Forums » Suggestions
^ this
And in all seriousness, though these things might improve vendetta online, it's important to remember what makes this game special, and that is in no small part the way it doesnt just jump on every cash grab opportunity the industry churns out.
And in all seriousness, though these things might improve vendetta online, it's important to remember what makes this game special, and that is in no small part the way it doesnt just jump on every cash grab opportunity the industry churns out.
"the cash store provides "infrastructure" as a unique item allowing players to set up temporary or permanent "outposts""
-1e666. Paying out-of-game money for useful in-game stuff is cheating, end of mother fucking story.
-1e666. Paying out-of-game money for useful in-game stuff is cheating, end of mother fucking story.
Honestly at this point, if pay-to-win gets us a better game, then lets make it fucking pay to win.
but pay to win isnt a better game, it's the worst game
Pay to win is bad, pay to compete is good.
I could spend _x hours driving a moth xc to earn _y in game credits. Pay to win means that a player that spends _z US dollars could buy more credits than a player playing the game could earn in game in _x hours. Pay to compete would find a balance between _x in game hours of effort and _z USD for the same _y in game credits.
Some people have no life, and they spend hours and hours per day playing vo. People that have a life can not compete, based on hours per day invested. The are busy earning real USD. The game is already pay to win, it is just currently the paying currency is time and not dollars. It isn't any more fair than the opposite extreme.
You can already pay to win. You just have to find a service provider. I can transfer game items for a service fee. I can not call it selling because I do not technically own anything in game. But it is really more of a technicality than anything else. I would still end up with USD, and someone else would still end up with in game items. In truth, we do not know how much of this is already occurring. Private deals may already have been conducted via irc or other means of communication and none would be the wiser.
You can not really stop it. The most you can hope to do is drive it underground.
The devs are looking for additional income, and you are screaming about the very idea of it. Are you going to scream if they sell a hive positron for $2 on the website? If they don't, perhaps I will start transfering hive positrons for a service fee of $2 per, except I just won't tell you about it, so I won't have to listen to your screaming. Less USD for the devs, more USD for me, and you can turn a blind eye. You go girl.
I could spend _x hours driving a moth xc to earn _y in game credits. Pay to win means that a player that spends _z US dollars could buy more credits than a player playing the game could earn in game in _x hours. Pay to compete would find a balance between _x in game hours of effort and _z USD for the same _y in game credits.
Some people have no life, and they spend hours and hours per day playing vo. People that have a life can not compete, based on hours per day invested. The are busy earning real USD. The game is already pay to win, it is just currently the paying currency is time and not dollars. It isn't any more fair than the opposite extreme.
You can already pay to win. You just have to find a service provider. I can transfer game items for a service fee. I can not call it selling because I do not technically own anything in game. But it is really more of a technicality than anything else. I would still end up with USD, and someone else would still end up with in game items. In truth, we do not know how much of this is already occurring. Private deals may already have been conducted via irc or other means of communication and none would be the wiser.
You can not really stop it. The most you can hope to do is drive it underground.
The devs are looking for additional income, and you are screaming about the very idea of it. Are you going to scream if they sell a hive positron for $2 on the website? If they don't, perhaps I will start transfering hive positrons for a service fee of $2 per, except I just won't tell you about it, so I won't have to listen to your screaming. Less USD for the devs, more USD for me, and you can turn a blind eye. You go girl.
Let's not turn this into a "what quantifies Pay 2 Win" discussion. Please stay on topic.
Jan 10, 2013; incarnate: ..."also leaves the door open to doing micro-transactional offerings to them, while keeping the whole "lite" equipment loadout well beneath the tier available to our "real" subscribers (would anyone really care if some Lite subscriber could buy access to a Neutron Blaster Mk I for $0.99?"...
@Phaserlight: In the same light that you do not wish this thread to address "quantifies Pay 2 Win", then neither should post in this thread address opinions on "Pay to win". One leads to the other. The OP proposed "micro-transactional offerings". Which "micro-transactional offerings" are "pay to win", and which are not? Either we are discussing "pay to win" in this thread, or we are not. I don't care which, as long as we are consistent about it.
@Phaserlight: In the same light that you do not wish this thread to address "quantifies Pay 2 Win", then neither should post in this thread address opinions on "Pay to win". One leads to the other. The OP proposed "micro-transactional offerings". Which "micro-transactional offerings" are "pay to win", and which are not? Either we are discussing "pay to win" in this thread, or we are not. I don't care which, as long as we are consistent about it.
"Some people have no life, and they spend hours and hours per day playing vo. People that have a life can not compete, based on hours per day invested."
So what? Some people have hours to devote to learning to play chess really well, and others don't, but do the richer ones get to spend money to have a couple free turns to level the field? Hell no.
You can dress it up in all the pretty words you want, but nothing changes the fact that paying out-of-game money for useful in-game stuff is cheating, end of mother fucking story.
So what? Some people have hours to devote to learning to play chess really well, and others don't, but do the richer ones get to spend money to have a couple free turns to level the field? Hell no.
You can dress it up in all the pretty words you want, but nothing changes the fact that paying out-of-game money for useful in-game stuff is cheating, end of mother fucking story.
..."paying out-of-game money for useful in-game stuff is cheating"...
You are paying a monthly subscription fee for in game stuff that I can not get without paying a monthly fee. CHEATER!
Edit: Now that Pizzasgood has established that (most) all of us are cheaters, we can move on to discussing how vo can earn more profit from cheaters (like Pizzasgood).
You are paying a monthly subscription fee for in game stuff that I can not get without paying a monthly fee. CHEATER!
Edit: Now that Pizzasgood has established that (most) all of us are cheaters, we can move on to discussing how vo can earn more profit from cheaters (like Pizzasgood).
This is a game. Games are meant to be played. What you are asking for is to get stuff without playing the game. Not acceptable.
VO is only "meant to be played" insofar that it being played is profitable to the owners of the game.
Your entertainment or sense of fair play are not the primary goals of VO. Those are the commodities being traded in pursuit of VO's primary goal, profit.
A man asked a woman: "What would you do for a million dollars?", to which she replied: "Anything you want". He then asked: "What about a hundred dollars?", to which she replied: "What do you think I am?". Leading to his statement: "I think we have already established that, now let's talk price".
You are paying to play. You are paying to win. Now let's talk price.
Your entertainment or sense of fair play are not the primary goals of VO. Those are the commodities being traded in pursuit of VO's primary goal, profit.
A man asked a woman: "What would you do for a million dollars?", to which she replied: "Anything you want". He then asked: "What about a hundred dollars?", to which she replied: "What do you think I am?". Leading to his statement: "I think we have already established that, now let's talk price".
You are paying to play. You are paying to win. Now let's talk price.
Tinbot you're an idiot, I don't want some asshole beating me because he could buy the neutron mk4. That's just fucking bull
All I'm going to say is that you do not want advantage in significant game mechanics tied to a player's ability to throw money at the Devs, allowing that player can do whatever the Hell they want until/unless others likewise throw lots of green paper at VO.
If that happens, though, I do look forward to simultaneously supporting VO and making a lot of people miserable in-game to underline the point I just made.
If that happens, though, I do look forward to simultaneously supporting VO and making a lot of people miserable in-game to underline the point I just made.
"You are paying to play. You are paying to win. Now let's talk price."
At least $100/month. It might take more than that for me to be satisfied, I dunno. I certainly would not be satisfied for any less. So for now, let's start with that. You start paying me $100/mo, and I'll shut up and stop opposing these idiotic pay-to-win concepts.
At least $100/month. It might take more than that for me to be satisfied, I dunno. I certainly would not be satisfied for any less. So for now, let's start with that. You start paying me $100/mo, and I'll shut up and stop opposing these idiotic pay-to-win concepts.
@snake: people want and don't want a lot of things. some people want vo to be free. some people want to build stations. the devs want to make a profit. people who want vo to be free to play don't have much to negotiate with. people who are willing to pay do. let's negotiate.
@Dr. Lecter: How much advantage is "significant"? I expect the devs would love players to throw money at them for something. Are you arguing against my point, or for it? Because saying you would pay to grief tends to prove that pay to win could be very profitable.
@Pizzasgood: VO can not be all things to all people. It is not free to play. It is pay to win. Your logic is obviously self serving, with no consideration for the owners of VO, or anyone else. Unless you somehow surprise me, I expect I can safely ignore any further post from you.
@Dr. Lecter: How much advantage is "significant"? I expect the devs would love players to throw money at them for something. Are you arguing against my point, or for it? Because saying you would pay to grief tends to prove that pay to win could be very profitable.
@Pizzasgood: VO can not be all things to all people. It is not free to play. It is pay to win. Your logic is obviously self serving, with no consideration for the owners of VO, or anyone else. Unless you somehow surprise me, I expect I can safely ignore any further post from you.
@Dr. Lecter: How much advantage is "significant"? I expect the devs would love players to throw money at them for something. Are you arguing against my point, or for it? Because saying you would pay to grief tends to prove that pay to win could be very profitable.
If you think the handful of players with a lot of disposable income can support a game after their $-driven asshattery has caused the larger subscriber base to rage-quit, much less make it "very profitable," you are a complete fucking idiot.
If you think the handful of players with a lot of disposable income can support a game after their $-driven asshattery has caused the larger subscriber base to rage-quit, much less make it "very profitable," you are a complete fucking idiot.
..."would anyone really care if some Lite subscriber could buy access to a Neutron Blaster Mk I for $0.99?"...
The question has been asked. Has anyone answered it?
I would not care. Would you?
The question has been asked. Has anyone answered it?
I would not care. Would you?
Snake is wrong.
DE is a retarded monkey. There's a difference.
Pay to win is problematic when it means that the only practical way to be in the top tier of players in any category is to make a purchase specifically to get there (rather than paying an access fee for instance that everyone pays).
You can be good at Vo even if you play only a few nights a week after work and do a few stations or some b8. Lets hope the same is always true.
DE is a retarded monkey. There's a difference.
Pay to win is problematic when it means that the only practical way to be in the top tier of players in any category is to make a purchase specifically to get there (rather than paying an access fee for instance that everyone pays).
You can be good at Vo even if you play only a few nights a week after work and do a few stations or some b8. Lets hope the same is always true.
..."would anyone really care if some Lite subscriber could buy access to a Neutron Blaster Mk I for $0.99?"...
The question has been asked. Has anyone answered it?
I would not care. Would you?
If that's the extent of your point, it's so non-controversial as to be meaningless. The difference is that it's a Mk I, not a Mk V. If you want a Mk I you can (a) have a Lite Sub and pay $0.99, or, (b) just become a full subscriber, pay nothing extra, and unlock it through ingame mechanics.
When microtransactions start to become a method of access for regular subs to get items not otherwise reasonably obtainable in-game, then you have problems. But go ahead and make equippable turret missiles unlockable for $50 and see how that works out for you. I had a ton of fun last time I mounted a pair of those things on a X1.
The question has been asked. Has anyone answered it?
I would not care. Would you?
If that's the extent of your point, it's so non-controversial as to be meaningless. The difference is that it's a Mk I, not a Mk V. If you want a Mk I you can (a) have a Lite Sub and pay $0.99, or, (b) just become a full subscriber, pay nothing extra, and unlock it through ingame mechanics.
When microtransactions start to become a method of access for regular subs to get items not otherwise reasonably obtainable in-game, then you have problems. But go ahead and make equippable turret missiles unlockable for $50 and see how that works out for you. I had a ton of fun last time I mounted a pair of those things on a X1.
Lol, lecters argument is kinda funny..
"Don't go pay to win, because then i'll win"
"Don't go pay to win, because then i'll win"