Aighun
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
722
   |
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
As a player I am not a fan of Free to Play games. Nothing is free and there is always some drawback when you pay nothing for a game. It could be having to deal with advertising, or only being able to access some content by paying money.
But things could be worse. For me, paying full price for incomplete games, and even more money after that for DLC, yearly passes, deluxe editions, more DLC, and so on is just as offensive. If not more so. I was thinking about paying for and playing a newly released MMO shooter but when I saw all of the different options beyond just the up front game price, options with in game items, naps, content, and so on I decided not to get the game. After all. Was kind of pissed that I would have to pay full price again, on top of full price, to get all of the other stuff that was available for the game. But was not included in the "Full" game.
I am a player that strongly believes that Dust is not pay to win, even in its current state with no player market. But after looking around the web at many write ups and reviews of recent games, and up and coming games that are broadly in the same category as Dust 514, I have to say the OP does have a point.
The salvage mechanic in Planetary Conquest games will help alleviate some of the claims that Dust is "Pay to WIn." It is kind of halfway between what we have now, and what we will have when full player market opens up. But will we be able to salvage boosters? I hope so. And why not make boosters available for ISK? THe more players you have playing the game more often the better. SO if someone wants to grind ISK to pay for a booster, they are making a contribution to the game, and making it better all around, simply by participating. Unless they do the AFK farming thing.
But the more important concern is not whether or not Dust is in actual fact Pay to WIn. But does Dust 514 even look slightly pay to win. In a certain light. Because if the game gets panned by anyone in the gaming (or otherwise) press as "Pay to WIn" that smear will stick. Even if it is far from the truth. People that haven't been beating these arguments to death in the forums might be more likely to just go with what they read somewhere.
And some writers just don't like the F2P model. For Example.
It will be much better to do damage control in anticipation of a few bad reviews or write ups. All of the explaining in the world won't do the game any good afterwards.
So many of us have been saying things like "The game is not Pay to Win, because when there is a player market, bah, blah, blahGǪ pie in the sky."
That line might fly just fine here on the forums for true believers. But in the wide worked of the millions of consumers who have never heard of the game, that might just sound like, "Well, it may look a lot like Pay to WIn right now. But it isn't going to be pay to win, eventually. What I mean is, ok, someday, what you see now, it is going to change. And.."
So even if you, like me, do not at all believe the game is Pay to WIn, even now, some of the logic and reasoning behind that view isGǪ umm, somewhat nuanced, and convoluted, and fraught with comparisons of relative degree, and can get complicated.
When in the day to day world, knowing that someone can pay money to get an advantage over you kind of sucks. They may not have technically "won" but it still sucks.
|