All three of these make great points. The indie gaming industry caters to the first, the big time gaming industry caters to the second, and the MMO/F2P industry caters to the third. I STILL have no clue where TF2 falls into all of this, since it caters to ALL of these.

[cont] pack, but most of the time people vote to play the original maps anyways. When I buy a game for $60, I expect it to be about $60, not wanting an extra $20 every month or two, or having to face people half my level who have gear I can't get till double my level that has 10x the power

[cont] Generally I'm between #1 and #2, I don't have a ton of free time, especially in winter, and I am decently skilled, but not as good as I used to be. I have the money to spend on games, but I generally don't find games that require it to usually be worthwhile. Like MW3, I bought the first map

[cont] someone who has more skill than me, but I absolutely loathe it when someone is cheating to be "better". Can be fun making them show that they are using cheats too(running up to a gap in a wall and stopping suddenly just before it and seeing the guy shoot when there is no reason for him to)

I don't mind people being able to purchase stuff in game so long as it's reasonably balanced. The problems come in when they offer people starting out the option to buy something that you otherwise don't get until after many, many hours of play. I don't care if I get my butt kicked in a game by

[url=#user_comment_143604]@Zephirdd[/url] Hum no. WoW is for the rare people who have all three. If you dont have any skills then you better believe that you're gonna get two-shot in PvP and get kicked out of every group in PvE. No, funnily enough, 3 is mostly those free-to-play games since you can buy unfair advantages in those.

Hmm...I can see many of my friends fitting into this diagram.

SC2, Diablo3, WoW.

In order.

[url=#user_comment_143562]@Sabre_Justice[/url]: Totally agree with you, pal. Sadly, rather than create different games for every group, they always try to make "the golden one" that will satisfy every single player. Gotta hand it to you, Jo: you really nailed it this time, pal!

@pomf : it can mean all, but it normally is referenced towards gear grinds. Especially in the case of this particular comic since it specifically says "...just give me what I need".

Doesn't this seem better as a venn diagram?

I have little time and no money, and my skill is only medium at best. So you can imagine how D3 Inferno mode pisses me off.

Is time the amount of time for a learning curve?

Or does it refer to grinding requirements?

Or is it the time required to get the ball rolling before having fun as opposed to logging in instantly and immediately have fun?

Or is it just the time needed to beat the game from start to finish?

1.) Free 2 Play (No cash advantage)
2.) Pay 2 Play
3.) Pay 2 Win

[url=#user_comment_143544]@Ninj77[/url]: Ideally, developers should focus on all three. they don't have to appeal to all of them with the same games, though.

you forgot the people that play for money and have a part time job, so ticks all three boxes

I read the entire thing, looked at it, and said "Hey, that makes alot of sense!". This actually explains alot.

Part 2: Time is important in the initial learning curve, but that's it. And just because we don't have "time", does not mean we don't have enough time to get a grasp on the subject at hand.

[url=#user_comment_143521]@Discrider[/url]: I'm going to have to disagree with you as well. Anymore I put in the least amount of time into nearly all my games and am more skilled than the majority of my friends in all my games. Time != Skill. This would fall into the same philosophy that: Gear == Skill.

Actually...#3 is the lazy person that's messing things up for everyone else. You have the time, use it to *develop* the skill. Use the money to get the strategy guides, not the Gameshark. ;-)

I'm looking at this...and am wondering why the third guy is even bothering to play, to be honest. The second I sympathize with--and should note that #1 and #2 aren't actually incompatible--after all, time consuming grind and difficulty (needing skill to overcome) are *not* the same thing.

[url=#user_comment_143521]@Discrider[/url] It really isnt. I'm incredibly good at platformers. I havent bought a platforming game in years. I dont enjoy playing them, they are too easy for me. What I enjoy the most are strategy games. And I suck at them despite playing them all the time.

Quite right. It's really no wonder why gaming companies are focusing more and more in the third panel population. Sorry kiddos, no more free games for you.

[url=#user_comment_143525]@d3me[/url]: Depends on the game. Twitch gaming, yes, to a degree [my timing is still good though, ask any kid who's opposed me in Street Fighter IV, Soulcalibur or King of Fighters], but strategy games and even some MMOs: be ready to kiss your ass good bye, kiddo.

Youth is wasted on the young.

[url=#user_comment_143521]@Discrider[/url]: Time is NOT equals to skill. If it were, the number of korean-level experts in almost every game under the sky would have been staggering. [url=#user_comment_143502] @Lakart[/url]: The funny thing is, to experience EVE Online you have to join a corporation... if you don't have time, you might as well not bother.

[url=#user_comment_143521]@Discrider[/url]: You forgot about reflex degradation. In time, man's fingers will be sloppier and reaction time lengthens. If you cannot use your skill effectively = you have no skill

What if all I have is skill?

I disagree with this comic in its entirety.

TIME = SKILL always. So young guy and retired guy always get annoyed at working guy who has no skill but pays money to get ahead because he can't be bothered investing the time to get better.

I came here to comment but Lakart beat me to it.

Go listen to him instead.

[cont3] if they're obvious people tend to gang up on them... so I guess I'd hate them more if other people didn't hate them passionately... kinda weird to think about that. But anyway, that's my two cents.

[cont2] then not only do people with even more time than me kick my ass, but they also make me need to invest more time than they did to reach their level. Incidentally, I don't mind paid shortcuts/advantages as much, because a) they're often bought by people who suck (easy high-level kills) and b)

[cont] game stops being fun, I usually feel obligated to at least finish the main story (or worse, it gets fun again after the grind, making me question the developers' sanity). What I hate is grinding for multiplayer perks, especially when the game's leveling system is linked to kills/wins, because

I'm closer to #2 than #1 even though I have no money and lots of time... I don't mind hard, time-consuming achievements because they give cosmetic rewards (if anything) so if I get bored of the game I can just ignore them. I don't like grinding or similar things in single-player because even if the

This is actually surprisingly insightful. I'm sort of wondering if game design that works to please every "age" here is possible.

The funny thing is, EVE Online could easily serve all three of these demographics.

"51" Day Free Trial
In game Money for Game time.
In game Money for Characters other people skilled up.
In game tradeable Gametime Item for in game Money.

You missed
[X] SELFISH
on all three.

[url=#user_comment_143497]@huddahhuddah[/url]: Agreed, totaly agreed kkkk

I like the idea, but most people only have one of these traits. Not two of them.

So, #1 = older games (no ingame $ store), #2 = new games (ingame $ store with some stuff) and #3 = newer games (ingame $ store with everything)? Well, I'd have to go with #1 on this one, I like long and challenging games without in-game $ shops that force you to buy from if you want to beat it. :P

Are you a poor old timer working long hours at a minimum pay job?

[x]TIME
[x]MONEY
[x]SKILL

I have just the answer for your gaming needs!

INTERNET FLASH GAMES!!!

Im the 1st guy, 2nd guy wants to relax and take it easy (so its not really about time, he lacks it though) and the 3rd guy should also enjoy the game.
But where's the 4th annoying guy who has time, money and skill and wants to swear and "pwn teh n00bz"? You know what Im talking about...

(cont.) which brings up something interesting: how many categories <insert game> can fit into this.

Someone mentioned LoL below.
Time+Skill? No problem.
Money+Skill? Buy your champions with $$.
Time+Money? ... ... There's always "Normal"...

[url=#user_comment_143481]@pong[/url]: Simple. Either you are the Time+Skill category (meaning you have time, money AND skill. Oh my.), or you're not even playing the target game in the first place.

My goal on life is to achieve elder status without losing my mad skillz +_+

What if you have money but thinking buying in-game items is for idiots?

@LocheZ
yeah, I am a collector of games myself. I own many titles of all genres and I have noticed that I am not as good as I used to be. it's hard trying to get through ikaruga now and my DDR days are only up to 9. I would be in the mid section now because I work everyday to keep this house.

When Jo puts it this way, I can see why hard games have fallen out of style. They appeal to the "no money" crowd, and game companies don't give a shit about those guys, because they don't buy anything.

What if you're a retired immortal person?

Odd. My social situation matches with #1, but I agree with #2 a lot more.

Skill/tactics/strategy/teamwork should be the deciding factors, which are things that you develop through practice.
There shouldn't be pain in the ass unlocks to get, however, because that arbitrarily tries to enforce a development curve on you by holding out on you until you grind out bullshit.

One of the first games to have microtransactions had it for a palpable benefit. You could get skills and items that would allow you to slaughter those who didn't pay.
As companies see more and more people willing to pay, expect to see that becoming the norm. You won't just buy pets and dyes.

While you can have plenty of fun without paying for it, LoL does have a way of convincing people (like me) to spend anyways. It's a cool game, so why not fund the developers when I can?

lol sucking out money? i have never paid for Lol... ok not playing ranked atm but i could simply get to 1,8k elo

inb4 "MINE" on flat chests

And then there's League of Legends which has check marks in all three sucking all the money out of my wallet, all the time out of my life, and EVERY LAST OUNCE OF EFFORT out of my heart.

(cont.) So,
Nerf? They were using that nerfed item.

Making games easier to play? They already got past the skill gap, and don't want other people to climb up to join them.

Pay-to-level (Note: not pay-to-win)? They don't like someone else shotcutting their way to where they are.

Etc...

When it comes to PVP I'd rather money not be an option, but otherwise, why the hell not. Even if it's co-op where people don't specifically compete I see no reason not to make life easier in exchange for money rather than time.

[url=#user_comment_143457]@Niggerdicks[/url]: Here's the secret... Those haters, they actually LOOOOOOOOVE the game. That's why they "hate" it in the first place: they want to twist something they love into something that makes them (and them alone) the best at it.

Time, whats that.
Money, if only I had some.
Skill, lot of good it does me!

"If you don't like something just bend over and take in the ass."

Yeah, that's some keen advice. I suppose it's better than the retards who keep playing something they "hate" though.

I'm fine with alternative routes to the same destination.

I'm not fine with favoritism.

I have no problem how other people play. I just wish there were less douches raving about their view as if they're The Mesiah.

So true, so true. I still prefer the first panel, because a game shouldn't be pay to win. Maybe alternatives with money but not flat out victory via money.