@Syllah said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":
I think this discussion is very important to have, but somewhat premature at this point.
First of all, pay to win / pay for convenience / pay for play — all can have multiple definitions and consequences in different contexts. This is highly dependent on the specific systems in place within the game, as well as how player goals are defined.
Second, it is also a function of the dev team's finances, financial model, and expenses, as well as company policy. How much resources are going to be spent balancing the game? Is there a higher focus on customer service, which has different costs and meshes better with more individual-oriented systems?
In short, we can speculate and put forward opinions based on existing game experiences and company models, but I think ultimately what we need is to keep a very close eye on what's happening inside and around Fractured and keep up a running analysis of that as the baseline.
is gameplay fair for everyone? if anyone can pay to skip some time based event, then it isn't fair. if someone can pay to obtain an item not available within the game (via playing) then it isn't fair.
we're wanting a fair game that doesn't allow RL income to dictate who can be more powerful or can last longer in a siege (because of RL funding).
at a certain point, convenience becomes win. maybe not in a direct comparison but if a person can pay to skip RL hours needed to craft then it doesn't favor the p2w side even though it can be considered convenience.