I love how you cherry pick whatever you want and not discuss the whole post in the last several posts you've made.
no I can't afford one at this time so yes that is a disadvantage.
Would I ever want one? No. I'll stick with my fighter.
Just because you can get the bigger ship doesn't make you a better player. In fact, let's do a challenge.
I will get you an idris with a full NPC crew with my own funds as soon as I can. I'll have my hornet. I bet you $5000 that I will defeat you. You up for it? As I've been stating. The game comes down to skill, not the ship you fly. Yeah that's right. E-Penis activate!
It's kinda silly denying that there is a pretty big pay to win element to this game, lol. All other variables being even (let's say 20 equally skilled guys fighting against each other), the guys with more cash will come out on top, it's pretty obvious. It doesn't matter whether a more skilled guy in a smaller / cheaper ship can buy a noob loaded with cash - the point is if you're both good at the game, the guy that can spend more dolla will beat you every time, and this effect becomes amplified when it comes to group warfare, or so it looks at the moment. It will become less and less significant as time goes on and people get their macro going, but at launch, it looks like a pretty big thing.
Doesn't mean you can't enjoy this game without spending money over and over on buying ships; doesn't mean everyone who throws cash at new ships nonstop will become a god - but you can't deny the advantage players who spend more will have in this game.
Those things won't stop me from playing this game if it still looks as good as their promises look right now when it's closer to being finished - but that's mostly because I don't have much interest in playing it 'hardcore' and being supercompetitive or something. The pay2win element here can't at all be compared to something like EVE because by the time they introduced plex buying to EVE, isk was in no way a limiting factor; had plex buying been present in the game from the start, it would've had a drastically different effect on the game and caused a pretty big outcry against it, I'm sure.
I saw 20+ messages on this thread so thought that they released the Arena Commander ... Imagine my suprise when i found out that Pay to Win discussion is still ongoing
Personally , since this is a game, its like complaining that neighbour kid got richer parents, so he's is more happy then you since he got access to more stuff. Its hard for me to understand what is Winning in a game, everyone got their own standards, it's not like this is a hardcore competitive game, also since the server isn't one big cluster, but rather multiple instances .. the difference in ships in the begining isn't gonna be so noticeable.
game hasnt even reached balancing phase, stupid internet nerds still debating pay 2 win. Most of the smaller Spacecrafts are going to be VERY VERY similiar in performance. Most of the bigger ones are bad at dogfighting. You can upgrade your shit with ingame work, most of the hulls that you buy are just that, empty hulls. And it will be Play to Win much more than it will pay to win, but explaining this to fucking idiots who can only read the pledge page and dont bother having an in depth look isnt worth anyones time.
The Pledges are there to support development, a stock Aurora will be able to fight a stock Hornet. An upgraded Aurora will probably have an easy time with a stock Hornet. You dont "get what you pay for", you pay mostly for aesthetics.
I think we have somewhat of a definition issue going on here.
For a long time MMOs (and lots of other games as well) have been going down a path where good, and fun, gameplay gets sacrificed and replaced with artificial rewards such as achievement and "epikk l00t". The paradoxical thing about these games is that the chase, the work towards the goal - is the reason why the game is being played, and not because the gameplay is fun or interesting.
One reaction to the above has been an explosion of "(survival) sandbox games" where players set their own goal - or just play and "do whatever". Where the term winning becomes more fuzzy. If you decide that the game is about collecting a vast amounts of ships [more ships wins]-- well then, yes -- paying for them would be pay to win. If you on the other hand aspire to be a famous explorer who maps the edge of the galaxy, paying for credits shouldn't really be an issue. My point is; if CR delivers on their promise - this game will be about more than chasing achievement and virtual wealth. A fun gameplay.
From another perspective; wealth in game can be acquired through either invested time or invested money, and since we all know that time equals money, it's really invest to win, if anything.
I would pay shitloads of money for the kind of experience Warent laid out so eloquently. It is ambitious as hell, but this game actually excites me more for the potential immersion that I never really got from MMOs I've played.
On June 02 2014 02:14 Warent wrote: I think we have somewhat of a definition issue going on here.
For a long time MMOs (and lots of other games as well) have been going down a path where good, and fun, gameplay gets sacrificed and replaced with artificial rewards such as achievement and "epikk l00t". The paradoxical thing about these games is that the chase, the work towards the goal - is the reason why the game is being played, and not because the gameplay is fun or interesting.
One reaction to the above has been an explosion of "(survival) sandbox games" where players set their own goal - or just play and "do whatever". Where the term winning becomes more fuzzy. If you decide that the game is about collecting a vast amounts of ships [more ships wins]-- well then, yes -- paying for them would be pay to win. If you on the other hand aspire to be a famous explorer who maps the edge of the galaxy, paying for credits shouldn't really be an issue. My point is; if CR delivers on their promise - this game will be about more than chasing achievement and virtual wealth. A fun gameplay.
From another perspective; wealth in game can be acquired through either invested time or invested money, and since we all know that time equals money, it's really invest to win, if anything.
OMG that means people with a job are at a disadvantage to those who sit on their arse all day at home.
Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_-
On June 02 2014 07:23 loginn wrote: Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_-
You're just saying that so you get the advantage cos no-one else thinks they can win.
On June 02 2014 07:23 loginn wrote: Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_-
You're just saying that so you get the advantage cos no-one else thinks they can win.
On June 02 2014 02:14 Warent wrote: I think we have somewhat of a definition issue going on here.
For a long time MMOs (and lots of other games as well) have been going down a path where good, and fun, gameplay gets sacrificed and replaced with artificial rewards such as achievement and "epikk l00t". The paradoxical thing about these games is that the chase, the work towards the goal - is the reason why the game is being played, and not because the gameplay is fun or interesting.
One reaction to the above has been an explosion of "(survival) sandbox games" where players set their own goal - or just play and "do whatever". Where the term winning becomes more fuzzy. If you decide that the game is about collecting a vast amounts of ships [more ships wins]-- well then, yes -- paying for them would be pay to win. If you on the other hand aspire to be a famous explorer who maps the edge of the galaxy, paying for credits shouldn't really be an issue. My point is; if CR delivers on their promise - this game will be about more than chasing achievement and virtual wealth. A fun gameplay.
From another perspective; wealth in game can be acquired through either invested time or invested money, and since we all know that time equals money, it's really invest to win, if anything.
OMG that means people with a job are at a disadvantage to those who sit on their arse all day at home.
Lazy=win
this is different from every other game how? if this is sarcasm, i am bad a spotting it at 3:09 in the morning :>
On June 02 2014 07:23 loginn wrote: Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_-
Typing pay to win is shorter than typing pay to have better success then someone not paying.
Same damn thing.
That fact that people are even denying the pay to win aspect of this game is hilarious. At launch the guys who spent money will be at a HUGE advantage and the more they spend, the bigger that advantage. Over time that advantage will shrink in theory but I highly doubt that. They will likely just add more stuff to buy. So the people who spend money will always beat the people who do not spend money assuming equal skill. And I'd wager the money player beats the no money player even if the no money player is marginally better then the money player.
Assuming large skill gaps is pointless. It doesn't matter what race I play, I'll never beat Soulkey, Maru or Zest in SC2, regardless of the handicap. Same goes here. If someone is leagues better than you, you lose. Just like in any other PvP game
On June 01 2014 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote: Its not, if you can't be bothered to look around and find out for yourself, you probably wouldn't enjoy the game anyway
I looked at the website. The best ships are locked behind a Ten THOUSAND dollar pay wall. $10,000!
This game is 100% pay to win. And not just pay a few bucks. Its thousands of them to win. Still think this game is a scam.
The "best" ships aren't locked behind anything as you can buy them with in game currency. I'd also love to know how one wins a space sim, or an mmo, but I have a feeling you're not interested in actually knowing about the game. Reading is hard, after all.
Did the reading. It's a very unique concept of a game but it is absolutely PAY to win. Free players and even, not paying thousands of dollars players will be at a huge disadvantage. PvP is the main selling point of this game and the better your ship is, the better your chances are in PvP.
You can't win an MMO but being able to spend money to make yourself be more successful is stupid. Hence, its pay to win.
People said this before regarding EVE online too. "EVE is definitely pay to win because you can buy PLEX and sell them in game for money to buy the best ship, the best weapons and the best mods!" It turns out that the best ships with the best weapons pilot by zero skill pilot got ganked and die all the time. Some skilled pilots even take those ship down one-on-one. This is kinda the same, if you don't know how to pilot your ship, the strength and weakness of your ship and opponent's ship, then you kinda gonna die all the same. And the more expensive the ship is, the more likely it would become a target of ganking.
you're comparing apples and oranges with "clueless rich player is stomped by experienced poor player"
Imagine two equally skilled pilots in the equivalent.ship. One has a fairly low SP character. The other, due to PLEX selling, goes to character bazaar and buys a perfect character. Perfect skills adds up to around 25% more tank, up to 50% more speed, and ~25% more raw damage (it can even be 100% in the edge case of drone interfacing). The difference, should the two try to fight, is immense.
In EVE, raw sp advantage in particular is generally overshadowed by game sense and piloting skills. But that doesn't mean that it isn't an advantage.
I'll confess I don't know much about Star Citizen in particular but arguments like these...
I will get you an idris with a full NPC crew with my own funds as soon as I can. I'll have my hornet. I bet you $5000 that I will defeat you. You up for it? As I've been stating. The game comes down to skill, not the ship you fly. Yeah that's right. E-Penis activate!
...are similarly indefensible. Once again, just because the comparative advantage of having X object (obtained by paying rl money) is small doesn't mean its non-existent.
I think 'pay 2 win' is a bit inflammatory of a term in general as it implicitly diminishes the player skill aspect of a game and thus causes people get get very angry on the internet. Especially since its a sandbox game that presumably will lack any sort of objective matchmaking system by which to measure 'skill'. Of course if you mention that, then people will get mad too...
i don't think having more ships at start will be that big of a deal. you can only fly one ship at a time. also, arena commander, coming soon (for reals this time).
So, after years of sporadically poking around, I think I'm gonna jump into this one. Sorry if it's not as concise as it could be)
I feel like both sides of this argument are pushing extremes. I'm going to use Warent's post, as it has some points I agree with, and some I don't.
On June 02 2014 02:14 Warent wrote: I think we have somewhat of a definition issue going on here.
For a long time MMOs (and lots of other games as well) have been going down a path where good, and fun, gameplay gets sacrificed and replaced with artificial rewards such as achievement and "epikk l00t". The paradoxical thing about these games is that the chase, the work towards the goal - is the reason why the game is being played, and not because the gameplay is fun or interesting.
One reaction to the above has been an explosion of "(survival) sandbox games" where players set their own goal - or just play and "do whatever". Where the term winning becomes more fuzzy. If you decide that the game is about collecting a vast amounts of ships [more ships wins]-- well then, yes -- paying for them would be pay to win. If you on the other hand aspire to be a famous explorer who maps the edge of the galaxy, paying for credits shouldn't really be an issue. My point is; if CR delivers on their promise - this game will be about more than chasing achievement and virtual wealth. A fun gameplay.
From another perspective; wealth in game can be acquired through either invested time or invested money, and since we all know that time equals money, it's really invest to win, if anything.
(First off, I'm ecstatic that games are moving away from the theme park model and back into sandbox territory and I'm glad I'm not alone in that mentality.)
The claim that pay-to-win doesn't apply as heavily in the emergence of more sandbox games is something I have to agree with (EVE is a decent example in that you can, in practice, buy in-game currency. That hasn't exactly destroyed the game). In a game like WoW, paying for better equipment would give you an immediate advantage over everyone else since the goals of the game didn't, and can't, vary TOO much from player to player, and better gear made for an easier path to almost all of those ends. However, claiming that buying better (or, as the case may be, more specialized) ships and having them at launch isn't pay-to-win is a little absurd. You and I both want to embrace PvP? Your wider selection of ships will give you an advantage. You and I both want to compete to be the famous explorer you mentioned? A faster ship will undoubtedly make one of us more successful.
The design of the game does a great deal to lessen the blow. Having ships be more of a side-grade than a flat upgrade, along with having the combat be heavily skill-based, will make being outclassed by ship much less of an issue. Ultimately though, there is that degree of pay-to-win here, and I don't blame anyone for being turned off by the idea.
Finally, your last point is what made me write my first post. I think this point is understated. Time and money are both resources we allocate to gaming. A successful person with a lucrative career and a family will likely have a reasonable amount of disposable income, but maybe not enough time to devote to the game. I don't necessarily think it's fair that he can't enjoy the game as much as a young teenager with plenty of free time but very little income. The teenager, in turn, isn't punished for having less money to spend because he has ample time to get the same thing in a system that will allow him to do just that. So yeah, I think invest-to-win is a reasonable label in a game that allows us to use one or the other to reach your goals.
It's a balancing act, for sure, but from what I've seen, I don't think they're doing such a bad job.
On June 02 2014 07:23 loginn wrote: Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_-
Typing pay to win is shorter than typing pay to have better success then someone not paying.
Same damn thing.
That fact that people are even denying the pay to win aspect of this game is hilarious. At launch the guys who spent money will be at a HUGE advantage and the more they spend, the bigger that advantage. Over time that advantage will shrink in theory but I highly doubt that. They will likely just add more stuff to buy. So the people who spend money will always beat the people who do not spend money assuming equal skill. And I'd wager the money player beats the no money player even if the no money player is marginally better then the money player.
Assuming large skill gaps is pointless. It doesn't matter what race I play, I'll never beat Soulkey, Maru or Zest in SC2, regardless of the handicap. Same goes here. If someone is leagues better than you, you lose. Just like in any other PvP game
What if my goal is to enjoy the game ? What if success to me is feeling some progression, as I get richer and have a feeling of accomplishement when I get a better ship ? Surely then this is pay to win ! I don't give a fuck about guys having the best pvp ships cause they paid for it. Good for them. I just want to enjoy the game and do w/e the fuck I want. Maybe I'll try to gank big ships one day, and maybe I'll never do it. So what ? Just enjoy the game, and let people who want to pay, do whatever they want.
I do think we kinda argue around the word Pay2Win with different definitions behind our idea. So let me state my definition of Pay2Win:
"Pay2Win means you can buy advantages that would enable you to win against other players regardless of skills posses by you or other players".
So yeah, I don't think Star Citizen would be Pay2Win according to this definition but if the definition is "buy any advantages regardless of how small those advantages are" then Star Citizen could be a Pay2Win game.
@419 I totally forgot that you can buy EVE's character... so my example is kinda bad (unless we also put a restriction that two characters have around the same skill points). But I think it is also my definition of Pay2Win means that I don't really mind paying to gain advantages that can be surpassed by having better skill and game understanding so I kinda get annoyed when people say EVE is Pay2Win game.