Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Here you go, some well-known examples for you:
What Is "Pay-to-Win" in Video Games?
What does "pay-to-win" mean in a game? We examine the term and consider examples to help you understand.
www.makeuseof.com
AgainHere you go, some well-known examples for you:
What Is "Pay-to-Win" in Video Games?
What does "pay-to-win" mean in a game? We examine the term and consider examples to help you understand.
"In the simplest terms, "pay-to-win" describes a game where paying real money gives players a significant advantage over those who don't spend any money. "
So you have a paid Mole and I have a rented Prospector. You earn more money than me for 3 weeks and afterthat, I will have a Mole too. You have won and I lost the game during those 3 weeks ? You are higher than me on a non existent leaderboard ? Or you have rushed all the mining spots of Stanton before me ? Or perhaps, you have destroyed my ship numerous time with your 3 mining lasers against my sole laser ?
In fact the P2W you talk about in SC is skipping 3 weeks of earning money with no effetcs at all on other players, that's all...
P2W is a problem because it gives you advantage against other players. The only gameplay where you are against other player is pvp in SC. It would have mattered if pvp was tied to expensive ships but that's not the case.
Last edited:
I did explain.
Win progress. Avoid putting effort in which others have to.
If you buy a mole with $$$ you skip time and efforts others have to put in. With that Mole more gameplay options open up to you. You now have another potential source of revenue meaning you can afford better equipment, weapons, and better ships.
In SC specifically, the more ships you have, the less worry you have about insurance timers. Just pop out a different ship while your others are on cooldown.
The same arguments you are putting forward are the same arguments put forward by people across a range of games, not just SC, to defend P2W mechanics in games.
It also has the wider ramification that devs who have pay to win mechanics might feel compelled to make obtaining things harder for those who don't pay, especially when they need more money. This is a common complaint in the GTA community where many people believe R* make payouts intentionally low to fuel shark card sales.
And as noted, while you try to ignore it, you can (and will be able to post release) give $$$ for in game credits. A direct pay to win mechanic.
So please, don't try and shovel that Chris Roberts "what is winning anyway" guff. It doesn't float.
Pay to Win in its various shapes and guises are generally reviled for many reasons amongst gamers, so its especially sad to see a gamer defending it.
As long as they stick with " You can buy all Ship for in-game currency " - Than it's just Pay-to-progress - which is mostly accepted due to Korean MMO influence over the years, where it's all over the places.
The funny thing is you can exactly remake this trailer ingame on SC, even with head movements. It could have been a SC player video...
Again, you're redefining what P2W is to suit your own needs. Pay to Win has much wider ramifications than what you are trying to narrow it down to.
If you want literal "winning in SC" examples (which are unnecessary for Pay2Win anyway) here you go:
- Two players of equal skill and time, but one paid for a better ship while the other has to earn it in-game. The one with the better ship dominates their fights during the interim. Win.
- CIG plan to implement territory control via land-claims (and station control if that plan is still happening). Players who already bought base building ships and land claims will grab prime locations, while others are busy earning the equipment to do so. Win.
- Orgs with the most resources and playtime available (paying money skips time after all) will dominate the territory control game. Win.
- Game goes live with 5 or so Star Systems. Players who bought the best exploration ships can scan and explore those systems immediately, getting their names on discoveries, while others are busy earning the equipment to do so. Win.
We can call it pay to progress and hopefully LA won't try and excuse that either.
Like i said, its also a hated mechanic, because its just another form of pay to win. Again, reviled in GTA.
FPS was clearly roadmapped at the time, including within the very roadmap you're describing. One whole paid DLC was dedicated to:
What we have with EDO would appear to be the transmuted delivery of those claims, 7 years down the line. With some light atmospheres thrown in
. (And combat within stations themselves sliding quietly into the ether of the ages...to be replaced by safe zone stations, and settlement gameplay etc)Presumably it's not a bad base for any potential 'combative boarding of other ships' that may or may not come in a future PDLC. (And honestly how you thought that was going to work without first person shooting I'm not sure
)---
Some of the drama regarding the 'they didn't add the bit I wanted' stuff is kind of amusing on that front. They've added a big chunk of pledged features, given a broad enough ballpark definition of those aims. (And honestly, ignoring all the boring tribalism, the like-for-like parts of what they've added seem to be more fleshed out and robust than SC's versions. NPC AI, stealth mechanics, broad spread of mission templates, salvage gameplay loop & upgrade path etc).
The main comedy/tragedy of all the attention now lavished on stuff which SC has but EDO doesn't, is that stuff is still in a prototyped alpha stage, despite the lovely art. It is, in many genuine senses, still not delivered, in the way that many players might expect. (This goes double for the stuff that newcomers think is in the game, but actually isn't, due to cinematics of fully operational capital ships and the like
)The main comedy/tragedy with EDO is that its performance seems to be only slightly better than SC's alpha. And that's one helluva burn
Last edited:
Not exactly.
No aliens for footage, no Krait, no Asteroid station with massive interior dock, and no yellow/orange star with nearby asteroid field. Replacement visuals could be found though for the desired effect.
Similarly in Elite, there's no lift, standing in the cockpit, or chair animation. Replacement visuals could be found though for the desired effect.
Both games could do a very close homage to the trailer though. Elite trailers done in SC make for a great advertisement for both games too.
Pay2Progress is Pay2Win, and is accepted by those who are okay with Pay2Win (of which there are undoubtedly many).
I do not really understand the mindset. If a game is so crappy it is more enjoyable to skip than to play it, maybe play something else? Or is it about the feeling of being like a lord lording over their lorddom?
P2W denialists always want to literally define "win" and cannot get their head around the idea that "P2W" is an umbrella term for skips/advances or advantages gained from paying cash.
Some skips or advantages are less egregious than others but still fall under the PW2 flag.
It really is that simple.
Some skips or advantages are less egregious than others but still fall under the PW2 flag.
It really is that simple.
I just love how you morphed "advantage over" into "advantage against" in your post. Bravo.
Let me give you an example of pay to win in a single player game: Surviving Mars.
Surviving Mars has several paid-DLC building packs. These packs are smaller sized variants of base game buildings. In a game where trying to fit sufficient colonist services and industries in a limited space, having smaller sized variants makes the early game significantly easier... to the point where you can reach self sufficiency in a single small dome of 72 colonists, without sacrificing colonist morale. In the base game, you would need the equivalent of five small domes, along with necessary infrastructure to support them, and about 210 colonists just achieve the same feat. Why 210 colonists and not 360? Because in the base game, you have to use more luxurious housing to offset the lack of variety in colony services.
The DLC player does not "win" anything against the non-DLC player. They're not competing either directly or indirectly. But they definitely have an advantage over the other player, because they simply have access to more options and more resources to work with.
Or a Space Engineers video... or an Empyrion: Galactic Survival video... or a Dual Universe video... or a Starbase Video...
I mean, it's not like that behavior is discouraged. In fact, it's rewarded. Hell, Jorunn's Yacht Club or whatever is indicative of the culture endemic to this project where status is gained by the amount spent on ships.
Edit: It's like a reverse prosperity gospel.
Last edited:
Its more like the game is enjoyable... but it can be more enjoyable if you shell out money for it, because progress is artificially low if you're playing for free.
I played a "free to play" (aka Pay to Win) game for a year and a half, and enjoyed every minute of it, without ever paying a single penny until I decided to "gift" the developer $60 (during its 2nd anniversary sale) precisely because I had enjoyed myself for longer than most payed for games do. It was also a non-completive online game. But there were constantly blockers to playing the game for free for long periods of time, and numerous temptations to overcome obstacles. If I had a certain personality type, I likely would've payed money to overcome those blockers, or succumbed to those temptations... and easily spent hundreds of dollars before I knew what was happening.
Ok, if for you P2W is not about one guy winning and the other loosing because of money I understand that you can label the actual scheme in SC P2W.
For me, only scheme where P2W means giving advantage against other players are problematics.
Because the definition linked is not universal and some are more toward "advantage against"
If you read carefully what you quoted, it does says FPS, but in the internal areas of a star port. And that's one thing that Odyssey doesn't have, but Star Citizen does.
I suspect there is a lot of Rivalry going on behind the scene between SC and ED owners. Even to this day.