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

[Infinity.2876]

I thought P2W was when a game has a paywall. In Gw2 you can buy expacks with gems. Gems are bought with Gold and gold is a F2p currency. Doesn't that make it not P2W?

[Flowersunshine.7385]

I think gw2 has one of the healthiest approaches to monetization. You buy the game, if more content is added, you buy access to that content. This helps keeping the game afloat and can be reasonably expected from every player.

Then if you want extras (convenience, skins), you can buy those with real world money and support the game. Or you farm in game currency and turn that to gems if you can't afford to pay more than the base game.

Some content is locked behind expansion, yes. But: 1) it's a one time purchase to have access to that content forever (well, as long as the game is supported at least) and 2) you do not have a significant disadvantage to any content you had access to before if you do not have the new content unlocked. HoT did not suddenly get impossible to travers when the later expansion came out, nor did it's metas become impossible to participate in, nor did the rewards change depending on which expansion you own. This is true for all gw2 content.

Can you continue progressing (craft new items, farm gold, hope for RNG) in the expansions you own if you do not buy the latest? Yes, you can.

Game development is not free. Being expected to pay for new content is not weird or bad. Can we disagree about whether the new expansion was worth it? Probably. (For example: I agree it is LW-quality sold as expac, but I do not necessarily think it is bad that LW-quality is monetized.)

Gw2 does not ask a subscription. You buy access to content, or do not, and then support the game for as much (or as little) as you want or can through the gem store.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

2 hours ago, Flowersunshine.7385 said:

I think gw2 has one of the healthiest approaches to monetization. You buy the game, if more content is added, you buy access to that content. This helps keeping the game afloat and can be reasonably expected from every player.

Then if you want extras (convenience, skins), you can buy those with real world money and support the game. Or you farm in game currency and turn that to gems if you can't afford to pay more than the base game.

Some content is locked behind expansion, yes. But: 1) it's a one time purchase to have access to that content forever (well, as long as the game is supported at least) and 2) you do not have a significant disadvantage to any content you had access to before if you do not have the new content unlocked. HoT did not suddenly get impossible to travers when the later expansion came out, nor did it's metas become impossible to participate in, nor did the rewards change depending on which expansion you own. This is true for all gw2 content.

Can you continue progressing (craft new items, farm gold, hope for RNG) in the expansions you own if you do not buy the latest? Yes, you can.

Game development is not free. Being expected to pay for new content is not weird or bad. Can we disagree about whether the new expansion was worth it? Probably. (For example: I agree it is LW-quality sold as expac, but I do not necessarily think it is bad that LW-quality is monetized.)

Gw2 does not ask a subscription. You buy access to content, or do not, and then support the game for as much (or as little) as you want or can through the gem store.

For the most part I am in agreement with you. They are a business, they have employees, they have to make money. I have no issues with SOTO being paid content, I have issues with very specific things being behind these paywalls that I genuinely believe shouldn't be (such as the examples I presented in a previous post). Do I think ANet did this to be malicious or intentionally predatory? No, I actually do not. I think its a weird oversight because ANet just...is weird with how they approach things. They are fairly abnormal, and not in a particularly good way all the time, within the space of video game developers, and in their case also publishers since they handle that as well.

This isn't to say I think they do everything poorly, they don't, expanding weapon proficiencies and "unlocking" them was a good move, the Wizard's Vault with not only perpetually available "exclusive" rewards (so people don't miss out on the skins or other items from the past) that also encourages people to actually play the game instead of the old "just log in" system was a phenomenally good move.

However, the things I do see as issues within the context of this discussion should still be pointed out as just off by the community. Again, as per my examples, its weird that an extremely basic combat mechanics tutorial that you need to complete as you progress through the game (EoD story specifically) is behind a paywall and simply not in the Core free game which is tremendously anti-new player, even if not intentional. Its gross that people who paid for any combination of the previous expansions already would then have to pay more to be able to access the weapons (Weaponmaster Training) from Elite Specs from those expansions universally across a class (again the new Expanded Proficiencies I see no issue being behind the SOTO paywall).

[Gotejjeken.1267]

8 hours ago, Aenesthesia.1697 said:

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. 

What about WvW? Anyone can enter it, and at this point it's I think six different games by your line of reasoning.  It's also competitive endgame content.  The counter here is, having no warclaw and on a core spec is going to be a vastly different experience than the cele wb or DE that just wrecked you is having.  

So, can we conclude that PvE mostly isn't pay to win because you can pick and choose subsets of what you buy and none of it is monetized for progression? As I do agree that PvE is mostly cosmetic--the only real overlap is fractals (as strikes/raids you have to buy xpacs for IIRC) but can still do the lower tier ones on core specs I'd think.  

Edited March 1 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

Being upset you didn't get to be disappointed because you didn't buy the content you expected to be disappointed by is certainly a take. I've never heard someone regret not being a dissatisfied customer. 

Watch youtube videos to determine if you want to buy the expack for the weapon mastery. 

 

Edited March 1 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Puck.3697]

6 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

What about WvW? Anyone can enter it, and at this point it's I think six different games by your line of reasoning.  It's also competitive endgame content.  The counter here is, having no warclaw and on a core spec is going to be a vastly different experience than the cele wb or DE that just wrecked you is having.  

So, can we conclude that PvE mostly isn't pay to win because you can pick and choose subsets of what you buy and none of it is monetized for progression? As I do agree that PvE is mostly cosmetic--the only real overlap is fractals (as strikes/raids you have to buy xpacs for IIRC) but can still do the lower tier ones on core specs I'd think.  

tbh p2w vs not p2w is a sticky argument, u could make a argument every mmorpg on the market is p2w, why? because in every case a Paid for expansion is a big upgrade in terms of power, its that simple.

I Personally dont consider GW2 p2w, because its built into a expansion, Not a microtransaction, thats my personal opinon on the matter, we expect a Player WITH expansion packs to be stronger, mmorpgs have kinda worked on this since their dawn of existence. So i dont consider Expansions to be p2w as its a core expectation from a MMORPGs model and a accepted one to add.others will disagree.

7 hours ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

(Weaponmaster Training) from Elite Specs from those expansions universally across a class (again the new Expanded Proficiencies I see no issue being behind the SOTO paywall).

eeeh i dont really agree.

Weaponsmaster, is SOTO content, Thats GW2 Whole thing just like WoW has its one.

in WoW ur buying a gear treadmill, in GW2 you buying ur character progression in another fashion, thats it realistically, Each expansions adds something that makes ur class better, like WoWs gear makes classes better really, realistically, buying a expansion is buying another Part of the game, thats the concept behind a expansion instead of continously launching a new game. 

Ironically i'd say the only thing GW2 actually sucks at is generating money because of how much they give out for pennies. 

Edited March 2 by Puck.3697

[KryTiKaL.3125]

2 hours ago, Puck.3697 said:

tbh p2w vs not p2w is a sticky argument, u could make a argument every mmorpg on the market is p2w, why? because in every case a Paid for expansion is a big upgrade in terms of power, its that simple.

I Personally dont consider GW2 p2w, because its built into a expansion, Not a microtransaction, thats my personal opinon on the matter, we expect a Player WITH expansion packs to be stronger, mmorpgs have kinda worked on this since their dawn of existence. So i dont consider Expansions to be p2w as its a core expectation from a MMORPGs model and a accepted one to add.others will disagree.

eeeh i dont really agree.

Weaponsmaster, is SOTO content, Thats GW2 Whole thing just like WoW has its one.

in WoW ur buying a gear treadmill, in GW2 you buying ur character progression in another fashion, thats it realistically, Each expansions adds something that makes ur class better, like WoWs gear makes classes better really, realistically, buying a expansion is buying another Part of the game, thats the concept behind a expansion instead of continously launching a new game. 

Ironically i'd say the only thing GW2 actually sucks at is generating money because of how much they give out for pennies. 

Right, and Expanded Weapon Proficiencies, which we just got, falls under that category of expansion content for SOTO. However when Weaponmaster Training was released the only relation to SOTO that it has is that you get it in SOTO, the things that Weaponmaster Training "unlocks" are all related to every single other expansion. Weaponmaster Training itself didn't unlock anything specifically related to SOTO until this very recent update, so they could have just as easily made it a Core aspect of the game, no additional expansion required, and it would have accomplished the exact same thing. Locking it behind the SOTO price tag isn't necessary, and I argue that its not player friendly.

[Manpag.6421]

9 hours ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

Weaponmaster Training itself didn't unlock anything specifically related to SOTO until this very recent update, so they could have just as easily made it a Core aspect of the game, no additional expansion required, and it would have accomplished the exact same thing. Locking it behind the SOTO price tag isn't necessary, and I argue that its not player friendly.

This is such a bizarre take. For a start, they definitely shouldn’t be core content, because that’s taking things people have paid for as expansion content and giving it to all players for free. It’s fine to allow alternate routes to expansion content between expansions, which ANet have done numerous times (revenant initially being marketed as a HoT feature, then broadened so that you get the base profession with any expansion; EoD gives you access to raptor and springer, as well as gliding which was otherwise HoT-exclusive), especially if you make that access more limited (e.g. EoD not giving access to raptor/springer/gliding masteries despite unlocking them). SotO’s weaponmaster training gives an alternative route to the previously expansion-specific weapons, but by itself it’s limited because you don’t have the complementary elite spec.

It’s like saying that the new flying masteries should be available without SotO because you have HoT gliding masteries and the griffon, but that’s not how it works. Expansion content is usually a mix of new features and new uses for old features, and given the amount of masteries etc in the game already it’s likely future expansions will do more building on things previously introduced in other expansions rather than reinventing the wheel.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

4 hours ago, Manpag.6421 said:

This is such a bizarre take. For a start, they definitely shouldn’t be core content, because that’s taking things people have paid for as expansion content and giving it to all players for free. It’s fine to allow alternate routes to expansion content between expansions, which ANet have done numerous times (revenant initially being marketed as a HoT feature, then broadened so that you get the base profession with any expansion; EoD gives you access to raptor and springer, as well as gliding which was otherwise HoT-exclusive), especially if you make that access more limited (e.g. EoD not giving access to raptor/springer/gliding masteries despite unlocking them). SotO’s weaponmaster training gives an alternative route to the previously expansion-specific weapons, but by itself it’s limited because you don’t have the complementary elite spec.

It’s like saying that the new flying masteries should be available without SotO because you have HoT gliding masteries and the griffon, but that’s not how it works. Expansion content is usually a mix of new features and new uses for old features, and given the amount of masteries etc in the game already it’s likely future expansions will do more building on things previously introduced in other expansions rather than reinventing the wheel.

Okay, I think there was a misunderstanding as to what I meant with this, possibly my fault for not being clear enough. I meant that Weaponmaster Training should be a part of the Core game but of course the weapons being unlocked with it still should require the purchase of the associated expansion. Basically it should just be a thing not tied behind the SOTO price tag, and to unlock access to a weapon, say for instance Pistol on Warrior, you would still need to purchase EoD and Dagger on Warrior would still need to purchase PoF.

This doesn't seem like that much of a difference compared to what we have now, because yes you still need to own the expansion to access the weapon but the main factor in this is also needing to spend money on SOTO despite already having purchased the "access" to the weapon with its associated Elite Spec from the associated expansion. Again as I clarified, the recently released Expanded Weapon Proficiencies being tied specifically to SOTO and its price tag is fine with me since that I would classify as SOTO specific content, but that is not the case for the others.

[XenesisII.1540]

On 3/1/2024 at 7:55 AM, Infinity.2876 said:

I thought P2W was when a game has a paywall. In Gw2 you can buy expacks with gems. Gems are bought with Gold and gold is a F2p currency. Doesn't that make it not P2W?

You can't buy entire expansions with gems, you can only buy the deluxe "upgrade" with gems, which is usually fluff stuff like skins.

As for p2w, many people have different definitions of p2w, and many different ways to look at it.

This game has it for pvp (because they allow everyone to fight in the same pool of players regardless of expansion owned, so yes that definitely gives players paid advantages other others), but not the pve side of the game. When you buy expansions you're also buying new content to use the new advantages in, in which only fellow expansion owners are able to play in. Now you could say using a new spec gives an advantage in older content, but so does upgrading from rare gear to ascended, it's a power boost that benefits everyone in pve, unlike pvp when you're fighting against other players.

Other games deal with the p2w problem in pvp by having separate areas for newer stuff. Vertical levels, level brackets, and having content only accessed by highest level, like arenas. Gw2 has none of this. If anet bothered to keep proper balance of specs then this isn't much of a problem, but lately it obviously is.

 

4 hours ago, Manpag.6421 said:

This is such a bizarre take. For a start, they definitely shouldn’t be core content, because that’s taking things people have paid for as expansion content and giving it to all players for free.

But it's ok for them to take things people have already paid for in an expansion, elite spec weapons, and resell it as a feature to use on all the specs? Should it be a free core upgrade, no, but they should have just dropped the "elite spec only usage" restriction on them and left it to an expansion owned restriction.

Insert confused faces -->

[Leo G.4501]

5 hours ago, Manpag.6421 said:

This is such a bizarre take. For a start, they definitely shouldn’t be core content, because that’s taking things people have paid for as expansion content and giving it to all players for free.

It's not a bizarre take. I can see it go both ways, honestly (that is just have the elite spec weapons unlocks as core being core OR just keeping it as part of the expansion; it makes sense either way). Secondly, I bought 20 codes for the base game back when they sold for $10 and passed them off to friends on my discord but had a few codes left by the time they made the base game f2p. There was also the time where people who newly bought the game when PoF released and got the bundle and there were players helping newbs unlock their raptors quickly. Do you see a pattern here?

Edited March 2 by Leo G.4501
clarifying

[mirage.8046]

Erm, while the new weapons are practically core additions to the classes, you still have to buy SOTO to use them. It's been this way with other DLCs. No classes could use the new weapons unless that respective expansion is owned. Backward, you can own all of the previous weapons from old expansions but cannot access those especs. Enjoying the goodies means you'll have to buy the expansion to use them; that's how MMOs work.

[HotDelirium.7984]

Correct me if 

On 2/27/2024 at 11:28 AM, 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't anyone "test out" any and all weapons in the pvp lounge regardless of the expansions they have as long as they can reach the lounge?

[arazoth.7290]

2 hours ago, HotDelirium.7984 said:

Correct me if 

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't anyone "test out" any and all weapons in the pvp lounge regardless of the expansions they have as long as they can reach the lounge?

Expansions still needed but don't need achievement

[Manpag.6421]

17 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

But it's ok for them to take things people have already paid for in an expansion, elite spec weapons, and resell it as a feature to use on all the specs? Should it be a free core upgrade, no, but they should have just dropped the "elite spec only usage" restriction on them and left it to an expansion owned restriction.

In my opinion, yes. To use the example I gave before, it’s like including raptor in all expansions after it was previously marketed as a PoF thing, and including springer and gliding in EoD despite them being exclusive PoF and HoT features before. No-one seems up in arms about those being effectively resold. Skyscale being a selling point of SotO was met with more controversy, but what people objected to was it being quicker/easier to access than LWS4, not that they’d paid for LWS4 and didn’t want other people to be able to get it bundled in an expansion.

I just don’t feel like the elite spec weapons specifically were selling points, the elite specs themselves were. I don’t feel like I’ve paid twice for the same thing, because I bought expansions knowing that new weapons were locked to their respective elite specs. I’ve always been able to use them with the elite spec they were meant for, and just like EoD players get limited use out of raptor, springer, and gliding without their masteries, I know that players who only have SotO won’t be able to use them to their full potential because they still have the most synergy with their respective elite spec.

[Puck.3697]

21 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Other games deal with the p2w problem in pvp by having separate areas for newer stuff. Vertical levels, level brackets, and having content only accessed by highest level, like arenas. Gw2 has none of this. If anet bothered to keep proper balance of specs then this isn't much of a problem, but lately it obviously is.

expansions are ALWAYS p2w, in every game when you want to look at things like this. Entertainment Costs money. thats Normal. how can a game be as cheap as GW2 yet people still want things for nothing, its been a accepted model in the MMORPG industry for over 2 decades that you buy expansions. 

[anduriell.6280]

On 2/29/2024 at 3:09 AM, 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.

P2W is attributed to a live service games and any mechanic that provides a paid advantage over not paying players. 
it does not matter if it’s an mtx, game pass, battle pass, dlc or expansion. 
it becomes a P2W mechanic when you mix players who haven’t paid for the additional effects and players which did. 
it doesn’t matter how you try to frame it: pay for convenience, pay for content, pay to advance they are all Pay 2 win at the end. 
 

Any other argument is just hypocrisy disguised as apologists for a company. 

Edited March 3 by anduriell.6280

[Leo G.4501]

23 minutes ago, anduriell.6280 said:

P2W is attributed to a live service games and any mechanic that provides a paid advantage over not paying players. 
it does not matter if it’s an mtx, game pass, battle pass, dlc or expansion. 
it becomes a P2W mechanic when you mix players who haven’t paid for the additional effects and players which did. 
it doesn’t matter how you try to frame it: pay for convenience, pay for content, pay to advance they are all Pay 2 win at the end. 
 

Any other argument is just hypocrisy disguised as apologists for a company. 

And this type of argument gets wings when you remember GW2 is aimed around horizontal progression instead of vertical.

Like I said before, I feel people's negative association with terms biases their outlook. I don't think the pay walls in GW2 are so egregious, numerous and costly to paint it in a bad light.

[Beddo.1907]

Calling GW2 P2W is today's standards is baffling.

[Gaiawolf.8261]

14 hours ago, anduriell.6280 said:

P2W is attributed to a live service games and any mechanic that provides a paid advantage over not paying players. 
it does not matter if it’s an mtx, game pass, battle pass, dlc or expansion. 
it becomes a P2W mechanic when you mix players who haven’t paid for the additional effects and players which did. 
it doesn’t matter how you try to frame it: pay for convenience, pay for content, pay to advance they are all Pay 2 win at the end. 
 

Any other argument is just hypocrisy disguised as apologists for a company. 

 

13 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

And this type of argument gets wings when you remember GW2 is aimed around horizontal progression instead of vertical.

Like I said before, I feel people's negative association with terms biases their outlook. I don't think the pay walls in GW2 are so egregious, numerous and costly to paint it in a bad light.

That's because the bias is real and intentional. The term was intended for games that offered microtransactions or lootboxes that allowed players to spend money to gain an unfair advantage over other players outside the normal expansion of the game. Expansions are new content, not the same playing field as previous content. Even games that already had paid expansion out were not labeled with the term. Players who try to sell you that P2W applies to expansion content are just trying to inflate the term for their own agenda. I must admit, they've done a good of job of that and fooled a lot of people, especially younger gamers, but we old purists remember the real meaning and the stigma the term carries.

[Leo G.4501]

11 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

 

That's because the bias is real and intentional. The term was intended for games that offered microtransactions or lootboxes that allowed players to spend money to gain an unfair advantage over other players outside the normal expansion of the game. Expansions are new content, not the same playing field as previous content. Even games that already had paid expansion out were not labeled with the term. Players who try to sell you that P2W applies to expansion content are just trying to inflate the term for their own agenda. I must admit, they've done a good of job of that and fooled a lot of people, especially younger gamers, but we old purists remember the real meaning and the stigma the term carries.

And times change as do terms that describe things we once knew. Even microtransactions used to be synonymous with predatory and/or p2w until enough examples saturated the market to make clearer separation of intent and outcomes. Now, microtransactions are just the accepted monetization method of online games. 

And you're still sidestepping the initial intent of horizontal progression in GW2, or are we redefining that one but not other terms? And it's not people trying to sell a particular outlook, it's the willingness to step back and reassess the market and industry. Granted, I'm just a regular dude that works a regular non-spectacular job that isn't in anything gaming, but if there's anything I've learned from watching how games have evolved, it's that you don't have to be an expert to practice common sense and reasoning. And that isn't me saying it's common sense that GW2 is P2W but rather elements of it can change how people look at a game. 

[Gaiawolf.8261]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

And times change as do terms that describe things we once knew. Even microtransactions used to be synonymous with predatory and/or p2w until enough examples saturated the market to make clearer separation of intent and outcomes. Now, microtransactions are just the accepted monetization method of online games. 

And you're still sidestepping the initial intent of horizontal progression in GW2, or are we redefining that one but not other terms? And it's not people trying to sell a particular outlook, it's the willingness to step back and reassess the market and industry. Granted, I'm just a regular dude that works a regular non-spectacular job that isn't in anything gaming, but if there's anything I've learned from watching how games have evolved, it's that you don't have to be an expert to practice common sense and reasoning. And that isn't me saying it's common sense that GW2 is P2W but rather elements of it can change how people look at a game. 

Sorry, I still don't see expansions as P2W. The term still carries too much specific meaning, stigma, and history with too many people to shake that. Call it a personal choice if you want, but I'm certainly not alone here. I guess we just disagree whether the term has changed enough to be accepted. 

The point of horizontal progression is not to avoid power creep, though less of that, generally the better. Horizontal progression is, (and similarly to P2W, I guess) always was, primarily designed to avoid level and gear grind, so players can take a break for months or even years at a time without having to level up through new content. GW2 still does that for the most part. It's still mostly horizontal. Of course with new content and some power creep, there will be some adjustments, but you can take an old character and play new content with minimal adjustment and grind. Whether that character is now numerically more powerful than it was years ago, even without adjustments, is irrelevant. The horizontal metric is measured for your current character against the current content, not your old stats.

For example, I took a 6 year break from the game when HOT was released. When I came back for EoD, I was able to play the new expansion and jump into current endgame without issues, because my old toon already had the gear and stats to participate. No grind required, no PoF progression, no supplemental purchases necessary beyond access to the expansion. I did just fine with my old toon after adjusting my build for balance changes.

Edit: Disclaimer, I did go to Amnoon to get a raptor before EoD, because duh, but other than that, no PoF grind or progression to play latest content at the time. And base raptor came with EoD anyway, soo....

Edited March 4 by Gaiawolf.8261

[Leo G.4501]

11 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Sorry, I still don't see expansions as P2W. The term still carries too much specific meaning, stigma, and history with too many people to shake that. Call it a personal choice if you want, but I'm certainly not alone here. I guess we just disagree whether the term has changed enough to be accepted. 

The point of horizontal progression is not to avoid power creep, though less of that, generally the better. Horizontal progression is, (and similarly to P2W, I guess) always was, primarily designed to avoid level and gear grind, so players can take a break for months or even years at a time without having to level up through new content. GW2 still does that for the most part. It's still mostly horizontal. Of course with new content and some power creep, there will be some adjustments, but you can take an old character and play new content with minimal adjustment and grind. Whether that character is now numerically more powerful than it was years ago, even without adjustments, is irrelevant. The horizontal metric is measured for your current character against the current content, not your old stats.

For example, I took a 6 year break from the game when HOT was released. When I came back for EoD, I was able to play the new expansion and jump into current endgame without issues, because my old toon already had the gear and stats to participate. No grind required, no PoF progression, no supplemental purchases necessary beyond access to the expansion. I did just fine with my old toon after adjusting my build for balance changes.

Edit: Disclaimer, I did go to Amnoon to get a raptor for EoD, because duh, but other than that, no PoF grind or progression to play latest content at the time.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to convince you of anything or to change your perspective, just describing that other people do have a different perspective on the term and of the game. It's why I'm focusing on the actual intent and outcome rather than the bias of the word used to describe it.

The issue with the power creep you're describing is that it's behind a "pay wall". You say it's new content and it's a different playing field and mostly horizontal but that is going to be a whole other argument in itself since we aren't just talking about builds but game modes. I would agree that the game is mostly horizontal from the perspective of open world and PvE but they (the devs) really could stand to spice up the base game in a manner to make at least the builds more horizontal. A lot of professions never have a reason to run core if they have elite specs, for example. There's really nothing you can do about features outside of just making them accessible without expansions or to all expansions, like Warclaw and gliders. But then I'm not against having "pay wall" features like that as a p2w element in these expansions so long as it's not exceptionally punishing/forces you into a pay spiral (like imagine if every expansion had several unique features unlocked for wvw/pvp and to get all these advantages, you had to buy all the expansions). The point is, you probably want to avoid turning this from "gw2 is horizontal progression, you don't have to worry about p2w" to "gw2 has just a bit of paywall features that gives you a distinct edge" then further to "you buy every expansion or you're left in the dust" and you can navigate that by wrestling with these perspectives instead of writing it off until you've got to buy 4+ expansions just to get into some of the shared content.

[Gaiawolf.8261]

15 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Like I said before, I'm not trying to convince you of anything or to change your perspective, just describing that other people do have a different perspective on the term and of the game. It's why I'm focusing on the actual intent and outcome rather than the bias of the word used to describe it.

The issue with the power creep you're describing is that it's behind a "pay wall". You say it's new content and it's a different playing field and mostly horizontal but that is going to be a whole other argument in itself since we aren't just talking about builds but game modes. I would agree that the game is mostly horizontal from the perspective of open world and PvE but they (the devs) really could stand to spice up the base game in a manner to make at least the builds more horizontal. A lot of professions never have a reason to run core if they have elite specs, for example. There's really nothing you can do about features outside of just making them accessible without expansions or to all expansions, like Warclaw and gliders. But then I'm not against having "pay wall" features like that as a p2w element in these expansions so long as it's not exceptionally punishing/forces you into a pay spiral (like imagine if every expansion had several unique features unlocked for wvw/pvp and to get all these advantages, you had to buy all the expansions). The point is, you probably want to avoid turning this from "gw2 is horizontal progression, you don't have to worry about p2w" to "gw2 has just a bit of paywall features that gives you a distinct edge" then further to "you buy every expansion or you're left in the dust" and you can navigate that by wrestling with these perspectives instead of writing it off until you've got to buy 4+ expansions just to get into some of the shared content.

See here I would argue that the F2P game and the B2P game are two different versions of the game that co-exist together. GW2 was never designed as a F2P game with micros. It was a B2P game that later offered a F2P version with the incentive to upgrade into B2P, sort of like FF14's free trial version without saying it or even enforcing it. You can keep playing the F2P/trial as long as you like, but it's never going to be the same game or experience, and it was never advertised as so. They also never advertised that the F2P players would have access to optimal build options, just viable ones, and they do.

[Obtena.7952]

Weird sentiment here. You pay to get access to content. You didn't pay so ... it SHOULD be obvious you don't get the content you didn't pay for. 

As for the claim that the content is pay to win ... that's just absurd. "Winning" has nothing to do with being able to access the weapons. If your definition is so broad, it's ceases to mean anything. 

Edited March 4 by Obtena.7952