Craftable Items in the Add-On Store

Wait, what? Star Citizen has ALWAYS been pay to win... they sell weapons and ships with weapon mounts and the ones with more weapons/mounts and features cost more... that's pay to win at it's finest!

 

But that money = time doesn't directly equate. Consider my above hypothetical "siege/PVP" example. Player B's castle is INSTANTLY returned. IF player B bought a castle, but still had the one day cool down to build it, that'd be fine then, right? But in the above analogy, Player B is recouping his losses faster than Player A. This is what cash shops do. Instantly introduce items and contents directly into the game world. So while player A and player B are theoretically equal in terms of their game time contributions, they are no-where near fairly equal within the context of the game world. Player A is being measured in game time, and Player B is being measured in their real world time.

The game is measuring their "success" based on contextual and in-game presence. By spending money you are meta gaming. And this is forcing the traditional game to evolve.

Consider poker. You could, theoretically, bully someone out of a game by using insane bets and large sums of cash that the other players can't compete with. You are not beating them by any skill of the cards. This is what PC gaming is beginning to evolve into. The cash shop has destroyed any requirement of actually playing a game.

We never had any issue funding games decades ago. Many indy games manage to reach their goals without tampering with the in-game politics.

Originally (before UEC/in-game currency conversion existed), the cash shop was only going to exist until the launch of the game. So any initial pledges or purchases, yes are pay to win, but are time limited. Once the game was released, players would be able to "catch up" and suppress the equality through in-game time. Now these micro-transactions will continue after the game's release.

 

Edit: @Solazur seems you post as gone.
[QUOTE="Solazur: Hmm wagram, I'm confused by your post: maybe I'm reading it wrong but it comes across as a lot of animus re: those who wish to buy "pixel decorations"

I'm not privy to any inside info but I'd be willing to wager that the profits made from sales of add on stuff is going a long way to fund what YOU enjoy.[/QUOTE]

I don't use add on stores, but I do not mind any add on store that sells vanity items that everyone can buy and use in the game.
I do not like the Special Rare items that only a few can ever own POTS, LAND DEEDS only about 5% can have these, STATUES, OUTBUILDINGS, HOUSE DECORATIONS, BUILDING BLOCKS the same 5% are the only that can use these.
Check out the ADD-ON SHOP, there must be 150 items that are only of use to 5% of player and about 25 that can be used by everyone.

It is actually going into Funding everything about a game I do not enjoy and is looking more like a PAY TO NOT PLAY game, definitely not even close enough to be likened to any Ultima game or UO.

just my 2 in game gold.

 

Dean, you're missing the point that a castle or town doesn't help you finish the story or win a pvp battle. Getting a castle is not the point of the game.

 

Interesting. Perhaps we need a new thread on this topic: "What is the end game?"

For some, the game's programmed story is just the beginning, not the purpose. One's purpose might be having a castle ... or a rat's nest let's say .... to role play from, knowing it is a personal stretch goal for them.

The problem with MMOs on rails is that once you complete quest content, what is there to do? More raids? More gear? Ok. That's good for the 'Progress Principle' generation who need regular feedback on achievement, perhaps.

But the power of SOTA -- the real creative power - is that it allows players to build worlds! Or at least a little sliver of it. For some of us, that is the gold at the end of the rainbow. Even a sliver.

Don't under estimate the power of meta gaming - the larger reason why people may play, the really personal game they impose upon the base game that is programmed.

Pay to win may advance someone toward this goal. Sure. Oh well. But so long as the base game is not affected by it, everyone still has an even playing field for the base game, while they get to pay to tailor their meta-end game.

As it stands, everyone is pretty equal in the base SOTA game. Pay to win only affects the meta game of owning a property, for the most part. The rest is largely cosmetic.

 

I know that. You've missed the point of my analogy.

I acknowledge that castle sieges aren't part of this game. What I was trying to highlight was the "instant application" of real money contributions. So your equation of time = money and money = time being fair is directly fair for player game-time and enjoyment, but it's not fair within the context of the game world.

Edit:

And another issue is that this game world is apparently going to be built before it begins. Within the context of the game world, none of us have actually transition to Novia and begun the story. Yet the world is built up as if we have? How is this contextually justified? It's very possible so much real-estate will be gone that players can never, even through dedicated and meticulous game-play, achieve what others achieved with cash.

 

The underlining argument is that somehow this game gets funding at $45 a piece, everyone can have a house or no one can have a house, everyone can have a POT or no one can have a POT.

I'm not underestimating, I'm being realistic.

 

Actually it's not fair for people that have neither time nor money. But it's fair for everyone else.

 

Well if you've got no time and money.... that's a bit irrelevant. How can you even resolve that? Maybe working or establishing an income is a better choice than gaming.

 

Aye, tracking. But that ship has sailed. Anyone (so far) can have a POT (just not on the overland map) if they pay a fee. What is the debate again? Doesn't matter if we agree or disagree, that ship sailed long ago. I was kinda wondering if there is a higher level topic to get at.

On fairness, as someone who used to be nearly in poverty leaving home for the first time, I get that. But times change. Now I work super hard long hours at my job. Twice as much as people who just turn in 40 hours then go home to enjoy life. Is that fair? No. In some ways it stinks. But in other ways it pays off. That SOTA allows me to get a little extra for that extra effort in my job, not fair? Hmm..... Its a matter of perspective on the dues - and trust me - the hard dues - paid in life.

I disagree that owning a castle or POT gives anyone any advantage in game - except being able to place more vanity junk. The advantage it gives is allowing a few players quicker access to the vanity junk meta game. And daggone it, I earned that in life. I deserve meta junk if I want it. Thank you SOTA!

 

To each their own. I don't tell people how to spend their time or money.

 

I don't know what the topic is anymore.

I just know that when I read about pie in the sky ideals that appear unbending and unable to compromise, I tend to jump out and try to at least give a counter argument based in reality.

Also in regards to Rats Nest, if it helps any, I'm building the town the way that I am because if I didn't own it, this is where I'd want to live. I'm also not selling it or making cash off it. So there are pockets of this game where the ideal can survive, imo.

 

One's purpose might be having a castle ... or a rat's nest let's say .... to role play from, knowing it is a personal stretch goal for them.But the power of SOTA -- the real creative power - is that it allows players to build worlds!
In SotA its buy world's nothing creative or Role playing involved in that.

The problem with MMOs on rails is that once you complete quest content, what is there to do? UO seems to have passed the test and still going.

As it stands, everyone is pretty equal in the base SOTA game. Through Steampunk goggle maybe.

 

UO had EA....do you miss them? Cause you can still play that game, ya know?

 

Nor do I. I wonder if you're taking me too literally?

The point is that it's a fine line between balancing the playing field for time vs money and then whole other factor. How do you even create a balance that precludes money or time? But either way, someone with neither probably isn't on the playing field. If you lower the height of the basketball ring you might make the game "fairer" and more inclusive to a larger player-base, which will now include people shorter in height, but then it's not traditional basketball anymore. And that's a point here. This game is really evolving and shifting the line by including crafted items in the store.

 

Just so we're sure we're both talking about the same thing. You're not talking about the crafted items that were removed from the store right? You're talking about future crafted items that will have some kind of cosmetic difference but still be effectively the same thing?

I don't much have a problem with that. There's already a secondary market for items. UO still has one. It's kind of how this all works. All SOTA is doing is profiting off it.

 

I do still play now and again.

RG would have liked a UO 2, so maybe they were not all Bad.

From Euro gamer interview:
Garriott: Ultima Online 2 "Theoretically" Possible
By Kevin Parrish13 December 2011 08:10 - Source: Eurogamer

Richard Garriott's Ultimate RPG could convert into Ultima Online 2 if an agreement can be made with EA.

Ultimate RPG could theoretically become Ultima Online 2. Nothing is set in stone as of this writing, but he admitted that he and EA were on speaking terms and may work together again in the near future.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Richard-Garriott-Ultima-Online-Ultimate-RPG-EA-Android,news-37291.html

 

I don't know why that's relevant. I wasn't saying UO was bad, just that if it were so good then why aren't you playing that?

Also that the reason UO has a different business model is that you get EA with your subscription. SOTA doesn't have a multi-million dollar puppet master. They're making their own mistakes and their own successes. They're doing things that EA would never dream of doing because of the amount of risk involved. And so I ask again, if you want the EA version of UO, why are you here? It's a valid question, but it's rhetorical. I'm just asking it so maybe you think on it some, because it seems like you want the world that EA can provide you, cheap but meaningless roleplaying.

 

And indeed, the most noble of reasons to create and lead it. Passion is not just the root of success, but satisfaction.

 

The original point oft historic has been addressed by @DarkStarr so it has served its purpose. Mods, feel free to close it. If you guys want to start a post about whatever it is you got in your bonnets please do so.