DUST Search - Dust514: Pay2win and Money grabbing.

Pagl1u M wrote:

reydient wrote:

First: I am a PA: most people do not no what that is but its a physician assistant , and the pay salary affords me disposable income , actually a lot of disposable income that I can chose to allocate where I would like. I also have a wife and kids and what I do not have is time no matter how much I love dust , I could never play enough. Casual play once or twice a week for 2 or 3 hrs would mean that I will always be behind the curve. Buying boosters is what keeps some people in the game, especially the working population, such as myself. Buying boosters are situational in regards to P2W but , it is erroneous for me to say buying boosters does not afford people a win, but honestly its rarely the case. To be honest I have 45 million lifetime and my KDR is barely .84 , I have paid extensively and still I do not win. I do pay to " HAVE A CHANCE " that's what's really afforded to me.

Lets pretend that this game was/is pay to win. Dust is a game about war. Wars are not waged only between soldiers but there is politics and financial status. Yes he who has the biggest army and better equipment has a better chance of winning and a big army and better equipment requires money , isk , aurum , USD and Euros. In real life you do not see many examples of sticks and stones beating the AR and Glock, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN. In experienced hands a stick and a stone could beat a AR. How much does the AR cost in comparison to the rock? If you had to engage somebody and had to chose between a rock and and a AR what would you chose? Would cost be an issue? Would you pay more to have the AR? How about attachment's? Politically , I have seen PC matches won by a "lesser team " because they were sabotaged i.e AWOKERS!! Or Ive seen great teams get destroyed because a mutual arrangement resulted in them losing half their teams in battle. CCP is allowing me and my vast number of resources to 1.) stay caught up and 2.) Provide me a increased probability at winning and engagement. If you play this game as the MMO you'd know that some matches can be won before it even starts .

No aspect of this game should be untouchable from my the vast depths of my wallet , just saying. The word is that dust is profitable and I definitely paid somebodies salary and everyone that's playing free and unwilling to drop a dime , your welcome , because this game continues to be free to pay

Example1: Player A and Player B start playing a new game.
2 hours of gaming later A has a gun that deals 10 dmg. B has spent moneys and so he has a gun that deal 7 dmg. 3 hours later A obtains the gun that deals 10 dmg. They both have the same gun Now.

This is not pay2win.

Example2:
Player A has a gun that deals 7 dmg. Player B spends moneys and have a gun that deals 10 dmg.
No Matter how muCh A Will play, he'll neve have the gun that deal 10 dmg un Less he spends real moneys.

This is pay2win.

Is Dust Example 1 or 2?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
xxwhitedevilxx M Maphia Clan Unit Pwnycorn 3042	Posted - 2015.04.01 15:15:00 - [1] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: RayRay James wrote: LOL, using urbandictionary.com as a reference source Really, just this. Quote: If these items are not merely cosmetic, but confer an actual gameplay advantage in competition with others, the game is described as pay-to-win. Rich players can simply buy better weapons, armor, or other items than poorer players, and so they beat them by spending real-world money. In other words, they are altering the mechanics of the game in their favor. This design produces a lucrative (for the publisher) arms race among players who try to outspend each other to gain a competitive advantage, but it is bad sportsmanship and violates an essential rule of multiplayer competitive play: The game must be fair. Tiger Woods, no matter how rich he is, cannot simply buy a tee 50 yards closer to the hole that his competitors cannot use. It is essential to golf that ail golfers play on the same course. Video games can be asymmetric, with different players playing by different rules for one reason or another, but they still must be fair and give all the players an equal chance of winning (except for differences in talent or experience), regardless of how much money they have. Many players find pay-to-win designs highly objectionable. Fundamentals of Game Design, Ernest Adams This reference source should be better. Guinea Dust Bunnies are watching you, CCP Rouge.
xxwhitedevilxx M Maphia Clan Unit Pwnycorn 3043	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:11:00 - [2] - Quote Pagl1u M wrote: reydient wrote: First: I am a PA: most people do not no what that is but its a physician assistant , and the pay salary affords me disposable income , actually a lot of disposable income that I can chose to allocate where I would like. I also have a wife and kids and what I do not have is time no matter how much I love dust , I could never play enough. Casual play once or twice a week for 2 or 3 hrs would mean that I will always be behind the curve. Buying boosters is what keeps some people in the game, especially the working population, such as myself. Buying boosters are situational in regards to P2W but , it is erroneous for me to say buying boosters does not afford people a win, but honestly its rarely the case. To be honest I have 45 million lifetime and my KDR is barely .84 , I have paid extensively and still I do not win. I do pay to " HAVE A CHANCE " that's what's really afforded to me. Lets pretend that this game was/is pay to win. Dust is a game about war. Wars are not waged only between soldiers but there is politics and financial status. Yes he who has the biggest army and better equipment has a better chance of winning and a big army and better equipment requires money , isk , aurum , USD and Euros. In real life you do not see many examples of sticks and stones beating the AR and Glock, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN. In experienced hands a stick and a stone could beat a AR. How much does the AR cost in comparison to the rock? If you had to engage somebody and had to chose between a rock and and a AR what would you chose? Would cost be an issue? Would you pay more to have the AR? How about attachment's? Politically , I have seen PC matches won by a "lesser team " because they were sabotaged i.e AWOKERS!! Or Ive seen great teams get destroyed because a mutual arrangement resulted in them losing half their teams in battle. CCP is allowing me and my vast number of resources to 1.) stay caught up and 2.) Provide me a increased probability at winning and engagement. If you play this game as the MMO you'd know that some matches can be won before it even starts . No aspect of this game should be untouchable from my the vast depths of my wallet , just saying. The word is that dust is profitable and I definitely paid somebodies salary and everyone that's playing free and unwilling to drop a dime , your welcome , because this game continues to be free to pay Example1: Player A and Player B start playing a new game. 2 hours of gaming later A has a gun that deals 10 dmg. B has spent moneys and so he has a gun that deal 7 dmg. 3 hours later A obtains the gun that deals 10 dmg. They both have the same gun Now. This is not pay2win. Example2: Player A has a gun that deals 7 dmg. Player B spends moneys and have a gun that deals 10 dmg. No Matter how muCh A Will play, he'll neve have the gun that deal 10 dmg un Less he spends real moneys. This is pay2win. Is Dust Example 1 or 2? Unfortunately, 2 on a short term. It is not pay to win on the long term, but that's a problem: you'll probably lose everyone who wanted instant satisfaction meanwhile. Guinea Dust Bunnies are watching you, CCP Rouge.