We all win Eve if Eve doesn’t die.
1 Like
Theres only one way to win Eve, and none of those players will be posting here.
1 Like
This is missing a very important restriction on the concept: that paying for the benefit is rare. Paying $15/month for a normal subscription is not really “pay to win” because it’s something that is standard across the industry, done by most serious players in EVE, has a fixed finite amount of benefit, and ends up providing no real advantage over other players because everyone else is buying the same subscription. It’s not a case where a player with enough real-world cash can get out their credit card and buy an arbitrarily large amount of power for their character, beyond what normal players are going to do.
All very good points. But do they support the assertion that Eve’s F2P/sub model is not technically pay to win, or do they support the idea that it is a form of P2W which we find tolerable?
I mean, I guess it depends on how you define pay to win. Personally, I consider it to be P2W, but I’m also fine with it. So, how do I rectify that with my opposition to P2W? Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that P2W exists on a spectrum that ranges from anti-consumer, exploitative, and oppressive to non-whales to consumer friendly, reasonable, and relatively fair to all players regardless of how much they spend.
This is very false. CCP has intervened in numerous ways since I started playing in 2012.
That EVE’s model is not P2W. For “pay to win” to have any meaning as a concept it needs to divide games into “pay to win” and “not pay to win”. If any game that requires any form of payment is considered “pay to win” then virtually every game is some form of “pay to win”. If “pay to win” requires buying advantages beyond a normal subscription then it does meaningfully divide games into those two categories.
I disagree. Take the genre classification of RPG. There are games that we consider to be clearly RPG’s, and games that we consider to be clearly not RPG’s. But there are also a lot of games in between those two extremes. And depending on where they fall, they might get classified as an RPG, Action RPG, as having strong RPG mechanics, as having some RPG mechanics, or as something else entirely. Does that make RPG useless for describing game genres?
I never said, nor implied that.
It would appear that we have different definitions of P2W. There is only one way to settle this…
Reginald, fetch my dueling pistols.
No, because there are still games that are “RPGs” and “not RPGs” even if there is a gray area in the middle where genres overlap. But if you tried to define “RPG” as “any game in which you play a character” then it would become a meaningless definition, as the latest Call of Battlefield or Sportsball 2020 game would count as an “RPG”.
I never said, nor implied that.
That’s exactly what you implied, by holding up omega accounts as an example of “pay to win”. Omega and alpha accounts are just new terminology for the standard business model of a free trial for a game you have to buy. If buying the full EVE game is considered “pay to win” then so is any other game that you have to buy.
It would appear that we have different definitions of P2W.
You’re right, we do. Mine is a useful definition that allows for the existence of both “pay to win” and “not pay to win” games, yours is an excessively broad definition that includes virtually every game that is not given away 100% for free.
1 Like
A true sandbox has it’s rules. Sit back and see what happens.
Bruh we did that. We saw goons put out 30 rorqs a system 24/7 and have them guarded by a near infinite supply of titans that would kill any class of ship no matter what.
■■■■ that playstyle and ■■■■ anyone who thinks it deserves to stay. All the recent changes except the 4 significant figure thing for markets has been great.
HTFU
1 Like
My definition includes everything P2W, whether that P2W is anti-consumer, exploitative, and oppressive, or consumer-friendly, reasonable, and relatively fair to all players. Your definition seems to exclude P2W that falls into the latter category. Personally, I’m of the opinion that just because you find it justifiable, that doesn’t make it not P2W. It just makes it P2W that you’re fine with. So from my perspective, my definition isn’t “excessively broad,” yours is unnecessarily narrow.
And no, I did not imply that any game you put money into is pay to win, nor does my definition include “virtually every game.” To be clear, I’m asserting that if a monetization method affords you an advantage over those that don’t purchase it, then it is, by definition, pay to win. By my definition, this would exclude games that monetize solely through non-P2W methods such as: (1) gating content behind paywalls (i.e. upfront purchase price and/or sub cost for everyone), and (2) selling players ways to express themselves (i.e. skins, color pallets, decorations, and emotes).
Then your perspective is wrong. A definition of “pay to win” that includes every single game that is not given away 100% for free to all players is a useless definition, it tells you absolutely nothing of value about the game. Mine, on the other hand, provides useful information about a game labeled as “pay to win” or “not pay to win” and is the obviously better one.
To be clear, I’m asserting that if a monetization method affords you an advantage over those that don’t purchase it, then it is, by definition, pay to win.
But that includes every game with any kind of free trial, no matter what the monetization model, as a player who buys the game has an advantage over one who only plays the free trial. Arguably it would include every single non-free game ever, as a player who buys the game has an advantage over one who is not able to play at all.
(1) gating content behind paywalls (i.e. upfront purchase price and/or sub cost for everyone),
How is that not “pay to win”? A player who pays has access to content that a player who doesn’t pay can’t have. That’s textbook “pay to win” by your definition.
(2) selling players ways to express themselves (i.e. skins, color pallets, decorations, and emotes).
Still an advantage, especially in a sandbox game where “have the coolest looking character” is just as valid a goal as “kill everyone you meet”.
1 Like
Why not?
- You’d lose all of the players who play EVE because it’s not a traditional theme-park style MMORPG.
- You wouldn’t gain anyone who is looking for traditional theme-park style MMORPG.
- This is one of the few changes that would actually kill EVE and I thank god CCP will never listen to it.
2 Likes
Post edited to make it less aggressive.
Wow, okay.
I didn’t realize that I had to specify this, “an advantage over others in competitive gameplay.” As in, buying better gear in a cash shop provides a competitive advantage over those who don’t.
Yeah dog, it’s called context, and we’ve been having a discussion about P2W. Why wouldn’t I be talking about competitive advantage?
Anyway. It’s been fun. Take it easy.
Like a buying a walkthrough book?
1 Like
"Quote Quote "
That would be awesome if you applied this rule to Provi-Bloc where 1v1 never exist.
The rule of 5v1 is applied daily.
No pity.
You might have a point if Rekking Crew was anything more than just Pandemic Legion alts and sock-puppets waging a campaign of terror against people who just want to mind their own business and be left alone in Providence.
I thought Rekking Crew was PL alts…
Some of them are just people who want to hang out with PL but aren’t good enough to actually be in PL. Like WAFFLES, for example.
It’s a pity, HB took down his old blog.
I will have to agree with OP about 1 thing and no eve is not a sandbox MMO it claim´s to be. If any of you old farts like me played Ultima online then you bloody well know how a good Sandbox mmo should be and EVE is so damn far away from hitting the damn mark the storm troopers called and said learn to aim you noob.