I can play 40K with a pirated .docx file and a bag of M&Ms used as color coded tokens in place of miniatures.
Pay2Win made it to Elite
- Thread starter Einar Donarsson
- Start date
I can play 40K with a pirated .docx file and a bag of M&Ms used as color coded tokens in place of miniatures.
We are in agreement! Yay!
It has probably taken me 40 years to realise that I do not need the right figures for each army, generic will often do. Too late as I now have more armies than I really need.
Steve
Ask a new player, maybe?
Ain't no point askin' anyone here, 99% of us have been playing long enough to have forgotten what it is like to be new.
You don't have to spend your Arx on new ships, doing so is entirely the decision of the individual.
Generally speaking I'd assumed we weren't so set in our ways that playing a new game was inconceivable, nor was considering this criteria when evaluating that game. I know it's a turn off for me when I see it.
I don't know that the prevalence of the practice has anything to do with its attractiveness though, vs other games as a whole package just being more attractive.
Last edited:
I play longer than you, and I remember it very well what it was like to be new back in the day. I remember figuring out how to even fly with way inferior controls than I bought soon after. I remember staying in the starter system for an eternity, before I was comfortable enough to do a first hyperjump. I remember being blown out of the sky by a player Asp as I was in a Hauler and quitting open play that day.
What I indeed have no idea of is how it is to be new in the here and now. Even if I were to reset my save or play a new alt account, I can't erase what I know about the game. I know the systems, I know how to progress efficiently, I know what is out there. And finally I know the many many tools that have been created around the game almost none of which were around when I was new.
So yeah, I don't know how it is to be new, neither will any new player know how it was to be new, except from veteran tales, if they care to listen.
It probably is for a few, for how many, who knows?
The great thing is that each of us is able to make a decision how others having something is going to affect our perception of the game.
No proper rage quits yet, but there will be a first sooner or later, after all, even changing the scanner in ED 3.3 elicited rage quits as FD gave every player something new for nothing.
I didn't even manage to make a maiden flight without being blown up by a player, several times, before exiting the mail slot. I went to solo too, just to actually fly my ship further than the mail slot. (I went to 'live' in an Anarchy controlled system for a few months - at least it was Low Security)
I restarted the game 3 times (I think) in my first 6 months, each time with a new name, before settling with this one and sticking with it.
Nope, we can't unlearn the game. We have learned how the game works, how to progress, and, most importantly, how to fly reasonably well.
I remember the learning curve, challenging fun, but am glad I don't have to start afresh with no knowledge.
Having vs not having isn't the question though, the question is whether the prospect of seeing pay to skip, especially when combined with age old complaints about grind, puts the game in a positive light towards those without context to evaluate what is on offer and have the, albeit low, initial buy in barrier to content with as well.
Is it?
Do you believe that another individual is not able to decide for themselves?
Why need any of us worry how another might spend their money? It is their decision, if they are dissatisfied with their decision, that is entirely their own concern, surely?
It appears to uneducated me, that there are many 'old-timers' here more concerned about other players being able to choose how they wish to play, even if it costs them real money, as they will not have to do exactly what they have had to do...
Of course, that player who may buy ship(s) for Arx is likely to want to progress further, then discover all of the fun things other players may have been doing for years to progress.
Even the Stellar or AX ships on offer today are actually very limited, great for a leg-up, no doubt, but not "end-game" assets, by a wide margin.
FD have had a 'revelation' in realising that there are people out there who have more money than time, and are making an effort to cash-in on that situation.
Some "old timers" appear not best pleased by this action, but that was to be expected. They'll get over it or not, that's life.
Last edited:
Considering the question is being asked, the answer is obviously yes, an individial can decide.
But who cares? Who's going into that perception with the consideration of what others are doing? That's not the question I'm asking because it has 0 relevance to individual perception and the general attractiveness of the prospect when people tout it as helping draw in and retain players.
There is some interesting irony here is that you seen to have missed the specific focus of my question, if not mised the whole point of it altogether and are calling others "uneducated" from what seems to be a different assumed question.
None of my posts that you responded to asked if players would be turned off by others buying in, or having the possibility of doing so, but rather the perception of seeing what the game offer them themselves, which is pay to skip, and the implications that there is content built to be skipped, or at least exists in a way that is completely unimportant to the flow of the game.
Basically, does it give the impression that an experience is supposed to be fulfilling in itself, or does it give the impression of being padded waste time, if cash can be exchanged without compromising individual's experience.
If I wanted to ask what old players thought of new players buying ships I wouldn't bother as I could just read the existing 90+ pages of that.
Last edited:
Unfortunately you are breaking the rules if you are playing with the wrong figs. Yes, that is in the rules for those who don't play.
He didn't miss it; he's attempting to steer the discussion away from anything that might be a valid concern about Frontier's pay-for-something-that-can-affect-the-game-more-than-a-paintjob-can policy. Nothing to see here, folks! Just some bitter old vets!
I'm sure most of us have acknowledged that this is a multiplayer game where there is at least the potential for what anyone does to impact other players, either directly or indirectly, at this point.
Still, It's not player decisions that are the real concern. No sense in criticizing a player's choice to use the more advantageous set of rules; we all do, according to our own criteria.
Frontier offering a choice in this regard is something that never should have been done. Frontier is on the hook for every imbalance they introduce, every ambiguity, every rule they fail to enforce. I can overlook imperfections. I won't overlook the monetization of deliberate imbalance.
That's the beauty of actual ownership. The rules are whatever everyone at the table agrees they are. I don't really play much tabletop 40k, but if I did, I wouldn't play it at some GW sponsored tournament, nor would I play with people who are sticklers for a rule written to sell miniatures, because I don't believe that how much one is willing to tithe a PLC should influence the game. My real poison of choice is homebrew AD&D 2nd edition, which I don't need anything at all to play in or run, other than an improvised random number generator...after 30+ years I know the core BtB rules better than an Ayatollah knows the Qur'an. And Wizbro can't sell me any more product because I can make up whatever rules I need and adapt literally any narrative from any source into a quest line. Teach a man to fish and you're screwed cause he'll never need to buy your overpriced fish again, or something.
And this is why online-only games exist, to keep people playing by rules that make the creators (or at least IP holders) money. The good examples do something with all those players they try to hold hostage, using them as content of some kind in a multiplayer game. The rest barely even pretend there is any other reason to have critical components of the game hosted server-side for anything other than DRM in a games as a (dis)service model.
I know, it's just the audacity of putting that in the rule book. It's one thing to say "Hey, it's tournament rules". It's clearly a money grab aimed at a market potentially loaded with highly strung types that are rule sticklers. British companies, amirite?
I, for one, would gladly spare noobs the... let's say... "imperfections" we had along the way. Early engineering was a PITA. OTOH, I pity them for not having a chance to live through the various narratives, community events, gold-rushes, etc.
I guess giving them the option to buy in with money is fair. If they absolutely want that murderboat with all G5 modules, suits, weapons, exclusives or even rank/reputation/permit unlocks, I'd say let them. I'm not concerned that they will change my game-play, but I'm sure concerned that FDev will change it. Be it by more questionable management decisions leading to a game shutdown, or by making life harder for everybody not paying. In any case, I had a good time, and if it will be over soon due to others, so what? It's just a game after all, others will follow.
I know, it's just the audacity of putting that in the rule book. It's one thing to say "Hey, it's tournament rules". It's clearly a money grab aimed at a market potentially loaded with highly strung types that are rule sticklers. British companies, amirite?
It's a brilliant rule as there are huge numbers of people who will insist on adhering to something because it was printed in an official book, without ever questioning it's actual utility for their game. Who ever wrote it probably made GW ten million dollars a word. This sort of thing isn't limited to the British either.
Nicely summarised, thanks.
Gosh! Am I?
So I'm not chatting with a bunch of old-timers who are (used here on the forum by some who disagree for whatever reason to another's point) doing some "amazing mental gymnastics" to support their own rhetoric?
This is more fun than a basket of kittens!
Again, concern for a very esoteric imagining concerning other's perceptions of some game assets, it is quite touching...
If they are spending their money willingly...
Well, learning how, and where, to get unlocks and materials may appear daunting, it is true.
The future may have more, or not.
Since Epic was the only free giveaway of the game to date, everyone else is buying in, even if it just a fiver of real money.
Why not? Money talks, after all
No more than any other player might?
Haven't they managed to do so in the past?
Is there any serious doubt about that?
That would be hilarious, and would very likely elicit the final days of the game.
True, as you so eloquently observe below...
Yes, it is.
Other posters here often suggest that "XYZ" game is an ED killer, one day they will be right, for sure.
Perhaps the money raking exercise will fail dismally because it is so outlandish and morally bankrupt for a business to wish to remain trading by asking for money for products / services and the whole company will collapse, I'm sure there are some fantasy zookeepers who will mourn the loss, but not many imaginary space pilots...
Indeed, your concern for how another might perceive what the game offers with mediocre assets in the game store is laudable...
But, somewhere in my mind, the question remains, is that not entirely the consideration of that individual, and really none of anyone else's concern?
Each of us here have the mental capacity to determine if FD's actions are going to sully whatever we perceive the game brings us, and are able to inform a decision on the future of the game, on an entirely personal level, then act upon it, is that not so?
Perhaps if the ones so vociferous over the purchase of assets with game store currency were numerous enough to cause concern to Frontier is they all rejected the game, Frontier might reconsider? Naturally, I suspect the number of those so inclined is, in comparison to the entire playerbase, miniscule - although being proven wrong would be welcomed.