I feel this is related to the discussion "What does 'Free' mean?" and yet not completely on-topic, hence the new thread.
It seems a lot of peoples argument against games that have pay-for-perks advertising themselves as free to play comes down to their view of what is fair. The people against pay-for-perks argue that the game favours people with money, the people for pay-for-perks argue it stops the game favouring people with time.
So, what is fair in an online game these days? I'm not talking about what is successful (lets face it, a fool and his money...) but what in your view creates a level playing field for a game and whether this is desirable.
Personally I don't agree with pay-for-perks unless said perks don't affect the ability of a player to compete with other players. For example I have no problem with people paying for re-strings of equipment. This does not affect the gameplay or playing field. I do have a problem with people being able to buy the
leet armour of doooooom that is better than anything normally available in the game, as it gives them an advantage over other players.
Why don't I agree? Because the one thing everyone in the world has is
time. Not everyone has
money. If you choose to spend most of your time on your job and family, then you can't really expect to be able to compete against someone who does nothing all day except play games. This is the same as me being unable to compete against professional sports players who spend most of their time playing their sport when I spend very little in comparison. It's the way competitive endeavours work. If I put in the time and effort to be really good at something, I don't expect someone else to be able to come along, pay a hefty fee, and be the same or better than me just because they earn more money than me in the real world.
Opponents of my point of view will no doubt point out that there's nothing anyone can do to stop third-party selling of things so no game can be completely free of it and fair. This is perhaps true, but why not lead by example? Rule-breaking will happen no matter what we do, but just as it's unacceptable to drive over the speed limit "because other people do it anyway and you'll never stop all of them" I don't see why the argument of "You can't stop it affecting the game" is a good defense for supporting it.
I should point out here I have no problem with games that charge a monthly fee to play and then no perks, as they at least try and adhere to the "money doesn't affect the playing field" approach. You have to pay to get into the game, but once in it doesn't matter whether you're playing against a minimum-wage worker or Bill Gates, as time is the great equaliser and not how much wealth you have.
By the way, I'll be watching this thread closely. Please try and refrain from personal attacks against other members. I know this sort of discussion is an emotional one and something a lot of people feel very strongly about, but that's no excuse for dragging it down into "You suck" arguments
