this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
169 points (100.0% liked)
games
20164 readers
152 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
-
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I reject your second criteria outright. It is ridiculous. If you can pay to get something that gives you an advantage it is pay-2-win. Even if that thing is attainable fairly easily in the game. In the case of this game, there are items, that are rare that are sold. So even by your own criteria this is pay-2-win. By mine, it is pay-2-win. It is pay-2-win.
I think this definition is different from the usual definition of pay-2-win. The way I've always seen it described, "pay-2-win" refers to a micro/macro transaction that more or less renders the general content meaningless. So in an 80-hour long game, it would give you the items and gear that would allow you to skip the first 75 hours of it. Persona 5 is a decent example, allowing you to summon level 80+ personas from the very start of the game (well, as soon as you unlock above-level fusions).
The microtransactions in Dragon's Dogma 2 give you an advantage, certainly, and are a scummy practice by out of touch Capcom executives. But in my experience, your definition of pay-2-win is not the common one. That's why people here agree with your points but are confused about your conclusion
The way you've just described pay-2-win is literally the first time I've ever heard it described as such in 40 years of my life.
Either way, this a big movement of the goalposts. You are narrowly defining the term in such a way that so few games would qualify. Hell, Genshin Impact wouldn't even qualify by your definition (but is still pay-2-win by my definition). Sure you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on new characters and weapons but you'd still need to DO the content. The only thing that would count is things like level skips you can buy in WoW, and yet the pushback from WoW players is that this is not pay-2-win because just getting to the endgame isn't "winning". So, I reject your definition as being a commonly accepted one because in the MMO community (a community of MILLIONS of players) it is a constant struggle in these discussions due to people literally rejecting that definition.
If I'm being honest, and I don't mean this in an insulting way at all, I do not believe you've really considered this issue deeply before in the past. I think your definition and defense of the game is very "vibes"-based. And, look, that's okay. Most people aren't borderline obsessive over stuff like this and just live their lives, which is fine and normal. But coming to the defense of a game because you have some outlandish definition of a term that I think most people are somewhat settled on is a bold move.
I think ultimately there are two commonly accepted ways people see as pay-2 win:
Cash shop that gives you any advantage in the game at all. (Most who accept this are still fine with cosmetic-only cash shop items.) This is my stance, of course.
Cash shop items that gives you a competitive advantage that you otherwise could not easily obtain through gameplay (or is completely locked behind the cash shop entirely).
I have assumed this entire time you were of the latter crew. I did not expect to see a definition of pay-2-win that not only have I never heard of but seems so outside the normal discourse I've never even considered it before right this moment.
Okay, I'm really not a fan of your tone, nor your insinuation that I am "borderline obsessive" about the game in a way that is not "fine or normal". I respect your experience and what you have previously seen of pay-2-win discourse. I admit it was wrong of me to use the term "usual definition". It was not my intention to imply that my experience is the objectively correct one, nor to demean any different takes on the issue. I merely intended to offer the perspective I have personally seen online about pay-2-win mechanics, even if it was a perspective you have not seen before. The internet is full of gaming discourse, and it is only natural that many definitions and descriptions exist.
That being said, I certainly do not deserve the way you have worded your reply to me. I would have loved to discuss the matter further if you had simply rejected my definition and offered more of your own perspective. Your comment comes across as needlessly hostile, describing my honest perspective as some sort of freakish screed by an overly-obsessive gamer.
Like, "literally the first time I've ever heard it described as such in 40 years of my life"? "Most people aren't borderline obsessive over stuff like this"? "...you have some outlandish definition"? "...I think most people are somewhat settled on is a bold move"? "not only have I never heard of but seems so outside the normal discourse I've never even considered it"?
Where do you get off typing in such an inordinate, degrading tone to a comrade on this website? Over a simple video game discussion? Type like this all you want to Reddit libs, but I certainly don't appreciate it here. The degree that you have gone to in order to thoroughly trash my perspective in the span of a single reply is beyond the pale. If you wanted to reply, you should have stuck with your first paragraph, which is much more reasonable, and has the MMO perspective that I personally did not consider. If my original comment came across as smug or rude, I promise you it was unintended, and would have expressed myself more clearly if you had said so. But I will certainly not discuss this with you now.
Next time, if you feel the need to type: "I don't mean this in an insulting way at all", think about rewriting your comment.
I wasn't saying you were being obsessive. I was saying that I am. I'm saying you are fine and normal because you are not obsessive but I didn't want to be insulting implying that you were just a "normie" as they say. I've reread what I wrote and I think that is clearly stated. It confuses me that you came away with the opposite meaning.
Secondly, my tone was not intended to be insulting and tone is difficult for even skilled writers to convey well through text. I am neither; just a shit-brained millennial with too much free time and not enough income like most of us who is, half the time, commenting while stoned to the bomb age.
I do stand by my comment in that I was genuinely confused in that I have never seen that specific perspective presented before. I don't think stressing that is insulting. And I did find it bold to assert that this was commonly accepted as I had never heard it before quite in the way you defined it. I think a sentence like, "not only have I never heard of but seems so outside the normal discourse I've never even considered it", is not at all insulting. What struck me most was your inclusion of "meaning" as a criteria.
However, all that said, insult is not for the speaker to determine but rather the listener and if you say my comment was insulting then it was. My intent was not malicious and I'll try and do better in the future. There is no need for hard feelings in this space especially over a silly topic with such low stakes.
Oh and as an aside, there is a really good video that quite literally just dropped by Josh Strife Hayes on YouTube about this and he discusses all kinds of aspects of pay-2-win and even, I think, briefly touches on some of the perspective you presented. I don't agree with all of it but like most content he produces it is very well considered and worth the watch if you are interested.