These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Pay to win

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#621 - 2012-07-21 02:13:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
This is not true in all (and arguably most) cases, as I have already demonstrated.
…except that making ISK (the in-game “advantage” that PLEX provide) is very possible to obtain without paying for it.

What you're talking about is player convenience — out of game.


No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#622 - 2012-07-21 02:16:57 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
This is not true in all (and arguably most) cases, as I have already demonstrated.
…except that making ISK (the in-game “advantage” that PLEX provide) is very possible to obtain without paying for it.

What you're talking about is player convenience — out of game.


No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.

Consider that the person had to spend RL time to make that RL money, the advantage is rather limited.

Especially because isk is very easy to make, gets added instantly to your in game wallet (you don't have to wait two weeks), and you don't have unexpected isk expenditures.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#623 - 2012-07-21 02:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mechael wrote:
No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.
You're talking about saving time, because generating the same amount of ISK without paying for it is quite easy.

Saving time is a convenience for the player — out of game.

You are spending “work time” to save on your “play time”. Depending on how you value the two, this may be an advantage or a disadvantage. You'll have no problem finding players for which the advantage is actually the opposite of the one you state: that they can generate ISK without wasting real money on it (and even that they can generate it faster than the ISK buyer can).
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#624 - 2012-07-21 02:17:44 UTC
How am I not capable of generating ISK easily in-game?

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#625 - 2012-07-21 02:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
I did. Hence the conclusion. Alt-less players are not at a disadvantage because they don't pay — they are at a disadvantage because they choose not to make use of any of the means to get the advantage. Paying is not the only way of doing so. False dichotomy; ignoring the third option; does not show P2W and does not illustrate an advantage that can't be had if you're not paying for it.


So alt-less players are at disadvantage because they do not use alts when no ingame options are available to them? Congratulations, that's what I've been repeating for how many pages now.

Why should they be forced into a metagame option? If alts are necessary, why doesn't CCP provide the players with the option to simultaneously play several characters, on a single account? Well, that's pretty obvious (P2W).


Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Contingencies tied to having to pay for an advantage are irrelevant, since what we are discussing is whether the non alt-funding player is at a disadvantage.
No, we're discussing whether or not there are options available that provide the same advantage without paying for it, and you're dismissing the fact that there are on the grounds that the ability to make use of that option is contingent on some set of factors. By the same logic, we can dismiss the payment option on the grounds that the ability to make use of that option is contingent on some set of factors.

What I'm doing is treating both options equally. I don't inject the “A has contingencies, but let's ignore B's contingencies” bias, nor do set up a fallacious false dichotomy. I also don't base my judgement on the “having an advantage is an advantage over not having an advantage” platitude. Your entire reasoning consists of these three fundamentally flawed points.

Meanwhile, you have not been able to demonstrate an advantage that cannot be had without paying for it — the one, very simple thing that would show that there is P2W.


Well, if in scenario B the solo player cannot use alts, because contingencies have it that he cannot pay for them, and has no access to ingame friends, he's at a disadvantage vs. a player with friends, as should be, and is on an even ground with another alt-less player with no friends. So why should we dismiss the alt/payment option, just because there are cases when it is unavailable, making the playfield even? Everything is normal and coherent ingame, in such a case.

And yes, there are numerous unavoidable contingencies that put the alt-less player at a severe disadvantage vs. the alt-funding one.

Your rhetoric 101 is pretty fun, keep at it!
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#626 - 2012-07-21 02:25:16 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Mechael wrote:

No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.

Consider that the person had to spend RL time to make that RL money, the advantage is rather limited.


This is not always the case. Many people simply don't want to fork over cash for an advantage in pixels, nullifying the "Well, so-and-so has a job and the other guy doesn't, so the advantage evens out" argument. We can even take a somewhat expected "average" EVE player into account here (if such a thing even exists. Averages almost never do.)

Two guys work their jobs, making pretty much the same amount of money for the same amount of time, and they both play eve for roughly the same amount of time, doing the same things, and are pretty much the same in every way ... except one decides to fork over cash for ISK. Purchased advantage. Got more cash to spend? That's an even bigger advantage.

There's really no way around it. Assuming two players are equal, except one buys ISK and the other does not, the one who buys the ISK has the advantage.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#627 - 2012-07-21 02:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.
You're talking about saving time, because generating the same amount of ISK without paying for it is quite easy.

Saving time is a convenience for the player — out of game.

You are spending “work time” to save on your “play time”. Depending on how you value the two, this may be an advantage or a disadvantage. You'll have no problem finding players for which the advantage is actually the opposite of the one you state: that they can generate ISK without wasting real money on it (and even that they can generate it faster than the ISK buyer can).


I'm not talking about spending work time to save on play time. I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate. Making ISK is a vital part of the game. A part that you can circumvent entirely (or bolster beyond reason) with real world cash.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#628 - 2012-07-21 02:30:52 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Mechael wrote:

No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.

Consider that the person had to spend RL time to make that RL money, the advantage is rather limited.


This is not always the case. Many people simply don't want to fork over cash for an advantage in pixels, nullifying the "Well, so-and-so has a job and the other guy doesn't, so the advantage evens out" argument. We can even take a somewhat expected "average" EVE player into account here (if such a thing even exists. Averages almost never do.)

Two guys work their jobs, making pretty much the same amount of money for the same amount of time, and they both play eve for roughly the same amount of time, doing the same things, and are pretty much the same in every way ... except one decides to fork over cash for ISK. Purchased advantage. Got more cash to spend? That's an even bigger advantage.

There's really no way around it. Assuming two players are equal, except one buys ISK and the other does not, the one who buys the ISK has the advantage.

You missed my point.
Because the person is spending outside time to make that extra ISK, he is working for the advantage (that is rather limited).

For all things to be equal, he would have to not have worked for the money to buy the PLEX. Otherwise, he is still putting in more time, thus he is still working for his isk.
Serena Serene
Heretic University
#629 - 2012-07-21 02:30:58 UTC
As someone said before.. the definitions of "pay to win" seem to differ greatly here.

One party says "pay to win" is any advantage you can get by paying real money. Like isk by selling PLEX, for example.

The other party is of the opinion, that if you can get the advantage the other person pays real money for by other means... smart playing, making friends, putting in in-game effort.. it's not "pay to win" since you are, in fact, able to win against a "paying more"-person. You just have to put in more effort.

I tend towards the second opinion, but want to say that the paying person does, in fact, have an advantage. It's just not one which will (alone) decide the outcome of a competition.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#630 - 2012-07-21 02:31:17 UTC
Those two people sound incompetent at Eve and all the extra paid-for ISK in the world isn't going to benefit either of them as they play in a mediocre fashion.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#631 - 2012-07-21 02:33:21 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So alt-less players are at disadvantage because they do not use alts when no ingame options are available to them?
Strawman fallacy.

Players who choose not to use the methods to gain the advantage are at a disadvantage. Paying is not the only way to get the advantage.

Quote:
Well, if in scenario B the solo player cannot use alts because contingencies have it that he cannot pay for them, and has no access to ingame friends, he's at a disadvantage vs. a player with friends, as should be, and is on an even ground with another alt-less player with no friends. So why should we dismiss the alt/payment option
Yet another strawman. Who said we should? Again, I'm treating both equally — you're the one who absolutely have to turn it into a false-dichotomy fallacy.

If you want to dismiss one option because it's conditional, then dismiss all conditional options… and guess what, your alt-less player is no longer at a disadvantage.

The fact remains: you have yet to show an advantage that cannot be had without paying for it. You really should focus on coming up with that rather than adding a argument-from-repetition (of fallacies) fallacy to your increasing list of no actual proof at all.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#632 - 2012-07-21 02:33:47 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Mechael wrote:

No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.

Consider that the person had to spend RL time to make that RL money, the advantage is rather limited.


This is not always the case. Many people simply don't want to fork over cash for an advantage in pixels, nullifying the "Well, so-and-so has a job and the other guy doesn't, so the advantage evens out" argument. We can even take a somewhat expected "average" EVE player into account here (if such a thing even exists. Averages almost never do.)

Two guys work their jobs, making pretty much the same amount of money for the same amount of time, and they both play eve for roughly the same amount of time, doing the same things, and are pretty much the same in every way ... except one decides to fork over cash for ISK. Purchased advantage. Got more cash to spend? That's an even bigger advantage.

There's really no way around it. Assuming two players are equal, except one buys ISK and the other does not, the one who buys the ISK has the advantage.

You missed my point.
Because the person is spending outside time to make that extra ISK, he is working for the advantage (that is rather limited).

For all things to be equal, he would have to not have worked for the money to buy the PLEX. Otherwise, he is still putting in more time, thus he is still working for his isk.


You're assuming that the person who does not purchase PLEX also does not work.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#633 - 2012-07-21 02:36:20 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Mechael wrote:

No, I'm talking about being able to generate more ISK than the otherwise equal person who does not spend real money on PLEX is capable of generating.

Consider that the person had to spend RL time to make that RL money, the advantage is rather limited.


This is not always the case. Many people simply don't want to fork over cash for an advantage in pixels, nullifying the "Well, so-and-so has a job and the other guy doesn't, so the advantage evens out" argument. We can even take a somewhat expected "average" EVE player into account here (if such a thing even exists. Averages almost never do.)

Two guys work their jobs, making pretty much the same amount of money for the same amount of time, and they both play eve for roughly the same amount of time, doing the same things, and are pretty much the same in every way ... except one decides to fork over cash for ISK. Purchased advantage. Got more cash to spend? That's an even bigger advantage.

There's really no way around it. Assuming two players are equal, except one buys ISK and the other does not, the one who buys the ISK has the advantage.

You missed my point.
Because the person is spending outside time to make that extra ISK, he is working for the advantage (that is rather limited).

For all things to be equal, he would have to not have worked for the money to buy the PLEX. Otherwise, he is still putting in more time, thus he is still working for his isk.


You're assuming that the person who does not purchase PLEX also does not work.

It does not matter if he works or not.

You said all things being equal, other than one buying PLEX.
This would mean that the time they spend to make their isk (which for one person woudl include the time they work to buy PLEX) would have to be equal.
It is quite possible to make 500m in the amount of time that a person would work in RL to make $15.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#634 - 2012-07-21 02:36:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Paying is not the only way to get the advantage.


It is, actually. Two players each make x isk over the same amount of time. One then buys a PLEX to now have x + plexPrice ISK. That's an advantage that you cannot get without paying for it.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#635 - 2012-07-21 02:37:17 UTC
Mechael wrote:
I'm not talking about spending work time to save on play time.
Ok, fine…

You're talking about spending work-or-idle-richness-cashing-in-from-investments-and-interests-time to save on play time.

Quote:
I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate.
…and as luck would have it, generating just as much ISK without spending real money on it is very much possible. It may take a bit more time (but not necessarily) if you do it in-game but that's the only difference, so all it is is player convenience: you're spending money (=work-yadda-yadda-time) to save on play time.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#636 - 2012-07-21 02:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
I'm not talking about spending work time to save on play time.
Ok, fine…

You're talking about spending work-or-idle-richness-cashing-in-from-investments-and-interests-time to save on play time.

Quote:
I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate.
…and as luck would have it, generating just as much ISK without spending real money on it is very much possible. It may take a bit more time (but not necessarily) if you do it in-game but that's the only difference, so all it is is player convenience: you're spending money (=work-yadda-yadda-time) to save on play time.


It's not about "saving" play time. It's about having more resources at your disposal during your play time. If Player A can generate resources faster than Player B, and that is the only notable difference between the two players, Player A wins every time.

Player < Player + PLEX

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#637 - 2012-07-21 02:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate.
…and as luck would have it, generating just as much ISK without spending real money on it is very much possible. It may take a bit more time (but not necessarily) if you do it in-game but that's the only difference, so all it is is player convenience: you're spending money (=work-yadda-yadda-time) to save on play time.

What about someone who is very capable and participated in both in game and plex earnings? Wouldn't they have an advantage over those who chose one or the other?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#638 - 2012-07-21 02:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mechael wrote:
It's not about "saving" play time.
That's all it is.

You're asking some other player to spend their game time accumulating ISK so you don't have to spend your game time accumulating the same ISK. The advantage you get is that you save time getting that amount of ISK — that's all PLEX is: a time swapper (game-time spent in exchange for real-world time spent in exchange for more time to spend in-game).

The in-game advantage you get is ISK. This advantage can be had through other means than spending money.
…and how well ISK translates into “win“ is highly debatable.

Oh, and…
Quote:
If Player A can generate resources faster than Player B, and that is the only notable difference between the two players, Player A wins every time.

Player < Player + PLEX
…like EFT, you're missing the third option. Paying for it is not the only way to generate resources faster (or, more accurately, to have X amount of resources at time Y). Pretty much as soon as you say “all thing equal”, you've fallen into this trap.

Player + More time/more efficiency = Player + PLEX.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#639 - 2012-07-21 02:48:13 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate.
…and as luck would have it, generating just as much ISK without spending real money on it is very much possible. It may take a bit more time (but not necessarily) if you do it in-game but that's the only difference, so all it is is player convenience: you're spending money (=work-yadda-yadda-time) to save on play time.

What about someone who is very capable and participated in both in game and plex earnings? Wouldn't they have an advantage over those who chose one or the other?

Yep, just like the person who decides to use T3s will have an advantage over the guy choosing to only use a shuttle.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#640 - 2012-07-21 02:49:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
It's not about "saving" play time.
That's all it is.

You're asking some other player to spend their game time accumulating ISK so you don't have to spend your game time accumulating the same ISK. The advantage you get is that you save time getting that amount of ISK — that's all PLEX is: a time swapper (game-time spent in exchange for real-world time spent in exchange for more time to spend in-game).

The in-game advantage you get is ISK. This advantage can be had through other means than spending money.
…and how well ISK translates into “win“ is highly debatable.


ISK does translate to an advantage. And it's one that you pay for with cash. I can spend just as much time gathering resources as the next guy, AND buy PLEX to further bolster my income. How is that about anything other than gaining an in-game advantage for real world cash?

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.