Who is Optional – A Question of Consumer Value

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magis

Seeing as the point of games in general is to beat them then the idea of a skill wall is kinda ridiculous. No game guarantees you a victory, but it does guarantee content. You have the impression that because you payed for the game, then you deserve the end result of winning it, but no game other than ones with cheat codes I guess, gives that, it gives you the ability to challenge it's content, and as a reward also the end. Whoever buys the game get's the chance to access the end, regardless of who they are.

In this case, you are buying the game, and then are told to get other content, you must pay even more. On top of that, there isn't even a challenge, it's just handed to you... it defeats the purpose of a game.

---

Understand that it is your concept of the purpose of a game, this topic is about how optional is not optional because some players play the game with vanity as their core game-play, for those players, beating the game is not necessarily the purpose of the game.

Content is only content when you can access it, if content is locked behind a skill-wall that you cannot overcome and therefore cannot access, is it still content? how different is it from someone who cannot access content locked behind a pay-wall? I'm asking this in a philosophical sense, I'm of course not actually asking for items to be given away for free

I'm just saying that you cannot use the argument of different players having different core game-play styles as a reason for why micro-transactions should not exist but yet say that another's game-play style is not valid.

IMO I think that people got to be more honest with what they want and feel, all I see are players spinning arguments of noble reasons of why micro-transactions is bad for everyone whereas its actually simply that they themselves do not want micro-transactions because it is their own preference to not have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magis

How is it an equal chance if you have to pay extra money?

---

Because anyone can pay extra money if they choose to? You act as though paying more is somehow more difficult than playing the game itself, even as you state otherwise in the same post. It's bizzare.

It's funny how people focus on what other people get(or may get) more than their own. You saying that you're against people buying items from a raid that has been already killed and drops looted, why would you care if you should be able to do it yourself aswell. Why would it bother you that someone else buys what you already might own/get through in-game means. They paid to win what, the dungeons that people already won? Exclusivity in the other hand is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacost

Because anyone can pay extra money if they choose to? You act as though paying more is somehow more difficult than playing the game itself, even as you state otherwise in the same post. It's bizzare.

---

So RMT is a-ok? Anyone can buy it, so it's equal footing right? Heck, don't even need to go there. Do you have any issue with pay to win content? By your logic, there is no advantage done there either and SE should have no problem implement that as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaquelleAvarosa

Understand that it is your concept of the purpose of a game, this topic is about how optional is not optional because some players play the game with vanity as their core game-play, for those players, beating the game is not necessarily the purpose of the game.

Content is only content when you can access it, if content is locked behind a skill-wall that you cannot overcome and therefore cannot access, is it still content? how different is it from someone who cannot access content locked behind a pay-wall? I'm asking this in a philosophical sense, I'm of course not actually asking for items to be given away for free

I'm just saying that you cannot use the argument of different players having different core game-play styles as a reason for why micro-transactions should not exist but yet say that another's game-play style is not valid.

IMO I think that people got to be more honest with what they want and feel, all I see are players spinning arguments of noble reasons of why micro-transactions is bad for everyone whereas its actually simply that they themselves do not want micro-transactions because it is their own preference to not have it.

---

I'll reply to you in a bit.

op·tion·al
ˈäpSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
available to be chosen but not obligatory.
"a wide range of optional excursions is offered"

choice
noun:
a range of possibilities from which one or more may be selected.
"you can have a sofa made to order in a choice of over forty fabrics"

Pretty much described the inability of players to see the desires and feeling others can get from a game lol. "It is not pay to win for you, because I don't consider looking cool as winning". All we need, and already have, are games based on fashion and vanity - now clearly then players can see it as pay to win. Winning being that feeling of success that does /not/ need to be from battle only. Thats not really surprising though, having to care or at least understand for those you don't necessarily side with (I'm no king at it.. hell I had 15 posts on glamour system hate before I got that there are /a lot/ of people who like it and you can lore it in to not be too breaking (still wish I saw less bikini knights but honestly there are fewer than I expected, so <3 to players)).

Also to that you have people who would be -happy- to buy the item rather than work for it, but also people who will see the game's value go down as more cash shop items are produced. Fortunately for the cash shop lovers it only takes a few whales to make support greater than the loss of a few strict value players (most people are pretty flexible even if disappointed about having to, certainly not a good way to vote with your money but being inflexible has its costs - like not playing the game lol). Personally I see cash shops as an awful value and a detriment to the game in terms of a game being a game. Sure there may be some devs that take the money and put it all back into the game under the normal subscription, but I doubt it as basic business sense is to make money and use that money to make more money - not to do more for less. Speaking value in terms of $60 gets you a fully featured game, $20 gets you one mount. I can make that purchase a few times but at a certain point you have an entire years worth of value placed into a few items and mathematically you know something is off.

Not that I blame SE, as I said they're job is to make money. Job of the consumers to smartly spend and vote with their money or experience an unleashed businesses because you failed to do so (as again they will do what makes money, even if that is double quadruple dipping if you let them). How to spend your money of course being an opinion :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edeline

Wrong usage of pay to win. Those words have been losing the meaning for some years. Paying to win means buying something that it's exclusive and gives adventage, weapons with higher stats than those you can get in-game for example.

---

That's literally what I was saying.

They're not adding in anything to allow you to advance in the game.

It's all vanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadex

I believe this is a question that lies at the core of better understanding the positions of all parties when it comes to what should and should not be included in any alternative payment method system. In the past it has been generally accepted that any item that does not affect gameplay in such as fashion as to provide a benefit not attainable through normal means is tolerable. No pay to win. This has of course led to countless debates over what constitutes an actual advantage over convenience and so on and so on. We will not be deliberating that here.

Continued in the original post.

---

10/10 post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shioban

That's literally what I was saying.

They're not adding in anything to allow you to advance in the game.

It's all vanity.

---

So is wedding vanity? Is housing vanity? Is crafting and gathering vanity? Is everything but PvE vanity? Content is content whether it's PvE, PvP, or sandbox. The fact is they are hiding half the wedding feature and to "win" the best gear and items from the wedding event you have to buy it for real money = pay to win.

Disclaimer: I'm not going to get married but I do believe patch updated features should be free for subcribers. CS is for services. If SE really needs more money then raise the month sub fee but don't nickel and dime us with paywalls. I would much rather pay $2 extra a month and have Slepnir drop from Odin EX than be required to spend $20 to get him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shioban

That's literally what I was saying.

They're not adding in anything to allow you to advance in the game.

It's all vanity.

---

Click here :D