|
Well the only real arguments I've heard for the pay-for-perks model is that some people don't have enough free time to fairly compete with those who have lots of time. If that were the real reason people wanted it, then allowing them to pay for faster exp-gain to compensate for unplayed time (like the example I gave earlier in the thread) would give them everything they required.
However there are always people who will do anything to get ahead. Just as some people will abuse bugs to get an advantage, so there are people who are more than happy to buy something that puts them ahead of everyone else, particularly for competitive activities such as PK, and even more so when the player lacks the skill to compete fairly. Once one person does this, it forces other players to do the same or fall behind - at which point the play goes on to buy something else in order to maintain their advantage.
Such a scenario is still boolean though - either you've got the turbo controller, or you haven't. That's more comparible with the "optional pay-to-play" model.
However pay-for-perks is not boolean, and that's what causes a lot of the problems with undermining playing skill. The more you pay, the better you get - rather than the console equivient, it's more like playing one of those arcade games where every coin you stick in the slot gives you a boost; that little fat kid might be a poor player, but if he's got a pocket full of quarters he's eventually going to grind you down. Is that your idea of fun? It's not mine.
|