Pay2Win made it to Elite

[vanFace]

This arguing over whether Elite is now P2W or not is starting to look like a religion.

Fact is that you can now pay money to get advantages like early access in life servers or possession of game elements without game-play. This was not possible before, even DLCs only offered new game-play, but not EA in life servers or whole game elements without actually playing the game. Exclusive elements we already had with the LEPer's Cobra MkIV and Horizons' engineering (as well as many exclusive cosmetics), albeit not to the degree it might now come along (e.g. 5A SCO).

If somebody is saying that these things are not advantages, I think they are intellectually dishonest.

 

[127Tom]

pay to win is paying for advantage that people who didnt spend dont have. if you pay to get engineered ship and i play to get the same engineered ship, its not pay to win.
just because people dont know what p2w means doesnt mean that everything is p2w.

it will end with the servers shutting down, so have fun while it lasts. or dont... blaze your own trail

"if you pay to get engineered ship and i play to get the same engineered ship, its not pay to win."
- Yes it is. You don't know or understand the definition of what P2W is. P2W is basically getting and advantage in-game by paying for it.
In this case if I pay to get my engineered ship I would get it faster than you, and if I were to meet you in battle and we both would be equally good I would have an advantage.

"it will end with the servers shutting down, so have fun while it lasts"
- Yes and how to avoid that? You think P2W is a solution, or will people stop playing it due to that? Or a monthly fee?
iRacing understood it and they are growing. Because they deliver a high quality product that works and people will gladly pay a monthly fee for it.

 

[127Tom]

Dunno Guv... But if folk want to spend and I don't, in this game, I can't get bothered too much as it still is a sandbox, others may have an entirely different viewpoint, naturally...

Commonplace enough already, nothing new there.

Nobody has to play a game they disagree with how it might be managed, do they?

Yeah... Someone mentioned €30 / month as reasonable... guess they are a 'whale' and only have 1 account to play...
Like so many others commenting over the years I've been here, it the game had been subscription based, I'd not be playing it...

You think it's common that people pay other to play their game in this game? You're joking I hope.
Just because you wouldn't pay a monthly fee doesn't mean other won't.
30 euro is a bit too much. I could gladly pay 3 or 5 euro a month for this if it meant more content, missions in a shorter amount of time.

 

[Rat Catcher]

You think it's common that people play other to play their game in this game?

In games generally... After all, you were using comparitive language, rather than just sticking to ED, I believe...

You're joking I hope.

No...
Were you?

 

[127Tom]

Also this sentence made no sense: "pay to win is paying for advantage that people who didnt spend dont have."
lol, what on earth were you trying to say? Mental gymnastics to confuse?

 

[127Tom]

In games generally... After all, you were using comparitive language, rather than just sticking to ED, I believe...

No...
Were you?

I did ask you specifically for THIS game. Strawmanning hard I see. Try again.

 

[Shadowsnog]

i paid for a coffee while doing engineering. coffee is pay to win! :C

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

"if you pay to get engineered ship and i play to get the same engineered ship, its not pay to win."
- Yes it is. You don't know or understand the definition of what P2W is. P2W is basically getting and advantage in-game by paying for it.
In this case if I pay to get my engineered ship I would get it faster than you, and if I were to meet you in battle and we both would be equally good I would have an advantage.

"it will end with the servers shutting down, so have fun while it lasts"
- Yes and how to avoid that? You think P2W is a solution, or will people stop playing it due to that? Or a monthly fee?
iRacing understood it and they are growing. Because they deliver a high quality product that works and people will gladly pay a monthly fee for it.

The problem with that definition is that ANY expansion ever made can be classified as Pay2Win. People use that argument to say singleplayer games can have Pay2Win. If I buy Dragonborn for Skyrim and you don't I have an advantage because I have access to gear you don't. If I buy Odyssey I have an advantage you don't in on-foot gameplay. Literally anything sold that adds to the game even vaguely mechanically can be classified as Pay2Win.

For many it's less black and white, and more on a sliding scale. Everybody has their own opinions regarding where on that scale things tip from acceptable to not.

I'm not saying that everyone should be accepting of what FDev are doing right now. If their individual line on the scale has been crossed, that's their perogative and can vote with their wallets how they like.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Strawmanning hard I see.

So you didn't say?

iRacing

As a comparison? OK.

Carry on, the slur infers something useful, thanks.

 

[127Tom]

The problem with that definition is that ANY expansion ever made can be classified as Pay2Win. People use that argument to say singleplayer games can have Pay2Win. If I buy Dragonborn for Skyrim and you don't I have an advantage because I have access to gear you don't. If I buy Odyssey I have an advantage you don't in planetary landings. Literally anything sold that adds to the game even vaguely mechanically can be classified as Pay2Win.

For many it's less black and white, and more on a sliding scale. Everybody has their own opinions regarding where on that scale things tip from acceptable to not.

I'm not saying that people should be accepting of what FDev are doing right now, if their individual line on the scale has been crossed, that's their perogative and can vote with their wallets how they like.

It's not my definition. It's THE definition of P2W. It's not my problem if you can't accept a game is P2W when it is P2W:

"Pay-to-win : (in computer games) involving or relating to the practice of paying to get weapons,
abilities, etc. that give you an advantage over players who do not spend money"

P2W

1. written abbreviation for pay-to-win: (in computer games) involving or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[127Tom]

So you didn't say?

As a comparison? OK.

Carry on, the slur infers something useful, thanks.

Keep saying stuff without saying anything at all. Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[127Tom]

i paid for a coffee while doing engineering. coffee is pay to win! :C

I think we are getting to the root of your problems here:

You drink more than 4 cups of coffee a day

• Headache.
• Insomnia.
• Nervousness.
• Irritability.
• Frequent urination or inability to control urination.
• Fast heartbeat.
• Muscle tremors.
  
  - Anything that has a restriction on it like this is to be avoided.
  4 cups of water would be better.
  Your logic = Water is P2W.

 

[Shadowsnog]

pay to win is paying for advantage that people who didnt spend dont have.

"Pay-to-win : (in computer games) involving or relating to the practice of paying to get weapons, abilities, etc. that give you an advantage over players who do not spend money"

Also this sentence made no sense: "pay to win is paying for advantage that people who didnt spend dont have."
lol, what on earth were you trying to say? Mental gymnastics to confuse?

i think i now see the confusion...

 

[127Tom]

i think i now see the confusion...

Explain what you mean? If not, you have no arguments.
Your sentence made no sense at all.

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

It's not my definition. It's THE definition of P2W. It's not my problem if you can't accept a game is P2W when it is P2W:

"Pay-to-win : (in computer games) involving or relating to the practice of paying to get weapons,
abilities, etc. that give you an advantage over players who do not spend money"

P2W

1. written abbreviation for pay-to-win: (in computer games) involving or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

It's a terrible definition, and we should be talking about the grey in betweens, rather than an outright "any Pay2Win in unacceptable". I fully support that anyone has the right to refuse anything by this definition, but they'll be hard pressed to find anything to play these days. I don't feel that selling a single player expansion is as morally wrong as paywalling overpowered weapons in a multiplayer game. Unfortunately there are people using this definition to vilify those with anything more lenient than outright rejection of Pay2Win.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

That specific thing, probably not - a DBX in an ultra-light build with a C-rated FSD can go 25 LY (unengineered), which is plenty of range for data courier missions in most cases.

And it'd have to be a very specifically closely-contested election for it to matter in practice ... how many BGS groups go around picking anything resembling an even fight as it is?

Doesn't have to be a closely contested election - it could just be BGS gardening some unaffiliated factions or to free/tie up influence tied up in a conflict faster/slower.

I still think the A-rated FSD is an advantage here because there's no other compromise with the build while still having the best SCO FSD range - the prebuilt python mk2 can be specced for combat and still jump further with a SCO drive etc.

Having to jump further than 25ly for missions usually happens when you get unlucky and get multiple missions on the opposite sides of the source system.

Again it's a minor advantage, but in any game you can stack enough minor advantages to end up with a huge advantage.

 

[127Tom]

It's a terrible definition, and we should be talking about the grey in betweens, rather than an outright "any Pay2Win in unacceptable". I fully support that anyone has the right to refuse anything by this definition, but they'll be hard pressed to find anything to play these days. I don't feel that selling a single player expansion is as morally wrong as paywalling overpowered weapons in a multiplayer game. Unfortunately there are people using this definition to vilify those with anything more lenient than outright rejection of Pay2Win.

Okay, you say it's a terrible definition. But it's the defintion of P2W that most people know and agrees with. You can disagree as much as you want, but this the defintion of P2W.
If you so strongly think it is so terrible and you disagree, than what is YOUR definiton of P2W?

Also an expansion for a singplayer game I would not call P2W if it's just adding to the story, gameplay etc.

But if a singleplayer you bought had plenty of DLC that would give you basically a much easier time with the game = super abilites, skipping areas, overpowered guns, armor etc. then that would be P2W = developer wanting you to pay for advantages to traverse the game easier.

 

[Shadowsnog]

It's a terrible definition, and we should be talking about the grey in betweens, rather than an outright "any Pay2Win in unacceptable". I fully support that anyone has the right to refuse anything by this definition, but they'll be hard pressed to find anything to play these days. I don't feel that selling a single player expansion is as morally wrong as paywalling overpowered weapons in a multiplayer game. Unfortunately there are people using this definition to vilify those with anything more lenient than outright rejection of Pay2Win.

definition is a definition. it wont change if it doesnt match someones narrative or opinion. the gray area as you say have its own definitions. like pay to access, pay to ease...

if you pay for an engineered ship and i play for the same engineered ship, its not pay to win.

 

[127Tom]

definition is a definition. it wont change if it doesnt match someones narrative or opinion. the gray area as you say have its own definitions. like pay to access, pay to ease...

if you pay for an engineered ship and i play for the same engineered ship, its not pay to win.

How is paying for an engineered ship not P2W?

 

[Shurimal]

If I buy Odyssey I have an advantage you don't in on-foot gameplay.

Having Odyssey gives you clear advantage in Horizon contents:
1. Scorpion SRV is so much better in Horizon surface missions--the missile launcher can one-shot skimmers and defense turrets, the shields are much stronger, it's more stable when driving. Scorpion is much better in Guardian sites, too.
2. You get much more ship engineering materials from Intact Cargo racks if you cut them open with the Maverick cutting tool: a total of 7(x3) materials, in Horizons you just get 1(x3) from shooting the cargo rack.
So, yeah, Odyssey is clearly "pay-to-win".