Ironwood (not verified) on February 23, 2005 - 14:57.
"When you introduce pay-per-use gameplay elements (or when you tolerate them by not enforcing your policies) the players are not anymore equal, the difference becomes how rich you are in real life. You can afford to participate in the competition only if you have the money. The competition itself, the gameplay itself, become about who can afford to pay more."
But surely that exists already in most of these games if you have the TIME. Surely adding real cash value to these things gives those without the time the opportunity to catch up? Your railing about adding money to things making it unequal. It's already unequal due to time investment. What Lum says about everything being equal would be fine IF THAT WAS THE CASE. But it's not.
Which is why we get things like 'rest states'.
"When you introduce pay-per-use ...
"When you introduce pay-per-use gameplay elements (or when you tolerate them by not enforcing your policies) the players are not anymore equal, the difference becomes how rich you are in real life. You can afford to participate in the competition only if you have the money. The competition itself, the gameplay itself, become about who can afford to pay more."
But surely that exists already in most of these games if you have the TIME. Surely adding real cash value to these things gives those without the time the opportunity to catch up? Your railing about adding money to things making it unequal. It's already unequal due to time investment. What Lum says about everything being equal would be fine IF THAT WAS THE CASE. But it's not.
Which is why we get things like 'rest states'.