XIV: P2P or F2P? XI never has Cash Shop, why XIV has?

[lololink]

Strawman me more. I was merely arguing your bad point.

also yeah, uncapped tomes in CS would be P2W even though "only coil matters". Just an example as there could be others.

And yes that just go for what I said, it would be P2W in Coil ( well if you are good enough ), in all the other content you wouldn't need more than ilvl 100 to succeed easily. They just don't release P2W because the players are not ok with it, but give them time, first it was old seasonal events, exclusive cosmetic pets, then it will be vanity armors, then old armors that can't be obtained because reasons ( reason being so that you can pay ), then relic weapons stages from the 2.0 relics so that you don't have to do it again to have the particular stage you like or do it all again, why complain ? It's obsolete content ? And little by little you will have your pay to win, and everyone will be ok with it. Once we thought that DLC's overpriced weren't going to last, that it was going to disappear fast, look where we are now people are asking for companies to give them DLC they can buy...

Pointless argument is pointless

Thx for proving to yourself how pointless you arguments are.

Oh, btw WoW has a lvl boost, but that's totally not considered P2W right ? It's coming.

[Kuwagami]

Pointless argument is pointless

edit : the picture isn't here to be pretty, in case you once again missed the point

[Roris]

XI did a lot of stuff better or at least differently enough, that is, it isn't a typical by the numbers WoW clone like ARR is. The only slight argument someone might have is that FFXI belongs in another era when development costs where much smaller, except it's still P2P and still keeps getting substantial monthly updates with a less than 500k subscriber base, especially when other MMOs from its prime time era, aside WoW, went F2P years ago. So there goes that entire argument. Secondly, DQX, a recent MMO with a modern budget, also manages fine without a cash shop and without a global subscriber base, and yes both are operated by SE.

People did in fact request Fantasia and name changes. They're after all, basic services in every other MMO and they have a higher cost mostly to prevent people from abusing them, especially name changes and server transfers. The fact that SE saw this as an invitation to openly nickel and dime them with other non basic services just speaks volumes about them. Either that and/or the game isn't retaining many of it's 2.5 million registered accounts as actual subscribers, thus the emergency F2P safety net mode was deployed.

Yes, WoW does this too while still being P2P. It is the original template everyone tries to copy after all, ARR included, and it's been argued that it's the single only P2P themepark MMO that does it and can get away with it because they're Activision (no excuse) and they have 10 million real subscribers (still no excuse), no need to mention it.

[Shioban]

Thx for proving to yourself how pointless you arguments are.

Oh, btw WoW has a lvl boost, but that's totally not considered P2W right ? It's coming.

That IS considered Pay-To-Win...

You're paying real world money in order to progress further.

Minions do NOT aid gameplay or provide any gameplay advatage, neither does Sleipnir.

[Shougun]

That's like saying "Someone bumped my shoulder, therefore they attacked me violently!!!".
It's a misuse of the general meaning of the term.


The conventional terms used in the video game industry aren't going to apply to the few going;

"BUT I COLLECT MINIONS, THEREFORE IT MUST BE PAY TO WIN!"

Pay to win refers to a paid for advantage/boost/aid using real world currency to progress further in gameplay content.

I would agree that how the term appears to be used is different per groups - one of which has some elusively strict rules, thus unique and almost impartial to its own words in construction. Since winning can be used in many ways, the basic reading of "pay to win" can absolutely refer to any sort of winning (and acquiring mounts can be a sort of winning, since win is based on success and success can be measured from opinion).

It would be fair to say the devs can mean something different, but I would argue that players can use the same term and mean another and be in usage of its construction. Accepted definitions are up for change causes language is so preciously fun... xD but also because the construction of the acronym is set in a way up for variation. Also mounts are a form of content, I'm not so sure about your last sentence on this... I know you are part of at least some game scene so I would be surprised if you come back with game content is purely combat or dev sanctioned things. Regardless of if you agree to that or not you must at least be aware that job lingo does not mean it is the same to the outside world and that language can evolve without permission. If you make in your team purple means black then fine, even some people outside may accept that meaning - it is completely within other peoples rights to not accept it and so long as they aren't stretching the meaning they aren't being dishonest doing it either. It would be dishonest to say violent assault is to shove, it would not be dishonest to explain that winning can be based off opinion thanks to the meaning of success which correlates to winning.

So sure Devs can mean battle content only or only content that they deem "content", but as again I'm sure you are aware devs are not the masters of their game when it comes to its perception - that is to the players.

Above is not really an argument that because it is to win devs can no longer do it, just that p2p is up to interpretation and by the unfortunate yet awesome nature of language will be fighting an avalanche to argue not only can the construction not influence its meaning but that also game content is somehow not content like mounts but only progress approved by the devs. I fully believe that SE has the right to make money and that players have the right to say gtfo, and some special equilibrium will be two sides battling for more for less but still servicing and paying each other. Personally my biggest gripe with the shop, besides the fact that I see the value exacerbated because whales can pay (I can pay.. lol), but that right now, and I know it isnt the most popular issue, is that there is actually a feature locked behind payment. The two seater mount is not available through normal game means, the mounts can be considered skins cosmetic game content not a feature in of itself but the two seater feature is a payment locked.

[Shioban]

Regardless of if you agree to that or not you must at least be aware that job lingo does not mean it is the same to the outside world

This isn't job lingo.

This is pretty much the defato definition of 'pay-to-win', I can source this for you if you want?


I personally don't like the idea of a cash-shop at all, but so far nothing is pay-to-win on the Mogstation.



IF they add in a "Pay for your wedding" tier system, THAT is bordering on pay-to-win, blocking off access to venues/content is teetering on it.
However, if it's simply an extra mount/minion, that's a completely different tier of problems, that's not blocking access to content, that's a reward tier.

If it isn't job lingo mate then it is completely fair to interpretation without argument.

Google "What is Pay to Win" and get back to me, anyone with half a brain is able to do that I'm sure.

Come back to me where you can find "Vanity = Pay to Win" on ANY of the results.

[Shougun]

This isn't job lingo.

This is pretty much the defato definition of 'pay-to-win', I can source this for you if you want?

I personally don't like the idea of a cash-shop at all, but so far nothing is pay-to-win on the Mogstation.

IF they add in a "Pay for your wedding" tier system, THAT is bordering on pay-to-win, blocking off access to venues/content is teetering on it.
However, if it's simply an extra mount/minion, that's a completely different tier of problems, that's not blocking access to content, that's a reward tier.

If it isn't job lingo mate then it is completely fair to interpretation without argument.

Edit: at least if you respect the construction of it, again saying purple is black isn't quite legitimate but saying that winning relates to success which is to opinion is.

Google "What is Pay to Win" and get back to me, anyone with half a brain is able to do that I'm sure.

Come back to me where you can find "Vanity = Pay to Win" on ANY of the results.

Google interpretation?

Edit: Also for the heck of it since you said borderline would be blocking a content, then what about two seater mounts? That is a feature that relies on payment outside of the game.

[Shioban]

Google interpretation?

Hahahah, what.

Please read what I said, google the following or click the link below if that's too difficult, then proceed to read the top website results on what the internet community believes pay-to-win means.

I think you'll be in for a small shock.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+pay+to+win%3F

Apparently Urban Dictionary is a reliable, trustworthy and argument worthy source of information now.

Urban Dictionary was the only result?

Please check again, being obstinate for the sake of safe guarding your own ideals isn't a good indication of "What the community thinks Pay to Win is"

[Roris]

Apparently Urban Dictionary is a reliable, trustworthy and argument worthy source of information now.

[Shougun]

Hahahah, what.
Please read what I said, google the following or click the link below if that's too difficult, then proceed to read the top website results on what the internet community believes pay-to-win means.
I think you'll be in for a small shock.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+pay+to+win%3F

Win, to have success, what is sucess? Largely opinion. Are you trying to be dense?

There may be a popularly accepted term, that does not mean other terms can -not- be allowed. So long as you give a honest interpretation.