Support NeoGAF

[near]

I genuinely believe, if you talked to game developers like Ken Levine, Jonathan Blow, Hideo Kojima etc...and asked them to look into the future of their medium and discuss how F2P could be implemented in a healthy way, they would be able to engage in an intellectually stimulating conversation. Concepts and ideas aren't a threat to creators. It's fun to brainstorm about topics we rarely discuss...or at least it is for some.

Except this is a thread about pay-to-win, not the F2P model. Two different things.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Your original post is devoid of thought or examples. I think you just wanted to shit on Luke and the Rebels to sound smart in some abstract delusional way.

Here’s an idea: Take a game we have right now, that isn’t pay to win, and show us what pay to win you would add and how it objectively makes the game better.

Which you can’t do because it’s impossible. An even playing field is the point of MP games. The second you ignore skill by making it who has the biggest bank account, you no longer have a game. You just have a funnel of money for a greedy scum bag fueled by retards.

That's like saying..."The car will never work. Why don't you take a horse you seen today, and car-ify it? It won't work!"

Or you could just look at Star Citizen, which is actually a great example of the concepts provided in the OP.

An even playing field is NOT the point of MP games. Fun is. An even playing field may be the point of an increasingly less popular type of multiplayer game but the genre is rife for new types of design philosophies.

 

[Danjin44]

I genuinely believe, if you talked to game developers like Ken Levine, Jonathan Blow, Hideo Kojima etc...and asked them to look into the future of their medium and discuss how F2P could be implemented in a healthy way, they would be able to engage in an intellectually stimulating conversation. Concepts and ideas aren't a threat to creators. It's fun to brainstorm about topics we rarely discuss...or at least it is for some.

And I truly believe you genuinely believe in your own bullshit, I just don’t want to accept there is actually someone who actively wants to make gaming miserable.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Except this is a thread about pay-to-win, not the F2P model. Two different things.

Typo. I meant to type P2W.

 

[Iced Arcade]

 

[Kenneth Haight]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And I believe you genuinely believe in your own bullshit, I just don’t want accept there is actually someone who actively wants to make gaming miserable.

There are matches played in Fortnite Battle Royale, where me and my partner will scrape by all match. For 15+ minutes, we're barely surviving. We have poor health. We have no good weapons. We're low on ammo etc...

Then we have conversations about how we're going to acquire those resources near the end of the match (when everyone else is significantly stronger).

Those conversations, and those outcomes, are often the most enjoyable experiences to be had in the game...because you feel like Luke Skywalker. You feel like you're barely scraping by and you have an incredibly small chance for success. Guess what? Occasionally we'll stumble upon some good luck near the end, grab a ton of good loot, and win the game by the skin of our teeth. In those games, your heart pounds and you literally jump up when you get the W.

That's a concept that can be explored and built upon by P2W.

 

[Arsic]

That's like saying..."The car will never work. Why don't you take a horse you seen today, and car-ify it? It won't work!"

Or you could just look at Star Citizen, which is actually a great example of the concepts provided in the OP.

An even playing field is NOT the point of MP games. Fun is. An even playing field may be the point of an increasingly less popular type of multiplayer game but the genre is rife for new types of design philosophies.

Exactly as I thought. You can’t even begin to make up a game yourself where pay to win would be good/better than the current balanced non P2W models we have.

Like I said it’s impossible. Which is why people reading this thread and your past post history just think you’re shit posting to get responses.

Pay to win is objectively bad for players. Unless you can even make a hypothetical game where it isn’t you’re forever wrong.

Scam citizen doesn’t benefit from charging insane money for ships in a game that is in forever alpha stage. It only benefits a scum bag to keep getting wealthy off of retards.

 

[bender]

How to save braincells and be correct 100% of the time on GAF:

Step 1: See Men_in_Boxes thread.
Step 2: Do not read.
Step 3: For the love of God, do not skip step 2.
Step 4: Vote for the last option in his poll.

 

[cash_longfellow]

Jesus

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Wait are you confusing pay to win with free to play?

Typo

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

There are matches played in Fortnite Battle Royale, where me and my partner will scrape by all match. For 15+ minutes, we're barely surviving. We have poor health. We have no good weapons. We're low on ammo etc...

Then we have conversations about how we're going to acquire those resources near the end of the match (when everyone else is significantly stronger).

Those conversations, and those outcomes, are often the most enjoyable experiences to be had in the game...because you feel like Luke Skywalker. You feel like you're barely scraping by and you have an incredibly small chance for success. Guess what? Occasionally we'll stumble upon some good luck near the end, grab a ton of good loot, and win the game by the skin of our teeth. In those games, your heart pounds and you literally jump up when you get the W.

That's a concept that can be explored and built upon by P2W.

You are a GaaS plant and you must be eliminated

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Exactly as I thought. You can’t even begin to make up a game yours...

Star Citizen

 

[Arsic]

Star Citizen

Scam citizen as I said is in forever alpha stage. Those ships do not benefit anyone but the developer to funnel money into their bank account off retards.

The game is not better in any way shape or form by keeping ships behind massive paywalls.

 

[Danjin44]

There are matches played in Fortnite Battle Royale, where me and my partner will scrape by all match. For 15+ minutes, we're barely surviving. We have poor health. We have no good weapons. We're low on ammo etc...

Then we have conversations about how we're going to acquire those resources near the end of the match (when everyone else is significantly stronger).

Those conversations, and those outcomes, are often the most enjoyable experiences to be had in the game...because you feel like Luke Skywalker. You feel like you're barely scraping by and you have an incredibly small chance for success. Guess what? Occasionally we'll stumble upon some good luck near the end, grab a ton of good loot, and win the game by the skin of our teeth. In those games, your heart pounds and you literally jump up when you get the W.

That's a concept that can be explored and built upon by P2W.

Are you for real? I refuse to believe this real.

 

[near]

Typo. I meant to type P2W.

I don't get what you're saying. Are you arguing for free-to-play games? A game that is free-to-play can have pay-to-win monetisation. But not all free-to-play games have the same monetisation methods. So what is your argument exactly? Because I am with you if you're arguing for games as a service with the free-to-play model, but you really aren't making a compelling argument for it. lol

 

[R6Rider]

Why do so many users create so many fucking stupid threads?

 

[Arsic]

Are you for real? I refuse to believe this real.

It doesn’t even make any sense. Is OP saying “boy the game would be better if every match I had to go in having spent no real $ on loot in a BR but the rest of the lobby is over powered as hell compared to me because they spent hundreds or thousands of dollars.” Gee I would love getting my ass cheeks clapped on repeat in a video game simply because I refuse to spend all of my income to stay competitively viable.

If OP likes that “barely getting a win” feeling, then that has nothing to do with pay to win. Exploiting that feeling into a pay to win model somehow doesn’t even make any sense. It’s impossible.

If you like that feeling OP go play Escape from Tarkov.

 

[killatopak]

Never change, my friend, never change.

 

[Danjin44]

It doesn’t even make any sense. Is OP saying “boy the game would be better if every match I had to go in having spent no real $ on loot in a BR but the rest of the lobby is over powered as hell compared to me because they spent hundreds or thousands of dollars.” Gee I would love getting my ass cheeks clapped on repeat in a video game simply because I refuse to spend all of my income to stay competitively viable.

If OP likes that “barely getting a win” feeling, then that has nothing to do with pay to win. Exploiting that feeling into a pay to win model somehow doesn’t even make any sense. It’s impossible.

If you like that feeling OP go play Escape from Tarkov.

I think I just lost brain cell reading his post.......I just dont get some people.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What do you think is a good implementation of P2W Men_in_Boxes

You have me curious

 

[Arsic]

What do you think is a good implementation of P2W Men_in_Boxes

You have me curious

He claims star citizen without explaining how the game is better with ships being behind massive paywalls.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Never change, my friend, never change.

I don't get what you're saying. Are you arguing for free-to-play games? A game that is free-to-play can have pay-to-win monetisation. But not all free-to-play games have the same monetisation methods. So what is your argument exactly? Because I am with you if you're arguing for games as a service with the free-to-play model, but you really aren't making a compelling argument for it. lol

No, F2P was a typo. I'm arguing that one potential growth area the industry should explore is the P2W model. Building healthy, rewarding experiences as a non paying player is the key to this model booming.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

You need a break, your threads are getting rapidly worse.

 

[Nostalgic Nightmare]

Actual footage of OP moments before big vidya made him post this thread

 

[Bring Back Scalebound]

It's genuine. I prefer listening to opposing viewpoints and challenging my beliefs...certainly when it comes to gaming. I'm super open to new ideas and out of the box thinking when it comes to a hobby that is all too often stale.

Ah, cool. I appreciate that, genuinely.

I disagree with you there, but I can't articulate it well on the why, so I will leave it at that.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What do you think is a good implementation of P2W Men_in_Boxes

You have me curious

Star Citizen is the best I can come up with right now.

Having a small, nimble ship, and coming across a large, expensive ship with a big crew, and tasking yourself with boarding said ship in order to steal it, take some plans, or destroy it would make for potentially thrilling gameplay.

Like I said in the OP, we all watch power asymmetry in our favorite media. The key is to design it so the non paying players can interact with the whales in an enjoyable manner. As I said in the OP, this implementation has been generally awful thus far.

 

[Danjin44]

Congratulation Men_in_Boxes ...You just made me hate GaSS, F2P and P2W even more which I didn't think that was even possible.

Truly bravo....

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Star Citizen is the best I can come up with right now.

Having a small, nimble ship, and coming across a large, expensive ship with a big crew, and tasking yourself with boarding said ship in order to steal it, take some plans, or destroy it would make for potentially thrilling gameplay.

Like I said in the OP, we all watch power asymmetry in our favorite media. The key is to design it so the non paying players can interact with the whales in an enjoyable manner. As I said in the OP, this implementation has been generally awful thus far.

I'm not understanding where the P2W aspect improves anything here

Having a small nimble ship coming across a large expensive ship that was earned in game

vs

Having a small nimble ship coming across a large expensive ship that was paid for

The end result gameplay experience is the same

 

[Arsic]

Star Citizen is the best I can come up with right now.

Having a small, nimble ship, and coming across a large, expensive ship with a big crew, and tasking yourself with boarding said ship in order to steal it, take some plans, or destroy it would make for potentially thrilling gameplay.

Like I said in the OP, we all watch power asymmetry in our favorite media. The key is to design it so the non paying players can interact with the whales in an enjoyable manner. As I said in the OP, this implementation has been generally awful thus far.

Your concept works in non P2W games then.

Pick alliance on a horde majority server in WoW for a full on pvp server. There is at least 20 horde to 1 alliance player, and getting ganked/clapped is super easy in pvp unless you’re just an insanely better player.

It sounds more like we need games with factions that have “empire” over powered tools in some fashion, and then the struggling rebels. Then you can simply pick which sounds better for you.

Granted the game would be dead in a month tops due to imbalance lol.

But my point is that pay to win isn’t how you get that power struggle you’re yearning for in a game.

 

[reinking]

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.

The problem with your view is that whales are whales because they don't want the cheapo Rebal Alliance to have a chance to beat them or to have "as much fun" as they are. It is right there in the name of the model you are arguing for, Pay to WIN. If the whales lose, or see the freeloaders having as much fun as they are, they will just move on to another game where they can purchase their dominance. I could understand if you were arguing for a more balanced free to play model but pay to win? Nah. Good with that junk going away forever or at least staying fringe enough that it can be ignored.

 

[near]

No, F2P was a typo. I'm arguing that one potential growth area the industry should explore is the P2W model. Building healthy, rewarding experiences as a non paying player is the key to this model booming.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm not understanding where the P2W aspect improves anything here

Having a small nimble ship coming across a large expensive ship that was earned in game

vs

Having a small nimble ship coming across expensive ship that was paid for

The end result gameplay experience is the same

Because in "balanced" multiplayer games, it's much harder to create power asymmetry.

The end result is not the same. Whales have a value in ALL INDUSTRIES. Whales allow builders to create bigger, bolder visions, due to the increase in funding. Look at Star Citizen. You don't get that kind of boldness using the older model.

Why would a game developer spend time and resources on building a Death Star ship when they don't make any money off of it?

 

[SportsFan581]

Nah, lets just go back to the arcade days. Don't charge players for the game, charge them 50 cents per round.

...crap, they're gonna do it now won't they?

At least that is pay to play, not pay to win.

Even if we are talking single player, I don't get Pay to Win. What, you hate the game so you pay extra to remove the challenge of the game?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The problem with your view is that whales are whales because they don't want the cheapo Rebal Alliance to have a chance to beat them or to have "as much fun" as they are. It is right there in the name of the model you are arguing for, Pay to WIN. If the whales lose, or see the freeloaders having as much fun as they are, they will just move on to another game where they can purchase their dominance. I could understand if you were arguing for a more balanced free to play model but pay to win? Nah. Good with that junk going away forever or at least staying fringe enough that it can be ignored.

Wrong. Whales buy all kinds of cosmetics that don't hinder the non whales. This would be no different, other than being far more interesting.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Because in "balanced" multiplayer games, it's much harder to create power asymmetry.

The end result is not the same. Whales have a value in ALL INDUSTRIES. Whales allow builders to create bigger, bolder visions, due to the increase in funding. Look at Star Citizen. You don't get that kind of boldness using the older model.

Why would a game developer spend time and resources on building a Death Star ship when they don't make any money off of it?

Okay, so a massive death star ship would only be built because the devs can make money of it? It's not feasible for a developer to put resources towards something like that without monetary gain? Am I understanding your argument right?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Okay, so a massive death star ship would only be built because the devs can make money of it? It's not feasible for a developer to put resources towards something like that without monetary gain? Am I understanding your argument right?

Do you think Star Citizen could be built using the old model?

 

[Arsic]

Okay, so a massive death star ship would only be built because the devs can make money of it? It's not feasible for a developer to put resources towards something like that without monetary gain?

Total horse shit by the way because a game like Fortnite totally eclipses the money star citizen has made, and is a FAR more complex and massive game.

No pay to win necessary.

 

[Arsic]

Do you think Star Citizen could be built using the old model?

A game like no man’s sky shits all over star citizen. No pay to win in sight or money grubbing.

Far more complex game, better performance by a long mile, VR mode, and more content 100x over.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Do you think Star Citizen could be built using the old model?

Okay I get the logic behind it. God I hate you for it though. It's why i'd rather just insult you.

 

[near]

At least that is pay to play, not pay to win.

Even if we are talking single player, I don't get Pay to Win. What, you hate the game so you pay extra to remove the challenge of the game?

OP is confused. Pay-to-win is a form of monetisation found largely in F2P/GaaS games that in most cases have a multiplayer competitive angle. You buy buffs, items, characters that aren't unlockable by other means, giving you an advantage over those who choose not to pay. It serves no purpose in a single player game, that isn't designed to be a game as a service. Not only are pay to win games shit, they're the sole reason why most people hate F2P games, which otherwise have healthy monetisation methods. I suppose a single player game could offer DLC, that allows you level up your character without having to spend hours grinding... or a DLC that gives you a sword to two hit bosses in Elden Ring :/

 

[Arsic]

Okay I get the logic behind it. God I hate you for it though. It's why i'd rather just insult you.

Could star citizen be in pre alpha for as many years as it has existed, be devoid of content, and run like shit without pay to win super ships? Yes. Yes it could.

Could the game be out by now with a 1.0 via a different monetization model? Yes it could. It would require an actual development studio who wants to release a game. This “game” isn’t a game. I’ve played it. It barely is even a tech demo.

What they DID was see the supporter packs work in the start and test their luck. Turns out plenty of morons are in the star citizen eco system to fund money to it. It’s not the only scam game in forever early access.

 

[Robb]

Reported for hate speech.

EDIT: This needs to be added here. Don't find yourselves on the wrong side of history NeoGAF. I offer the industry a lifeboat! Take it damn you! Take it!

Fixed that for you.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Could star citizen be in pre alpha for as many years as it has existed, be devoid of content, and run like shit without pay to win super ships? Yes. Yes it could.

Could the game be out by now with a 1.0 via a different monetization model? Yes it could. It would require an actual development studio who wants to release a game. This “game” isn’t a game. I’ve played it. It barely is even a tech demo.

What they DID was see the supporter packs work in the start and test their luck. Turns out plenty of morons are in the star citizen eco system to fund money to it. It’s not the only scam game in forever early access.

You don't get the Ferrari Enzo if you're forcing everyone to make compact 4 door sedans.

There's nothing wrong with allowing builders to take their time on their vision. It makes for a more interesting landscape.

 

[reinking]

Wrong. Whales buy all kinds of cosmetics that don't hinder the non whales. This would be no different, other than being far more interesting.

Wrong. Cosmetics is not Pay to Win.

 

[Arsic]

You don't get the Ferrari Enzo if you're forcing everyone to make compact 4 door sedans.

There's nothing wrong with allowing builders to take their time on their vision. It makes for a more interesting landscape.

Are you under the impression star citizen is doing the development “style” it is in order to achieve a much grander game?

You don’t think it’s a scam?

 

[CLW]

Man just when I thought I'd see it ALL this BANGER of a thread gets posted

 

[Azelover]

We need to drive casual gamers up the ladder, and turn as many as possible into hardcore gamers. The people that play free games like Candy Crush. Get them to spend $40 to $70 on a game. That's how we are gonna grow the business, and it's totally doable.

 

[KXVXII9X]

 

[T4keD0wN]

there is such a thing as in-game currency that can serve these purposes.