Who is Optional – A Question of Consumer Value

[Shougun]

That's just it. If SE decided that the game was taking a new direction with heavensward and, for example, that saucer was to be the main focus with minigames, ranking systems, tournaments and such and leave the PvE as kinda a side content, then they very well could sell raid gear or raids themselves in shop and it wouldn't be p2w if the game did seriously do an about face.

Don't confuse this position with me 'liking' that idea. If the game changes direction to something I don't like then I'm free to find a game that is more in line with my interests. Similarly if the only reason you play is to collect mounts, you might want to take a serious look if this is the right game for you. Just like if you are a PvP fanatic you may want to consider a more pvp focused game. If you live farming/growing this games gardening may not be enough for you. This game doesn't have a huge focus on those activities. That's not being rude, that's just common sense. If you are super serious and centralize your gameplay around 1 element, maybe you should find a game that also focuses on that element.

Nah I wasn't saying anything other than a test to your statement and honestly you followed through . I think what makes this conversation both fun and nearly impossible (imo) to make traction on is that definitions are both a public and private thing, we try to fix language but it is not fixed.

I could agree that a company would see this as a situation "we have a farming simulator with some side fluff combat, we sell that fluff combat on the shop - it is called farming 2016 not arena 2016 for a reason". I would also say that a player can argue that the game was selling a win (in /their/ perspective) since language isn't fixed* and the company has no right to fix it**. *Laws try the upmost to be fixed but are also not, job lingo is best to try to be static too but also is not technically always static. **Inside the game the devs have more power like "water lights things on fire" they could do that, but outside the game things like opinions and feelings are not within a dev's power - like what is winning in Minecraft? I'd say at least while it was indie, that the dev didn't set that definition as much as players made their own.

Maybe my linguistic teacher has got me by my tail, I'd rather get a meaning than attempt the impossible and fix an opinion based definition/structure.

In the end, like you said (with my reword ) the meaning will (should) speak the loudest and players will decide if the game is for them. If they see the shop as p2w they will probably get away from it, even if the devs disagree that is is not in fact p2w (whether they're being honest and trying to show that isn't how they want their game perceived because " " or whether malicious intent to calm the masses while making the green).

[Izsha]

snip

Fair enough. But I still take the idea that game creators define winning. Players would never have a unified position as we can see. All that ambiguity is why I use the developers definition. People don't go around demanding the NBA and NFL change the rules to match their personal 'house rules' when they play in the their backyard. Why are we doing that now when the game developer litterally has God power to reshape the world, and even stuff like physics to their whim. Their game their rules.

in a sand box game, like minecraft, the point of the game is that there is no point. There is no structure. The developers basically made a game with NO win condition. They could sell anything they want and, regardless if you liked it or not, you couldn't fight it with 'it's p2w' agument. (You can fight it for other reasons of course). ARR however, is quite rigidly structured in almost every way and only very small sand boxes for sandbox open play (housing etc). In a structured game there are very clear developer created paths that can be defined as winning. If it's not on that path, p2w argument has no power there. I'm just tired of all these threads beating the same dead horse which is basically boiling down to a semantic fight on what p2w 'means'.

[Shougun]

Fair enough. But I still take the idea that game creators define winning. Players would never have a unified position as we can see. All that ambiguity is why I use the developers definition. People don't go around demanding the NBA and NFL change the rules to match their personal 'house rules' when they play in the their backyard. Why are we doing that now when the game developer litterally has God power to reshape the world, and even stuff like physics to their whim. Their game their rules.

in a sand box game, like minecraft, the point of the game is that there is no point. There is no structure. The developers basically made a game with NO win condition. They could sell anything they want and, regardless if you liked it or not, you couldn't fight it with 'it's p2w' agument. (You can fight it for other reasons of course). ARR however, is quite rigidly structured in almost every way and only very small sand boxes for sandbox open play (housing etc). In a structured game there are very clear developer created paths that can be defined as winning. If it's not on that path, p2w argument has no power there. I'm just tired of all these threads beating the same dead horse which is basically boiling down to a semantic fight on what p2w 'means'.

Agreeing to a definition tends to make discussion easier, but we can't always have it easy. Sometimes its got to be sandpaper and Thal's balls. I agree its their game, but it is only their game from inside the world - there is always the player even in a very immersive game. Devs still rely on the the players interface to their game (as pretty much anything else) since they cannot remove the person from the game, they're quite god like inside but still just men here (not to take devs down a peg or anything).

Minecraft does have minor objectives and tier progress though :P, good place to claim winning by mechanics. Also I would agree with you that arguing its meaning does not do too much - hence why I think people should work with the nature of language and forgive differences in terms so long as meaning is being honestly shared. I may use different words but if you understand me then we have made a success of communication and can take actions from it.

I suppose I just want to take this point (and to argue/politely discuss what we both agree should be less of a big deal* (lol)) since I think language, even though I'm bad at it, is intimate and to argue the definition as wrong can very often be a challenge to that person as a person. If you say it isn't pay to win then you are saying what they consider winning is not winning, their success is not a success. Well clearly that can't be right, right? But as I can clearly see in your argument is that "its not your perspective of p2w, its the devs" which I think is a good start to the conversation that I feel has been missed in a lot of the "no you're wrong, its not p2w, you're not winning". The devs if honest will not bid content that is winning to the content they deem important, but they will sell what they find secondary or peripheral - even if that is primary to you as a player (which is pretty much what you said). That still doesn't take away the players ability to say that is winning to me, this is how I win at this game - because the devs can say "you will feel success when you beat this game (win)" but if the player doesn't experience it have they won? Sure by the devs definition but not by the player's, this may be ok if it was only one player - but if everyone felt this way then the dev would wisely move their opinion to the player's just so they could ensure money.

*that definitions are not a big deal (but honest attempt to communicate through meaning), not saying no one should be dissapointed or love the cash shop, just that it appears there is a focus to argue a definition than accept their meaning in the conversation. SE can bill whatever they want, players can tell them that sucks. ect ect.

I'm trying to say that both views are accurate and both rely on each other (player's generally only effective in mass, and time) but neither are untrue as much as where the power comes from. Devs are the gods of their game only when consumers accept them to be, or some poor summarization like that of what im saying.. lol