[013]
MicoolTNT
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Or am I misreading the trope description? I\'m reading this trope as \
to:
Or am I misreading the trope description? I\\\'m reading this trope as \\\"paying real money for in-game advantages/progress\\\" not \\\"paying real money for \\\'\\\'insurmountable, GameBreaker\\\'\\\' in-game advantages\\\". Maybe it\\\'s because of the title and the fact that \\\"Victory\\\" means... well, victory, you win, not \\\"\\\'\\\'getting you closer to\\\'\\\' victory\\\".
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Or am I misreading the trope description? I\'m reading this trope as \
to:
Or am I misreading the trope description? I\\\'m reading this trope as \\\"paying real money for in-game advantages/progress\\\" not \\\"paying real money for insurmountable, GameBreaker in-game advantages\\\". Maybe it\\\'s because of the title and the fact that \\\"Victory\\\" means... well, victory, you win, not \\\"\\\'\\\'getting you closer to\\\'\\\' victory\\\".
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Doesn\'t this article sound a lot like it\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. {{Game Breaker}}s are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments. Or am I misreading the trope description? I\'m reading this trope as \
to:
Doesn\\\'t this article sound a lot like it\\\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. {{Game Breaker}}s are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments.
Or am I misreading the trope description? I\\\'m reading this trope as \\\"paying real money for in-game advantages/progress\\\" not \\\"paying real money for insurmountable, GameBreaker in-game advantages\\\". Maybe it\\\'s because \\\"Victory\\\" means... well, victory, you win, not \\\"\\\'\\\'getting you closer to\\\'\\\' victory\\\".
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Or am I misreading the trope description? I\\\'m reading this trope as \\\"paying real money for in-game advantages/progress\\\" not \\\"paying real money for insurmountable, GameBreaker in-game advantages\\\". Maybe it\\\'s because \\\"Victory\\\" means... well, victory, you win, not \\\"\\\'\\\'getting you closer to\\\'\\\' victory\\\".
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Doesn\'t this article sound a lot like it\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. {{Game Breaker}}s are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments.
to:
Doesn\\\'t this article sound a lot like it\\\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. {{Game Breaker}}s are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments. Or am I misreading the trope description? I\\\'m reading this trope as \\\"paying real money for in-game advantages/progress\\\" not \\\"paying real money for insurmountable, GameBreaker in-game advantages\\\"
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \'\'massive\'\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Win win win.
to:
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Gouging lazy players to provide a free game for others, and revenue for the nice people providing that game? Win win win.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \'\'massive\'\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy business people to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Win win win.
to:
I played (and am thinking of going back to) a browser-based game with a \\\'\\\'massive\\\'\\\' case of this trope. Everything good costs premium currency - but you can also get premium currency from gameplay, or buy it (with large restrictions) with non-premium currency. I have never spent a cent on this game, and I probably wouldn\\\'t consider it, but I actually respect their business model a great deal. BribingYourWayToVictory allows busy casual players to play competitively, free players to enjoy a free game, and the business providing the game to have a very strong business model. Win win win.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Also, what\'s the company\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or ShareWare? Then free players simply can\'t play the game in the former case, or can\'t a significant part of the game in the latter. Is that really fairer?
to:
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or (nastier forms of) {{Shareware}}? Then free players simply can\\\'t play (significant parts of) the game. Is that really fairer? At least this way a free player CAN get to the top, even if it takes more effort.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Also, what\'s the company\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game or AllegedlyFreeGame? Then free players simply can\'t play the game in the former case, or can\'t a significant part of the game in the latter. Is that really fairer?
to:
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game, AllegedlyFreeGame or ShareWare? Then free players simply can\\\'t play the game in the former case, or can\\\'t a significant part of the game in the latter. Is that really fairer?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Doesn\'t this article sound a lot like it\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. GameBreakers are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments.
to:
Doesn\\\'t this article sound a lot like it\\\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. {{Game Breaker}}s are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Doesn\'t this article sound a lot like it\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through fair gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. Also, what\'s the company\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game? Then free players simply can\'t play. Is that really fairer?
to:
Doesn\\\'t this article sound a lot like it\\\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through free gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. GameBreakers are their own problem, regardless of if they come from gameplay or real world investments.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
to:
Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game or AllegedlyFreeGame? Then free players simply can\\\'t play the game in the former case, or can\\\'t a significant part of the game in the latter. Is that really fairer?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Doesn\'t this article sound a lot like it\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through fair gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. Also, what\'s the company\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Subscription-based game? Then free players simply can\'t play. Is that really fairer?
to:
Doesn\\\'t this article sound a lot like it\\\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through fair gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Only viable as a non-profit company, and sadly often not even then. Subscription-based game? Then free players simply can\\\'t play. Is that really fairer?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Doesn\'t this article sound a lot like it\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and TheStrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through fair gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. Also, what\'s the company\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Subscription-based game? Then free players simply can\'t play. Is that really fairer?
to:
Doesn\\\'t this article sound a lot like it\\\'s bashing games using the trope? TropesAreNotBad, and the StrawmanHasAPoint. As long as the microtransaction items (or equivalents) are also obtainable through fair gameplay, even if it takes longer, no player has an absolute advantage over another. Also, what\\\'s the company\\\'s alternative? Beg for donations? They get much less revenue. Subscription-based game? Then free players simply can\\\'t play. Is that really fairer?
