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

[draxynnic.3719]

One consideration with inventory/bank space is that unlike a lot of other purchases, you are actually buying server space and the accompanying overhead. Whether that cost comes even close to covering the price you paid for that extra storage is another question, but there is a real cost to it.

Which is why, incidentally, I hate it when single-player games limit storage even when your character is supposed to have some kind of home base to stash it. It's my disk space it's occupying, let me skip the inventory minigame and concentrate on the gameplay! I leave so many single-player RPGs unfinished simply because I get fed up of having to constantly make decisions on what is and isn't worth storing...

[Puck.3697]

On 4/8/2024 at 1:33 PM, Kuma.1503 said:

Gamers will never agree on the definition of Pay 2 win. 

It is not a binary thing where a game either is or isn't pay to win. It is a spectrum

Except pay to win is a binary thing, it’s simply people have decided to blurr its definition. If we want to go by a spectrum every available game on the market is p2w, that’s just fact

 p2w has no meaning these days, because gamers just use this word now to aimlessly critique because they’ve decided they should pay less for the same quality

this Happened with subs, when players boycotted games demanding f2p access

and Now the same players are sat here unhappy with the f2p models they originally demanded for.

Nothings going to be free, a level of cost is normal.

p2w is buying your power which is otherwise unobtainable in game, or demands a unreasonable amount of time to reach without paying, 

p2w today just means the game costs something realistically, because nowadays players have decided anything and everything’s p2w., and that’s fine, we wanna make 100 different criteria’s for p2w

but it’s pointless to accuse games of being p2w, because if every game does it, it’s simply a normalised demand

games in china are very p2w centric, they don’t consider them to be however, because it’s the standard of gaming across the board in terms of accessible games.

the same applies to western, the normalised standard is not p2w, it’s just the standardised price of gsming

 By default, overusing a form of critism and blurring definition of that criticism is more damaging to customer agency then revoking it as a argument, 

For p2w to hold meaning as a Con, it has to be above the normalised standard of cost, hence why this is used heavily to describe things such as blade and soul, tera after f2p, Aion.

because these games don’t cost a sub, or a expansion fee to keep up, they require investments of 100s of pounds just to be close in power to whales spending thousands on endless progression you can’t access as a f2p player. 
 

gw2 holds many marketing tactics which can be off putting 0 aesthetic rewards from the game itself is a big one, and legendaries being sellable is another that removes reward from players who achieve

 but u don’t realistically actually win anything buying them 

Edited April 11 by Puck.3697

[Leo G.4501]

10 hours ago, Puck.3697 said:

Except pay to win is a binary thing, it’s simply people have decided to blurr its definition. If we want to go by a spectrum every available game on the market is p2w, that’s just fact
 

You keep saying that but it's like you're attempting to remove agency from a subjective observation. It'd be different if this were a legal definition used in court or something related to science, but this is a consumer observation description. Why you trying to take away consumer agency? If someone wants to label something pay to win because they believe it, is there harm in that?

[Puck.3697]

5 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

u keep saying that but it's like you're attempting to remove agency from a subjective observation. It'd be different if this were a legal definition used in court or something related to science, but this is a consumer observation description. Why you trying to take away consumer agency? If someone wants to label something pay to win because they believe it, is there harm in that

But I’m not am I lol, 

by calling everything p2w by default nothings p2w, that’s just as it works I’m afraid, the wider you stretch a word the less meaning it actually holds. 

You have taken a word used as critic against specific models and made it a meaningless opinion, 

Critic is used in absolutes, the moment you imply personal opinion your customer agency is gone, Anet already know there’s a % of the market who won’t like their game, so anything Opinon wise, is simply redundant it holds no player agency.

p2w was used to make example of games which passed the normalised standard of cost of the market, i.e games that moved progression from the game itself to sell to you on the market to enforce unacceptable micro transactional payments.

its now moved to basically being nothing, you can’t call every mmorpg in the market p2w, and expect results why?

because the market will have a normalised bar to what’s considered acceptable, if your stating every game is at that bar,

the problem is no longer the company, but simply the player is out of touch of the costs of entertainment, and that’s how any game dev will read ur statement. 

Hence the biggest factors in complaints

content quantity

story,

bugs

longevity

repeatability

thesr are all measurable points where Anet can physically see the rate of fall off from content drops to measure if content ends too quickly as a example here

the Moment you say p2w has a thousand definitions, and every games p2w, devs ears will switch off, because you can’t measure this. Because all they read is “our game is at the standard cost” because ur saying the identical thing about the other 5 mmorpgs on the market. 

Edited April 11 by Puck.3697

[Leo G.4501]

4 hours ago, Puck.3697 said:

But I’m not am I lol, 

by calling everything p2w by default nothings p2w, that’s just as it works I’m afraid, the wider you stretch a word the less meaning it actually holds. 

You have taken a word used as critic against specific models and made it a meaningless opinion, 

Critic is used in absolutes, the moment you imply personal opinion your customer agency is gone, Anet already know there’s a % of the market who won’t like their game, so anything Opinon wise, is simply redundant it holds no player agency.

p2w was used to make example of games which passed the normalised standard of cost of the market, i.e games that moved progression from the game itself to sell to you on the market to enforce unacceptable micro transactional payments.

its now moved to basically being nothing, you can’t call every mmorpg in the market p2w, and expect results why?

because the market will have a normalised bar to what’s considered acceptable, if your stating every game is at that bar,

the problem is no longer the company, but simply the player is out of touch of the costs of entertainment, and that’s how any game dev will read ur statement. 

Hence the biggest factors in complaints

content quantity

story,

bugs

longevity

repeatability

thesr are all measurable points where Anet can physically see the rate of fall off from content drops to measure if content ends too quickly as a example here

the Moment you say p2w has a thousand definitions, and every games p2w, devs ears will switch off, because you can’t measure this. Because all they read is “our game is at the standard cost” because ur saying the identical thing about the other 5 mmorpgs on the market. 

And this takes away agency from game devs, companies and critics.

Critics can use terms, videos, audio and feedback to accurately describe how they feel about a game.

Game devs can look at that feedback with an analytical eye (like they're supposed to) to make their game better for a bigger audience.

Companies will analyze methods of monetization and player retention with and without the full feedback of the playerbase as well as how other games function and succeed/fail.

Saying a magic word (P2W) doesn't summon a bar that alters reality outside of that specific term. People can call something P2W and be wrong...or only partially right. People aren't that stupid that everyone's "switch" is turned off. Or maybe you over estimate the word of a critics or something? Even critics have their checks to keep their opinions closer to factual rather than misinformation. Outside of initial impressions (which isn't relevant here) or malpractice, the term doesn't carry as much weight because it's already too late to gatekeep the term or fearmonger with the term "microtransaction". 

[Puck.3697]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

nd this takes away agency from game devs, companies and critics.

Critics can use terms, videos, audio and feedback to accurately describe how they feel about a game.

Game devs can look at that feedback with an analytical eye (like they're supposed to) to make their game better for a bigger audience

. Your criticisms are aimed at a mmorpg charging u £10 a year for full access, it’s the cheapest mmorpg on the market and if became any cheaper would go bankrupt

your Complaints are the demand of the games shut down effectively 

no dev will take your argument seriously as gw2 is literally the cheapest mmorpg available today, you want something for free and sad you aren’t getting it.

this game has no sub fee, half the expansion costs of others, and nothing that severe to invest money into, with full access to the store via gold. 

you kill your player agency by demanding something absurd the company simply can’t afford to make cheaper. 

Bigger player base? How do you add that up, the less money the game makes the less development is added to it which reduces the player base lol, gw2 has never lacked players because of its business model, but it’s lack of content, due to the fact they’ve already made the game cost so little they can’t afford to push content development 

They have given you player agency, this game was launched on the least amounts of cost possible, and completely blew other mmorpgs out the water in terms of accessibility

. The issue is, players want something for nothing, and no, no company or dev with self respect would honestly spend time reading into that 

and what? Power of criticism? lol, WoWs been told to go f2p for a decade, it’s changed nothing lol. And the games more popular because of that. Saying no to demands is healthy, players don’t understand the business side of the situation or the losses that would be taken to reduce costs further, they just expect the same quantity of content for less money

,”criticism holds value, when it’s pointed at worthwhile topics,  and someone’s personal opinion is worth grains of salt. 

just because I don’t like WoWs verticle progression systems with gear it should be deleted tomorrow right? But I’ve criticised it, so it gotta happen ye?

your screaming out to a game developed to make money, as a player who doesn’t want to spend money, and you think that’s gonna change what? 

Edited April 11 by Puck.3697

[Leo G.4501]

53 minutes ago, Puck.3697 said:

. Your criticisms are aimed at a mmorpg charging u £10 a year for full access, it’s the cheapest mmorpg on the market and if became any cheaper would go bankrupt

your Complaints are the demand of the games shut down effectively 

no dev will take your argument seriously as gw2 is literally the cheapest mmorpg available today, you want something for free and sad you aren’t getting it.

this game has no sub fee, half the expansion costs of others, and nothing that severe to invest money into, with full access to the store via gold. 

you kill your player agency by demanding something absurd the company simply can’t afford to make cheaper. 

Bigger player base? How do you add that up, the less money the game makes the less development is added to it which reduces the player base lol, gw2 has never lacked players because of its business model, but it’s lack of content, due to the fact they’ve already made the game cost so little they can’t afford to push content development 

They have given you player agency, this game was launched on the least amounts of cost possible, and completely blew other mmorpgs out the water in terms of accessibility

. The issue is, players want something for nothing, and no, no company or dev with self respect would honestly spend time reading into that 

and what? Power of criticism? lol, WoWs been told to go f2p for a decade, it’s changed nothing lol. And the games more popular because of that. Saying no to demands is healthy, players don’t understand the business side of the situation or the losses that would be taken to reduce costs further, they just expect the same quantity of content for less money

,”criticism holds value, when it’s pointed at worthwhile topics,  and someone’s personal opinion is worth grains of salt. 

just because I don’t like WoWs verticle progression systems with gear it should be deleted tomorrow right? But I’ve criticised it, so it gotta happen ye?

your screaming out to a game developed to make money, as a player who doesn’t want to spend money, and you think that’s gonna change what? 

I'm sure your point is aimed at a general audience and not just me.

I'm just talking about the term pay to win. There's a video I linked earlier in the thread that pretty much represents my position on that which is comprehensive enough to describe the practices that lead to negative outcomes in p2w models going back to the old era of mmos to current online games. It's a pretty solid watch and the creator is popular so it's not a low quality video either.

[draxynnic.3719]

6 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

I'm sure your point is aimed at a general audience and not just me.

I'm just talking about the term pay to win. There's a video I linked earlier in the thread that pretty much represents my position on that which is comprehensive enough to describe the practices that lead to negative outcomes in p2w models going back to the old era of mmos to current online games. It's a pretty solid watch and the creator is popular so it's not a low quality video either.

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.

[Leo G.4501]

43 minutes ago, 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.

Think of it this way: people tried to gatekeep the term "pay to win" by keeping it specific and inventing and standardizing new terms like "pay for convenience", "buy to play", "pay to advance", "loot box gacha" etc to categorize games and make the distinctions between games obvious. That attempt failed and didn't really do anything but create categories that particular games can fall into multiple categories and further muddies the actual intent of the monetization.  Now, it's easier to just rip off the stupid labels and be upfront when you're getting a game that you will be paying money and this is how it gets your money.  It's like going to a restaurant and the bill having a service fee, a gratuity fee, a meal tax, sales tax, a tip and still ask for a donation vs a bill that has what you pay for the food and that's it. You can then decide if the price is something you want to pay to get the product/service.

[AliamRationem.5172]

10 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Think of it this way: people tried to gatekeep the term "pay to win" by keeping it specific and inventing and standardizing new terms like "pay for convenience", "buy to play", "pay to advance", "loot box gacha" etc to categorize games and make the distinctions between games obvious. That attempt failed and didn't really do anything but create categories that particular games can fall into multiple categories and further muddies the actual intent of the monetization.  Now, it's easier to just rip off the stupid labels and be upfront when you're getting a game that you will be paying money and this is how it gets your money.  It's like going to a restaurant and the bill having a service fee, a gratuity fee, a meal tax, sales tax, a tip and still ask for a donation vs a bill that has what you pay for the food and that's it. You can then decide if the price is something you want to pay to get the product/service.

I think making a distinction between buy-to-play, where you pay for the full features of the game, and pay-to-win where you have to keep making microtransactions to realistically compete is more useful than describing both as "pay-to-win" on the basis that you have to spend money.  The pay structure is completely different and it's much easier to tell what you're getting with a buy-to-play game.  That's why pay-to-win has the negative connotation that it does.

[Leo G.4501]

7 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I think making a distinction between buy-to-play, where you pay for the full features of the game, and pay-to-win where you have to keep making microtransactions to realistically compete is more useful than describing both as "pay-to-win" on the basis that you have to spend money.  The pay structure is completely different and it's much easier to tell what you're getting with a buy-to-play game.  That's why pay-to-win has the negative connotation that it does.

Like I said to the other poster, I recommend watching the video I linked.

The overall point isn't about setting up expectations by using a label. It's about letting the player decide how they want to approach playing games. For a personal example, I am a fan of Digimon and there aren't as many games for Digimon out there as something like Pokemon. A friend recommended me a mobile game he was playing and it could effectively be described as a pay-to-win gacha game (Pokemon have several of these too but I'm not as big a fan of it). I actually found the game quite fun and sunk in over 60 hours on it, threw about $25 at it and eventually put it down after it got more repetitive.  By all definitions, people would just tell you to avoid such games because [label] but you should, as gamers, be more open minded to what you want to play/have fun with and not wall off your experiences because some critic's judgement or label.

The gaming and monetization tactics now-a-days is different than 15 years ago and better to describe the actual monetization rather than hide it with a cheeky label.

[Obtena.7952]

On 4/11/2024 at 4:35 AM, Leo G.4501 said:

You keep saying that but it's like you're attempting to remove agency from a subjective observation. It'd be different if this were a legal definition used in court or something related to science, but this is a consumer observation description. Why you trying to take away consumer agency? If someone wants to label something pay to win because they believe it, is there harm in that?

If that someone is attempting to throw shade at the game because of how they want to label it with their  subjective opinion of P2W, I would say yeah, that is harmful ... and that's exactly what's happening in this thread. People don't like something about the game, so they associate it with something ELSE that is generally looked down upon. The unfortunate part is that no discussion can be had because the second P2W becomes subjective because people 'feel' it's true, they can never be wrong about it. 

The fact remains that there is nothing unreasonable about charging people to access content, regardless if that content is a simple skin or an I WIN button. No one is removing agency ... consumers still have the option to purchase things or not. This is the power we have. No one should pretend Anet is our friend or some charity. This is a business, we are its patrons. That's the relationship.

If someone 'complains' they don't get to experience something they can readily purchase, that's their problem, which is why the OP's original post is so absurd. 

Edited April 13 by Obtena.7952

[Leo G.4501]

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

If that someone is attempting to throw shade at the game because of how they want to label it with their  subjective opinion of P2W, I would say yeah, that is harmful ... and that's exactly what's happening in this thread. People don't like something about the game, so they associate it with something ELSE that is generally looked down upon. The unfortunate part is that no discussion can be had because the second P2W becomes subjective because people 'feel' it's true, they can never be wrong about it. 

The fact remains that there is nothing unreasonable about charging people to access content, regardless if that content is a simple skin or an I WIN button. No one is removing agency ... consumers still have the option to purchase things or not. This is the power we have. No one should pretend Anet is our friend or some charity. This is a business, we are its patrons. That's the relationship.

If someone 'complains' they don't get to experience something they can readily purchase, that's their problem, which is why the OP's original post is so absurd. 

It's not that P2W has become subjective, it's that it is subjective through objective observation. Don't make me list the attributes that mark GW2 as P2W because I know you know them and pretending they don't exist or downplaying them because you've surpassed the necessity for them thus they are meaningless to you is why I'm here playing devil's advocate about that part of the discussion. GW2 doesn't qualify as P2W because someone feels like it does, it qualifies as P2W because it has the markings of such a game and trying to describe why it isn't to a player who hasn't played the game will just make you sound like a white knight.

And I mentioned removing agency as an argument, not an objective observation. The quoted poster has no power to remove anyone's agency, of course, just like you have no power in institutionalizing what P2W means objectively to everyone. This is just debate.

And I don't disagree that the OP's complaint is absurd. But I don't find it absurd because they feel the paywall is unjustified, rather I think it's absurd to think the devs need to justify a paywall at all.  How I judge the fairness of the monetization isn't by what they charge you for but rather what they give you without extra charge.  How that boils down to if it's P2W doesn't really matter if the price to pay to "win" is reasonable.  And if it's not, don't pay it.

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

It's not that P2W has become subjective, it's that it is subjective through objective observation. Don't make me list the attributes that mark GW2 as P2W because I know you know them and pretending they don't exist or downplaying them because you've surpassed the necessity for them thus they are meaningless to you is why I'm here playing devil's advocate about that part of the discussion. GW2 doesn't qualify as P2W because someone feels like it does, it qualifies as P2W because it has the markings of such a game and trying to describe why it isn't to a player who hasn't played the game will just make you sound like a white knight.

And I mentioned removing agency as an argument, not an objective observation. The quoted poster has no power to remove anyone's agency, of course, just like you have no power in institutionalizing what P2W means objectively to everyone. This is just debate.

And I don't disagree that the OP's complaint is absurd. But I don't find it absurd because they feel the paywall is unjustified, rather I think it's absurd to think the devs need to justify a paywall at all.  How I judge the fairness of the monetization isn't by what they charge you for but rather what they give you without extra charge.  How that boils down to if it's P2W doesn't really matter if the price to pay to "win" is reasonable.  And if it's not, don't pay it.

So, because you want to interpret the words "pay-to-win" literally instead of using the commonly understood definition of the term "P2W", you get to institutionalize what P2W means objectively to everyone?  Sure, bud.  Whatever you say. 🙄

[draxynnic.3719]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:56 AM, Leo G.4501 said:

Think of it this way: people tried to gatekeep the term "pay to win" by keeping it specific and inventing and standardizing new terms like "pay for convenience", "buy to play", "pay to advance", "loot box gacha" etc to categorize games and make the distinctions between games obvious. That attempt failed and didn't really do anything but create categories that particular games can fall into multiple categories and further muddies the actual intent of the monetization.  Now, it's easier to just rip off the stupid labels and be upfront when you're getting a game that you will be paying money and this is how it gets your money.  It's like going to a restaurant and the bill having a service fee, a gratuity fee, a meal tax, sales tax, a tip and still ask for a donation vs a bill that has what you pay for the food and that's it. You can then decide if the price is something you want to pay to get the product/service.

Ever come across the principle that if you swear infrequently, people immediately realise you're serious when you do, but when you have a reputation as a potty mouth, you have nothing left when you really need to curse because you've been using f-bombs as punctuation?

It's a similar princible here. When pay-to-win means something specific, people pay attention when it gets used as criticism. When it gets watered down to mean 'boo hoo, I want literally everything for free', though, it becomes meaningless, and devs will naturally start to ignore it because they need to feed themselves and any dependents too.

Except in this case it's not just the potty-mouth for whom the term has lost its impact, but the entire gaming community.

[Gaiawolf.8261]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:56 PM, Leo G.4501 said:

Think of it this way: people tried to gatekeep the term "pay to win" by keeping it specific and inventing and standardizing new terms like "pay for convenience", "buy to play", "pay to advance", "loot box gacha" etc to categorize games and make the distinctions between games obvious. That attempt failed and didn't really do anything but create categories that particular games can fall into multiple categories and further muddies the actual intent of the monetization.  Now, it's easier to just rip off the stupid labels and be upfront when you're getting a game that you will be paying money and this is how it gets your money.  It's like going to a restaurant and the bill having a service fee, a gratuity fee, a meal tax, sales tax, a tip and still ask for a donation vs a bill that has what you pay for the food and that's it. You can then decide if the price is something you want to pay to get the product/service.

Hmm, that's an interesting take. I never heard that before. Maybe you are right. Maybe they were just trying to gatekeep the term to unjustly preserve its meaning when other people tried to appropriate it for their own agendas. That sounds almost as bad as when my lawyer told me I couldn't declare stealing my donut a "capital offense." Or when the sad folks at KFC tried to tell me that my lamb and tunafish combo shouldn't be advertised as "finger lickin' good." 🙃

[Leo G.4501]

9 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

So, because you want to interpret the words "pay-to-win" literally instead of using the commonly understood definition of the term "P2W", you get to institutionalize what P2W means objectively to everyone?  Sure, bud.  Whatever you say. 🙄

It's not about want, it's about reality. The reality is people interpret what p2w is for themselves. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that people have different perspectives on stuff.

 

9 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Ever come across the principle that if you swear infrequently, people immediately realise you're serious when you do, but when you have a reputation as a potty mouth, you have nothing left when you really need to curse because you've been using f-bombs as punctuation?

It's a similar princible here. When pay-to-win means something specific, people pay attention when it gets used as criticism. When it gets watered down to mean 'boo hoo, I want literally everything for free', though, it becomes meaningless, and devs will naturally start to ignore it because they need to feed themselves and any dependents too.

Except in this case it's not just the potty-mouth for whom the term has lost its impact, but the entire gaming community.

And I'll tell you the same thing I told Puck: people aren't dumb (at least not most). And if you are, you can smart up over time as you learn. Saying a term doesn't negate all other criticism around it because most people understand context. Your point makes sense when people are ignorant, prejudice or not-so-bright. I know they're out there, but that's why we have written language to wrap around ideas, a process we often use to communicate complex concepts.

And you worry about desensitizing to a term, I could go on a whole rant about how people are desensitized to hyper-critic culture, a term I use to describe how people have galvanized their opinions to an extent that mediocre is bad, decent is mediocre, good ranges from good to "better than sex" and bad is an assault on humanity. One can't even say "GW2 has P2W aspects to it but-" without a blistering barrage of counter argument and debate. But I'll save you and myself the breath on that tangent....this time.

 

7 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Hmm, that's an interesting take. I never heard that before. Maybe you are right. Maybe they were just trying to gatekeep the term to unjustly preserve its meaning when other people tried to appropriate it for their own agendas. That sounds almost as bad as when my lawyer told me I couldn't declare stealing my donut a "capital offense." Or when the sad folks at KFC tried to tell me that my lamb and tunafish combo shouldn't be advertised as "finger lickin' good." 🙃

Sarcasm aside, can you at least admit that microtransactions have already changed the face of gaming?  Kind of similar to how post-release patches have altered the state of a lot of games on release date...

[Player.2475]

If I knew new weapons were going to be this bad and Weapon Master Training wasn't paywalled behind SotO, I wouldn't have bought the expansion, tbh. You aren't missing anything.

[Gaiawolf.8261]

41 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Sarcasm aside, can you at least admit that microtransactions have already changed the face of gaming?  Kind of similar to how post-release patches have altered the state of a lot of games on release date...

Sure, microtransactions have altered gaming and how they are monetized. I never had an issue with that. I only had an issue with some players treating payments for expansions the same as micros and using the same terms for them. (And I'm glad you caught the sarcasm instead of taking it seriously. 😉 )

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

It's not about want, it's about reality. The reality is people interpret what p2w is for themselves. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that people have different perspectives on stuff.

 

And I'll tell you the same thing I told Puck: people aren't dumb (at least not most). And if you are, you can smart up over time as you learn. Saying a term doesn't negate all other criticism around it because most people understand context. Your point makes sense when people are ignorant, prejudice or not-so-bright. I know they're out there, but that's why we have written language to wrap around ideas, a process we often use to communicate complex concepts.

And you worry about desensitizing to a term, I could go on a whole rant about how people are desensitized to hyper-critic culture, a term I use to describe how people have galvanized their opinions to an extent that mediocre is bad, decent is mediocre, good ranges from good to "better than sex" and bad is an assault on humanity. One can't even say "GW2 has P2W aspects to it but-" without a blistering barrage of counter argument and debate. But I'll save you and myself the breath on that tangent....this time.

 

Sarcasm aside, can you at least admit that microtransactions have already changed the face of gaming?  Kind of similar to how post-release patches have altered the state of a lot of games on release date...

No. The reality is you're interpreting that definition for yourself when it already has a definition which is not what you want it to be.  GW2 is B2P, my guy.  Facts.

[Magmi.6723]

4 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

people aren't dumb (at least not most). And if you are, you can smart up over time as you learn

No, but players like to over exaggerate and weaponise key words that they know people in general look into, in a attempt to scare a company into making changes.

Pay 2 Win, has always had a definitive definition, players have decided to blur the lines with opinions and the reason for that is because by driving subjective concepts you remove the ability to be “wrong”.

Pay 2 Win in direct definition, is Paying for Power that is not accessible in game or is locked behind a unacceptable grind to compete with, 

4 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

arcasm aside, can you at least admit that microtransactions have already changed the face of gaming?  Kind of similar to how post-release patches have altered the state of a lot of games on release date

Eh, Not in any way that it wasn’t the consumers fault

2012-2014, was a period of time customers demanded free to play gaming, we saw players spamming wild star with boycot til it went f2p as well as several other games 

customers  were just dumb in demand, they had this mystical idea mmorpgs would retain the fast content development and high quality without having to pay a dime into the game.

This type of gaming has always existed in eastern games, this was the model of games in places such as china since forever, except their models really are p2w. But that’s the standard in these countries. 
 

ofciurse it’s changed aspects, but also, players wanted non- subscription based games, with lower costs to access, and games delivered on this, but like all things compromise had to be taken else where.

The game still has to generate the profit margin required to remain open. Gw2 would be shut down otherwise, I’d love GW2 to become subscription based with More accessible cosmetics in game without the need to buy bag slots and bank slots etc etc.

 but realistically this no longer works, because are so against the idea, so unfortunately we take these compromises instead. 
 

I have recently started this game, like 3 days ago, it’s consumer friendliness, not being p2w are core reasons I’ve chosen it coming from World of Warcraft… and tbh WoW gets called p2w far more often then gw2 and I’d even argue it really is p2w.

WoW is a  sub based game, with higher box prices and micro transaction wise definitely is more p2w then gw2 lol

 

Edited April 13 by Magmi.6723

[Obtena.7952]

18 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

It's not that P2W has become subjective ...

Yes it has been. In fact, it always has been, because there isn't a definition for it. It's simply whatever someone wants to think it is. More reasonable players will recognize that Anet selling an expansion isn't P2W. Disgruntled, angry players will label EVERYTHING Anet sells as P2W. 

But here is the best part ... it doesn't matter what people want to call it or how they want to define it. Arguing what is P2W is not relevant ... it's just a label.

It's not going to stop Anet or any other company from selling what they want. The reality will be reflected in how consumers patronize Anet ... and obviously they do that, regardless of whatever snowflakes are being melted over how they are labeling Anet's practices as P2W. 

Edited April 13 by Obtena.7952

[Leo G.4501]

4 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Sure, microtransactions have altered gaming and how they are monetized. I never had an issue with that. I only had an issue with some players treating payments for expansions the same as micros and using the same terms for them. (And I'm glad you caught the sarcasm instead of taking it seriously. 😉 )

I try to keep things civil (emphasis on try).  It has a bunch to do with perspective tho. Having an expansion that adds a new class/job and boosted level for new content will seem more like an expansion and less like a microtransaction than having an expansion that has a walled off part of an old class/job that you could have access to anywhere. The former usually doesn't compete with/replace what exists (it's forced to be balanced to, if the game is careful about balance) where the latter is specifically balanced to be better or diversely equipped compared to what it's directly competing with (especs).

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....]

 

2 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

No. The reality is you're interpreting that definition for yourself when it already has a definition which is not what you want it to be.  GW2 is B2P, my guy.  Facts.

Go watch the video I linked. I didn't make that video, someone else did. I didn't upvote that video 24 thousand times, other people did. I didn't leave hundreds of comments on that video agreeing or sharing their own opinions on the term (I didn't leave any comments, actually). 

As much as I don't agree with redefining terms for a modern audience, pop culture terms are inherently sensitive to shifts in culture...or in this case, gaming monetization. 

You can have your facts, I'll just live in reality.

52 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:

No, but players like to over exaggerate and weaponise key words that they know people in general look into, in a attempt to scare a company into making changes.

 

True. But that weaponization can backfire. Remember that old saying "The customer is always right"? While I can understand what that was trying to communicate, I will say kitten that and kitten the customer. We all know the stereotypes of the customers trying to weaponize that saying and it's not about the customer being right but rather appeasing the customer up to a point that isn't detrimental to your business, after which, kick that customer to the curb and record it for personal defense.

52 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:

Pay 2 Win, has always had a definitive definition, players have decided to blur the lines with opinions and the reason for that is because by driving subjective concepts you remove the ability to be “wrong”.

Pay 2 Win in direct definition, is Paying for Power that is not accessible in game or is locked behind a unacceptable grind to compete with, 

 

You say players have decided to blur the lines on that term. But you want to know what actually blurred that line? Cash.

52 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:

Eh, Not in any way that it wasn’t the consumers fault

2012-2014, was a period of time customers demanded free to play gaming, we saw players spamming wild star with boycot til it went f2p as well as several other games 

customers  were just dumb in demand, they had this mystical idea mmorpgs would retain the fast content development and high quality without having to pay a dime into the game.

This type of gaming has always existed in eastern games, this was the model of games in places such as china since forever, except their models really are p2w. But that’s the standard in these countries. 
 

ofciurse it’s changed aspects, but also, players wanted non- subscription based games, with lower costs to access, and games delivered on this, but like all things compromise had to be taken else where.

The game still has to generate the profit margin required to remain open. Gw2 would be shut down otherwise, I’d love GW2 to become subscription based with More accessible cosmetics in game without the need to buy bag slots and bank slots etc etc.

 but realistically this no longer works, because are so against the idea, so unfortunately we take these compromises instead. 
 

I have recently started this game, like 3 days ago, it’s consumer friendliness, not being p2w are core reasons I’ve chosen it coming from World of Warcraft… and tbh WoW gets called p2w far more often then gw2 and I’d even argue it really is p2w.

WoW is a  sub based game, with higher box prices and micro transaction wise definitely is more p2w then gw2 lol

 

Eh, I doubt a company just caved to customers complaining to have a game be free. Unless the game was bad, a boycott wouldn't have worked. That and you really can't pull one example of NCSoft screwing the pooch on their own licenses and then shutting them down. Have you heard of City of Heroes? That was a game that, for all intents and purposes, wasn't a money loss, just not much of a gainer but they shut it down anyway even after shifting it to F2P. It's still got it's fanbase though, there are people playing City of Heroes now with the consent of NCSoft (it's a cool game with lots of customization, give it a try, it's free).  Somehow they can keep the servers up on donations alone over 20 years (hey, the 20 year anni was a couple last week, I think) after the game debuted lol

I've never played WoW and don't doubt it could be more P2W than GW2 but that's neither here nor there.

8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Yes it has been. In fact, it always has been, because there isn't a definition for it. It's simply whatever someone wants to think it is. More reasonable players will recognize that Anet selling an expansion isn't P2W. Disgruntled, angry players will label EVERYTHING Anet sells as P2W. 

But here is the best part ... it doesn't matter what people want to call it or how they want to define it. It's not going to stop Anet or any other company from selling what they want. The reality will be reflected in how consumers patronize Anet ... and obviously they do that, regardless of whatever snowflakes are being melted over how they are labeling Anet's practices as P2W. 

Ah, I've finally communicated my point to someone clearly! lol

Edited April 13 by Leo G.4501

[Magmi.6723]

4 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

the customer up to a point that isn't detrimental to your business, after which, kick that customer to the curb and record it for personal defense

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. 
 

4 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

h, I doubt a company just caved to customers complaining to have a game be free. Unless the game was bad, a boycott wouldn't have worked

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. 

4 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

ve never played WoW and don't doubt it could be more P2W than GW2 but that's neither here nor there

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. 
 

people will always have this concept they’re entitled to everything for free, and someone’s hard work isn’t worth a dime, but we are smart enough to know a opinion can be wrong and seemly state so.

microtransactions did change the gaming world your right, we now can buy so much more QoL then existed previously, boosts to max level being a prime one that’s become popular in the genre. 
 

however, that’s the large difference is, once upon a time you had to pay monthly just to access the game, now you can buy some QoL which skips a levelling process, or buy yourself a new cosmetic, the compromise of both systems exists but ultimately the game has and will always cost money 

Edited April 14 by Magmi.6723

[Ashen.2907]

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.

Edited April 14 by Ashen.2907