Is it me, or is it pay to win

If your idea of 'winning' is just getting the best gold return from the game via your vendors, I don't find that worthwhile anyway. The most valuable guilds and player-run stores will be the ones that involve role-playing -- that create an attractive storefront, and brand and market themselves well, and actively involve themselves with the player community.

If there has been any reason I've been worried about the "P2W" aspects of the game its not simply because they'd give some people an unfair gold-earning advantage in the game. Worrying about earning gold is something better left to Chinese gold farmers. Instead, its because they might rob a location from someone who wanted to role-play and add to the game world, and give it to someone who just happened to be wealthy in real life and just wanted a convenient location.

But, then again, I'm not a big fan of the model of UO where you have to actually keep track of the time you've spent away from the game, either, and insure a physical presence. If you've played an important role in the community for years, but want to take a month or two off, you should be able to without worrying about it. The devs are going to allow this opportunity in release, they've suggested, by letting players to pay their in-game housing tax with real dollars, rather than with in-game gold. The tax-free housing is just like an advance payment of this, which avoids the monthly payments, and only goes to pre-release backers. I'm hoping most people who've backed the game pre-release have done so because they love Ultima games and want to play an active role in the community, and use their housing lots for this purpose, and that would be a plus.

 

In SotA you can buy up lots of rares now before the game is even made so you won't have that problem in SotA.

It was said at E3 pledge up now get your hands on so in game rares from the add on shop.

 

You can buy Royal/Founders accounts on here through Portalarium now and they are advertised on other sites.
Living in denial does not make it right.

 

This is not a ground breaking new type of funding model.
Kickstarter as been running years but in SotA the rewards have quadrupled on the pledges since the project ended, and they even sold off the Original Kickstarter rewards for a year.
I thought they would have had a business plan at Launch from studying other projects goals

 

Kickstarter states that backers are not investing and should not be making any profit from their pledges. The shop items are a different thing they are a direct sale from Portalarium.

 

At this point the way I see it is this: I have invested a large chunk of money with this company in the hopes of receiving a game that will satisfy me with a game experience superior to what is usually out there and along the lines of Richard Garriot's vision. I grew up on his games so his vision is my vision. And he is pretty much the only person who has pulled it off so far.

In return for my sizable sum investment with the company, I get a bunch of perks along with the copy of the game. There is no indication so far that the perks I am receiving will affect the completion speed or "winning" of the game. I did not invest in this game simply for the perks. I invested so Richard could complete HIS vision which I fully trust will be a satisfying game for me.

This fundraising/crowdsourcing/kickstarting is not "pay-to-win."

It is Pay to Create. To make the vision come true so I can share in it.

 

There is nothing wrong with the pledge tiers, that's how the game gets made. Otherwise why would anyone give money? its not a charity its a for profit company and they aren't giving equity in the project so they have to give something

That said the add on store is really galling when you watch the video of RG stating the game is buy to own. All these microtransactions are really insulting when RG himself stated during kickstarter they weren't going to "nickle and dime" us. If EA are bastards for putting microtransactions in dead space (a full price $80 game) then how much MORE so RG for a game where we paid $1000s for?

is it pay to win? who knows but it is certainly:

 

They are selling this as a SANDBOX MMO, with a added story quest line. I take that from the fact that we keep hearing it as been voted as an MMO game and I have not read a single article or seen any in game screenshots of the towns that will be in a Solo offline RPG.

So everything you start off with that others do not have, or cannot have, and can never get in game unless they pay real $ even before the game is made, makes this a P2P game.
Anyone buying the game on release will need to play many hours a week just to earn the upkeep for Housing, extra Character slots and any other taxable reward being handed out on a weekly basis.
The Prosperity and any other item that a bonus attached that you get from the shop or as a reward makes it also a P2W game.

 

You have not invested anything in the company you have pledged to give them money to help make the game.

 

Actually, they're selling it as a CRPG with selective multiplayer. Story is one of the main focuses of the game. MMO gets thrown around, because there is no official category for SMPO (yet). It's easier to categorize it as MMO, since that is the closest model that the general public understands.

Additionally, we have NO idea how much tax will be required for any of these items, so it is pure speculation to say a person MUST put in hours of work a week just for upkeep.

 

I would take the side of there being a small "advantage" to the rewards in the realm of player competition long before agreeing there is "nickel and diming." There is no nickel and diming going on. That phrase means that to continue enjoying the game or to have it continue to be playable, you are faced with paying for a small add-on here, a small add-on there, repeatedly over the course of the game. That is simply not the case here. It is the difference between: You find a shield. Do you want to be able to equip shields? $5 vs. Do you want this shield with Lord British's emblem for $5?

Lord British was in support of a pay to own game, rather than free but then make you pay a little here and a little there to unlock core game features in order to make it playable. That is what we are getting.

 

Paying with real cash for vanity items is not nickel and diming. Don't like, don't buy. You do not gain or lose any advantage.

 

that assumes that all the items ARE vanity items which is directly contradicted by the "prosperity" items

 

Could you please explain how having a prosperity item makes you WIN the game? I was under the impression it was indestructible and just gave you a little extra resources and produced slightly higher quality results. I could be wrong.

 

No pledge. They have my money.

 

They are selling SotA as a story based game with MMO qualities. Sandbox is secondary.

 

Placing a house bought with real life money to be placed before others that dont have same option to place a house might give you an ingame advantage. You will not win the game since you cant really win a MMO game.

Getting a hotspot for your house and place a vendor at that spot might give you a upper hand though, a upper hand handed to you cause you invested alot of real life money.

I can fully understand if other players feel this is not fair and is something that should be removed from the game. Everyone should have same chance placing a house at a good spot. And every house should have been bought by ingame money. This isnt possible now of course but i see this as a flaw with this crowd sourcing model for this game.

It should be like Star Citizen where everything possible to buy also is available by ingame playing.

 

I'm trying to avoid the term "MMO" when describing the game. It has too many expectations and too much baggage associated with it.

 

I disagree. I think Portalarium honoring their Kickstarter promises shows integrity, not flaws.

 

I disagree cause i prefer playing the fair game.