to back it up, not to mention that if we are to believe in MMOData's numbers the major western free to play titles in the genre have a combined player base of around a million with a third being LoTRO.

There's no room to argue what content is, or whether they have a 'skeleton crew', because none of that matters. This isn't a specific science. We don't need to hammer out criteria for every iota of development in a game. Who cares how many people make the content? The company figures out how to make money. They then use that money to pay themselves and keep making the game. All the titles mentioned continue to make the game.

That's more evidence than you saying, I have no evidence so you prove me wrong. That's terrible debating.

Sure it matters what content is, if some one makes 4 quest chains for DDO while another creates a new feature, a couple of dungeons and a couple of quest chains then the other game is getting more content, while I can agree it hard to quantify content and it makes getting a good answer so much harder, it's still something that does matter.

So while we can contemplate whether F2P is good for us as individuals, whether or not we feel we are being taken advantage of, we can certainly not say that these games are not succeeding. It's not a console game that throws content out there and can be done with it. It needs to evolve and add. The games that are still going continue to do that. And that's really all the 'evidence that is needed'.

And I'm saying I don't see that evolving in some games that has gone free to play, what I saw was stagnant games that lived in the time they where released, WoW is older and doesn't feel as old as some, EvE-Online changed their entire graphics engine a few years back to combat the age of the game, now that's evolution and addition, DDO felt like it was made 5 years before WoW to give an example of the opposite.

This is getting akin to people that want you to prove PC gaming isn't dying but insist on you leaving out countless factors, genres games and so on and so forth. I'm not going to play this game. The world moves on without you whether you believe it's moving or not.

We're talking about a type of game and if you don't think different payment methods are better at different games then I don't know what to say.

[jbombard]

There isn't a traditional end, you're correct. But there are definitive "ends" dictated by the available content and character level. You can clear all available content and have the best possible PvE gear and you've reached an "end" in that you can no longer progress the your characters power in PvE through in-game means. The same applies for PvP, once you have the highest quality gear in a game like SWTOR, you can no longer progress your characters power in PvP through in-game means.

P2W applies to those exact situations where you are "power capped" by available content, allowing for a situation that allows players to exceed the current power cap imposed within the game through the use of real world currency. The players are buying power that isn't available in the game, which allows them to "win" by having an advantage that other players don't have access to within the game world.

It's not complex.

Exactly that is what I am saying. It isn't complex at all. If you cannot get better gear than what is available to you in game at that point in time except by purchasing it with cash then it is P2W.

[Azhreia]

Exactly that is what I am saying. It isn't complex at all. If you cannot get better gear than what is available to you in game at that point in time except by purchasing it with cash then it is P2W.

As long as it isn't at max level you can simply out level the gear. Therefore it is not considered pay to win. (Except by you that is ;-) ) Leveling gear is not considered problematic for that very reason, it might give you an advantage at level x, but at level x+1 or x+2 that advantage is gone due to besser quest gear and such.

[Zenotetsuken]

"Our own research told us that a significant percentage of the folks who have left the game, left because of the commitment to the subscription model. It’s not that surprising if you think about it because the dynamic in an MMO is essentially one in which you subscribe and then you’re waiting for new content, and people don’t feel good about waiting.”

Most full of shit line ever. The game was garbage from the beginning of beta, and the testers were telling them about it constantly.

[Edge-]

Most full of shit line ever. The game was garbage from the beginning of beta, and the testers were telling them about it constantly.

Exit polls. It's very possible that 40% of the people who left did indicate that the subscription was why they left. But EA/BW weren't specific as to what about the subscription was the cause.

Could the people not afford it?
Did they not feel it was worth it?
Do they just no longer like the subscription model?

I'd actually say that the statement is accurate, it's just not qualified at all.

[jbombard]

Exit polls. It's very possible that 40% of the people who left did indicate that the subscription was why they left. But EA/BW weren't specific as to what about the subscription was the cause.

Could the people not afford it?
Did they not feel it was worth it?
Do they just no longer like the subscription model?

I'd actually say that the statement is accurate, it's just not qualified at all.

Agree somewhat. I don't think most people have a problem with a subscription model per se.
I think what people have a problem is the Blizzard subscription model which is give us $15 a month just so you can connect to our servers and we will throw you some scraps when we get around to it. That model is old and dysfunctional. But if value was actually provided for the subscription fee then it stops being an issue. People didn't leave because there was subscription, they knew that when they signed up. They left because there was a subscription, but they didn't feel it was providing them with value. If you want to succeed with the subscription model, you need to be prepared to release content regularly to keep your players having fun and feeling like they are actually getting something in return for their subscription fee.

[Edge-]

Agree somewhat. I don't think most people have a problem with a subscription model per se.
I think what people have a problem is the Blizzard subscription model which is give us $15 a month just so you can connect to our servers and we will throw you some scraps when we get around to it. That model is old and dysfunctional. But if value was actually provided for the subscription fee then it stops being an issue. People didn't leave because there was subscription, they knew that when they signed up. They left because there was a subscription, but they didn't feel it was providing them with value. If you want to succeed with the subscription model, you need to be prepared to release content regularly to keep your players having fun and feeling like they are actually getting something in return for their subscription fee.

I'm not suggesting why people left, I'm simply saying that the information is incomplete. I have a few friends that left SWTOR for different reasons regarding the subscription, each one valid and each one entirely unique.

I could make some educated guestimations but I'd rather not go down that road : P