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

[Gaiawolf.8261]

14 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

By no logic does that not equate to paying for power.  It literally is regardless of if it's a transaction or a microtransaction but that isn't a bad thing inherently. [EDIT: but if we want to steelman this paying for power, remember there were aspects of the core specs that were *removed* so they could add them to elite specs that you have to pay for....]

No one said that there isn't powercreep tied to expansions. Just look at especs in general. We only said that "pay-to-win" refers to microtransactions, because it does. If you want to coin "pay for power" to cover expansions, or even all payments that introduce power, go for it. Maybe that's not taken yet. Just don't try to steal an established term with an extant definition. We are no longer arguing the concept here (long past that, and I agree with you there), only the sanctity of preserving terms for their intended meaning.

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

No one said that there isn't powercreep tied to expansions. Just look at especs in general. We only said that "pay-to-win" refers to microtransactions, because it does. If you want to coin "pay for power" to cover expansions, or even all payments that introduce power, go for it. Maybe that's not taken yet. Just don't try to steal an established term with an extant definition. We are no longer arguing the concept here (long past that, and I agree with you there), only the sanctity of preserving terms for their intended meaning.

You'd think it would be obvious, right?  What is the thought process here?  Oh, B2P?  That's pay-to-win because you have to pay for it.  Subscription-based?  Also, pay-to-win because you have to pay for it.  If all pay structures fit the definition of "pay-to-win", then what is the point in even having names to describe them in the first place?  It's all just pay-to-win!

[Kuma.1503]

On 4/11/2024 at 6:58 PM, draxynnic.3719 said:

It's a good video, but in the end it highlights the problem Puck is talking about. 'Pay to win' used to be a pretty damning criticism since it was reserved for situations at the higher end of the scale where you had to engage in microtransactions to realistically compete.

Now it's being thrown around for "expansion pack has a few sidegrades" and "if you see getting cosmetics as winning, buying cosmetics is paying to win". At that point, it's become so watered down that it's just white noise. Expansion packs as a model are quite possibly older than the median age of Guild Wars 2 players, companies aren't going to stop making them because someone screams PTW.

You're right. In the past Pw2 was reserved for games higher on the scale.

And I should note that the existance of a scale should already suggest that there was a spectrum even back then. 

In the past, it was easier to distinguish games that were Pw2 vs those that were not. This was before gaming companies began to evolve their tactics and intenionally muddy the waters. As a result of rapidly evolving monitization practices, we've had to adapt the term. And in instances where determining whether a game is Pw2 or not becomes unclear, we simply need to ask better questions.

This is where it helps to lay out the many P2w tactics develepors may use and the varying degrees of sevarity in which they may present themselves. This allows us to ask more targeted questions. Instead of asking whether it's possible to buy power at all, one question we ask is "how feasible it is to keep up as a free player"? 

If paid advantages can be overcome with time, the quesiton becomes "how much time". Depending on how much free time you're able or willing to spend to keep up as a non-paying player will determien will determine whether you consider that game too pay to win or not. 

 Ask your average gamer who hates Gacha games and they'll tell you games like Genshin and Starrail are P2w. Talk to your average Honkai fan and you might get a long speil about how "The game is actually very generous with how many gems it gives out, so you  don't acutally HAVE to spend money if you just play the game" (This is an actual conversation I've had with a friend of mine who plays Honkai games). 

Attempting to view P2w as a binary thing actually hurts us, because it lets games that just barely skirt below the line get away with a free pass. Giving players the ability to "technically earn cash shop items in game" is a classic way game companies will pull the wool over the eyes of players who fall victim to this black and white thinking. 

 

...With all of THAT out of the way

 

In Gw2's specific case, while it has some Pw2 elements, the overall game is very low on the spectrum, so I would not personally consider it a P2W game. I've sunk thousands of hours into it and frequently reccomend it to others. 

Others may disagree with me, and that's fine. Where they draw their line may be different than where I draw mine. 

 

Edited April 14 by Kuma.1503

[Gaiawolf.8261]

1 hour ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

You'd think it would be obvious, right?  What is the thought process here?  Oh, B2P?  That's pay-to-win because you have to pay for it.  Subscription-based?  Also, pay-to-win because you have to pay for it.  If all pay structures fit the definition of "pay-to-win", then what is the point in even having names to describe them in the first place?  It's all just pay-to-win!

Yeah, I like clear, specific terms over broad ones. They help me decipher meanings more easily and let me know what I'm getting into. If someone says a game is "pay to win" vs "pay for convenience" vs "buy to play" vs "pay to play," I know what pay structure I'm getting into.

If we allow people to dilute "pay to win" down to any other type of payment, and then they have explain what they mean on the JSH scale, then it's no longer helpful.  We lose the point of the term in the first place. Why even have a term then if it's useless without having to explain the use case every time? Just give me the explanation and skip the vague, superfluous terminology.

Edit: Nothing against JSH. I love his content and respect him a lot as a YT creator. He's just off the mark on this one, IMO.

Edited April 14 by Gaiawolf.8261

[Beddo.1907]

How's this topic still going.

[Magmi.6723]

1 hour ago, Beddo.1907 said:

How's this topic still going.

How can any topic stop going with the fact words are no longer allowed to have definitions? 
 

everything’s now a opinion so arguments go around and around in circles because everyone stands behind “a opinion is subjective and cannot be incorrect”

Welcome to the problems of 2024 gaming. 

[Leo G.4501]

18 hours ago, Magmi.6723 said:

Which it’d appear we are at the point of, this post is demanding expansion content to be given free in a game without a subscription. 
 

It wasn’t a case of company’s caving it’s more of a situation, where the customer shot themselves in the foot, it is evident the move to f2p options have ironically increased the cost of gaming.

we once paid £9 a month with 1 expansion over 2 years, 

not only did being f2p reduce the quantity of content per launch that was felt to be acceptable, but it also meant your buying each piece of the game individually at a additional cost, making no portion of content consumable free of cost. 

I’m simply giving you a example of a real p2w model, 

these angry bunch can be as angry as they want, but as someone who’s recently tried quite a few of mmorpgs to find my main game, you’ve got it as good as it gets monetization wise.

You realize people are free to demand practically anything, right? That doesn't mean anyone has to give it to them.

And no, I will not agree it was customers shooting themselves in the foot that sank Wild Star. NCSoft can sink their own games without the direct intervention of players. But this is a huge tangent as being free to play shouldn't have anything to do with pay to win, at least not in the context of GW2 since it's not a true f2p game nor did it's f2p aspects hinder the rest of the model.

This is about p2w and what it means to players.

Lastly, you say there is a wave of angry foaming-at-the-mouth players demanding more and more things for free here....no one in this discussion is. Even the OP is just disappointed, not demanding. Everyone here, as far as I know, is NOT doing what you're implying in the context of GW2. Heck, I'd even argue who is actually angry here? I'm not angry. Are you angry? I thought we were just sharing our opinions.

 

8 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

It isnt, "gate keeping," to adhere to the definition a word or term was created to convey. I am not gate keeping by turning down a grapefruit when asking for an apple. The fact that the grocer has decided that they think the former is the latter is irrelevant. They are entitled to be wrong, but an apple is still not a citrus fruit.

Cool analogy.

I'd compare it more to the Apple (the tech line) blue bubble texts. For the longest, iphones had blue bubbles unless a non-iphone user was texting you/the group and would get a green bubble. This was because text convo shifted to mms/sms instead of imessenger. It wasn't because the other user couldn't use more advanced messaging tech but rather Apple gatekeeping service to iphones by defaulting non-iphone to an inferior messaging standard. That failed and now you're going to see that blue vs green thing go away. Same thing with P2W, the old standard to gauge this is old and transaction types and the video game markets have changed. At best, the term "pay to win" (and it's ilk) will probably be retired because it's just not informative enough of a term to describe games with transaction services anymore, often required multiples of the terms to actually describe it.

 

7 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

No one said that there isn't powercreep tied to expansions. Just look at especs in general. We only said that "pay-to-win" refers to microtransactions, because it does. If you want to coin "pay for power" to cover expansions, or even all payments that introduce power, go for it. Maybe that's not taken yet. Just don't try to steal an established term with an extant definition. We are no longer arguing the concept here (long past that, and I agree with you there), only the sanctity of preserving terms for their intended meaning.

Like I said (because I often have to repeat myself for you guys), I'm not stealing or changing anything. I'm describing what people already do.

And yeah, people do come up with new terms but then we have to go down the road of defining new terms and how they relate or differentiate from similar terms and it really only hurts those trying to anchor the term "pay to win" because that term, even from its infancy, was a flawed description without context.

 

3 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Yeah, I like clear, specific terms over broad ones. They help me decipher meanings more easily and let me know what I'm getting into. If someone says a game is "pay to win" vs "pay for convenience" vs "buy to play" vs "pay to play," I know what pay structure I'm getting into.

If we allow people to dilute "pay to win" down to any other type of payment, and then they have explain what they mean on the JSH scale, then it's no longer helpful.  We lose the point of the term in the first place. Why even have a term then if it's useless without having to explain the use case every time? Just give me the explanation and skip the vague, superfluous terminology.

Edit: Nothing against JSH. I love his content and respect him a lot as a YT creator. He's just off the mark on this one, IMO.

I guess I'm the opposite.

When I want to make decisions on if I want to buy a game, I don't want a term, I want to see what the shop looks like. I want to see the gameplay and see the progression through the levels. I want to hear people's opinions on why it's bad/didn't like it. I want to hear about the fun parts they liked. Gone are the days where I'd buy a game by how it was described on the back of the box (although that time was pretty dope since there used to be a standard the game was actually finished and not blocked behind a season pass or some kitten). My phone doesn't have a data limit, I can read, watch and research as much as I want on a game before purchasing.

I usually try to play devil's advocate on a lot of stuff I hear/watch on YT and Josh isn't any different. I don't actually agree with his scaling or conclusion (there probably shouldn't be levels to the p2w scale he outlines, rather just ticks with a scaling "watch out" level attached, and I don't really agree with the final conclusion that "it's whatever your definition of winning is" as the final caveat). But he puts forth a more robust argument FOR his position than what I'm reading here. He's persuaded me moreso than the posts I've read thus far.

 

10 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:

How can any topic stop going with the fact words are no longer allowed to have definitions? 
 

everything’s now a opinion so arguments go around and around in circles because everyone stands behind “a opinion is subjective and cannot be incorrect”

Welcome to the problems of 2024 gaming. 

This is also why the discussion keeps going.

I don't think anyone said words aren't allowed to have definitions.  I say words can take on more context, more meaning and you can adapt more terms (convolution) or elaborate (specificity) to communicate. I'm not dictating which you should do, rather I'm telling you what people attempt to do to communicate on a broader scale.

And yeah, everything's an opinion. The only way to reach people is to argue. You won't reach people via enforcement...or at least that shouldn't be how you want to reach people.

[Gaiawolf.8261]

7 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

I guess I'm the opposite.

When I want to make decisions on if I want to buy a game, I don't want a term, I want to see what the shop looks like. I want to see the gameplay and see the progression through the levels. I want to hear people's opinions on why it's bad/didn't like it. I want to hear about the fun parts they liked. Gone are the days where I'd buy a game by how it was described on the back of the box (although that time was pretty dope since there used to be a standard the game was actually finished and not blocked behind a season pass or some kitten). My phone doesn't have a data limit, I can read, watch and research as much as I want on a game before purchasing.

I don't have a data limit either, but I do have a time limit. I simply don't want to waste my time reading reviews and accounts for every game out there that looks cool or interesting. I won't buy a game based on buzzwords and terms, but will certainly use them to weed out the ones I'm not interested in. I'll give a closer look only to those that pass the buzzword filters, which is specifically why preserving precise, accurate definitions is important to me. We do the same with resumes for hiring around here. I can't imagine how much of my life I'd have wasted if I looked at every applicant or game that wants my time. I could be playing by now! 😄

[Leo G.4501]

8 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

I don't have a data limit either, but I do have a time limit. I simply don't want to waste my time reading reviews and accounts for every game out there that looks cool or interesting. I won't buy a game based on buzzwords and terms, but will certainly use them to weed out the ones I'm not interested in. I'll give a closer look only to those that pass the buzzword filters, which is specifically why preserving precise, accurate definitions is important to me. We do the same with resumes for hiring around here. I can't imagine how much of my life I'd have wasted if I looked at every applicant or game that wants my time. I could be playing by now! 😄

You do you. I will say, though, if you just filter via buzzword, you could also be hindering potentially good candidates.

I worked as a recruiter as well for 4 years (finally got out of that racket) for the military. While it is important to filter your applicants (sex offenders and felons I can't work with), you could be passing up a potentially great and hard working person with only good intentions if you don't do some due diligence. I've worked with plenty of people with medical and criminal records that end up being fine soldiers or able to build great lives for themselves because of new opportunities by digging a bit deeper. I'm just saying, it's possible to have fun with some cash-grab games if you know not to sink any money into them or putting support behind a longshot game because you see potential in it/had fun with it. Of course, you're going to hit stinkers that waste your time tho so there is that.

[Magmi.6723]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Heck, I'd even argue who is actually angry here? I'm not angry. Are you angry? I thought we were just sharing our opinions

People don’t call things p2w to wish they stay the way things are, they call things out as p2w to create a push for change. 
 

OP didn’t come here saying this to simply say “oh well” they stated it to get like minded people in agreement to amass numbers, I.e to push change in direction. it’s a demand in itself.

Your right everyone’s free to spout nonsense we live in an era there are people who still think the world is flat, or the world is only 2000 years old. 
 

and alike these arguments it’s impossible for them to be opinions, the world cannot be both flat and round, games cannot be both pay 2 win and not be. It can’t be subjective, because it’s impossible for them to both be correct lol.

this isn’t a exchange of opinions it’s a flat question of weather gw2 is or isn’t by definition p2w

they didn’t create multiple types of model for us to all use one for everything, it’s a fallacy of logic, gw2 was advertised as a B2P game, a middle ground between F2P and Subscription based models. It has remained a B2P game, I.e no subscription costs, no p2w micro transactions but you still pay box prices for content. 

It is not a “opinion” that it isn’t that model, the issue is without making it subjective no one can put together a real argument to why it is p2w. And by simple logic, that kinda proves their wrong in themselves 

no need for anger, however P2W is a factual word with a definition, you can butcher the language as much as you please to drive subjectiveness, but it’s overall wrong 

 

Edited April 14 by Magmi.6723

[Gaiawolf.8261]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

You do you. I will say, though, if you just filter via buzzword, you could also be hindering potentially good candidates.

I worked as a recruiter as well for 4 years (finally got out of that racket) for the military. While it is important to filter your applicants (sex offenders and felons I can't work with), you could be passing up a potentially great and hard working person with only good intentions if you don't do some due diligence. I've worked with plenty of people with medical and criminal records that end up being fine soldiers or able to build great lives for themselves because of new opportunities by digging a bit deeper. I'm just saying, it's possible to have fun with some cash-grab games if you know not to sink any money into them or putting support behind a longshot game because you see potential in it/had fun with it. Of course, you're going to hit stinkers that waste your time tho so there is that.

Oh for sure it takes a balance and some will slip through the cracks on both sides, but there's only so much time I can invest. That's another reason I like my dealbreakers and dealmakers clearly defined and properly used. 😉 They are more accurate that way and better at catching the markers.

[Leo G.4501]

1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:

People don’t call things p2w to wish they stay the way things are, they call things out as p2w to create a push for change. 
 

OP didn’t come here saying this to simply say “oh well” they stated it to get like minded people in agreement to amass numbers, I.e to push change in direction. it’s a demand in itself.

 

And how well did that work out for them?

I'm all for counter criticism, but I don't think you understand what the actual scope of the argument is.  At worse, the OP would be pushing for weapon mastery from specs they already purchased to be available to core by default.

 

1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:

Your right everyone’s free to spout nonsense we live in an era there are people who still think the world is flat, or the world is only 2000 years old. 
 

and alike these arguments it’s impossible for them to be opinions, the world cannot be both flat and round, games cannot be both pay 2 win and not be. It can’t be subjective, because it’s impossible for them to both be correct lol.

 

Again, I don't think you really get this. You're trying to compare scientific data to subjective consumer opinion.  That hypothetical is just bonkers. I'm surprised you're not embarrassed posting it lol

1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:

 

this isn’t a exchange of opinions it’s a flat question of weather gw2 is or isn’t by definition p2w

they didn’t create multiple types of model for us to all use one for everything, it’s a fallacy of logic, gw2 was advertised as a B2P game, a middle ground between F2P and Subscription based models. It has remained a B2P game, I.e no subscription costs, no p2w micro transactions but you still pay box prices for content. 

 

Buy to play is not a middle ground between free to play and subscription. It's an alternative, yes, but there is no metric that puts it between the two unless the only metric measured is money exchanged. Understand that those metrics or scales don't even interact with the concept of pay to win. A game can be subscription based AND pay to win. A game can also be buy to play and subscription.  So on and so forth.

 

1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:

It is not a “opinion” that it isn’t that model, the issue is without making it subjective no one can put together a real argument to why it is p2w.

 

Do you want me to make a real argument to why GW2 is pay to win?

 

[Magmi.6723]

7 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

gain, I don't think you really get this. You're trying to compare scientific data to subjective consumer opinion.  That hypothetical is just bonkers. I'm surprised you're not embarrassed posting it lol

P2W isn’t a subjective opinion though lol. It’s a statement. an expansion feature literally cannot be p2w, because it’s a b2p feature by definition 

 

Edited April 15 by Magmi.6723

[Leo G.4501]

2 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:

P2W isn’t a subjective opinion though lol. It’s a statement. 

Statements can be opinions.  Statements can even be facts but not all facts are correct.

[Magmi.6723]

Just now, Leo G.4501 said:

tatements can be opinions.  Statements can even be facts but not all facts are correct

A game cannot be both p2w and not pay to win, so by definition only one can be true, that cannot be subjective 

[Magmi.6723]

35 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

How have we gotten here? lol

So if you're not with us, then you're against us.  What are we, Sith? If I bring up lauded arguments about spectrums of actual scientific distinction, I'm sure to get another warning. I'll just concede lol

Likely for the best, we will just both end up on warnings here.

Every game on the market is p2w in the views of these people, which generally means they lack the ability to evolve, markets change. If every game on the market is considered unacceptable in those eyes, they’re likely too old to still be apart of the audience they market towards

micro transactions sure did change the face of gaming and the way it’s approached, however we aren’t talking micro transactions here, we are talking about expansions, and weather it’s acceptable as a model to expect a customer to pay for them.

There’s no solution to the situation, because every solution is considered unacceptable and regardless of change they will find something else they deem unacceptable.

The only real option is either remain playing or quit the game. If you think it’s unacceptable to pay for content then simply leave, find a game which you consider to be acceptable. 

p2w has become the most used phrase in the gaming market so it’s wild that you cannot understand why this dilutes the argument. It used to be a pretty damning criticism, players steered clear of games which were described in such a fashion because we trusted definitions.

its no longer a word gaming companies need to fear. We killed the fear of this criticism by overusing it and applying it to so many things that even customers now ignore the warnings of such being screeched.

im sure this thread will never end, or be forcibly closed in the end due to it likely devolving into more arguments 

b2p was supposed to be the mix of the 2 the issue is games started hybridizing to reach for higher profits, WoW is a example of this. Since the popularization of micro transactions WoW has adopted them in full force. 

That’s the players customer agency. The ability to leave a game when they disagree with the decisions the game makes. 

Edited April 15 by Magmi.6723

[Obtena.7952]

5 hours ago, Magmi.6723 said:

People don’t call things p2w to wish they stay the way things are, they call things out as p2w to create a push for change. 

That's the problem. Anyone that thinks shaming Anet with labels to compel change is pretty ignorant, especially if it's flavoured with a dash of entitlement.

[draxynnic.3719]

On 4/15/2024 at 2:28 AM, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Yeah, I like clear, specific terms over broad ones. They help me decipher meanings more easily and let me know what I'm getting into. If someone says a game is "pay to win" vs "pay for convenience" vs "buy to play" vs "pay to play," I know what pay structure I'm getting into.

This. We had someone earlier in the thread claiming that "pay for convenience" was just a weasel word for "pay to win", but here's the thing - we can acknowledge that there's a spectrum while still labelling different parts of it. The most famous spectrum in the world doesn't have people trying to expand the word "blue" to cover the entire spectrum. There might be a bit of disagreement over when blue becomes green, but you don't get people claiming that yellow or microwaves are blue just because they're all on a spectrum. I think there's something similar here - "pay for convenience" can absolutely be problematic, especially when you can tell that it's a 'create the problem and then sell the solution' situation, but is still different from "pay to win" (or at least, it was before people diluted the term).

From my perspective, I generally exclude expansion packs because of the general assumption that if you want to experience all the content, you want to get the expansion packs anyway. "Pay to win" generally applies to things where the power is the point of the purchase, and where you could otherwise theoretically experience the entire game without the ptw item, you'd just find yourself increasingly at a disadvantage that pressures you to buy that ptw item.

Even putting that aside, though, I think there's also an element of intent to it. Consider that even the OP titled this thread as "I didn't even get to be disappointed by the new weapons". It's pretty clear that there wasn't a concerted effort to make the new weapons the most powerful things around. The main winners seem to be guardian pistol on damage numbers, ranger maces and thief axe before they were nerfed, and mesmer rifle and warrior staff for enabling healing builds on those professions. Rev scepter and ele pistol in particular seem to be almost universally disliked.

[Gaiawolf.8261]

4 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

This. We had someone earlier in the thread claiming that "pay for convenience" was just a weasel word for "pay to win", but here's the thing - we can acknowledge that there's a spectrum while still labelling different parts of it. The most famous spectrum in the world doesn't have people trying to expand the word "blue" to cover the entire spectrum. There might be a bit of disagreement over when blue becomes green, but you don't get people claiming that yellow or microwaves are blue just because they're all on a spectrum. I think there's something similar here - "pay for convenience" can absolutely be problematic, especially when you can tell that it's a 'create the problem and then sell the solution' situation, but is still different from "pay to win" (or at least, it was before people diluted the term).

From my perspective, I generally exclude expansion packs because of the general assumption that if you want to experience all the content, you want to get the expansion packs anyway. "Pay to win" generally applies to things where the power is the point of the purchase, and where you could otherwise theoretically experience the entire game without the ptw item, you'd just find yourself increasingly at a disadvantage that pressures you to buy that ptw item.

Even putting that aside, though, I think there's also an element of intent to it. Consider that even the OP titled this thread as "I didn't even get to be disappointed by the new weapons". It's pretty clear that there wasn't a concerted effort to make the new weapons the most powerful things around. The main winners seem to be guardian pistol on damage numbers, ranger maces and thief axe before they were nerfed, and mesmer rifle and warrior staff for enabling healing builds on those professions. Rev scepter and ele pistol in particular seem to be almost universally disliked.

LOL 

"Did you see the sun this afternoon? It was kinda blue."

"What are you talking about? It wasn't blue, it was blue."

" Nah, you're both smoking something. That sun was BLUE!"

Sorry I couldn't help myself. 😅