Re: Buying mods/sights with SC

[p0intman]

[12:51:29] <P0INTMAN >fucking soe. yeah, this is going pay to win. buying mods for money and bypassing gameplay with cash is fucking stupid.
[12:51:39] <P0INTMAN >thats fucking retarded.
[12:51:57] <P0INTMAN >you have to be a fucking imbicile to not be able to afford sights
[12:52:02] <P0INTMAN >they cost what? 10-30 certs?
[12:52:12] <P0INTMAN >you get that while logged off.. overnight.. without a sub
[12:52:36] <P0INTMAN >moo was right with SOE's new model
[12:52:37] <Redacted >3 nights, but yes.
[12:52:41] <P0INTMAN >I am fucking angry over this.
[12:52:51] <P0INTMAN >the point is the same <redacted>
[12:53:09] <P0INTMAN >even if you literally log in once or twice over the course of two or three days, you get the certs for it
[12:53:51] <P0INTMAN >what a fucking disgrace.

Remember when I said there was a slippery slope of SOE going fully pay to win and you all got angry and said nope because it was guns only and not mods? Well, I can say I saw it coming. I'll tell you what I see coming next: Buying straight up progression with real cash.

I'm disappointed in you Higby. Just admit that the game is pay-to-win already and be done with it. Stop playing this stupid charade everyone sees through anyway.

I wonder, how will you all defend/justify this this time? For me, there is no justification.

[AThreatToYou]

I don't see an issue with this...

[bites]

I personally don't agree with the change (eg its 30 certs ... come on...) but overall I don't think it will "hurt" the game.

In short not a major, but I agree with your sentiment its a slippery slope.

[Chewy]

My question is the sights going to be the same old stuff we have now, or player studio custom sights?

I have read that SOE wants to bring player studio into weapons and vehicles on top of just cosmetics. They would still be pure cosmetics but in the form of a cloned weapon or vehicle such as any plat, black, or gold versions of what we got now.

[ShadoViper]

My question is the sights going to be the same old stuff we have now, or player studio custom sights?

I have read that SOE wants to bring player studio into weapons and vehicles on top of just cosmetics. They would still be pure cosmetics but in the form of a cloned weapon or vehicle such as any plat, black, or gold versions of what we got now.

Hurray for customers doing all of SOE's work!

[camycamera]

are you serious? this is apparently P2W for you? think about what you are saying.

(the same goes with SOE's plan to add options to pay for implants w/ SC or certs in the future)

the only items i have ever bought are camos and cosmetic armours. right now, i have 1,300 certs. i can by so many attachments..... and i can tell you now, PS2, and this "issue" is not pay to win in the slightest.....

you seem to hate SOE for the sake of hating for monetising a F2P game. people get angry at this.... but they shouldn't, especially when done right. IT IS A FREE TO PLAY GAME. THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY.

not only that, but once again, THIS IS NOT PAY TO WIN.

there is nothing to be concerned about, i thought this post was a joke as soon as i first saw it man.

[Emperor Newt]

Well, it has always been this way with PS2. You start with (below) average equipment which you either fix by paying money to buy it directly or shorten the grinding process by buying boosts. Or you simply grind your way towards it. In the end they just added this to scopes. The one thing I don't get is why they allow it for infantry scopes but not vehicle ones.

This might be a slippery slope but they have been on this one since the beginning when they made certifications to give a considerable amount of power instead of customization. At least you can argue they are now getting fully back on track on the slippery slope.

PS: "They have to make money". This has never been an argument and never will.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money
The story behind the video might be different, but it's the same thing. Jump to the 00:50 mark as the beginning doesn't make any sense if someone didn't watch the previous episodes.

[almalino]

I think it is fine if you could buy with money everything in PS2. Some people simply do not have time to grind like myself when I have full time job, family etc but I still want to use a good equipment in the game when I have my 4 to 6 hours per week to play in the game. I guess I do not ruin anyone life who grind and have time to play every day for many hours.

I call it Pay to get better equipment. But it is not necessary I win because I do not have as much experience as people who grinds every day and they will win me any time.

[Baneblade]

It isn't pay to win until you can only buy it with SC.

[CraazyCanuck]

While it can be a slipery slope, if its the same as what's already out there, hardly p2w. People are paying to avoid grinding.

If it was paying for insta certs, then I would be more concerned. At least with boosts, the individual still needs to put in the time.

[ChipMHazard]

It isn't pay to win until you can only buy it with SC.

Or unless it would take an absurd amount of time to get it without paying. Which is certainly a point against PS2 becoming pay to win because of this.

[Daninator]

That all goes only when the default weapons would be UP, but they are very good (smtimes even OP)

Sent from my mobile (S3) with Tapatalk

[Ghoest9]

I would be happy to be able to buy some other sight images .

It wouldnt be cool if they are actually better than the current stuff(high x or faster reaction time) but if they simply offer a different sight shape or color thats cool.

What I would really like is if I could get the NC smg sights on all my weapons.

[synkrotron]

Pay to Win?

Define "Win."

[DynamoECT]

The game still has a number of issues holding it back, but the free : paying balance is not one of them. I think they're getting that right mostly.

[Falcon_br]

It is pay 2 win since day one.
Now take a cup o STFU and let's move on to the game.

[almalino]

It is pay 2 win since day one.
Now take a cup o STFU and let's move on to the game.

http://stylecarrot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Nope-Society6-Gemma-Correll-e1359771171257.jpg

[War Barney]

Pay to Win?

Define "Win."

The definition here is that you get an advantage by paying real money that somebody who doesn't pay real money wont have. As such it COULD be seen as pay to win doing this as it gives you a definite advantage having mods and scopes compared to people who don't, however as they can be bought with certs fairly cheaply its not that bad right now.

However this is how it starts, how long is it going to take from mods until you can buy everything with SC? Its just something I'd rather they stay away from, I don't trust any company to do it properly

And of course even though you can buy these things with certs and its not a lot for 1 mod you can mod every gun you own in a few minutes and you are using real money to buy things that simply make you more powerful....

Theres plenty of games making money with fair F2P systems like path of exile which do so as they are good games constantly adding content and because their f2p model is fair. If people aren't buying stuff then most likely its because they don't think the model is fair or the game isn't good enough for most people to want to pay money into it. If thats the case then you should be looking at whats making that the case instead of adding new ways for people to spend money which will just make people trust them even less.

[Osskscosco]

30 certs = 15 minutes of playtime.

wow so pay to much win

[KesTro]

Pay 2 win by it's very defintion is buying power that players have 'no' way of obtaining through in game means without money. There's nothing pay2win about planetside. You want to see an example of pay2win? Go look up Hero Online where you could buy gear that was flat better than everything else in the game for money. That is pay2win.

[Boildown]

Your definition of "Pay To Win" is fucked up. Pay to win is getting stuff that isn't cosmetic that you can't get in any other way, with real money or real money equivalents (Station Cash). Because these items are easy to get with certs, this certainly does not make PS2 "Pay To Win".

I'm ok with re-defining marriage, but re-defining Pay To Win? Hells no.

The most Pay To Win thing in PS2 are the camos, assuming you believe they actually work. If you're going to make a Pay To Win rant, at least target something that is plausible.

[Taramafor]

While it can be a slipery slope, if its the same as what's already out there, hardly p2w. People are paying to avoid grinding.


AKA: Farming. Which is one of the things killing the game. Regardless of wherever this is pay2win or not I think we can all agree that whatever it is is doing more harm then good currently.

Now that's not to say it shouldn't be free to play. What I'm saying is that people should be rewarded more for, say, taking down the spawn points instead of farming them (A higher XP reward for being in an area where an enemy sun is destroyed perhaps). bases are however another matter as one could camp before taking the base regardless.

[BlaxicanX]

The only way to make farming not a thing would be to make the game subscription-based, so that people could get easy access to everything.

As it is now, the cert cost for items is deliberately fuckhooge to provide incentive to pay real money for items- that's necessary for the game to make any money. But if the game was getting the bulk of its money from subscriptions rather than micro-transactions, SOE wouldn't have to make the items as difficult to get in-game.

Wrel did a really good video on this topic.

Free to Play Ruining Today***39;s Games? (Thoughts on Better Gaming) - YouTube

[Sarloh]

And they promised us that weapon attachments will only be available with certs. They broke the promise.

[Taramafor]

The only way to make farming not a thing would be to make the game subscription-based

So by that logic, Team Fortress 2 has lots of farming in it? (A HIGHLY successful game I might add) The answer isn't to make the game subscription based but to find OTHER ways of earning an income. Regardless, something needs to be done about the farming.

I mean, if TF2 can be free and earn its money on little else then lots of hats (which can also be gained free yet not in PS2), then why can't PS2?

Anyway, I say give higher XP rewards the quicker suns are removed and bases are taken. That alone would probably go a long way to fixing the farming issue. Up to a point of course, if there's a 50-50 pop and a fight drags on, slowly raise the XP back up after it drops for not being fast enough.

[KesTro]

If the game was subscription based though you would see a lot of servers die as only like 10% of players or something like that actually put money down on F2P games on average.

[BlaxicanX]

So by that logic, Team Fortress 2 has lots of farming in it? (A HIGHLY successful game I might add) The answer isn't to make the game subscription based but to find OTHER ways of earning an income. Regardless, something needs to be done about the farming.

I mean, if TF2 can be free and earn its money on little else then lots of hats (which can also be gained free yet not in PS2), then why can't PS2?

Anyway, I say give higher XP rewards the quicker suns are removed and bases are taken. That alone would probably go a long way to fixing the farming issue. Up to a point of course, if there's a 50-50 pop and a fight drags on, slowly raise the XP back up after it drops for not being fast enough.

TF2's a false-comparison, since it isn't an RPG and isn't really progression based. It's a skirmish/death-match game.

You know what progression-based shooter does have a problem with farming, though? Call of Duty.

Did you watch the video?

If the game was subscription based though you would see a lot of servers die as only like 10% of players or something like that actually put money down on F2P games on average.

Haven't a lot of servers died already? The server-merge (which was due to low-pop) killed, what, ~half of the game's servers?

[bites]

and they promised us that weapon attachments will only be available with certs. They broke the promise.

quickly to the pitchforks!!

.... -_-

[Taramafor]

Hm. If that's what SOE PROMISED and it's one that has been broken then all I have to say is that I'm dissapointed.

[mrmrmrj]

Well, I started an alt and I am thanking them for allowing me to buy sights with SC. Iron sights suck balls after getting used to the others.

[ChipMHazard]

Hm. If that's what SOE PROMISED and it's one that has been broken then all I have to say is that I'm dissapointed.

Aye, consumers should always keep companies to their promises or at the very least be very critical when they break them, even if it was the right call.
Why do I think these kind of promises have to be kept and that those that break them should recieve critic for doing so? Because of the boiling frog, it also doesn't do wonders for their credibility when caught.
Now, I don't remember the promise in question, but I'll take others' word for it since it doesn't seem like an unlikely thing to promise.

[BlaxicanX]

Didn't SOE also promise to not use the lattice system again?

I guess people only care about them going back on a decision when it's a decision they approved of.

[ChipMHazard]

Didn't SOE also promise to not use the lattice system again?

I guess people only care about them going back on a decision when it's a decision they approved of.

I don't care if developers makes changes to the gameplay if that is what is needed, even if it ends up breaking a promise.
Monetization is where I personally start drawing the line. Might be hypocritical in some people's eyes.
I do understand and even agree, to some degree, that when enough time has passed then it might actually be good for gameplay balance to allow players to purchase weapon attachments.

[Crator]

Didn't SOE also promise to not use the lattice system again.

I don't remember them promising not to use the lattice. They flat out were refusing to use the lattice when it was suggested originally. They came around to see the light eventually though...

[BlaxicanX]

What's the difference between saying "we won't let you buy attachments with real money" and "we won't use lattice"?

[ChipMHazard]

I don't remember them promising not to use the lattice. They flat out were refusing to use the lattice when it was suggested originally. They came around to see the light eventually though...

That's my recollection as well, didn't want to use it because they were dead set on hexes.

[bpostal]

That's my recollection as well, didn't want to use it because they were dead set on hexes.

They're deadset against Sancs as well but I haven't seen a proposal that deals with cont locking (and the potential for a faction to get zerobased) without 'em.
We won't always need sanctuaries but when we do, it's because the only other option is a login queue.

[Baneblade]

In case you haven't noticed, SOE already thinks they solved the Sanctuary problem by having us login to the Deployment screen.