Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Negative Effects of "Pay for Advantage"

43 replies to this topic
GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#1

Posted 23 September 2013 - 03:53 PM

By allowing players to purchase in-game money with real life money, Rockstar is undermining the entire point of GTA Online.

To be clear, I DO NOT BLAME Rockstar for this decision, as they are the creators of this game, and it is their prerogative to charge money for in-game benefits.

That said, I DISAGREE with, and am DISAPPOINTED by their decision.

The premise of GTA Online is that we are all racing to the top for the most money and possessions. This is done by completing missions and heists, and investing in the stock market.

The competitive nature of this premise is primary source of excitement for players.

Yes, it will still be fun, and you don't HAVE TO buy in-game money...but your are at a disadvantage by not paying, and you will not know what it's like to be among the richest players.
  • Hodor Hodor and EarvGotti like this

TrickishDonkey
  • TrickishDonkey

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#2

Posted 23 September 2013 - 03:57 PM

It may even be just a rumor why can't people just wait till online comes out and see for them selfs. Instead start posting about stuff that may not even matter. Plus some people only have a few hours a day to play, this would help them and there teammates if they bought money.


GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#3

Posted 23 September 2013 - 03:59 PM

It's a rumor in the most technical sense.

But there is a file on the disc for it...why wouldn't they just get rid of it before they finalized the game if they have NO plans of using it?

GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#4

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:03 PM

Also, the point of the game is to make money by playing it...too bad if someone doesn't have much time to play.

Because if you allow the 1 hour a day guy to buy money, it's also available to the 16 hour a day guy who will be that much richer.

TrickishDonkey
  • TrickishDonkey

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#5

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:06 PM

Even if it was true they have to make money to keep the servers alive so this is one way they would do it. Plus its just a game, Rockstar has the right to do that, and the players have the right not to buy it or buy it.


Tampinha85
  • Tampinha85

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012

#6

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:07 PM

By allowing players to purchase in-game money with real life money, Rockstar is undermining the entire point of GTA Online.

To be clear, I DO NOT BLAME Rockstar for this decision, as they are the creators of this game, and it is their prerogative to charge money for in-game benefits.

That said, I DISAGREE with, and am DISAPPOINTED by their decision.

The premise of GTA Online is that we are all racing to the top for the most money and possessions. This is done by completing missions and heists, and investing in the stock market.

The competitive nature of this premise is primary source of excitement for players.

Yes, it will still be fun, and you don't HAVE TO buy in-game money...but your are at a disadvantage by not paying, and you will not know what it's like to be among the richest players.

 

Well...take me for instance, i want to play online as much as you do, but i dont have the time for it., you know, work, family, gronw up stuff...

So i dont want to (and i Can not, unfortunately) spend a zillion hours in game to be able to buy a nice car/outfit/safehouse. As much as i wanted to, i really dont have the time to escalate the "criminal ladder".

As far as we know, we cant buy "stats", so you have to up your char by doing missions anyway...same for guns, possible it will be rank unlocked.

So, whats the problem then?


Revoemag
  • Revoemag

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2013

#7

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:12 PM

Speculation... Let it roll....
What if..what if..what if..
  • Ballsagna-face likes this

GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#8

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:13 PM

The problem is that player who CAN play all day will buy money also...stop acting like the pay feature is ONLY an equalizer.

Sure, I can play the whole game for free and eventually unlock everything. But even if I play all day, those in the same position who paid for money will get everything before me AND be richer...

Having the most RELATIVE wealth is the point of GTA Online. The best cars and apartments don't mean as much when people get them long before you and with less effort...

Tom7792
  • Tom7792

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2013

#9

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:15 PM

Even if it WAS true, one may just stalk a rich person and rob his real money, problem ? or profit ?


RivaldoRules
  • RivaldoRules

    Football genius

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2013

#10

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:17 PM

Does it matter if people have things that you don't? You will still get them if you don't pay, so what is the issue?


TrickishDonkey
  • TrickishDonkey

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#11

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:20 PM

Well if they have more fun buying money let them, the game is about have fun. It's not going to hurt you if they wast there money on a game. Plus you can buy all the same stuff they do just will take longer. 


ER-Bullitt
  • ER-Bullitt

    Commissioner: Couch Potato Gamers (1GAM)

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#12

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:23 PM

Games like Dust 514 (who basically started the micro-transaction pay to win scenario) do it in a way that it allows players access to beneficial equipment earlier than those who choose not to play and level up through time, instead of cash.

It is not as game breaking as it looks at first glance.  If you think about what cash buys you in GTA it is cars, guns, property, etc.  Will any of that make a huge impact on your ability to play the game, have fun, and be successful?  Probably not.  Your pay-to-win enemies may have the better gun earlier, and they may have a slight advantage on you in terms of combat early on, but it would just be a matter of time and effort before you unlock the same weapon and get back on the same playing field.  The rest of the advantages of paying for these so-called cash packs is simply cosmetic it would appear.

plus as has already been mentioned you can rob these fools of their money if you can catch them at the right moment, wouldnt it be that much mroe grand if they actually paid real money for what you just stole for free?


GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#13

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:07 PM

The money they pay for goes directly into their bank account.

Online was pitched as a race to become the richest. So money doesn't necessarily give someone a combat advantage, but it essentially allows them to reach the end game without effort: being filthy rich and owning everything.
  • EarvGotti likes this

TrickishDonkey
  • TrickishDonkey

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#14

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

So what if they become rich and own everything you will to if you play enough. If this is all true then i could care less if people want to use there money to get farther in the game that's there choose. People just need to wait till multiplayer comes out to see how everything works. Plus they have to make money to keep the servers up anyway. So this would be a good way to do it. People who work there way up and not spend money will have the feel of accomplishments. While people who spend real money will not have that, and if they do it would not be the same as someone who worked there way up.

 

To me it seems you are complaining about people will get things quicker then you would.


Tampinha85
  • Tampinha85

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012

#15

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:37 PM

The problem is that player who CAN play all day will buy money also...stop acting like the pay feature is ONLY an equalizer.

Sure, I can play the whole game for free and eventually unlock everything. But even if I play all day, those in the same position who paid for money will get everything before me AND be richer...

Having the most RELATIVE wealth is the point of GTA Online. The best cars and apartments don't mean as much when people get them long before you and with less effort...

 

With all due respect, you know what the problem is? the problem is you are too worried about what other people do with their games.

Ok, they will have a nice safehouse or car earlier than you....who cares? as long as you enjoey your own game...

Are you like this in real life? man you are going to be really miserable if you dont stop thinking the grass is always greener on your neighbor side. Just enjoy YOUR game the way YOU want.


GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#16

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:46 PM

It's been scientifically proven that it's not how much money you have, it's how much MORE money you have that contributes to happiness.

Google "relative wealth vs absolute wealth, happiness".

TrickishDonkey
  • TrickishDonkey

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#17

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:04 PM

This is JUST a game if someone is happy wasting there money on fake money then who i am or anyone from stopping them. Plus everyone is jumping to decisions before the online has came out. The info could be for something else, Lets say a 2 months down the road someone decided they want to buy gta v and they go online. They will be at a disadvantage, people will have tons of money and they will be at the start now lets say they could go and buy money to catch up with everyone. See it is like a double edge sword, both good and bad. 

 

We just have to wait till online comes to see how everything works.

  • EarvGotti likes this

Zupexqt
  • Zupexqt

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#18

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:13 PM

To me, it wouldn't even matter if there was no advantage to having lots of money (even though there will be).

 

In my eyes, making a billion dollars in the first three days of a games launch, holding back 80% of the content for the online mode and then having the audacity to charge for an in game currency in a pay to play game? It's the epitome of everything that is wrong with the gaming industry these days. It's filth. It's wrong. And what's worse it that it isn't some notorious c*nt like EA, it's Rockstar. A company I should be able to rely on to be decent.

 

I can only hope people are mistaken and it doesn't go through...

 

People don't even seem to realize the ramifications tolerating things like this has for the future of gaming...

  • everydaynormalguy likes this

everydaynormalguy
  • everydaynormalguy

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#19

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:17 PM

I think its fake because it will destroy their online game.  If all you have to do is pay for money what the hell is the point of even playing?  I would see no point no reward for grinding or being good and I just will not play it. 

 

example PLayer A:  plays with a crew for 2 weeks grinds out does difficult heists and get enough money to buy some cool things in game.   player b pays 15 dollars and gets the same amount of money.

 

those 500 missions will never get played if theres no reward for it. just my opinion. 


ceIozzip
  • ceIozzip

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2013

#20

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:22 PM

I think its fake because it will destroy their online game.  If all you have to do is pay for money what the hell is the point of even playing?  I would see no point no reward for grinding or being good and I just will not play it. 

 

example PLayer A:  plays with a crew for 2 weeks grinds out does difficult heists and get enough money to buy some cool things in game.   player b pays 15 dollars and gets the same amount of money.

 

those 500 missions will never get played if theres no reward for it. just my opinion. 

that says more about you to be honest. i'll be playing the missions for the in-the-moment enjoyment of them, not because i want goodies or to be top of a leaderboard.


tre288
  • tre288

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#21

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:25 PM Edited by tre288, 23 September 2013 - 07:27 PM.

To me, it wouldn't even matter if there was no advantage to having lots of money (even though there will be).

 

In my eyes, making a billion dollars in the first three days of a games launch, holding back 80% of the content for the online mode and then having the audacity to charge for an in game currency in a pay to play game? It's the epitome of everything that is wrong with the gaming industry these days. It's filth. It's wrong. And what's worse it that it isn't some notorious c*nt like EA, it's Rockstar. A company I should be able to rely on to be decent.

 

I can only hope people are mistaken and it doesn't go through...

 

People don't even seem to realize the ramifications tolerating things like this has for the future of gaming...

 

People don't seem to realize that this is a rumour...

 

People don't seem to realize that gaming is an expensive industry and that GTA:O is far from being cheap, letting people who own the game play for free for  and adding content as it progresses over the next few years costs lots and lots of cash bud. People who bought the game already aren't adding more money to the funds of GTA:O further down the line simply because they purchased the game 6 months ago.

 

People don't seem to realize, if this is true.. it's optional, and that money in game is not gamebreaking, and is not Pay to Win. Money in GTA:O doesn't get you nukes, doesn't get you anything better at killing a person that you couldn't get in your first 10 minutes of playing the game trying to get money. Buying apartments doesn't have any significant advantage over anything either... It's all accessible, and you don't "win" just because you got that stuff faster than someone else... Someone else with a less expensive apartment who saved for it could still easily purchase all the weapons and kill someone who "bought" their cash.

 

The only thing this really matters for is weapons, and I can guarantee the weapons aren't even THAT expensive. Even then.. you don't need a machine gun to take out a dude with a shotgun, or a sniper. You could literally do it with bare minimum weaponry.

 

 

Regardless of if this rumour is true or not, I'll be playing the game saving my money.. but I couldn't honestly care less if other people wanted to purchase their ingame stuff that has no effect on me.


GTASuspectOnFoot
  • GTASuspectOnFoot

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2013

#22

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:33 PM

I admit they need money to support GTA Online. They can do this with the money they made from the game AND a one time fee to create an account. Even $5 would make them millions.

everydaynormalguy
  • everydaynormalguy

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#23

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:34 PM

 

I think its fake because it will destroy their online game.  If all you have to do is pay for money what the hell is the point of even playing?  I would see no point no reward for grinding or being good and I just will not play it. 

 

example PLayer A:  plays with a crew for 2 weeks grinds out does difficult heists and get enough money to buy some cool things in game.   player b pays 15 dollars and gets the same amount of money.

 

those 500 missions will never get played if theres no reward for it. just my opinion. 

that says more about you to be honest. i'll be playing the missions for the in-the-moment enjoyment of them, not because i want goodies or to be top of a leaderboard.

 

I see you're a stop and smell the flowers type of guy, and thats ok,  Im not.  Im not going to play or do something if theres no point to it.  Those missions will get boring after about the first 10 minutes if theres no reward for completing them. 


ER-Bullitt
  • ER-Bullitt

    Commissioner: Couch Potato Gamers (1GAM)

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#24

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:39 PM

People said the same thing about pay to play when Dust 514 was in the works, saying it would ruin the game. It didnt.  The difference is that Dust 514 was absolutely free to play if you wanted.. GTA 5 was not, we all paid $60 for it and Rockstar already made over $1 billion.. I hope thats enough money for them to fund servers for a while lol.  With that said its just a rumor afterall.. who knows these cash packs could be tied to purchasable expansion packs which may come out down the road.  They could be bundled together depending on how big the expansion is, you may get a couple of cash packs along with it. who knows. . 

 

Also, in terms of balance... cash packs may be available months down the road for new players to be able to join the community and hop into the action, it will give them some breathing room to compete with crews that have ammased great wealth by then.

 

lots of variables.


tre288
  • tre288

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#25

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:39 PM Edited by tre288, 23 September 2013 - 07:40 PM.

I admit they need money to support GTA Online. They can do this with the money they made from the game AND a one time fee to create an account. Even $5 would make them millions.

 

I'd imagine (even though its a RUMOUR) that they'd still need some sort of microtransaction in order to keep a flow of cash coming in for people who want it. One off payments will make a lot of money in Rockstar's case yeah.. but they plan on being around a while and constantly expanding this. One off payments don't last with the kind of expansion and progression they are talking about doing.


Zupexqt
  • Zupexqt

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#26

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:43 PM

 

To me, it wouldn't even matter if there was no advantage to having lots of money (even though there will be).

 

In my eyes, making a billion dollars in the first three days of a games launch, holding back 80% of the content for the online mode and then having the audacity to charge for an in game currency in a pay to play game? It's the epitome of everything that is wrong with the gaming industry these days. It's filth. It's wrong. And what's worse it that it isn't some notorious c*nt like EA, it's Rockstar. A company I should be able to rely on to be decent.

 

I can only hope people are mistaken and it doesn't go through...

 

People don't even seem to realize the ramifications tolerating things like this has for the future of gaming...

 

People don't seem to realize that this is a rumour...

 

People don't seem to realize that gaming is an expensive industry and that GTA:O is far from being cheap, letting people who own the game play for free for  and adding content as it progresses over the next few years costs lots and lots of cash bud. People who bought the game already aren't adding more money to the funds of GTA:O further down the line simply because they purchased the game 6 months ago.

 

People don't seem to realize, if this is true.. it's optional, and that money in game is not gamebreaking, and is not Pay to Win. Money in GTA:O doesn't get you nukes, doesn't get you anything better at killing a person that you couldn't get in your first 10 minutes of playing the game trying to get money. Buying apartments doesn't have any significant advantage over anything either... It's all accessible, and you don't "win" just because you got that stuff faster than someone else... Someone else with a less expensive apartment who saved for it could still easily purchase all the weapons and kill someone who "bought" their cash.

 

The only thing this really matters for is weapons, and I can guarantee the weapons aren't even THAT expensive. Even then.. you don't need a machine gun to take out a dude with a shotgun, or a sniper. You could literally do it with bare minimum weaponry.

 

 

Regardless of if this rumour is true or not, I'll be playing the game saving my money.. but I couldn't honestly care less if other people wanted to purchase their ingame stuff that has no effect on me.

 

 

Don't come at me with that crap. They made $1billion in the first 3 days, we all paid for a limited singleplayer experience so that the online could be better. Micro transactions for cosmetics are one thing, for actual in game currency in a pay to play game is horrible irrespective of if you personally take part. The correct way to handle things would be free minor patches with priced DLC for significant contributions.

 

The more you people tolerate things like this, the more developers design their games around you tolerating these things. And thus the less fun it becomes if you don't want to sink some extra cash into the game.

 

It's not about it being pay to win or not, I couldn't care less about what some rich kid is getting. What I personally care about is a game company designing their game with the notion of ripping  me off when I already invested, they are designing things as if they are a free to play mmo. And as evident with their immense $1billion record they are most certainly not a free to play game.

 

People putting up with this model will result in lots of games making it hard to generate in game currency, resulting in painfully long amounts of time to invest just to make currency unless you pay. Forcing players into paying. That's why you should oppose every instance of such a thing until the console market becomes the cesspool mmos have.

 

It does effect you when people tolerate this kind of thing. Developers should push out content in order to receive extra money through DLC. They shouldn't design game mechanics around you buying fictional currency. I don't understand how people don't get this :/

 

Of course this is all just a rumor for now. But we should still argue it as if it's truth to demonstrate how we don't want to get f*cked in the ass. We are already long passed the day where people would push out a full game at release instead of charging for DLC two weeks later. We don't need bullsh*t like this creeping into our games and effecting the games (and it does effect you when games start being designed with it in mind).


everydaynormalguy
  • everydaynormalguy

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#27

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:43 PM Edited by everydaynormalguy, 23 September 2013 - 07:44 PM.

 

To me, it wouldn't even matter if there was no advantage to having lots of money (even though there will be).

 

In my eyes, making a billion dollars in the first three days of a games launch, holding back 80% of the content for the online mode and then having the audacity to charge for an in game currency in a pay to play game? It's the epitome of everything that is wrong with the gaming industry these days. It's filth. It's wrong. And what's worse it that it isn't some notorious c*nt like EA, it's Rockstar. A company I should be able to rely on to be decent.

 

I can only hope people are mistaken and it doesn't go through...

 

People don't even seem to realize the ramifications tolerating things like this has for the future of gaming...

 

People don't seem to realize that this is a rumour...

 

People don't seem to realize that gaming is an expensive industry and that GTA:O is far from being cheap, letting people who own the game play for free for  and adding content as it progresses over the next few years costs lots and lots of cash bud. People who bought the game already aren't adding more money to the funds of GTA:O further down the line simply because they purchased the game 6 months ago.

 

People don't seem to realize, if this is true.. it's optional, and that money in game is not gamebreaking, and is not Pay to Win. Money in GTA:O doesn't get you nukes, doesn't get you anything better at killing a person that you couldn't get in your first 10 minutes of playing the game trying to get money. Buying apartments doesn't have any significant advantage over anything either... It's all accessible, and you don't "win" just because you got that stuff faster than someone else... Someone else with a less expensive apartment who saved for it could still easily purchase all the weapons and kill someone who "bought" their cash.

 

The only thing this really matters for is weapons, and I can guarantee the weapons aren't even THAT expensive. Even then.. you don't need a machine gun to take out a dude with a shotgun, or a sniper. You could literally do it with bare minimum weaponry.

 

 

Regardless of if this rumour is true or not, I'll be playing the game saving my money.. but I couldn't honestly care less if other people wanted to purchase their ingame stuff that has no effect on me.

Pay to win games are basically cheating imo, cept its deemed ok since you paid money to the devs. 


Wildfire_08
  • Wildfire_08

    Who cares

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#28

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:43 PM

 

To me, it wouldn't even matter if there was no advantage to having lots of money (even though there will be).

 

In my eyes, making a billion dollars in the first three days of a games launch, holding back 80% of the content for the online mode and then having the audacity to charge for an in game currency in a pay to play game? It's the epitome of everything that is wrong with the gaming industry these days. It's filth. It's wrong. And what's worse it that it isn't some notorious c*nt like EA, it's Rockstar. A company I should be able to rely on to be decent.

 

I can only hope people are mistaken and it doesn't go through...

 

People don't even seem to realize the ramifications tolerating things like this has for the future of gaming...

 

People don't seem to realize that this is a rumour...

 

People don't seem to realize that gaming is an expensive industry and that GTA:O is far from being cheap, letting people who own the game play for free for  and adding content as it progresses over the next few years costs lots and lots of cash bud. People who bought the game already aren't adding more money to the funds of GTA:O further down the line simply because they purchased the game 6 months ago.

 

People don't seem to realize, if this is true.. it's optional, and that money in game is not gamebreaking, and is not Pay to Win. Money in GTA:O doesn't get you nukes, doesn't get you anything better at killing a person that you couldn't get in your first 10 minutes of playing the game trying to get money. Buying apartments doesn't have any significant advantage over anything either... It's all accessible, and you don't "win" just because you got that stuff faster than someone else... Someone else with a less expensive apartment who saved for it could still easily purchase all the weapons and kill someone who "bought" their cash.

 

The only thing this really matters for is weapons, and I can guarantee the weapons aren't even THAT expensive. Even then.. you don't need a machine gun to take out a dude with a shotgun, or a sniper. You could literally do it with bare minimum weaponry.

 

 

Regardless of if this rumour is true or not, I'll be playing the game saving my money.. but I couldn't honestly care less if other people wanted to purchase their ingame stuff that has no effect on me.

 

 

 

I disagree, you dont seem to realise the effect P2W could have on this game,and how it will be negative. 

 

I am fully behind rockstar charging for DLC, with GTA Online, they need to be able to fund it somehow, and i would quite happily pay for the DLC, or pay a subscription of some sort, thats completely justifiable. 

 

But paying for in game cash is probably the worst thing that can happen to multiplayer apart from the Buzzards having guided rockets which is a whole other ridiculous issue. We dont know yet what can be bought online with in game cash,its not an issue of somebody getting things first, its the issue of the items they can buy early on and how they can be utilised. 

 

What happens if this P2W allows people to buy tanks online in the first day of the release and start destroying people over and over again who cant afford weapons, never mind tanks? The same goes for all the other military equipment such as the buzzard with its guided rockets, if noobs can just buy that helicopter and start destroying people who are playing without real money, then are you going to be naive enough to say it wont have an impact on peoples gameplay and gaming experience? 

 

P2W is the worst thing that can happen to this game, i just hope this is completely a rumour and that R* have the foresight to see that paid DLC or a subscription is a better option than P2W. 

  • everydaynormalguy likes this

everydaynormalguy
  • everydaynormalguy

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#29

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:53 PM

People who play P2W games are the same people who drop tons of money into slot machines and Bingo, they're like a Stripper  getting drunk with a biker gang.. They're just asking to get raped. 


tre288
  • tre288

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#30

Posted 23 September 2013 - 08:05 PM Edited by tre288, 23 September 2013 - 08:05 PM.

 

 

To me, it wouldn't even matter if there was no advantage to having lots of money (even though there will be).

 

In my eyes, making a billion dollars in the first three days of a games launch, holding back 80% of the content for the online mode and then having the audacity to charge for an in game currency in a pay to play game? It's the epitome of everything that is wrong with the gaming industry these days. It's filth. It's wrong. And what's worse it that it isn't some notorious c*nt like EA, it's Rockstar. A company I should be able to rely on to be decent.

 

I can only hope people are mistaken and it doesn't go through...

 

People don't even seem to realize the ramifications tolerating things like this has for the future of gaming...

 

People don't seem to realize that this is a rumour...

 

People don't seem to realize that gaming is an expensive industry and that GTA:O is far from being cheap, letting people who own the game play for free for  and adding content as it progresses over the next few years costs lots and lots of cash bud. People who bought the game already aren't adding more money to the funds of GTA:O further down the line simply because they purchased the game 6 months ago.

 

People don't seem to realize, if this is true.. it's optional, and that money in game is not gamebreaking, and is not Pay to Win. Money in GTA:O doesn't get you nukes, doesn't get you anything better at killing a person that you couldn't get in your first 10 minutes of playing the game trying to get money. Buying apartments doesn't have any significant advantage over anything either... It's all accessible, and you don't "win" just because you got that stuff faster than someone else... Someone else with a less expensive apartment who saved for it could still easily purchase all the weapons and kill someone who "bought" their cash.

 

The only thing this really matters for is weapons, and I can guarantee the weapons aren't even THAT expensive. Even then.. you don't need a machine gun to take out a dude with a shotgun, or a sniper. You could literally do it with bare minimum weaponry.

 

 

Regardless of if this rumour is true or not, I'll be playing the game saving my money.. but I couldn't honestly care less if other people wanted to purchase their ingame stuff that has no effect on me.

 

 

 

I disagree, you dont seem to realise the effect P2W could have on this game,and how it will be negative. 

 

I am fully behind rockstar charging for DLC, with GTA Online, they need to be able to fund it somehow, and i would quite happily pay for the DLC, or pay a subscription of some sort, thats completely justifiable. 

 

But paying for in game cash is probably the worst thing that can happen to multiplayer apart from the Buzzards having guided rockets which is a whole other ridiculous issue. We dont know yet what can be bought online with in game cash,its not an issue of somebody getting things first, its the issue of the items they can buy early on and how they can be utilised. 

 

What happens if this P2W allows people to buy tanks online in the first day of the release and start destroying people over and over again who cant afford weapons, never mind tanks? The same goes for all the other military equipment such as the buzzard with its guided rockets, if noobs can just buy that helicopter and start destroying people who are playing without real money, then are you going to be naive enough to say it wont have an impact on peoples gameplay and gaming experience? 

 

P2W is the worst thing that can happen to this game, i just hope this is completely a rumour and that R* have the foresight to see that paid DLC or a subscription is a better option than P2W. 

 

 

Again.. it's just a rumour, and it's hardly pay to win since you don't win anything... there is no goal.

 

People buying tanks and whatnot and trolling the games with them are likely to fall under the "bad sport" category anyway and they'll be handled or placed with people with similar preferred playstyles.

 

It's covered either way.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users