This video popped up on my feed and I thought I'd take a look as from my
time in World of Tanks (WoT) one thing became clear, there really isn't
a consensus of what is, and isn't, pay-to-win. The video is a bit long
and dry but one of the things that resonated with me is there's
pay-to-win and then there's pay-pay-pay-to-win as what money can give
you is a sliding scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNT72xzv1Y

To me it's really can paying give you advantage over an equally skilled
player and/or does it effectively stop me enjoying a relatively full
game experience. That doesn't mean I think it's instinctually wrong as
it depends on the practical reality of that advantage/experince and
that's the model you knowingly enter. So I'll use WoT as my example as,
well it's the only game I've played that i consider to have pay-to-win
elements.

In the early days the elements were pretty sparse so you had premium
tanks which earn more crew exp./credits but that came with the downside
that were slightly worse than a fully upgraded normal tank of their
tier. Then you had premium consumables (in-game gold only) which were
just better than regular ones and the ammo was one that made a
particular difference. This didn't bother me as the cost for running it
soon added up and the impression I got was because of that is was very
rare to encounter a player 'spamming' it. Th big one was premium time
that earned you more exp./credits. I didn't have a problem with that as
at its core it was about paying for time not in-game advantage.

Over the years that changed due to premium consumables being available
for in-game credits, and what was the best way to generate them - paid
premium time/tanks, but the thing that really changed the game was the
introduction of premium tanks that were just better than their free
equivalents. That was then compounded by bringing out a tank that was
clearly over powered and putting it in paid lootboxes.

Overall it was one of the reasons I got less and less interested in the
game and eventual stopped playing it. It was the way that the desire to
slowly ramp up the 'encouragement' to spend more and more money* started
negatively impact on my game experience. Indeed it got depressing to
play certain tiers where the battles were stuffed with the latest and
greatest premium tanks.

I won't cover all the more minor changes they made in-case anyone who's
got this far falls asleep!

So thoughts from anyone else, do you hate pay-to-win, think it's a good
thing or is it more a case of it depends?

*Mind you it worked overall and the amount of money some players
admitted spending was eye watering. One of the worst, or most ironic
examples, was a player whose garage was stuffed full of premium tanks
and had probably spent over £1,000 in about six months. The ironic part
is that their win-rate was basically the same as if they entered a
battle and then didn't touch the keyboard or mouse.

On 3/29/2024 2:49 AM, JAB wrote:
> This video popped up on my feed and I thought I'd take a look as from my
> time in World of Tanks (WoT) one thing became clear, there really isn't
> a consensus of what is, and isn't, pay-to-win. The video is a bit long
> and dry but one of the things that resonated with me is there's
> pay-to-win and then there's pay-pay-pay-to-win as what money can give
> you is a sliding scale.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNT72xzv1Y
>
> To me it's really can paying give you advantage over an equally skilled
> player and/or does it effectively stop me enjoying a relatively full
> game experience. That doesn't mean I think it's instinctually wrong as
> it depends on the practical reality of that advantage/experince and
> that's the model you knowingly enter. So I'll use WoT as my example as,
> well it's the only game I've played that i consider to have pay-to-win
> elements.
>
> In the early days the elements were pretty sparse so you had premium
> tanks which earn more crew exp./credits but that came with the downside
> that were slightly worse than a fully upgraded normal tank of their
> tier. Then you had premium consumables (in-game gold only) which were
> just better than regular ones and the ammo was one that made a
> particular difference. This didn't bother me as the cost for running it
> soon added up and the impression I got was because of that is was very
> rare to encounter a player 'spamming' it. Th big one was premium time
> that earned you more exp./credits. I didn't have a problem with that as
> at its core it was about paying for time not in-game advantage.
>
> Over the years that changed due to premium consumables being available
> for in-game credits, and what was the best way to generate them - paid
> premium time/tanks, but the thing that really changed the game was the
> introduction of premium tanks that were just better than their free
> equivalents. That was then compounded by bringing out a tank that was
> clearly over powered and putting it in paid lootboxes.
>
> Overall it was one of the reasons I got less and less interested in the
> game and eventual stopped playing it. It was the way that the desire to
> slowly ramp up the 'encouragement' to spend more and more money* started
> negatively impact on my game experience. Indeed it got depressing to
> play certain tiers where the battles were stuffed with the latest and
> greatest premium tanks.
>
> I won't cover all the more minor changes they made in-case anyone who's
> got this far falls asleep!
>
> So thoughts from anyone else, do you hate pay-to-win, think it's a good
> thing or is it more a case of it depends?
>
> *Mind you it worked overall and the amount of money some players
> admitted spending was eye watering. One of the worst, or most ironic
> examples, was a player whose garage was stuffed full of premium tanks
> and had probably spent over £1,000 in about six months. The ironic part
> is that their win-rate was basically the same as if they entered a
> battle and then didn't touch the keyboard or mouse.
>

I played WoT a long time ago. I bought a Churchill after playing quite
a bit. I was at the point I felt like I was both rewarding myself and
the company for all the play I'd previously had for free. The Churchill
wasn't really any better, but it was of a tier I didn't have. I don't
regret it, but as I progressed I found that it was more and more
obviously not so much pay to win, but pay to progress. However there
was also some pay to win in better ammo IIRC which would get exhorbitant
rather quickly. I also found the more advanced tanks and maps I didn't
care for, so the progress was going the wrong way.

Then there's the fact it was a PVP only game, which I'm not fond of.
It's hard to separate my feelings about the PtW aspects, but I'm sure
they factored into not playing the game anymore.

On the other side there's Warframe. It's entirely possible to not
actually spend any money and be perfectly fine, it'll take a little
longer, but everything except some cosmetics is purchasable with money
from selling things you grind/farm to other players who at some ultimate
point in the chain had bought in game money to skip that grind/farm.
The one thing I didn't care for was cost of item storage, which was
extremely limited. I spent $20 to get enough of that to properly
progress without losing all the items I earned before I figured out how
to get the money in game. Still considering the total of 9 months of
play I enjoyed out of the game $20 is pretty light on the pocket book.
the difference is they made an in game economy of the premium money so
those who don't have the money can play and progress earning it from
others within a reasonable amount of time, among a wide variety of
methods that people can decide which they like to do, or which is more
efficient. This is definitely how other games should go about it, but
as far as I'm aware, none do. It's also been an incentive to the
company to make new content and improve the game over the last 11 years
so they have new things to keep people interested in spending money
and/or time in the game.

In general I hate pay to win, but I'm generally against PtW, especially
of the kind of games, typically PVP, where it appears ironically the
worst place for it.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 3/29/2024 10:49 AM, JAB wrote:
> This video popped up on my feed and I thought I'd take a look as from my
> time in World of Tanks (WoT) one thing became clear, there really isn't
> a consensus of what is, and isn't, pay-to-win. The video is a bit long
> and dry but one of the things that resonated with me is there's
> pay-to-win and then there's pay-pay-pay-to-win as what money can give
> you is a sliding scale.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNT72xzv1Y
>
> To me it's really can paying give you advantage over an equally skilled
> player and/or does it effectively stop me enjoying a relatively full
> game experience. That doesn't mean I think it's instinctually wrong as
> it depends on the practical reality of that advantage/experince and
> that's the model you knowingly enter. So I'll use WoT as my example as,
> well it's the only game I've played that i consider to have pay-to-win
> elements.
>
> In the early days the elements were pretty sparse so you had premium
> tanks which earn more crew exp./credits but that came with the downside
> that were slightly worse than a fully upgraded normal tank of their
> tier. Then you had premium consumables (in-game gold only) which were
> just better than regular ones and the ammo was one that made a
> particular difference. This didn't bother me as the cost for running it
> soon added up and the impression I got was because of that is was very
> rare to encounter a player 'spamming' it. Th big one was premium time
> that earned you more exp./credits. I didn't have a problem with that as
> at its core it was about paying for time not in-game advantage.
>
> Over the years that changed due to premium consumables being available
> for in-game credits, and what was the best way to generate them - paid
> premium time/tanks, but the thing that really changed the game was the
> introduction of premium tanks that were just better than their free
> equivalents. That was then compounded by bringing out a tank that was
> clearly over powered and putting it in paid lootboxes.
>
> Overall it was one of the reasons I got less and less interested in the
> game and eventual stopped playing it. It was the way that the desire to
> slowly ramp up the 'encouragement' to spend more and more money* started
> negatively impact on my game experience. Indeed it got depressing to
> play certain tiers where the battles were stuffed with the latest and
> greatest premium tanks.
>
> I won't cover all the more minor changes they made in-case anyone who's
> got this far falls asleep!
>
> So thoughts from anyone else, do you hate pay-to-win, think it's a good
> thing or is it more a case of it depends?
>
> *Mind you it worked overall and the amount of money some players
> admitted spending was eye watering. One of the worst, or most ironic
> examples, was a player whose garage was stuffed full of premium tanks
> and had probably spent over £1,000 in about six months. The ironic part
> is that their win-rate was basically the same as if they entered a
> battle and then didn't touch the keyboard or mouse.
>
>

I think it mostly can be defined as "you have to pay extra to be able to
have a reasonable chance".

And unfortunately I have to say it's a reasonable game mechanic, even
though I quite despise it. (I mean, you got the whole TCG market which
has the same stuff coded into it's genes).

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:49:17 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>This video popped up on my feed and I thought I'd take a look as from my
>time in World of Tanks (WoT) one thing became clear, there really isn't
>a consensus of what is, and isn't, pay-to-win. The video is a bit long
>and dry but one of the things that resonated with me is there's
>pay-to-win and then there's pay-pay-pay-to-win as what money can give
>you is a sliding scale.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNT72xzv1Y

The video tries to define "pay to win" to broadly. It does so under
the justification that different people have different qualifications
for what 'winning' consists of; for some people, it points out, they
haven't 'won' a game until you've done everything there is to do in
the game. Therefore, if certain levels or cosmetics are hidden behind
a paywall, you can't truly win until you shell out some extra cash.

But a definition that broad is pointless. As the videographer himself
points out, under these rules even having the money to buy the game
(and hardware), or the time to play a game could be considered 'pay to
win'. After all, if I don't have the $60 to buy "Doom", I'll never
'win' it despite the fact that it's a one-time purchase.

It is better, I think, to narrow the scope of pay-to-win to leave it
to features that offer mechanical advantage, and then qualify other
post-purchase transactions under other terminology. I'd go so far as
to say 'pay-to-win' only exists if it gives you mechanical advantage
over OTHER players. Thus, anti-grind features or larger player stashes
aren't pay-to-win; they're just MTX that you pay because too many
modern games are being made purposefully worse in order to force you
to crack open the wallet a second time.

It is a problem of course, although not actually a new one. Even from
the start, arcade games were made purposefully unfair in order to
force you to shovel more coins into the machine. And these tactics
followed games onto the PCs and consoles. Even before online MTX were
a gleam in a greedy publisher's eye, they were trying to get players
to pay to make it easier to get through games (in particular, I
remember Codemasters charging for cheat codes in the late 90s... and
they weren't the only ones).

And modern games definitely suffer from this urge to push people
towards post-purchase transactions. Content is either purposefully
withheld to be sold as cosmetics, expansion DLC, or "season passes",
or games are made exceptionally grindy to convince people to buy tools
that allow them to bypass the grind. But - in general - I wouldn't
qualify any of these as 'pay-to-win' mechanics; just greedy
publishers.

Even the best developers and games often fall victim to the lure of
easy money, what with pre-release bonus content and early-access
(arguably even 'game of the year' packages could fall into the
over-broad 'pay-to-win' category promulgated by the video). The days
of 'here's our game, take it or don't but that's all there is' are
long, long gone... if those days really ever existed at all.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:01:58 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I think it mostly can be defined as "you have to pay extra to be able to
>have a reasonable chance".
>
>And unfortunately I have to say it's a reasonable game mechanic, even
>though I quite despise it. (I mean, you got the whole TCG market which
>has the same stuff coded into it's genes).

Apparently it's a topic of note (again) because recently-released
"Dragons Dogma 2" has gone quite heavily into pay-to-win
microtransactions. Although, not having played the game, I'm not sure
how clearly they fall into the pay-to-win category. But even if they
aren't PTW, the MTX is still quite greedy, since apparently even
fast-travel mechanics have to be unlocked by a credit card.

Then again, it's a Capcom game. I'm not sure what else we should
expect from them. They long ago abandoned any pretense of offering a
full game experience just by buying the game; for over a decade,
they've been milking players with excessive MTX. I'm not sure why the
community is so surprised and dismayed that "Dragons Dogma 2" followed
suit.

On 3/30/2024 9:21 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:01:58 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I think it mostly can be defined as "you have to pay extra to be able to
>> have a reasonable chance".
>>
>> And unfortunately I have to say it's a reasonable game mechanic, even
>> though I quite despise it. (I mean, you got the whole TCG market which
>> has the same stuff coded into it's genes).
>
>
> Apparently it's a topic of note (again) because recently-released
> "Dragons Dogma 2" has gone quite heavily into pay-to-win
> microtransactions. Although, not having played the game, I'm not sure
> how clearly they fall into the pay-to-win category. But even if they
> aren't PTW, the MTX is still quite greedy, since apparently even
> fast-travel mechanics have to be unlocked by a credit card.
>
> Then again, it's a Capcom game. I'm not sure what else we should
> expect from them. They long ago abandoned any pretense of offering a
> full game experience just by buying the game; for over a decade,
> they've been milking players with excessive MTX. I'm not sure why the
> community is so surprised and dismayed that "Dragons Dogma 2" followed
> suit.
>
Because humans are irrational and believe what they want things to be
rather than, ya know, facts and reality.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 29/03/2024 14:48, Justisaur wrote:
> I played WoT a long time ago.  I bought a Churchill after playing quite
> a bit.  I was at the point I felt like I was both rewarding myself and
> the company for all the play I'd previously had for free.  The Churchill
> wasn't really any better, but it was of a tier I didn't have.  I don't
> regret it, but as I progressed I found that it was more and more
> obviously not so much pay to win, but pay to progress.  However there
> was also some pay to win in better ammo IIRC which would get exhorbitant
> rather quickly.  I also found the more advanced tanks and maps I didn't
> care for, so the progress was going the wrong way.
>
> Then there's the fact it was a PVP only game, which I'm not fond of.
> It's hard to separate my feelings about the PtW aspects, but I'm sure
> they factored into not playing the game anymore.

It's changed a lot since then and there's a lot of new mechanisms they
introduced over the years to encourage you to pay and play. I do agree
that it started off centred around pay to progress but it's moved far
more to pay to have an advantage. A good example is the BZ-176 which was
only available in lootboxes. It gives a player on average a 4%+ boost to
their win-rate. That may not sound like a lot by in a 15 vs. 15 game
with no respawns, it's massive.

Besides premium tanks they've also gone heavily in on is lootboxes. It
started of at just once a year a Xmas but is now up to four times a year.

On 29/03/2024 17:01, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The video tries to define "pay to win" to broadly. It does so under
> the justification that different people have different qualifications
> for what 'winning' consists of; for some people, it points out, they
> haven't 'won' a game until you've done everything there is to do in
> the game. Therefore, if certain levels or cosmetics are hidden behind
> a paywall, you can't truly win until you shell out some extra cash.
>
> But a definition that broad is pointless. As the videographer himself
> points out, under these rules even having the money to buy the game
> (and hardware), or the time to play a game could be considered 'pay to
> win'. After all, if I don't have the $60 to buy "Doom", I'll never
> 'win' it despite the fact that it's a one-time purchase.

Personally I think, could be wrong of course, that was quite deliberate
to show that what people consider pay to win has a wide variation and
that's why they tried to cut it up into a scale.

For variation, there used to be someone on the WoT forums that would
argue quite vehemently that it wasn't pay to win as you couldn't use
money to get 80%+ win-rates overall. This is in a game where a 60%+
win-rate puts you in the top 0.1% of the playerbase.

Personally though I tend to agree with your position that it's about pay
to have an in-game advantage.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:30:29 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 29/03/2024 17:01, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> The video tries to define "pay to win" to broadly. It does so under
>> the justification that different people have different qualifications
>> for what 'winning' consists of; for some people, it points out, they
>> haven't 'won' a game until you've done everything there is to do in
>> the game. Therefore, if certain levels or cosmetics are hidden behind
>> a paywall, you can't truly win until you shell out some extra cash.
>>
>> But a definition that broad is pointless. As the videographer himself
>> points out, under these rules even having the money to buy the game
>> (and hardware), or the time to play a game could be considered 'pay to
>> win'. After all, if I don't have the $60 to buy "Doom", I'll never
>> 'win' it despite the fact that it's a one-time purchase.
>
>Personally I think, could be wrong of course, that was quite deliberate
>to show that what people consider pay to win has a wide variation and
>that's why they tried to cut it up into a scale.

No, I get that... but broadening it that vastly maes the definition
makes the definiton worthless. It's just too expansive, almost to the
point of "blue is a color therefore all colors are blue" sort of
thing.

There are serious problems with how microtransactions have infested
games, but I don't think it helps to categorize them all as pay-to-win
rather than breaking them down into more narrow categories. It leads
to people attributing 'pay-to-win' tags to "Elder Scroll: Oblivion",
and then that game gets ignored by people who want nothing to do with
pay-to-win games.

>For variation, there used to be someone on the WoT forums that would
>argue quite vehemently that it wasn't pay to win as you couldn't use
>money to get 80%+ win-rates overall. This is in a game where a 60%+
>win-rate puts you in the top 0.1% of the playerbase.
>Personally though I tend to agree with your position that it's about pay
>to have an in-game advantage.

Even then, its tricky. "Dragons Dogma 2" apparently charges for
quick-travel. Is that pay-to-win? It doesn't give me any direct
advantage over you when playing; I can just move around the map
faster. But that ability WOULD allow me to jump between encounters -
and thus level up faster - than a player without quick-travel... so
maybe it is pay-to-win?

(Trust Capcom to smear the definition even more ;-).

But cosmetics? Extra maps? Paying for big-head mode cheats? That's
just DLC and microtransactions. Skeevy as heck, sure; to the detriment
of gameplay, definitely. But not pay-to-win.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:12:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even then, its tricky. "Dragons Dogma 2" apparently charges for
>quick-travel.

I do not think it does. -->

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwddmUOaSY

Mike S <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote at 17:52 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:12:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Even then, its tricky. "Dragons Dogma 2" apparently charges for
>>quick-travel.
>
> I do not think it does. -->
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwddmUOaSY

Oh good, that would be truly awful
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 13:52:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:12:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Even then, its tricky. "Dragons Dogma 2" apparently charges for
>>quick-travel.

>I do not think it does. -->
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwddmUOaSY

Thank you for the update.

Specifically, what Capcom sells is an item that lets you 'mark' a
destination to where you can fast-travel. My understanding is that the
game has two fast-travel mechanics. The first is an 'ox-cart' mechanic
where you need to find a specific NPC, and then he'll take you to a
limited set of locations on the map (think the siltwalkers from "Elder
Scrolls 3: Morrowind"). This is freely available to any player in the
game and there are no microtransactions regarding this feature.

The second option is a magical teleport. For this, you need a special
item to 'bookmark' where you want to go; later, you can use another
item to teleport back to that spot (somewhat similar to the "Town
Portal" spells in Diablo). The items to save and teleport can be found
in game... but you can also buy them as DLC.

(Specifically, you can buy the item to 'bookmark' a location. The
portal spell is not purchasable. At least not yet).

Is this pay-to-win? Arguably yes, since it allows players with bigger
wallets to zip around the map faster, avoiding grindy walking and
getting to encounters where they can gain XP and loot more quickly.
Yes, the necessary items can be found in-game, but they are rare
consumables, and you get definite mechanical advantage if you pay
Capcom just a bit more. The original assumption was wrong not in that
fast-travel was made into a pay-to-win mechanic, but in asserting that
that mechanic was available only to paid users.

However, these corrections don't show Capcom in any better light, as
it highlights how that fast-travel mechanic - and almost all of the
DLC sold - are one-use consumable items. So "Dragon's Dogma 2" isn't
just pay-to-win, it's repeatedly-pay-to-win. This is (IMHO) even
grosser than the usual type. Paying for an ability that gives you
advantage of others is bad enough, but having to pay over and over
again for that same advantage is obscene.

JAB wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 17:01, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> The video tries to define "pay to win" to broadly. It does so under
>> the justification that different people have different qualifications
>> for what 'winning' consists of; for some people, it points out, they
>> haven't 'won' a game until you've done everything there is to do in
>> the game. Therefore, if certain levels or cosmetics are hidden behind
>> a paywall, you can't truly win until you shell out some extra cash.
>>
>> But a definition that broad is pointless. As the videographer himself
>> points out, under these rules even having the money to buy the game
>> (and hardware), or the time to play a game could be considered 'pay to
>> win'. After all, if I don't have the $60 to buy "Doom", I'll never
>> 'win' it despite the fact that it's a one-time purchase.
>
> Personally I think, could be wrong of course, that was quite deliberate
> to show that what people consider pay to win has a wide variation and
> that's why they tried to cut it up into a scale.
>
> For variation, there used to be someone on the WoT forums that would
> argue quite vehemently that it wasn't pay to win as you couldn't use
> money to get 80%+ win-rates overall. This is in a game where a 60%+
> win-rate puts you in the top 0.1% of the playerbase.
>
> Personally though I tend to agree with your position that it's about pay
> to have an in-game advantage.
>
>
Some companies are very professional about it, others not so much.

On 4/1/2024 7:24 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 13:52:29 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:12:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Even then, its tricky. "Dragons Dogma 2" apparently charges for
>>> quick-travel.
>
>> I do not think it does. -->
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwddmUOaSY
>
> Thank you for the update.
>
> Specifically, what Capcom sells is an item that lets you 'mark' a
> destination to where you can fast-travel. My understanding is that the
> game has two fast-travel mechanics. The first is an 'ox-cart' mechanic
> where you need to find a specific NPC, and then he'll take you to a
> limited set of locations on the map (think the siltwalkers from "Elder
> Scrolls 3: Morrowind"). This is freely available to any player in the
> game and there are no microtransactions regarding this feature.
>
> The second option is a magical teleport. For this, you need a special
> item to 'bookmark' where you want to go; later, you can use another
> item to teleport back to that spot (somewhat similar to the "Town
> Portal" spells in Diablo). The items to save and teleport can be found
> in game... but you can also buy them as DLC.

I'm not sure if it's the same mechanic as in the first game, but may be.
There's portal stones of which you only find a handfull in the game.
They let you teleport to wherever you place them. They can be picked up
and moved though, so if you think you aren't going somewhere again you
can pick it up and move it elsewhere. You can also keep one with you so
you can put it down, teleport to the city (which has an unmovable one)
do some business, teleport back, then pick up the stone.

They also originally had portal stones which were single use. Both of
those were available as MTX. The DA update added portal stone that
doesn't get used up.

> Is this pay-to-win? Arguably yes, since it allows players with bigger
> wallets to zip around the map faster, avoiding grindy walking and
> getting to encounters where they can gain XP and loot more quickly.
> Yes, the necessary items can be found in-game, but they are rare
> consumables, and you get definite mechanical advantage if you pay
> Capcom just a bit more. The original assumption was wrong not in that
> fast-travel was made into a pay-to-win mechanic, but in asserting that
> that mechanic was available only to paid users.

It's more pay to progress faster (it's probably not really much faster,)
and it's not that hard to get around if it works the same, it doesn't
impact your ability to win fights, which is about about the only single
player MTX I'd count as PTW. The game's not PVP so you aren't paying to
win anything in particular. At least it doesn't have unavoidable repeat
travel, though I would say open(er) world games are annoying just for
having so much unremarkable travel to begin with.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 31/03/2024 16:12, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Personally I think, could be wrong of course, that was quite deliberate
>> to show that what people consider pay to win has a wide variation and
>> that's why they tried to cut it up into a scale.
> No, I get that... but broadening it that vastly maes the definition
> makes the definiton worthless. It's just too expansive, almost to the
> point of "blue is a color therefore all colors are blue" sort of
> thing.
>
> There are serious problems with how microtransactions have infested
> games, but I don't think it helps to categorize them all as pay-to-win
> rather than breaking them down into more narrow categories. It leads
> to people attributing 'pay-to-win' tags to "Elder Scroll: Oblivion",
> and then that game gets ignored by people who want nothing to do with
> pay-to-win games.

The other one that wouldn't surprise me is that as a content creator
they realised that making yet another video on MTX wouldn't create as
many clicks/visibility as Pay-To-Win. It's something I've seen a few
CC's complain about. One in particular pretty much said that they were
given up on the channel as what they wanted to make was videos about
less well know TT Fantasy/Sci-Fi wargames but that didn't pay the bills.
What did was WH40K. They showed some viewing figures for one vs. the
other and these weren't minor differences.

Anyway back to the subject in hand. I agree that the overall problem is
actually MTX and p2w is just one aspect of it. It really has done some
awful damage, IMHO, to the gaming market in the bigger budget space. I
pretty much avoid it totally now as I think it's taking the pee to
expect you to pay full price for game only to expect you to pay even
more if you want to, you know enjoy the game. The other thing that
annoys me is the devs./publishers know exactly what they are doing but
pretend that this is somehow good for gamers. Oh we have an in-game
currency purely for your convenience, no you have it as it helps create
a disconnect between how much you're actually spending.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:04:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Anyway back to the subject in hand. I agree that the overall problem is
>actually MTX and p2w is just one aspect of it. It really has done some
>awful damage, IMHO, to the gaming market in the bigger budget space. I
>pretty much avoid it totally now as I think it's taking the pee to
>expect you to pay full price for game only to expect you to pay even
>more if you want to, you know enjoy the game. The other thing that
>annoys me is the devs./publishers know exactly what they are doing but
>pretend that this is somehow good for gamers. Oh we have an in-game
>currency purely for your convenience, no you have it as it helps create
>a disconnect between how much you're actually spending.

In-game currencies have other advantages as well:

Items are never sold at prices that evenly divide with the values the
currency is sold at. You want that magic sword? It costs 400 Fakecash.
However, FakeCash is only sold in 300 unit increments. This has the
dual benefit of forcing people to buy more than they need (some of
which will inevitably go unused), and is a psychological prod to get
people to spend more. "Well, I /do/ have 350 Fakecash already, so I
might as well buy another FakeChest so I can afford the sword."

The other advantage is that if you are using in-game currencies, it
gives the developer a legal defense against accusations of gambling,
since it's not 'real money'. Fortunately, law-makers are becoming
aware of this trick, and (at least in some countries) this is no
longer a valid distinction.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:45 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:04:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway back to the subject in hand. I agree that the overall problem is
>>actually MTX and p2w is just one aspect of it. It really has done some
>>awful damage, IMHO, to the gaming market in the bigger budget space. I
>>pretty much avoid it totally now as I think it's taking the pee to
>>expect you to pay full price for game only to expect you to pay even
>>more if you want to, you know enjoy the game. The other thing that
>>annoys me is the devs./publishers know exactly what they are doing but
>>pretend that this is somehow good for gamers. Oh we have an in-game
>>currency purely for your convenience, no you have it as it helps create
>>a disconnect between how much you're actually spending.
>
> In-game currencies have other advantages as well:
>
> Items are never sold at prices that evenly divide with the values the
> currency is sold at. You want that magic sword? It costs 400 Fakecash.
> However, FakeCash is only sold in 300 unit increments. This has the
> dual benefit of forcing people to buy more than they need (some of
> which will inevitably go unused), and is a psychological prod to get
> people to spend more. "Well, I /do/ have 350 Fakecash already, so I
> might as well buy another FakeChest so I can afford the sword."
>
> The other advantage is that if you are using in-game currencies, it
> gives the developer a legal defense against accusations of gambling,
> since it's not 'real money'. Fortunately, law-makers are becoming
> aware of this trick, and (at least in some countries) this is no
> longer a valid distinction.
>

And for extra spice, have multiple currencies, and make one free but
with an abysmal conversion rate.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 03/04/2024 15:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:04:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Anyway back to the subject in hand. I agree that the overall problem is
>> actually MTX and p2w is just one aspect of it. It really has done some
>> awful damage, IMHO, to the gaming market in the bigger budget space. I
>> pretty much avoid it totally now as I think it's taking the pee to
>> expect you to pay full price for game only to expect you to pay even
>> more if you want to, you know enjoy the game. The other thing that
>> annoys me is the devs./publishers know exactly what they are doing but
>> pretend that this is somehow good for gamers. Oh we have an in-game
>> currency purely for your convenience, no you have it as it helps create
>> a disconnect between how much you're actually spending.
>
> In-game currencies have other advantages as well:
>
> Items are never sold at prices that evenly divide with the values the
> currency is sold at. You want that magic sword? It costs 400 Fakecash.
> However, FakeCash is only sold in 300 unit increments. This has the
> dual benefit of forcing people to buy more than they need (some of
> which will inevitably go unused), and is a psychological prod to get
> people to spend more. "Well, I /do/ have 350 Fakecash already, so I
> might as well buy another FakeChest so I can afford the sword."
>

WoT has actually been quite good at this as originally it was defined
bundles of gold (the in-game currency) and even then because of the way
gold was used there was always lots of things to spend it on. Then they
changed it to you can literally buy any amount of gold you want.

Saying that they do use the same type of principle with lot boxes in
that you have a certain drop chance for each to get a premium tank but
after fifty lootboxes you will automatically get one if you haven't
already. The catch, lootboxes are sold in x25 bundles and the next step
up is x75. Of course x75 is better value per-lootbox than x25.

> The other advantage is that if you are using in-game currencies, it
> gives the developer a legal defense against accusations of gambling,
> since it's not 'real money'. Fortunately, law-makers are becoming
> aware of this trick, and (at least in some countries) this is no
> longer a valid distinction.
>

In the UK, and I believe many of its peers, it's a bit more subtle than
that. The sticking point is it's not classed as gambling unless you can
cash out individual items. So if you gained something (including in-game
currency) in a lootbox and could then freely sell it for real money,
then it's gambling. So even if you had a in-game wallet in local
currency as long as you couldn't turn that it real money then it's not
gambling.

The gambling commission (the regulator) looked into this several years
ago and reached the conclusion that lootboxes have all the hallmarks of
gambling (including the issue of problem gambling) but until the law
changes they are legal. Our government then set-up a parliamentary
committee to look into the issue. The report was even more damning and
also used a number of actually studies showing the links between problem
gambling and lootrboxes. One I found particular interesting was that
games companies were effectively exploiting certain vulnerable people in
society. It also showed that the idea that it's just 'rich people' who
are whales is untrue.

Our government looked at the report and, mad Nad as she's known,
basically went yeh whatever. We shouldn't burden companies with more
'red tape' that will in anyway negatively effect their profits. Why
set-up a committee in the first place if you're going to completely
ignore what it says.

On 4/4/2024 2:25 AM, JAB wrote:
> The gambling commission (the regulator) looked into this several years
> ago and reached the conclusion that lootboxes have all the hallmarks of
> gambling (including the issue of problem gambling) but until the law
> changes they are legal. Our government then set-up a parliamentary
> committee to look into the issue. The report was even more damning and
> also used a number of actually studies showing the links between problem
> gambling and lootrboxes. One I found particular interesting was that
> games companies were effectively exploiting certain vulnerable people in
> society. It also showed that the idea that it's just 'rich people' who
> are whales is untrue.

FTC is looking into it here in the US still, taking their sweet damn time.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 04/04/2024 17:47, Justisaur wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 2:25 AM, JAB wrote:
>> The gambling commission (the regulator) looked into this several years
>> ago and reached the conclusion that lootboxes have all the hallmarks
>> of gambling (including the issue of problem gambling) but until the
>> law changes they are legal. Our government then set-up a parliamentary
>> committee to look into the issue. The report was even more damning and
>> also used a number of actually studies showing the links between
>> problem gambling and lootrboxes. One I found particular interesting
>> was that games companies were effectively exploiting certain
>> vulnerable people in society. It also showed that the idea that it's
>> just 'rich people' who are whales is untrue.
>
> FTC is looking into it here in the US still, taking their sweet damn time.
>

Several countries in Europe have looked into the issue but so far only
two countries have actually done something and one is looking at passing
legislation.

I'm kinda surprised that the EU hasn't picked up on it as generally they
are quite pro-consumer and they don't mind picking fights with big
businesses as they have the clout to effectively say either comply with
these changes or you won't have access to one of the biggest markets in
the world. That's a big stick to wield.

JAB <noway@nochance.com> writes:

> Our government looked at the report and, mad Nad as she's known,
> basically went yeh whatever. We shouldn't burden companies with more
> 'red tape' that will in anyway negatively effect their profits. Why
> set-up a committee in the first place if you're going to completely
> ignore what it says.

Isn't that just how politics works? Setting up a committee is usually a
delaying tactic to begin with and when they finally deliver something,
the choices are more committees for more delays or dismissal. Pretty
soon it's the end of the term and issues are forgotten or maybe the new
parliament sets up another committee about the same thing.

Oh well, for a little international flavor, here in Finland we're moving
away from a government gambling monopoly towards some kind of a
licensing deal. Mostly because gambling's not a monopoly any more, in
practice people are free to stuff the online casinos' coffers with their
money. So the loot box question may come up at some point here but I'd
be surprised if anything happens this decade. Then again, Finland is a
small market, EU wide regulation might actually do something to
someone's bottom line.

On 05/04/2024 12:55, Anssi Saari wrote:
> JAB <noway@nochance.com> writes:
>
>> Our government looked at the report and, mad Nad as she's known,
>> basically went yeh whatever. We shouldn't burden companies with more
>> 'red tape' that will in anyway negatively effect their profits. Why
>> set-up a committee in the first place if you're going to completely
>> ignore what it says.
>
> Isn't that just how politics works? Setting up a committee is usually a
> delaying tactic to begin with and when they finally deliver something,
> the choices are more committees for more delays or dismissal. Pretty
> soon it's the end of the term and issues are forgotten or maybe the new
> parliament sets up another committee about the same thing.
>
> Oh well, for a little international flavor, here in Finland we're moving
> away from a government gambling monopoly towards some kind of a
> licensing deal. Mostly because gambling's not a monopoly any more, in
> practice people are free to stuff the online casinos' coffers with their
> money. So the loot box question may come up at some point here but I'd
> be surprised if anything happens this decade. Then again, Finland is a
> small market, EU wide regulation might actually do something to
> someone's bottom line.

Generally yes but we did have a change in regulation over something
called fixed odds betting terminals which are gambling machines on
steroids. They were so lucrative that even though they were limited to
four per-shop the companies just opened more shops in the vicinity to
get around that. Limiting the amount you could spend (there's some
really horror stories of what happened when people became addicted to
them) was kicked around in parliament but nothing actually happened
which I'm sure was in no way connected to the massive increases in
donations from these companies to our party of government. Why it
changed was really down to a single MP who kept pushing the subject
until after a couple of years the law was finally changed.