so… was he fake or a real lawyer?
Which is why I specifically made the statement about the two players being equal in skill.
And the guy spending a bunch of money on the game and then losing an Arazcough…er… Raven is no surprise.
Wow, you are really fast. Now you just have to come to the understanding that pay2win is a term that is generally used in gaming for the ability to purchase all sorts of game affecting advantages and we can actually have a conversation. Let me know when that’s the case.
That’s pretty funny actually. Since in my view they are a pretty recent addition that had no place in gaming for the majority of time I played computer game. Guess that makes you the kid 
I guess this looks normal if you grew up with all the mobile game garbage. I can also understand that you don’t get why people are arguing about monetization if your mom pays your bills 
5 Likes
I remember when the monetisation of games only consisted of fully unlocking shareware like Duke Nukem, Doom and Wolfenstein.
Pepperidge Farm remembers too.
7 Likes
Nowadays people feel so entitled that they don’t want to pay anything at all - so the only game companies that survive are the tricky ones.
1 Like
I often agree (to varying extents) with Scoots, and find that he often makes good points… and then he seemed to just lose his mind in this thread. I don’t know if it’s a love is blind thing, where he’s making excuses for the game he loves, or if he’s intentionally using bad faith arguments in an attempt to white knight CCP.
Regardless of what’s going on, I can kind of sympathize with him. Eve is my favorite game, and I feel compelled to speak out against damaging misinformation and/or those that are spreading the bitter vet mindset. However, that does not mean that I believe that we should just whitewash Eve’s problems. Just like in real life, problems need to be identified and acknowledged before they can be fixed. And, of course, in the case of monetization, there is the very real possibility that not pushing back against P2W and anti-consumer monetization methods can lead to more of them.
1 Like
Does this mean something?
Because of some of Scoots posts in this thread, I’m not sure if you’re ■■■■■■■ with me or not. You see, it seems like one of the things Scoots was trying to do was discount my (and other people’s) criticisms because we had failed to provide agreed upon, universal definitions of various related terms and concepts (like “P2W,” “advantage,” and “winning”). It’s like if I came along and said that I was against child marriage, and Scoots retorted with, “you failed to define ‘marriage’ and your definition of ‘child’ includes those who can be considered adults in certain legal contexts. Ergo, your criticism is invalid.”
But, in case you’re genuinely asking, it’s a monetization method that is exploitative of consumers. For example, loot boxes are modeled after slot machines, and are specifically designed to get players to spend as much money as possible on as little content as possible. The consumer friendly alternative to them would be to allow players to directly purchase exactly what they wanted.
Now, I personally believe that anti-consumer monetization methods exist on a spectrum, and that our personal beliefs and values will inform where we place various monetization methods on said spectrum. For example, some people believe that the hypernet relay is extremely exploitative, while others consider it no worse than a church raffle.
Of course it does. Obviously a company needs to get paid for their product somehow, but the method of payment matters. A consumer-friendly business model is one like EVE used to be built on, where the company sets a fixed price and you buy the thing you want because you like what they are offering. An anti-consumer business model is something like the average F2P game, where instead of providing a quality product that people are willing to pay for the focus is on using manipulative marketing gimmicks to monetize an inferior product as much as possible while spending as little as possible on anything else.
3 Likes
I could not agree more. This is exactly why I’m 100% against ftp and am for the subscription model. I really hate the new alpha/omega model. I was fine with when they had a 30 day free demo, and you got to play the full game if you subscribe. Now they’ve gone ftp, and introduced premium currency(which started back with AUR, iirc). They say you get 2x skill training rates if you sub, but it seems to me that the reality of it is that omega is the standard and alpha is 1/2 the standard rate. Once a game goes ftp and has a premium currency, it’s very difficult to not suspect changes made to the game of being moves to push people into spending money for the premium currency.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s more like a “I scream at you because I love you” thing.
Look I understand that CCP have looked at other games and they saw an easy way to make more money with low effort. Just sell some cosmetics, add new mechanics and loop them trough the shop, add litteral gambling…
Obviously that is a lot easier than increasing the revenue by coming up with new ways to make the game better, so people give you money because of the actual game and not because of some psychological trap you built for them…
But obviously that’s considered a strange idea around here.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.