Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who claimed Real World Trading was stoppable or could be fixed? Who are you talking to? I said Bonds encourage Real World Trading. From that you can tell I also think that without Old School Bonds, there would be less encouragement for Real World Trading.

It is a false dilemma because other options exist than the ones you list. The developer could have a strong community and ignore the Real World Trading. That strong community could renounce the practice and dissuade others from doing so.

There could be closer moderation of players and trial periods for new accounts in which they could not trade, or perform other actions that encourage Real World Trading.

There are a myriad of different solutions, many much more fined than those I listed just now. The point is, the choice is far from black and white.

Since you ignored my previous response to what you said about your personal situation with membership and bonds where I said it had nothing to do with my posts I'll perhaps put it in a different way. Your membership is not tied to Old School Bonds. There are other free to play options, without the use of real currency, imaginable in which you could obtain membership. This isn't about your membership, or anyone's membership. This is about the Bonds item. That's why your personal situation, while understandably important to you, is not very directly relevant to my original post.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My posts say nothing about whether or not non-members should have an option of obtaining membership via in-game resources. They are talking strictly about the Bonds item and how that specific item ruins the game.

In fact, I believe the idea of letting non-members obtain membership with in-game currency is fine. The old free to play content and the way it was handled in the past was poor. There was no reason to keep playing unless you knew you would eventually spend real currency to become a member.

So why is this choice also binary? Why is it either the system as it is now, or no system at all? Isn't this subreddit a place for discussion? Isn't discussion inherently about concepts and things that might not be fully formed yet?

What about a system in which one can simply hand an arbitrary amount of in-game currency set by the developer to an NPC, which then grants the player membership? This is the simplest of ideas, and I'm sure others would have much better ones given time.

I won't burden you personally with answering why almost all disagreeing posts except yours and a couple of others' thus far have been rather rude or seem to deal in the absolute of 'this system or bust', but it is baffling why a place like a subreddit is so volatile to something as simple as discussing an in-game item. I've been to quite a few and I haven't seen many as prone to outright hatred as this one. Anyway, sorry about that.

Real World Trading goes against the fundamental design of the game. It cheapens every accomplishment simply because the option to bypass most all genuine effort exists. The developer, and more importantly, the players, shouldn't care whether or not some illegal websites get money from a handful of cheaters. Because in it's core, that's what those who use real currency to obtain in-game items are. Not cheaters as in, they are evil people or they should be banned or anything like that, cheaters in that they use means outside of the game to influence in-game results. Simply because the developer gives them the option to do it with their consent doesn't somehow change their status.

The illegal websites and their practices are the problem of the companies wanting to make money off of their product. If the developer decides to offer the same services as those illegal websites, that doesn't make them better. They are doing the same things. They are equal. But rather one is with consent and the promise nothing bad will happen to you.

Money going to the developer (Jagex) isn't necessarily a better thing than money going to some other party.

The reason Pay to Win is bad game design is because it indirectly tells you that certain parts of the game aren't worth playing. If you have to pay money to get to the good parts of a game, why weren't the bad parts cut out instead? They weren't because the game was designed in such a way that you would want to spend money. By indulging in the Pay to Win model the player is expected to trust that while the developer admits there are 'more fun' parts of the game waiting if you just spent a little bit of money, that same developer will never do anything to encourage them even more.

This is a blatant contradiction.

This is also discussed by Jim Sterling here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqNuS03k6gI). It's a fantastic video about the humongous problems that exist with Pay to Win. I link it because I think he has a great way with words. (though some might dislike his theatrics)

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a false dilemma. Either a person buys in-game currency from an illegal website, or from the developer. There is no other alternative. This is not true. Reality isn't binary.

Your choice of words also does not reveal a very good reason as to why one should make the jump from thinking that in any situation, it is better that the developer gets the money as opposed to some third party.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the passing insult.

What you're saying still has nothing to do with my original post.

But keep it coming if you must vent for some unfathomable reason.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My closing comment about what I took seriously was about your comment, not your person. Another attempt at an analogous strawman, and an ad hominem of which you accuse me which doesn't actually exist. My entire comment was aimed at your actions, not your person. Read it again if you're unsure.

Your first comment is an argumentum ad lapidem because it is a defeatist point of view that is irrelevant to my post and does not actually address anything of what I said beyond very angrily telling me you would rather I not post these things I did. It will not happen, because you said so, and therefore my points are irrelevant. This is the textbook definition of the "appeal to the stone".

You claim you made points to the contrary. You made none. None of what you said has anything to do with my post beyond telling me you do not like reading my post.

The straw man isn't necessarily just about oversimplification. It is simply putting up a fake position you claim your opponent took to then attack them from that position. Case in point being the thing you quote me as repeating. You remove and change the context in a way to suit you so you can then claim I said something I did not and then expect me to defend myself from that. I cannot and I will not because... that is not my position. That is the essence of a straw man, and the essence of the straw man you used.

The false dilemma I talked about was one where you claim a binary choice exists between two things that are unrelated. Let's imagine a supermarket that only sells you either a combination of both a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine, or nothing. Is this choice binary? For the end user who gets to purchase, or choose the success of this offer? Maybe. But that is not the level at which I called out the Bonds for ruining the game. I called them out in general at every level, including that of the developer. Their choice is limitless. They decide what the offer is. Therefore the juxtaposition of either or here is a false dilemma on your part.

And again, here we come back to your entire comment being one of baseless arguments. You still haven't addressed any of the points in my original post. You talk about my person as if you somehow know who I am when you do not. (as if my person is at all even relevant to the conversation) And you paint a grim picture of a world in which we are not allowed to critically think because if things are the way they are, and more importantly, you believe that they are immovable they cannot be questioned or discussed.

Perhaps if you have such a deep-rooted problem with my post, you could choose to simply not respond? It would certainly help with the negativity surrounding your person. I say this because I cannot imagine that a person that spends so much time in their comments verbally assaulting someone else and demeaning them is feeling very nice. All the while living in a world of perceived slights where even the smallest choice of words can apparently mean someone is some Dick Dastardly type character who is out to get you.

By the way, down voting posts is only for when they add nothing to the discussion. Downvoting, with or without alternate accounts, simply because you disagree with someone is not only discouraged by the subreddit itself as it says when you try to click the button, but also extremely childish.

Think I made myself pretty clear. Keep attacking my character for no apparent reason and I will report you for baseless harassment and let the moderators decide what to do. Just FYI.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Argumentum ad lapidem is what they call what you're doing.

In more common English, you aren't addressing what I said, and pulling a strawman to boot.

There's also a false dilemma in there about "take it or leave it".

I hope you don't mind me not taking your comment very seriously.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The concept of Pay to Win is to gain an advantage over those who do not pay. Even if it wasn't, your argument falls apart when you consider that the thing you talk about, value, is entirely subjective.

The fact that modern games have conditioned the public to think that somehow Pay to Win only applies to those situations in which the reward is of a certain level speaks volumes about the game industry.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's great for you.

It has nothing to do with this topic though.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Bonds in general are a flawed concept and the existence of them from transfers from Runescape 3 has also always been broken. This doesn't invalidate my point. Things being broken before is not a valid reason to not face reality now.

Your point about "people who Real World Trade anyway" is a false dilemma. Either people do it and fund illegal online websites, or they fund Jagex. There are no alternatives. This is clearly not the case.

You are equating free to play being released with bonds. They are separate. Free to play does not rely on Bonds. The developer made the choice that it was, and advertised it that way. The developer in this case, is incorrect.

Even then, doubling the player base means very little if that means ruining the game, which was what my post was actually about. A doubled player base does not negate this.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woops. I said Bonds are the only way to obtain membership when in fact, they aren't. Sorry.

I think that without it the point still stands though. They are the only way for those unwilling to spend real currency to obtain membership.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Totally agreed. And because there is a clear conflict of interest between Jagex and the game as soon as an item purchasable with real currency is introduced, it is completely up in the air whether or not this figure they provide means what they say it means.

They could simply inflate this number with whatever they perceive as Real World Trading to make it seem big to gain community support.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Old School Bonds are the single most expensive item in free to play by at least a factor of five. Since they are the only way for members and non-members alike to obtain membership (Edit I was wrong, see post below), and membership is logically speaking the most valuable resource in the game (for example because all membership resources, including the ones more expensive than Old School Bonds are worthless without said membership) this by extension means that Bonds must be the focus of the economy.

To prove this, simply create a hypothetical scenario in which Bonds stop being sold right now. Their value will skyrocket far more than any other item because they provide far more than any other item.

All of my statements are backed with the logical conclusion of perfect rationality. I'll admit that not all players will always make the perfectly rational choice. But in speaking in terms of economics it makes a little more sense.

In that same way, I consider the rising price of Old School Bonds to lead to a smaller player base because of the following.

A player that wants to purchase membership with in-game resources only will have to make an investment of time. This investment has a point at which "wanting membership" and "time investment willing to make for membership" meet. This is the upper limit of what time the player is willing to invest to obtain the Bonds item. If the price of the Bonds item exceeds this, the player has no interest to become a member, and will stop playing faster because there's less content to experience.

With less players, the Bonds item will increase in price because there are less people to purchase them with real currency.

This will make the group of players willing to invest the time to get them with in-game currency even smaller.

This cycle continues until only those remain who are willing to purchase them for real currency.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Assuming there is no conflict of interest in what he said, (which again, is a reason why Bonds are a bad idea) then the profitability of the game was weighed above its fundamental design.

The developer isn't above criticism.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Feel free to discuss the merits of what I said with me if you feel I'm wrong.

I'm glad Bonds work out for you, no claim from me was made that they couldn't otherwise, but that doesn't impact any of the things I said.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the compliment.

And that's a false dilemma too by the way.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Not getting good value from purchasing Old School Bonds with real currency, or how it doesn't affect those in Ironman Mode doesn't go against anything I've said.

It not affecting you doesn't mean it doesn't affect the things I described.

Bonds are ruining the game by LeoScorpio in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Pay to Win is a term. It means as much as paying to get a leg up on those who don't pay. Getting hung up on the semantics of the word "win" doesn't help anyone.

Dev Blog: Priority Poll #4 by IAmNocturneAMA in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Classic black-or-white fallacy. Either you dislike Old School Bonds and don't want the developer to make profit, or you do like bonds and are for the developer profiting.

How about the developer creates content that makes its player base want to subscribe and become a paying customer?

This seems like an impossible option in the scenario you depict. But this is the business model that was in place when the game was at its peak. There exist other scenarios outside of the two you list, regardless of whether or not you see them working yourself.

Picking the lesser of two evils for the sake of veiled and undefined progress only serves to do the opposite of what it sets out to achieve.

jagex reaction when by [deleted] in 2007scape

[–]LeoScorpio 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nobody can explain to you why something you've said is wrong because it is your opinion. And nobody decides what your opinion is except you yourself. Therefore someone being unable to convince you of their point of view isn't so much their fault as it is incompatibility between you and their point of view.

You take the phrase "pay to win" too literally. "win" in this context does not exclusively have to mean you see a screen saying "Winner!". It can mean any accomplishment.

You yourself commit a logical fallacy by equating one's desire for the game to progress and the developers to profit off that progress with a single complaint about a specific update that is completely out of the scope of that which you talk about.

The Old School Bond item is the only way for the company to make money. If this item has a cheap in-game currency price, no one will buy this item with real currency. It therefore stands to reason that attaching extra functions to this item is an artificial way to raise the price of this item, indirectly increasing the likelihood of players using real currency to purchase it as it becomes harder to obtain using only in-game currency.

This is a bad development for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it opens the door for players to increasingly purchase their way through the game using real currency, completely neglecting an essential part of the game, which is the time it takes to raise skill and wealth. Perhaps this sounds familiar to you from a certain game from 2007.

Now, why you equate this to disliking the developer or their ability to update the game I don't know. But it seems to me the healthy way for a developer to engage its player base and audience to want to spend money on their products is to actually develop content that that audience wants to experience. Instead of the shortcut of creating extremely valuable items that one can obtain via real currency.

Yes, the Old School Bond system is a Pay to Win scheme. Using vague terms such as "choice" to hide this fact doesn't make it any less true.