Man, but I didn't even get to BE disappointed by the new weapons

[itspomf.9523]

After delving through the news archive and finding the original post for the expanded weapon proficiency beta, it turns out these are only for people who bought Secrets of the Obscure.

Regardless of whether or not locking basic content like new weapons behind a paywall is acceptable or not, I'm disappointed I didn't even get the chance to see if the changes lived up to what was discussed on the 14th.

Ok, I guess.

[XenesisII.1540]

20 minutes ago, itspomf.9523 said:

After delving through the news archive and finding the original post for the expanded weapon proficiency beta, it turns out these are only for people who bought Secrets of the Obscure.

Regardless of whether or not locking basic content like new weapons behind a paywall is acceptable or not, I'm disappointed I didn't even get the chance to see if the changes lived up to what was discussed on the 14th.

Ok, I guess.

Everyone got to try them out on the beta weekend.

The new weapons are sold as part of the expansion, no different than the spec weapons previous for hot and pof and eod, and then soto resold them to be useable on all specs. You're not going to get much for free from anet these days, not when they're already scraping the bottom of the barrel reselling elite spec weapons, mounts, rune bonuses into relics as expansion highlights. 🤷‍♂️

Edited February 27 by XenesisII.1540

[Randulf.7614]

The new weapons can also only be accessed either through the story in the latest map update or through WvW notaries. So even with SoTo, there's another gate to pass through

[Phyb.6704]

They are xpac content. Weaponmaster training and expanded weapons are xpac content. Much like elite specs and their weapons... or mounts in general.
It is not basic conent of core tyria. 

[Teknomancer.4895]

5 hours ago, Randulf.7614 said:

The new weapons can also only be accessed either through the story in the latest map update or through WvW notaries. So even with SoTo, there's another gate to pass through

You forgot the scare quotes around "story." 😉 A couple minutes of bad dialogue followed by a shove into the meta events is a pretty poor excuse for storytelling imo.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

Does not buy product. 

Does not get product. 

Complains. 

Classic. 

[Sobx.1758]

18 hours ago, itspomf.9523 said:

After delving through the news archive and finding the original post for the expanded weapon proficiency beta, it turns out these are only for people who bought Secrets of the Obscure.

Regardless of whether or not locking basic content like new weapons behind a paywall is acceptable or not, I'm disappointed I didn't even get the chance to see if the changes lived up to what was discussed on the 14th.

Ok, I guess.

This is not a new information, we knew the weapons were tied to expansion the same way especs were tied to previous expansions. Not sure what this complaint is supposed to be or how you even come up with the conclusion of what "basic content" is.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

Yeah, for better or worse GW2 has always been 'pay to win' in this way.  

Before the 'omg it's not gacha with waifu girl summons and random super stat items so not pay 2 win!' brigade comes--I will just say this, there are no core specs that hold up to e-specs at this time.  You can play core specs and weapons, but they will always be behind on any balancing, as all of that is done with the paying in mind. 

23 hours ago, Randulf.7614 said:

The new weapons can also only be accessed either through the story in the latest map update or through WvW notaries. So even with SoTo, there's another gate to pass through

Fun fact too, if you go to the WvW notary and use the scroll but haven't done the steps--it just disappears, and you have to do it through the story anyway.  It was unclear to me if you had to get to the step in the story and not want to do the 5-min treasure hunt so just go to WvW and buy it from the notary or what---but yeah.  

[Jedrik.3109]

Pay to win?! 

This is a ridiculously disingenuous statement. The mental gymnastics to be able to state this is hilarious. 

[Leo G.4501]

3 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Yeah, for better or worse GW2 has always been 'pay to win' in this way.  

Before the 'omg it's not gacha with waifu girl summons and random super stat items so not pay 2 win!' brigade comes--I will just say this, there are no core specs that hold up to e-specs at this time.  You can play core specs and weapons, but they will always be behind on any balancing, as all of that is done with the paying in mind. 

 

2 hours ago, Jedrik.3109 said:

Pay to win?! 

This is a ridiculously disingenuous statement. The mental gymnastics to be able to state this is hilarious. 

Eh, there's a spectrum to it. By definition, it could be considered pay to win but at the same time, the definition is broad and the other terms are rarely ever conjured. Pay to play, buy to play, pay for convenience, pay to progress, etc etc. They often hinge on a specific criteria being met but ultimately miss the point.

Is this pay to win? Arguably. In some cases, there are clear advantages and builds opened by purchasing this or that expansion...but in some cases, the options unlocked aren't stronger. Like Oh, I just bought PoF and now I got Spellbreaker, that's just so much better than Berserker, isn't it? The point isn't whether or not it is p2w, it's more important if it's toxic predatory p2w. Because you can still roll out with core in WvW or PvP and rack up some wins. It's not like you're instantly deleted, as much as people like to exaggerate that you are.  On the other hand, if you did shell out $40 for an expansion and all it does it change your skill colors/animations instead of add to the gameplay, is it even worth buying?

[Gaiawolf.8261]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

 

Eh, there's a spectrum to it. By definition, it could be considered pay to win but at the same time, the definition is broad and the other terms are rarely ever conjured. Pay to play, buy to play, pay for convenience, pay to progress, etc etc. They often hinge on a specific criteria being met but ultimately miss the point.

Is this pay to win? Arguably. In some cases, there are clear advantages and builds opened by purchasing this or that expansion...but in some cases, the options unlocked aren't stronger. Like Oh, I just bought PoF and now I got Spellbreaker, that's just so much better than Berserker, isn't it? The point isn't whether or not it is p2w, it's more important if it's toxic predatory p2w. Because you can still roll out with core in WvW or PvP and rack up some wins. It's not like you're instantly deleted, as much as people like to exaggerate that you are.  On the other hand, if you did shell out $40 for an expansion and all it does it change your skill colors/animations instead of add to the gameplay, is it even worth buying?

PTW is generally not attributed to expansions and major DLCs. It's mostly a term applied to microtransactions as an extra payment scheme. Everyone expects to pay for expansions to access new content, including class features, as an industry standard.

[draxynnic.3719]

4 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

PTW is generally not attributed to expansions and major DLCs. It's mostly a term applied to microtransactions as an extra payment scheme. Everyone expects to pay for expansions to access new content, including class features, as an industry standard.

Basically, this. It's generally expected that if you don't buy into expansion-level updates, you'll fall behind. Pay to win usually involves being able to buy a weapon that's difficult or impossible to match without swiping, a class that's deliberately overpowered that isn't available without buying it separately, and other 'if you're not a whale, you're content for the whales' behaviour.

[Dadnir.5038]

Let's be fair, the content you can access to freely don't have a special need for paid feature so...

[ZephidelGRS.9520]

The game is 10+ years old. Expecting core classes to not be powercrept is silly. Yet core classes still wreck havoc in PvP/WvW alike (core Mesmer, core Guardian, core Thief), who said they couldn’t compete with especs? And most espec builds across professions still rely heavily on core weapons anyway lol. 

And all end game items are just convenience/cosmetic upgrade, they don’t inherently give you any advantages in combat. Yes you can swipe and buy Eternity from the TP but it’s not any better than a normal sword in combat other than looking prettier, yet you’re still inexperienced regardless and will likely die in most content except the open world.

[Aenesthesia.1697]

18 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Yeah, for better or worse GW2 has always been 'pay to win' in this way.  

Before the 'omg it's not gacha with waifu girl summons and random super stat items so not pay 2 win!' brigade comes--I will just say this, there are no core specs that hold up to e-specs at this time.  You can play core specs and weapons, but they will always be behind on any balancing, as all of that is done with the paying in mind. 

Fun fact too, if you go to the WvW notary and use the scroll but haven't done the steps--it just disappears, and you have to do it through the story anyway.  It was unclear to me if you had to get to the step in the story and not want to do the 5-min treasure hunt so just go to WvW and buy it from the notary or what---but yeah.  

Wrong, the game is, and always has been, pay to play. If you didn't pay, you are just giving it a try. Don't expect to be competitive or have full access if you are not playing the full game.  

[Gotejjeken.1267]

3 hours ago, Aenesthesia.1697 said:

Wrong, the game is, and always has been, pay to play. If you didn't pay, you are just giving it a try. Don't expect to be competitive or have full access if you are not playing the full game.  

Right, the original core game counts as paying...correct? Assuming the actual game and not the F2P 'demo' or whatever some on here like to refer to that as.  

Out of curiosity, do people differentiate 'pay to play' and 'pay to win' depending on how toxic they feel the 'paying' part is?

Edited February 29 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Leo G.4501]

16 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

PTW is generally not attributed to expansions and major DLCs. It's mostly a term applied to microtransactions as an extra payment scheme. Everyone expects to pay for expansions to access new content, including class features, as an industry standard.

Like I said, people are going to have different qualifiers for these terms and how they interact with game modes. I'm not rewriting reality, I'm just bridging the gap of different interpretations. You can make up more and new terms, the point is whether it's predatory or not and if it impacts balance or not. Because someone can just concede and say "fine, it's not pay to win, it's buy the expansion to win" and you've not changed the position. It's a semantics argument.

Going back on the two points, I don't think anyone would agree that buying expansions is predatory but the argument can be made that they do impact the balance. The point you side stepped (since you did quote my whole post) is how much should it impact the balance. Because too much is obviously not a good thing either, whether is from an expansion or a microtransaction. 

[Gaiawolf.8261]

46 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Like I said, people are going to have different qualifiers for these terms and how they interact with game modes. I'm not rewriting reality, I'm just bridging the gap of different interpretations. You can make up more and new terms, the point is whether it's predatory or not and if it impacts balance or not. Because someone can just concede and say "fine, it's not pay to win, it's buy the expansion to win" and you've not changed the position. It's a semantics argument.

Going back on the two points, I don't think anyone would agree that buying expansions is predatory but the argument can be made that they do impact the balance. The point you side stepped (since you did quote my whole post) is how much should it impact the balance. Because too much is obviously not a good thing either, whether is from an expansion or a microtransaction. 

I never said expansions don't introduce power creep. In fact many of the leading games do blatantly. But no one calls it pay to win for expansions. They call it vertical progression or power creep for horizontal progression games.

 

[TrollingDemigod.3041]

1 hour ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

I never said expansions don't introduce power creep. In fact many of the leading games do blatantly. But no one calls it pay to win for expansions. They call it vertical progression or power creep for horizontal progression games.

 

Yea... Sounds like coping mechanism to me. You could also call it "investment in character development", doesn't change the fact it's p2w.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:13 PM, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Yeah, for better or worse GW2 has always been 'pay to win' in this way.  

Before the 'omg it's not gacha with waifu girl summons and random super stat items so not pay 2 win!' brigade comes--I will just say this, there are no core specs that hold up to e-specs at this time.  You can play core specs and weapons, but they will always be behind on any balancing, as all of that is done with the paying in mind. 

Fun fact too, if you go to the WvW notary and use the scroll but haven't done the steps--it just disappears, and you have to do it through the story anyway.  It was unclear to me if you had to get to the step in the story and not want to do the 5-min treasure hunt so just go to WvW and buy it from the notary or what---but yeah.  

 

On 2/28/2024 at 4:29 PM, Jedrik.3109 said:

Pay to win?! 

This is a ridiculously disingenuous statement. The mental gymnastics to be able to state this is hilarious. 

 

21 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

 

Eh, there's a spectrum to it. By definition, it could be considered pay to win but at the same time, the definition is broad and the other terms are rarely ever conjured. Pay to play, buy to play, pay for convenience, pay to progress, etc etc. They often hinge on a specific criteria being met but ultimately miss the point.

Is this pay to win? Arguably. In some cases, there are clear advantages and builds opened by purchasing this or that expansion...but in some cases, the options unlocked aren't stronger. Like Oh, I just bought PoF and now I got Spellbreaker, that's just so much better than Berserker, isn't it? The point isn't whether or not it is p2w, it's more important if it's toxic predatory p2w. Because you can still roll out with core in WvW or PvP and rack up some wins. It's not like you're instantly deleted, as much as people like to exaggerate that you are.  On the other hand, if you did shell out $40 for an expansion and all it does it change your skill colors/animations instead of add to the gameplay, is it even worth buying?

 

20 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

PTW is generally not attributed to expansions and major DLCs. It's mostly a term applied to microtransactions as an extra payment scheme. Everyone expects to pay for expansions to access new content, including class features, as an industry standard.

 

15 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Basically, this. It's generally expected that if you don't buy into expansion-level updates, you'll fall behind. Pay to win usually involves being able to buy a weapon that's difficult or impossible to match without swiping, a class that's deliberately overpowered that isn't available without buying it separately, and other 'if you're not a whale, you're content for the whales' behaviour.

Apologies for the huge quote block.

This is precisely why "P2W" has become an irrelevant term or phrase. It has lost all meaning because of how broad the spectrum of opinions on what is or is not pay to win. As it really is broad, whether or not any one individual disagrees with what another might consider pay to win is not relevant, the perception is still there from that individual or form many who share the same opinion. An example of this is for players who purely focus on cosmetic rewards, as there are many in the space of video games that do, have considered "cosmetic only shops" to be pay to win in their own respective area of concern. There was also a time in GW2, possibly still is around in some capacity, where there are those that consider(ed) server transfers to be P2W in WvW due to bandwagoning and such.

From an objective position, paying for expansions that have seemingly clear power creep attributed to them either in the form of access to gear from content behind said paywall or in this case "Classes" being behind that paywall can be perceived by many to be "P2W". Again, this is why the term has lost any and all meaning simply because no one can even agree on a singular definition.

What it has become, however, is more that we should be having a discussion on not what is or is not pay to win and more if a monetization practice is predatory or unreasonable. As an example, the base game for GW2 does not have a feasible combat mechanics tutorial that is mandatory to go through...yet EoD, in literally its very first few missions, has a mandatory one you must do (dodging, combo fields, defiance bars). ANet put a basic combat tutorial behind a $30 paywall. That is weird and not okay.

Also for what it is worth I do think it is not okay to put the Weaponmaster Training function (access to all expansion related weapons on any Spec) behind the SOTO paywall. The Expanded Weapon Proficiencies addition added with the update sure, thats fine. I can accept that being a part of SOTO itself, but if people already paid for HoT, PoF and EoD (or any potential combination of such) Weaponmaster Training is locked out for them unless they pay another $25. Thats kind of gross.

[Leo G.4501]

5 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

I never said expansions don't introduce power creep. In fact many of the leading games do blatantly. But no one calls it pay to win for expansions. They call it vertical progression or power creep for horizontal progression games.

 

True. We entirely agree. Like I said before, people just have different terms for what is effectively the same thing. Certain approaches are tolerated while others are not. Certain pretenses exist that elicit disdain and others that are embraced. And like I mentioned in my initial post, some level of power creep is welcomed but too much will have backlash. If we bought the expansion and all it did was change the color of our skills to another color, we probably wouldn't buy it, or at least not as many would. 

As far as the OP goes, they boxed a feature in an expansion. If you want it, there's a one-time fee. I personally am not averse to it, however, I myself haven't purchased the last expansion. No reason behind that except I'm content with what I have when I do play.

[draxynnic.3719]

I think this is a case of knowing the history of the term matters. The expansion model, which is what the Guild Wars franchise has largely been based on, predates the term - nobody in the day considered it predatory because the assumption was that everybody who was serious enough about the game to care about power levels would be buying the expansions anyway because of the additional content they added. The term arose with the advent of microtransactions where gaining additional power was the main thing you were paying for: whether overt in cases where you're basically just buying additional stats, or with some attempt to hide it such as buying access to a class that everyone knows is OP compared to the classes that don't need to be purchased separately.

The Guild Wars model, where the new content is a large part of what you're paying for, but where they do introduce new character options which can produce some power creep due to opening up synergies that didn't exist before? That's not the sort of thing that the term 'pay to win' was coined for. It's things like how earlier in World of Tanks, the superior ammunition could only be purchased using the ingame currency that represents real world money. (It's since been made available through the currency that you earn ingame, but at a large enough markup that they're probably still expecting people to swipe, especially since around the time I quit the economy was balanced so that the average high-tier game would cost you more than you earned.) 

This whole definition creep is a bad faith misappropriation that only waters down the term. What next, any game that doesn't have a free to play version is pay to win because you can't win if you can't play?

[KryTiKaL.3125]

3 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I think this is a case of knowing the history of the term matters. The expansion model, which is what the Guild Wars franchise has largely been based on, predates the term - nobody in the day considered it predatory because the assumption was that everybody who was serious enough about the game to care about power levels would be buying the expansions anyway because of the additional content they added. The term arose with the advent of microtransactions where gaining additional power was the main thing you were paying for: whether overt in cases where you're basically just buying additional stats, or with some attempt to hide it such as buying access to a class that everyone knows is OP compared to the classes that don't need to be purchased separately.

The Guild Wars model, where the new content is a large part of what you're paying for, but where they do introduce new character options which can produce some power creep due to opening up synergies that didn't exist before? That's not the sort of thing that the term 'pay to win' was coined for. It's things like how earlier in World of Tanks, the superior ammunition could only be purchased using the ingame currency that represents real world money. (It's since been made available through the currency that you earn ingame, but at a large enough markup that they're probably still expecting people to swipe, especially since around the time I quit the economy was balanced so that the average high-tier game would cost you more than you earned.) 

This whole definition creep is a bad faith misappropriation that only waters down the term. What next, any game that doesn't have a free to play version is pay to win because you can't win if you can't play?

Yes, exactly my point. The term itself has become useless because of how misused or overused the term has been. At this point you're not going to win the battle of trying to get people to acknowledge how the term originated and use it appropriately within that context. You can however shift the conversation to something else, such as predatory monetization practices which may result in actually productive discussion, whenever the argument of "P2W" ever comes up because otherwise the "P2W" argument is just an ever revolving door that leads nowhere.

Words, terms, phrases, they all evolve over time and unfortunately some just entirely lose their meaning or "value" due to, as you say, their misappropriation.

[Leo G.4501]

4 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

This whole definition creep is a bad faith misappropriation that only waters down the term. What next, any game that doesn't have a free to play version is pay to win because you can't win if you can't play?

The term P2W, and many others, are already watered down. Further still, people exaggerate (over or under) for social media clout or to win online debates. On the other hand, when you have clear focused dialog about the game talking about horizontal progression and so forth, you find contradictions and conflicts in definitions and goals. You can say it's bad faith but it's also dismissive to ignore the elephant in the room because you've settled on your own definitions while ignoring the dissonance with your reality. 

[Aenesthesia.1697]

15 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Out of curiosity, do people differentiate 'pay to play' and 'pay to win' depending on how toxic they feel the 'paying' part is?

No, you just simply take the game as advertised. GW2 was never advertised as free to play. You pay for the game, you can unlock everything that gives you a chance to 'win'. Fair and square from day one. 

A pay to win game, on the other hand, may charge you for the game or not, but then offers a substantial advantage to players who pay extra. And by substantial i mean that they can beat the content or other players with the same game, carried by their cash investment.

In the case of GW2, you can beat other players based on your cash investment but only because they are not playing the same game. If they don't have the expansions, they just have part of the game you are playing. 

And, of course, you can gain some advantages even by playing the same game, but having extra bag slots or nicer skins doesn't give you an advantage in any kind of competitive endgame content.