They are selling hero points in the gem store now

[Vayne.8563]

1 hour ago, Roads.5130 said:

It does not have to be a power advantage all it has to be is an advantage, that is the point.

 

The fact that you don't think that's pay to win isn't really an issue for most of us, heck, the fact that the game gives as many advantages as it does to the players who spend the most is not even an issue for me either as I barely even notice them. It's funny that you say that most people don't, when in reality what I have read about the topic reflects that GW2 would fit neatly under most people's current definition of pay to win.

 

What it was meant to mean does not matter, times change, games change, industries change, business models change, marketing strategies change and words change.

I guess to me it is just does not make sense that someone can join the game and swipe their credit card until they have 2 sets of every legendary weapon plus 10,000 gold and then I go about my day thinking "yeah, I can totally get all that in a reasonable amount of time". Does this fact render the game unplayable for the rest of us? Absolutely not. Does that fact make the game P2W under many people's current understanding of the term? Absolutely.

Here I will leave a list of the first 15 or so definitions of pay to win from googling "what is pay to win":

From google answers, dictionaries, game sites, etc:

  Reveal hidden contents

~"Pay To Win" is defined as games in which you get an advantage in the game if you spend real money on items, weapons or features and are thus clearly superior to other players. Most of the time, such games are free-to-play, making it very easy to get started in the game.

~in computer games, involving or relating to the practice of paying to get weapons, abilities, etc. that give you an advantage over players who do not spend money

~Pay-to-win (P2W) is term players use to refer to games that allow players to purchase in-game resources with real money. Some examples are high-level items, abilities, more powerful weapons, additional health points, character progression, and in-game currency.

~ Essentially, pay-to-win is a term used to describe games that require or heavily involve paying real money in order to give players access to some form of significant advantage over other players

~"Pay-to-win" or "P2W", is a pejorative term for a game that offers any advantage that can be obtained faster or exclusively via commercial transactions over gameplay rewards or the impact of the player's own performance.

~(video games) Designed in such a way as to allow players to exchange real-world currency for in-game benefits.

From the first reddit thread that comes up in the search:

  Reveal hidden contents

~Pay to win is any system where a player can purchase something that is not superficial or cosmetic.

~Real money -> In-game benefits.

~Pay to Win is where the alternative -- not paying, has such a significant disadvantage as to essentially just be fuel to make whales feel good, and fostering deep roots of elitism within the player-base.

~Can you buy something with real money that makes you stronger than you could be without spending money? Then its pay to win.

~Personally I interpret the term as a game where paying for items/characters etc. gives an advantage that leads to players often "winning" as a result. This means coming first or getting more kills in multiplayer or progressing through a game more easily.

~Absolutely any system where a player may purchase an item, buff or something like that, that affects gameplay and is OBJECTIVELY (I.E stats wise) Superior, OR, unlocks more powerful late-game items earlier. Cosmetics are only Pay 2 Win in fashion.

From the second reddit thread that comes up:

  Reveal hidden contents

~To me pay to win is anything be it big or small that gives you a in game advantage over other players that is obtained though real life currency.

~Pay 2 win = being able to be stronger than someone else with real money. That's all. Even if you can eventually catch up by farming a lot, you will still be weaker for a long period of time.

~Not only stronger, but any advantages. More speed, more inventory space, more life/mana regen, teleports, mounts, etc... If u spend to get ANY ADVANTAGE it is p2w. If you buy skin that doesnt do kitten beside look cool, it aint p2w.

~pay to win is when a player can use money to get an advantage over their oponents, advantages like extra armor, more money, better weapons,etc.

~"Pay to win" is an overused buzzword that lost all meaning.

As far as I remember it rose to prominence during the wave of F2P MMO that came around WoW release. The expression P2W (Pay to win) was coined by players as an opposition to the claimed Free to play. Understanding the game is free to play but to be good you have to pay.

Nowadays people claim that anything that you pay for is an unfair advantage without taking into account the divide that used to separate paying players from free players.

~Consider this thing that used to exist called a "game demo." You could download it for free and it would let you get maybe 10% of the way through the game. If you wanted to play past that point, you needed to buy the game for $60 or whatever. Should this be considered Pay To Win? I don't think so. But it meets your definition: someone has bought in-game content with real money that advanced them gameplaywise.

There are even a few current multiplayer games that use a similar model. Battlerite is the only one I can think of at the moment. You can play it for free and have a limited selection of heroes available to play, and I guess you can slowly unlock them (similar to how LoL works), or you can pay $30 one time for full access to all gameplay-relevant unlocks, essentially "buying the game". This clearly meets your definition, but it seems like a completely reasonable payment model to me.

In my view, a key element of Pay To Win is recurring payments, or payments that aren't capped such that you'll never spend more than a reasonable price to "buy the game"

 

Sorry for the huge wall of text, I skipped two or so comments because more than stating what they thought was pay to win they presented a question or other commentary on the topic, I barely even rearranged the definitions from the order they appeared. As you can see, basically no one mentions expansions or Buy to play models, all that goes out of the window and what most people focuses on to state their definition of pay to win is basically: if real money gives in game advantages = pay to win. You may disagree with those persons, and there may not be a single precise definition that everyone agrees on, but they do seem to have a common trend.

I purchased the game when HoT came out, and then a couple of years after PoF came out I was able to purchase it, I haven't been able to buy EoD, SotO or any of the current content, I am absolutely not on equal footing in terms of character capabilities with players who have got the most current expansions even though I "purchased the game" twice now. For what is worth I think GW2 has the best monetization system of any MMO I have played, sadly it still fits under what I perceive to be most people's current definition of pay to win.

 

 

So you haven't answered the question. By your broad definition tell me an MMORPG that isn't pay to win, and if they all are, tell me why the term matters?

[Vayne.8563]

1 hour ago, Roads.5130 said:

You think the term is being misused without ever acknowledging the fact that you may be stuck with an archaic definition for a current issue.

Definition of the term has changed, sure. It's changed to something that can now be used to call EVERY MMORPG pay to win. All of them.  Everyone one I've ever played at very least. By your "new" defintion WoW and Final Fantasy XIV are both pay to win, in addition to pay to play, since people with expansions have more options and thus advantages.  An archaic definition that had a purpose is better than a new definition that serves no purpose. What are you defending here, exactly? That you want to call this game, and by extension every MMO on the planet pay to win. If that's the case, where is the value of the word?

[Axelteas.7192]

19 hours ago, Darklord Roy.2514 said:

What you are describing is power creep and buy to play, not pay to win. Again, every MMO in history that has ever released an expansion has added some degree of new, different, and powerful features to the game that *require* you to own the expansion to use. Locking features behind expansions isn't P2W, if everyone had access to everything without needing to pay for expansions then gaming companies would be losing profits on making them.

F2P in this game was always, from the beginning, meant to act as a sort of "try before you buy" system. It exists so that people can get a taste of GW2 and see if they enjoy all of it's unique systems before they commit to buying it. It is not meant to act as anything close to a complete experience of the game. Personally I've seen plenty of new players who only purchased SoTo (and so have no elite specs) trying out strikes and fractals. They're never top DPS, but generally speaking most PUG groups don't really care that much if you're a little slow in strikes, fractals, or dungeons. I myself have never been in a group where someone has been kicked for running a core spec, with the exception of CO CM because you HAVE to have good DPS to beat it. And on that matter, core specs have no business playing CMs or raids because they are the highest level PvE content you can possibly play. If you want to legitimately try content at that level, then you have been F2P long enough to know you like the game and you should purchase an expansion to get your power creep.

I'm not complaining about locking features behind expansions.

I'm complaining that core specs  have not viability in PvE group content and that is a serious problem anet dont want to adress.

Again, watch metabatle, click dungeon/fractal and core elementalist is not even viable for this content. 

[Roads.5130]

12 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

So you haven't answered the question. By your broad definition tell me an MMORPG that isn't pay to win, and if they all are, tell me why the term matters?

Nuh uh, not my definition. 

[kharmin.7683]

Just now, Roads.5130 said:

Nuh uh, not my definition. 

Glad we got that out of the way.

[Roads.5130]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

Glad we got that out of the way.

Glad you finally got it.

[Roads.5130]

16 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

So you haven't answered the question. By your broad definition tell me an MMORPG that isn't pay to win, and if they all are, tell me why the term matters?

I don't even know what question you are referring to. I can't think of a game that is not pay to win, I haven't played a lot of games in the recent 10 or so years. So I will say it again, for like the tenth time: I don't think the term matters in the case of GW2, I am not the one complaining about the game being pay to win but I am the one saying it is pay to win according to what many people consider pay to win. I don't know what part of the 15 definitions I listed from google made you think they were MY definition but all I did was list them for you to understand that not many people in general use the same definition you use.

[Vayne.8563]

27 minutes ago, Roads.5130 said:

Nuh uh, not my definition. 

It doesn't change the question. You're making the argument that expansions have things in them that make you stronger or give you more options, which I've never denied. I simply state that that is true for every single MMO. So what's the value of the term P2W if every MMO is P2W? Who is the term helping? I mean if the definition truly has changed, what's the value of this new and improved definition that you're using in your argument?

[Roads.5130]

37 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

What are you defending here, exactly?

I am defending that even though GW2 has clear pay to win practices it is still in my opinion one of the games with the best monetization models I have ever played, and that if a person is so absolutely flabbergasted from the introduction of HPs on the cash shop that they will immediately leave the game, they would be making a mistake because of how little relevance those pay to win issues have in such a great game.

[kharmin.7683]

31 minutes ago, Roads.5130 said:

Glad you finally got it.

It actually makes the entire discussion moot.  If what is being discussed can't be defined equally by both sides, then there is no way for an argument to stand because now it is based on opinion and not fact.  You can tell me that the sky is blue but if I am determined that it is red in my opinion, then there is nothing you could say or do to convince me otherwise.

Same applies to this thread's argument over the definition of P2W.

  

Just now, Roads.5130 said:

I am defending that even though GW2 has clear pay to win practices

No, it is not clear.  You have an indefensible position because the term cannot be equally agreed upon by both sides of the argument.

Edited December 3, 2023 by kharmin.7683
Adding more

[Vayne.8563]

20 minutes ago, Roads.5130 said:

I don't even know what question you are referring to. I can't think of a game that is not pay to win, I haven't played a lot of games in the recent 10 or so years. So I will say it again, for like the tenth time: I don't think the term matters in the case of GW2, I am not the one complaining about the game being pay to win but I am the one saying it is pay to win according to what many people consider pay to win. I don't know what part of the 15 definitions I listed from google made you think they were MY definition but all I did was list them for you to understand that not many people in general use the same definition you use.

Many people? How many? Make a poll and let's see.  Seems to me that if you're defending a position it's your position, or you have no business defending it. Right now your argument, without any proof, is that "many" people feel the game is pay to win (without defining many), and so I'm going to call it pay to win, even though I have no real idea what that means because I don't really have the experience to judge myself.

On the other side of that, I've played WoW, Final Fantasy XIV (for a very short time), ESO, Age of Conan, D&D Online, Lotro, The Secret World, Rift, Guild Wars 2, Runes of Magic, Wildstar, City of Heroes, Dungeon Runners and probably a few others I can't think of. By your definition every single game is pay to win. And if it's not "your" definition, it's the definition you're using. 

You then go on to say that definition has changed, that so many other people are using it, but you have no numbers, proof or experience. Seems like a very small hill to die on.

[Roads.5130]

4 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

It doesn't change the question. You're making the argument that expansions have things in them that make you stronger or give you more options, which I've never denied. I simply state that that is true for every single MMO. So what's the value of the term P2W if every MMO is P2W? Who is the term helping? I mean if the definition truly has changed, what's the value of this new and improved definition that you're using in your argument?

What question? I honestly don't even know anymore lol.

[Vayne.8563]

Just now, Roads.5130 said:

I am defending that even though GW2 has clear pay to win practices it is still in my opinion one of the games with the best monetization models I have ever played, and that if a person is so absolutely flabbergasted from the introduction of HPs on the cash shop that they will immediately leave the game, they would be making a mistake because of how little relevance those pay to win issues have in such a great game.

Well, maybe, then you should stop using the word pay to win,. because your definition would apply to every MMORPG and it would make the point moot. You saying something is pay to win by a definition that some people use, while in the same breath saying that this game so far that that it's one of the fairest monetization models you've ever seen (which I do agree with), sounds contradictory to me, and would actually confuse a lot of people, since the term pay to win is almost never considered a good thing. Most people call this game pay to look good or pay to save time. You pay for convenience and cosmetics. Why not just say that?

[Roads.5130]

2 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Many people? How many? Make a poll and let's see.  Seems to me that if you're defending a position it's your position, or you have no business defending it. Right now your argument, without any proof, is that "many" people feel the game is pay to win (without defining many), and so I'm going to call it pay to win, even though I have no real idea what that means because I don't really have the experience to judge myself.

On the other side of that, I've played WoW, Final Fantasy XIV (for a very short time), ESO, Age of Conan, D&D Online, Lotro, The Secret World, Rift, Guild Wars 2, Runes of Magic, Wildstar, City of Heroes, Dungeon Runners and probably a few others I can't think of. By your definition every single game is pay to win. And if it's not "your" definition, it's the definition you're using. 

You then go on to say that definition has changed, that so many other people are using it, but you have no numbers, proof or experience. Seems like a very small hill to die on.

So you give me actually zero numbers to back up your definition other than "back in the day" and then you for some reason pretend I have "no numbers" even after I clearly gav you a small list of different sources using a similar definition to the one I am using AND THEN call mine a small hill to die on? 🤣

[Roads.5130]

4 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Well, maybe, then you should stop using the word pay to win,. because your definition would apply to every MMORPG and it would make the point moot. You saying something is pay to win by a definition that some people use, while in the same breath saying that this game so far that that it's one of the fairest monetization models you've ever seen (which I do agree with), sounds contradictory to me, and would actually confuse a lot of people, since the term pay to win is almost never considered a good thing. Most people call this game pay to look good or pay to save time. You pay for convenience and cosmetics. Why not just say that?

No, I'm gonna call it how I see it. The fact that the game has some issues does not equal it being a bad game, and if that confuses people then so be it.

[Vayne.8563]

3 minutes ago, Roads.5130 said:

So you give me actually zero numbers to back up your definition other than "back in the day" and then you for some reason pretend I have "no numbers" even after I clearly gav you a small list of different sources using a similar definition to the one I am using AND THEN call mine a small hill to die on? 🤣

No I gave you something better than numbers. A logical position that your defintion includes all MMORPGs and as a result, that means that your definition has no actual value. Saying this game is P2W implies there are games that are not. You don't need numbers to understand a logical position.

As of now, we can say you're using someone else's definition, it's not yours, but you also say that many people believe it, but you can't define those people, and then go onto say that this game, which you claim is pay to win is actually one of the fairest out there, when it comes to monetization, yet the very words pay to win make people think otherwise, but you keep using them. You've yet to give a cogent or coherent reason why you'd continue to use a term that is admittedly not your definition, that might mislead people. I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend here.  

And it doesn't even matter if you get it or not. Other people reading this will get what I'm saying, read what you're saying and they'll either get it or not. But you know, if a term can be applied to every MMO we need to redefine it, go back to the original definition, or find another term, because your commentary on the game being both p2w and really fair won't really help all that many people.

[Vayne.8563]

3 minutes ago, Roads.5130 said:

No, I'm gonna call it how I see it. The fact that the game has some issues does not equal it being a bad game, and if that confuses people then so be it.

 Well, you keep calling it how you see it, without any real experience to back it up and without being able to answer a simple question of naming a single MMORPG that isn't pay to win.  Since you can't answer that question, your entire premise is flawed and I'm okay with that. I won't be replying to you anymore so feel free to get the last word.

[Roads.5130]

11 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

A logical position that your defintion includes all MMORPGs and as a result, that means that your definition has no actual value.

That is a fallacy, because the fact that it includes all MMORPGs that we have thought of does not mean it includes every possible MMO, and that means that my definition still holds value.

 

11 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

No I gave you something better than numbers

It's not better than numbers if it is a fallacy to begin with.

 

11 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

As of now, we can say you're using someone else's definition, it's not yours, but you also say that many people believe it, but you can't define those people,

I literally quoted them. They are the first results from THIS GOOGLE SEARCH, what do you mean I can't define them? What do you expect me to do?

Edited December 3, 2023 by Roads.5130

[Roads.5130]

7 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

 Well, you keep calling it how you see it, without any real experience to back it up and without being able to answer a simple question of naming a single MMORPG that isn't pay to win.  Since you can't answer that question, your entire premise is flawed and I'm okay with that. I won't be replying to you anymore so feel free to get the last word.

Who said I don't have any experience to back it up? Also I don't need to answer your question for my premise to be true, it is so true that I already gave you an unaltered list of people from a simple google search whose definition would agree with my premise in general terms, but since you decided to ignore it together with many other issues I already pointed about your whole argument I am not surprised you rather just go all "you are wrong and I can't hear you".

[Manasa Devi.7958]

Now that almost every modern online game-as-a-service falls under this new definition of "pay to win", how should we start referring to games that actually offer paid advantages that can never be equalled without extraneous payments? Surely "pay to win" isn't sufficient anymore.

[Player.2475]

It does not matter if being able to buy your way into skipping game progression is pay to win or not.

Even if what these people are buying with real money is trivial, I would argue that that makes it even worse. It shows that Anet is desperate to wring every little penny they can out of its playerbase and has no reservations about trying to take advantage of new inexperienced players that just don't know better.

20g to skip less than a minute worth of effort? A noob trap that can even be considered a straight up scam. It's hard to justify unless someone is simultaneously ultra rich and for some reason can't be bothered to even play a minute of the game he wants to get an advantage in. Developers that understand their game and players would see that even proposing such a thing would be seen as insulting by the wider community.

What's next? Buying to complete story missions? 200 gems to skip the tutorial?

Just stick to releasing more inventory clutter to sell more bags and more underwhelming PvE skins to nudge people towards buying BL keys and cash shop skins, like you have for the last 9 years. Thanks.

[Teknomancer.4895]

I went to the grocery store for hamburger, and now they expect me to buy buns, toppings and condiments too?

What an outrage! Why didn't they just give me a Double Whopper with Cheese in the first place!?

Edited December 3, 2023 by Teknomancer.4895
clarity

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

47 minutes ago, Manasa Devi.7958 said:

Now that almost every modern online game-as-a-service falls under this new definition of "pay to win", how should we start referring to games that actually offer paid advantages that can never be equalled without extraneous payments? Surely "pay to win" isn't sufficient anymore.

Pay To Win Squared.

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

1 hour ago, Player.2475 said:

It does not matter if being able to buy your way into skipping game progression is pay to win or not.

Even if what these people are buying with real money is trivial, I would argue that that makes it even worse.

What's next? Buying to complete story missions? 200 gems to skip the tutorial?

Ngl , but oficial Raid selling by them , doesn't sound too bad :P

 

In the other hand if you buy  a lvl 80 boost in WoW (20 dollars?), you unlock everything for your character . You don't have to go in 2-3 expansions to unlocks every subclass-alternate spec .Plus hoping to find people in 2-3 years from now in that area , for that 'legacy content" (they said no new espec for a while?)

Edited December 3, 2023 by Killthehealersffs.8940

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

36 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

In the other hand if you buy  a lvl 80 boost in WoW (20 dollars?), you unlock everything for your character . You don't have to go in 2-3 expansions to unlocks every subclass-alternate spec .Plus hoping to find people in 2-3 years from now in that area , for that 'legacy content" (they said no new espec for a while?)

A max level boost(70) in WoW is 60$, or 100$ for 2, right now it gives ~420 ilevel gear, which is below GW2's Exotic + faction renown.