Can WvW server be made not pay to win.

[Israel.7056]

It is a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind. Yes you have to pay to get the xpacs yes the hot and pof elites are stronger than the core specs. In that sense it's p2w. But the difference in the degree of p2w between a game like GW2 and a game like Archeage for instance is enormous. If you can find a game that doesn't ask for any money whatsoever in order to be able to play it and you prefer that game's gameplay to GW2 then play that other game. If not suck it up and buy the xpacs and move on with your life because they're not going to set up a legacy server just to save you money why would they?

[Skeletor.9360]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Aleen.8561" said:On a serious note, this is a b2p game, what have you expected? In most cases such games have expansions that come out once in a while, and you need to buy them for extra content. By the way, if you're a casual player, that doesn't get bored with the regular content, so you don't want to buy expansions, you don't have to be the meta in WvW ;) Leave it to hardcore players that strive for the glory.

Good post to bump.

This is a buy to play game.

If you want to continue playing old content, that is your choice. You are not impacted in your ability to play through all the old content if you do not get an expansion - hence not p2w. WvW contains new content (where you end up fighting against expansion specs) and it is unreasonable to expect the ability to play through new content without buying it. The fact that you get access to fight against the new specs in WvW without the expansion means you're being given partial access to new content for free.

Actually you made my point. I AM impacted by the new content. ALL of my original toons are inferior to new ones. So it is 100% pay to win. I don't "get" to play against players with better abilities...I am forced to. How about this. Make WvW only classic abilities. Then it is even. You still have those skills for PVE which is what the expansion is about. OR maybe add something for WvW.

You are NOT impacted in playing core content. That is what you paid for. Stop arguing that you somehow deserve to do well in new content you didn't even pay for.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Aleen.8561" said:On a serious note, this is a b2p game, what have you expected? In most cases such games have expansions that come out once in a while, and you need to buy them for extra content. By the way, if you're a casual player, that doesn't get bored with the regular content, so you don't want to buy expansions, you don't have to be the meta in WvW ;) Leave it to hardcore players that strive for the glory.

Good post to bump.

This is a buy to play game.

If you want to continue playing old content, that is your choice. You are not impacted in your ability to play through all the old content if you do not get an expansion - hence not p2w. WvW contains new content (where you end up fighting against expansion specs) and it is unreasonable to expect the ability to play through new content without buying it. The fact that you get access to fight against the new specs in WvW without the expansion means you're being given partial access to new content for free.

Actually you made my point. I AM impacted by the new content. ALL of my original toons are inferior to new ones. So it is 100% pay to win. I don't "get" to play against players with better abilities...I am forced to. How about this. Make WvW only classic abilities. Then it is even. You still have those skills for PVE which is what the expansion is about. OR maybe add something for WvW.

You are NOT impacted in playing core content. That is what you paid for. Stop arguing that you somehow deserve to do well in new content you didn't even pay for.

Other players with better skills is not new content. Therte is NO new content for a WvW player. That is why. Period end of story. With that logic they could have just removed skills from non-upgraded accounts and then you'd be saying I was playing new content because I bought back my skills....get a clue.

[Chaba.5410]

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Aleen.8561" said:On a serious note, this is a b2p game, what have you expected? In most cases such games have expansions that come out once in a while, and you need to buy them for extra content. By the way, if you're a casual player, that doesn't get bored with the regular content, so you don't want to buy expansions, you don't have to be the meta in WvW ;) Leave it to hardcore players that strive for the glory.

Good post to bump.

This is a buy to play game.

If you want to continue playing old content, that is your choice. You are not impacted in your ability to play through all the old content if you do not get an expansion - hence not p2w. WvW contains new content (where you end up fighting against expansion specs) and it is unreasonable to expect the ability to play through new content without buying it. The fact that you get access to fight against the new specs in WvW without the expansion means you're being given partial access to new content for free.

Actually you made my point. I AM impacted by the new content. ALL of my original toons are inferior to new ones. So it is 100% pay to win. I don't "get" to play against players with better abilities...I am forced to. How about this. Make WvW only classic abilities. Then it is even. You still have those skills for PVE which is what the expansion is about. OR maybe add something for WvW.

You are NOT impacted in playing core content. That is what you paid for. Stop arguing that you somehow deserve to do well in new content you didn't even pay for.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Aleen.8561" said:On a serious note, this is a b2p game, what have you expected? In most cases such games have expansions that come out once in a while, and you need to buy them for extra content. By the way, if you're a casual player, that doesn't get bored with the regular content, so you don't want to buy expansions, you don't have to be the meta in WvW ;) Leave it to hardcore players that strive for the glory.

Good post to bump.

This is a buy to play game.

If you want to continue playing old content, that is your choice. You are not impacted in your ability to play through all the old content if you do not get an expansion - hence not p2w. WvW contains new content (where you end up fighting against expansion specs) and it is unreasonable to expect the ability to play through new content without buying it. The fact that you get access to fight against the new specs in WvW without the expansion means you're being given partial access to new content for free.

Actually you made my point. I AM impacted by the new content. ALL of my original toons are inferior to new ones. So it is 100% pay to win. I don't "get" to play against players with better abilities...I am forced to. How about this. Make WvW only classic abilities. Then it is even. You still have those skills for PVE which is what the expansion is about. OR maybe add something for WvW.

You are NOT impacted in playing core content. That is what you paid for. Stop arguing that you somehow deserve to do well in new content you didn't even pay for.

Other players with better skills is not new content. Therte is NO new content for a WvW player. That is why. Period end of story. With that logic they could have just removed skills from non-upgraded accounts and then you'd be saying I was playing new content because I bought back my skills....get a clue.

And yet the new skills, elite spec trait lines, stat combos, and HoT-related additions to wvw ARE new content that you're complaining about having to play against. In the time you've spent arguing about this you could've purchased the expansions or at least recognized how much free new content (skills and traits) you've gotten on core classes from balance patches (core roaming guardian is pretty strong right now and you got it all for free). End.

[LetoII.3782]

@Israel.7056 said:If you can find a game that doesn't ask for any money whatsoever in order to be able to play it and you prefer that game's gameplay to GW2 then play that other game.

If you aren't the customer, you may be the product. Things only get worse out there for freeloaders than gw2

[Skeletor.9360]

So here is the deal. Its only new content if you would find it interesting. I don't. So all it really is to me is a pain the the ___. The expansion because I have no interest in it is not an upgrade but a lesser downgrade. My choices are downgrade in class power or downgrade in choice. I won't complain if they redesign "elite" classes where 1/2 the people revert back to classic ones because now they are choices instead of a clear upgrade.

There is no upgrade for me. Just choices of downgrades.

[Skeletor.9360]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Israel.7056 said:If you can find a game that doesn't ask for any money whatsoever in order to be able to play it and you prefer that game's gameplay to GW2 then play that other game.

If you aren't the customer, you may be the product. Things only get worse out there for freeloaders than gw2

Missing the point. I paid MORE than someone who never has played the game and now buys the latest version.I didn't get any extra value because a free account is the same as mine now.Its like buying a ticket on a boat. You get 1/2 across the river and they ask for the same amount again. If you don't pay people start calling you a free loader.

The game is supposed to make money off its transactions - ANET has actually lost money with me because I have done no transactions since they did this. I have 12 or 14 toons on my paid for account (I lose count because I have at least 4 free ones too.) How much is a character slot? Well now its 0 because you make an account.

Previous to this I had bought 14700 gems. Thats like 175 bucks of gems. Further my original account was a digital deluxe.ANET throws away its good customers is the lesson they should learn.

I'm such a freeloader!

[Chaba.5410]

@Skeletor.9360 said:Missing the point. I paid MORE than someone who never has played the game and now buys the latest version.I didn't get any extra value because a free account is the same as mine now.

Sure you got extra value. You spent your money on the gem store stuff. Someone who now buys the latest version doesn't have those things you paid for. Stop saying that a free account has the same stuff as you because it doesn't. It is a ridiculous argument. You got what you paid for. They got what they paid for. And players who paid for the expansion also got what they paid for.

[Vayne.8563]

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@phs.6089 said:

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:So tell me OP. Precisely which games don't give you an advantage for buying the expansion? I mean most games raise the level cap which gives you an advantage in PvP, no? P2W has never applied to expansions before, only microtransactions, where you have to keep spending money. I mean if you meet a guy on a PvP server in WOW and he's 10 levels higher than you, won't he kill you?

Great example.I may be wrong but I don't think level cap applies to expansion.You made my case.Level your toon to max level in base wow. You have access to all skills on the character.Can't go on expanded questing.PvP...its level based BTW. So no you don't get a level 110 crushing a level 18. There are level restrictions always ending in the top level you can achieve.Open world PVP? Does not exist in WoW for the most part.

So ya. WoW does it right. GW2 does it wrong. That is why I wanted WvW/PvP to allow any classes to be specced. PvP already uses a different talent build system and weapons.

Mind you, you still pay subs to wow, right? If you don't you can't. So tell me how is $15 per mount is not P2W but a$15-20 expac is one?

Expacs are the way that Anets easrns money, you want them to juts give up on it? Or would you prefer to pay subs to access any skill, trait line, elit scpe? I bet Anet would be happy to introduce such thing( like ESO) if there are more players wiling to go for it.

Here a novel idea. Have your expansion pack actually have "expansion" in it not reduction. I only play WvW and PvP. What extra content did my players get? Answer: They got down graded in relation to new players. BTW...15-20 expansion pack? Where? 30 bucks for no extra content and 1 trait line for your toon. Oh you want both expansions that 45 bucks. For 1 trait line. That you now HAVE to choose to maximize your wvw toons. What a bad value. How about I just pay for the expansion part I use? Take a guess what that would be? How much did adding the player skill cost them vs new maps and story and etc. Almost nothing. Not going to pay for PVE as a PVP/WVW player. Super bad value.

Here's an idea. Support the game, regardless, because the ongoing costs of running an MMO are different from saying some driving game you've bought. You don't want to support the game? I'm okay with you not actually having the same ability as people who do. I'm okay with a game charging me a couple of months subscription every 2-3 years, because, you know, other companies actually charge $15 a month to play their game, and others are actually pay to win.

You think it's pay to win because you have to guy expansions to keep up? Okay. I disagree. Most people would disagree. You are saying you can buy a game for $60 and six years later, without putting another cent into it, you should have the same power as people who are actively supporting the game by buying expansions? That's an opinion. I just happen to think that it's naive, at best. It's unrealistic. Frankly I wouldn't mind seeing a cheaper expac just for PvP and WvW that opened those things up to you, but that doesn't exist. It's not that much money. It's not pay to win. And it's not the companies fault you only play one area of the game. Most people who play this game do PvE, as their primary content. The game needs to be support as a whole for WvW to continue to exist.

[Vayne.8563]

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Israel.7056 said:If you can find a game that doesn't ask for any money whatsoever in order to be able to play it and you prefer that game's gameplay to GW2 then play that other game.

If you aren't the customer, you may be the product. Things only get worse out there for freeloaders than gw2

Missing the point. I paid MORE than someone who never has played the game and now buys the latest version.I didn't get any extra value because a free account is the same as mine now.Its like buying a ticket on a boat. You get 1/2 across the river and they ask for the same amount again. If you don't pay people start calling you a free loader.

The game is supposed to make money off its transactions - ANET has actually lost money with me because I have done no transactions since they did this. I have 12 or 14 toons on my paid for account (I lose count because I have at least 4 free ones too.) How much is a character slot? Well now its 0 because you make an account.

Previous to this I had bought 14700 gems. Thats like 175 bucks of gems. Further my original account was a digital deluxe.ANET throws away its good customers is the lesson they should learn.

I'm such a freeloader!

Saying you didn't get any extra value, when you have something longer is factually false. Every MMO, every single one, has barriers to entry. It's hard to start MMOs later, because everyone is ahead of you. Ahead of you in skill, gold, achievement points, whatever. Even though it's relatively easy to catch up on this game, it's not all that easy. For example, new players starting today aren't going to roll into WvW with ascended gear, which you likely have. This gives you an advantage they don't have.

Furthermore, removing barriers to entry is very important for MMOs, because all MMOs have natural attrition. People leave over time. They leave because life gets busy. Or a change happens they don't like. Or another game comes out they like better. Or their friends don't play any more. Or they get sick. Natural attrition means MMOs need to attract new blood to the game and one way to do it is to give people who are coming in late (who are therefore at a disadvantage) a reason to try the game in the first place.

You're so worried about you getting ripped off, imagine how badly ripped off you'd feel if there were never any new players at all, because the barrier to entry was too high and there suddenly weren't enough people to play with. I mean I bought a VCR for $600 and five years later it was $100. That doesn't mean I was ripped off. Nor, if people were offered free DVDs with their DVD player, which I didn't get when I bought mine, would mean I'd been treated unfairly. You always pay a premium to get something earlier/faster, and you know, that's okay.

When people complain about all the great stuff these lucky free to play players have, I always ask the same question. Would you give up all your progress, all your gold, all your achievements, all the skins you've unlocked, all the experiences you had in order to save a few bucks, and start from where they're starting? The overwhelming majority of people would say no to that.

[Vayne.8563]

As a separate note, whether or not Anet should or shouldn't have a power increase in expansion specs is one conversation and whether the represents pay to win, which has an existing definition that is being misused in the OP is a different question. It's not the definition of P2W, which doesn't mean that the OP doesn't have a point. The terminology being used, however, immediately muddies the water, because people in general don't consider expansions pay to win. It's hard for the rest of the argument to get traction as long as we're arguing over that term.

[Israel.7056]

@"Vayne.8563" said:As a separate note, whether or not Anet should or shouldn't have a power increase in expansion specs is one conversation and whether the represents pay to win, which has an existing definition that is being misused in the OP is a different question. It's not the definition of P2W, which doesn't mean that the OP doesn't have a point. The terminology being used, however, immediately muddies the water, because people in general don't consider expansions pay to win. It's hard for the rest of the argument to get traction as long as we're arguing over that term.

Dictionary definitions are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I believe the validity of the term "pay to win" in this instance depends on how literally one interprets the language itself. I take a more literal approach with this term and say that anything that requires some sort of payment in order to have even a slightly better chance of winning can be called "pay to win." This is because strictly speaking you are paying money in order to have a better chance of winning even if that chance isn't 100 percent. The difference between how pay to win a given game is is therefore always a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind. In this particular case I think expansions like the ones Anet has released, where virtually everything new is stronger than everything old, is an obvious albeit forgivable form of pay to win because the people who pay the money to get the expansions will have a very significant competitive advantage over the people who don't in both PvP and PvE.

I think it's also important to consider the likely intent behind the purchases in these discussions as well. What does someone who buys the expansions for PvP/WvW buy them for? Probably the elite specs and perhaps gliding in WvW. What is the intent behind that decision? Presumably to give themselves a better chance of winning than they think they would otherwise have. So for instance someone who picks up PoF just to have Spellbreaker for WvW is probably doing so because they think they'll have a better chance of winning than if they stuck with vanilla warrior etc etc.

[Vayne.8563]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:As a separate note, whether or not Anet should or shouldn't have a power increase in expansion specs is one conversation and whether the represents pay to win, which has an existing definition that is being misused in the OP is a different question. It's not the definition of P2W, which doesn't mean that the OP doesn't have a point. The terminology being used, however, immediately muddies the water, because people in general don't consider expansions pay to win. It's hard for the rest of the argument to get traction as long as we're arguing over that term.

Dictionary definitions are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I believe the validity of the term "pay to win" in this instance depends on how literally one interprets the language itself. I take a more literal approach with this term and say that anything that requires some sort of payment in order to have even a slightly better chance of winning can be called "pay to win." This is because strictly speaking you are paying money in order to have a better chance of winning even if that chance isn't 100 percent. The difference between how pay to win a given game is is therefore always a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind. In this particular case I think expansions like the ones Anet has released, where virtually everything new is stronger than everything old, is an obvious albeit forgivable form of pay to win because the people who pay the money to get the expansions will have a very significant competitive advantage over the people who don't in both PvP and PvE.

I think it's also important to consider the likely intent behind the purchases in these discussions as well. What does someone who buys the expansions for PvP/WvW buy them for? Probably the elite specs and perhaps gliding in WvW. What is the intent behind that decision? Presumably to give themselves a better chance of winning than they think they would otherwise have. So for instance someone who picks up PoF just to have Spellbreaker for WvW is probably doing so because they think they'll have a better chance of winning than if they stuck with vanilla warrior etc etc.

Language isn't literal. I'm not talking about a dictionary definition. Certain games were labeled pay to win because you had to constantly shell out money in their cash shop to stay relevant. We knew what they were and what it meant. There was no guess work. That's what pay to win means. You're interpreting those words literally but it had a meaning.

No one ever once in 15 years that I can remember ever said that the game is pay to win because you have to buy expansions. That thought process never existed, even though expansions gave you more options. You had to buy Factions to get a Rit or a Sin, you couldn't play them in Guild Wars 1 without buying factions but no one called Factions pay to win. It's just misuse of a term.

No one calls WoW pay to win, even though every expansion that comes out allows you to beat people who don't have it. Just the way it is. But people don't use the term.

By interpreting it literally you're simply removing it's meaning. By your definition I can find pay to win elements in every single MMO in existence, which one would think would limit the usefulness of the term. By using it to describe all MMOs, how are you actually adding to the conversation?

[Blocki.4931]

Imagine complaining about not being able to be up to date with builds and gear in WoW when not even buying an expansion

That's the same level of this discussion. Your point doesn't work, because you don't partake in any new releases, you don't get to be up to date because you don't even want to be

[Sovereign.1093]

my gut feel:

1. all games are pay to win
2. you must grind, in one way or another, to get the best gear
3. in all things gw2 50% coordination 30% skill 20% gear.

no game that goes away from this system lasts.

all existing games are pay to win, but you can without without paying if you're patient. in this case, anet need only allow expansions to be bought via gems and we're set. since ppl use irl money to buy gems and sell gems to get in game gold. inversely people with gold could buy gems to buy the expansions. in this way - irl money is given to anet in one way or another.

make it happen

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@phs.6089 said:

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:So tell me OP. Precisely which games don't give you an advantage for buying the expansion? I mean most games raise the level cap which gives you an advantage in PvP, no? P2W has never applied to expansions before, only microtransactions, where you have to keep spending money. I mean if you meet a guy on a PvP server in WOW and he's 10 levels higher than you, won't he kill you?

Great example.I may be wrong but I don't think level cap applies to expansion.You made my case.Level your toon to max level in base wow. You have access to all skills on the character.Can't go on expanded questing.PvP...its level based BTW. So no you don't get a level 110 crushing a level 18. There are level restrictions always ending in the top level you can achieve.Open world PVP? Does not exist in WoW for the most part.

So ya. WoW does it right. GW2 does it wrong. That is why I wanted WvW/PvP to allow any classes to be specced. PvP already uses a different talent build system and weapons.

Mind you, you still pay subs to wow, right? If you don't you can't. So tell me how is $15 per mount is not P2W but a$15-20 expac is one?

Expacs are the way that Anets easrns money, you want them to juts give up on it? Or would you prefer to pay subs to access any skill, trait line, elit scpe? I bet Anet would be happy to introduce such thing( like ESO) if there are more players wiling to go for it.

Here a novel idea. Have your expansion pack actually have "expansion" in it not reduction. I only play WvW and PvP. What extra content did my players get? Answer: They got down graded in relation to new players. BTW...15-20 expansion pack? Where? 30 bucks for no extra content and 1 trait line for your toon. Oh you want both expansions that 45 bucks. For 1 trait line. That you now HAVE to choose to maximize your wvw toons. What a bad value. How about I just pay for the expansion part I use? Take a guess what that would be? How much did adding the player skill cost them vs new maps and story and etc. Almost nothing. Not going to pay for PVE as a PVP/WVW player. Super bad value.

You seem to miss something so i'll help you out.

You speak that the "expansions" only provide 1 trait line. For someone that WvW's or PvP's (I personally main WvW), it's up to the player to look into the expansion and decide if they would get their monies worth based on what they do. You chose to purchase it knowing as a PvP'er/WvW'er who doesnt so any stories, gliding, mounting or PvE to buy it anyway. That now makes your argument pointless. Its like buying a new 60" Samsung smart TV, despite you watch TV for maybe 30 minutes/day, then complaining about how bad value it was based on your own poor decision.

"How about I just pay for the expansion part I use?"

This kind of cracked me up a bit i admit. Its like someone complaining about needing to buy a bucket of fried chicken just for the skin and ranting about it. It's a valid complaint, however it's also one that cannot be taken seriously. Ever hear the term "taking the good with the bad"? This is also going to boil down to "bad value based on your own poor decision". Its not Anet's fault for these, it's the players.

Edited for grammar.

[Israel.7056]

@"Vayne.8563" said:Language isn't literal.

"Concrete" is perhaps the better word. And yes it can be. If we can readily identify a semantic principle underlying a particular phrase such as "pay to win" we can extrapolate that principle and apply it consistently wherever the principle conditions are met.

I'm not talking about a dictionary definition. Certain games were labeled pay to win because you had to constantly shell out money in their cash shop to stay relevant. We knew what they were and what it meant. There was no guess work. That's what pay to win means. You're interpreting those words literally but it had a meaning.

But that's entirely arbitrary. Exactly how much money does one have to "shell out" before it's pay to win? one hundred dollars? two hundred? one thousand? one million? To some people ten thousand dollars might seem a reasonable expense to pay to be viable in a video game to others three hundred might seem unreasonable but in both cases they're paying money to have a better chance of winning. The dollar amount is therefore irrelevant.

No one ever once in 15 years that I can remember ever said that the game is pay to win because you have to buy expansions. That thought process never existed, even though expansions gave you more options. You had to buy Factions to get a Rit or a Sin, you couldn't play them in Guild Wars 1 without buying factions but no one called Factions pay to win. It's just misuse of a term.

If in principle something is called "pay to win" because they have to "shell out money" to some degree or another in order to stay competitive then in principle all MMO games that sell expansions that offer clear advantages to those who buy them are engaging in "pay to win" to some extent or another. You seem to be drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to suit your own personal level of purchasing power. For you the usual cost of an expansion (60 dollars) might be nothing to spend on a video game but as I said earlier for others ten thousand dollars is nothing to spend on a video game. Would you call their spending habits "pay to win" and yours not? What is the difference except in nominal cost?

No one calls WoW pay to win, even though every expansion that comes out allows you to beat people who don't have it. Just the way it is. But people don't use the term.

Then they're being logically inconsistent and drawing a convenient arbitrary line in the sand that suits their own level of purchasing power. They can afford the cost of the expansions and so they have no issues with paying for them but they're still paying for a clear advantage over someone who doesn't buy them whether they realize it or not. In the case of GW2 the advantage of those who buy the expansions versus those who do not is enormous. Just because you can afford to pay for that advantage doesn't make it any less of an advantage. A rose by any other name.

By interpreting it literally you're simply removing it's meaning. By your definition I can find pay to win elements in every single MMO in existence, which one would think would limit the usefulness of the term. By using it to describe all MMOs, how are you actually adding to the conversation?

I'm not removing its meaning I'm simply removing its arbitrary boundaries and applying it consistently across the board wherever I think the principle conditions are met.

Indeed all MMOs I've played have been pay to win to some extent or another. GW2 included. The difference between games is the degree to which are they pay to win and the nominal cost of the buy in so to speak. I can afford the cost of the buy in for gw2 I cannot afford the buy in cost of a game like BDO or AA where it might cost thousands of dollars to be competitive but then there are games like EVE where I've heard that some people have been willing to drop tens of thousands of dollars to be competitive. It's all pay to win but it exists on a spectrum. Relative to other games the buy in for gw2 is much more affordable for someone like me but I'm still paying money on a regular basis to stay competitive.

[Vayne.8563]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:Language isn't literal.

"Concrete" is perhaps the better word. And yes it can be. If we can readily identify a semantic principle underlying a particular phrase such as "pay to win" we can extrapolate that principle and apply it consistently wherever the principle conditions are met.

I'm not talking about a dictionary definition. Certain games were labeled pay to win because you had to constantly shell out money in their cash shop to stay relevant. We knew what they were and what it meant. There was no guess work. That's what pay to win means. You're interpreting those words literally but it had a meaning.

But that's entirely arbitrary. Exactly how much money does one have to "shell out" before it's pay to win? one hundred dollars? two hundred? one thousand? one million? To some people ten thousand dollars might seem a reasonable expense to pay to be viable in a video game to others three hundred might seem unreasonable but in both cases they're paying money to have a better chance of winning. The dollar amount is therefore irrelevant.

No one ever once in 15 years that I can remember ever said that the game is pay to win because you have to buy expansions. That thought process never existed, even though expansions gave you more options. You had to buy Factions to get a Rit or a Sin, you couldn't play them in Guild Wars 1 without buying factions but no one called Factions pay to win. It's just misuse of a term.

If in principle something is called "pay to win" because they have to "shell out money" to some degree or another in order to stay competitive then in principle all MMO games that sell expansions that offer clear advantages to those who buy them are engaging in "pay to win" to some extent or another. You seem to be drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to suit your own personal level of purchasing power. For you the usual cost of an expansion (60 dollars) might be nothing to spend on a video game but as I said earlier for others ten thousand dollars is nothing to spend on a video game. Would you call their spending habits "pay to win" and yours not? What is the difference except in nominal cost?

No one calls WoW pay to win, even though every expansion that comes out allows you to beat people who don't have it. Just the way it is. But people don't use the term.

Then they're being logically inconsistent and drawing a convenient arbitrary line in the sand that suits their own level of purchasing power. They can afford the cost of the expansions and so they have no issues with paying for them but they're still paying for a clear advantage over someone who doesn't buy them whether they realize it or not. In the case of GW2 the advantage of those who buy the expansions versus those who do not is enormous. Just because you can afford to pay for that advantage doesn't make it any less of an advantage. A rose by any other name.

By interpreting it literally you're simply removing it's meaning. By your definition I can find pay to win elements in every single MMO in existence, which one would think would limit the usefulness of the term. By using it to describe all MMOs, how are you actually adding to the conversation?

I'm not removing its meaning I'm simply removing its arbitrary boundaries and applying it consistently across the board wherever I think the principle conditions are met.

Indeed all MMOs I've played have been pay to win to some extent or another. GW2 included. The difference between games is the degree to which are they pay to win and the nominal cost of the buy in so to speak. I can afford the cost of the buy in for gw2 I cannot afford the buy in cost of a game like BDO or AA where it might cost thousands of dollars to be competitive but then there are games like EVE where I've heard that some people have been willing to drop tens of thousands of dollars to be competitive. It's all pay to win but it exists on a spectrum. Relative to other games the buy in for gw2 is much more affordable for someone like me but I'm still paying money on a regular basis to stay competitive.

Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

[Israel.7056]

@"Vayne.8563" said:Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2.

The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in.

It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases.

So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.)

Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not?

Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with.

[Vayne.8563]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2.

The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in.

It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases.

So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.)

Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not?

Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with.

There needs to be a line drawn between legit games that don't sell power in the cash shop, and games that do. You need a term to represent that. Up until now, that term has been pay to win. Redefining it serves no purpose whatsoever.

As for annecdotal experience, sure it's all annecdotal. It's all 15 years and probably hundreds of conversations. It's not like one thing that happened one time. If you weren't there, there's no way you can confirm or not confirm what I'm saying but it doesn't really matter. Go back in time and try to find people talking about expacs as pay to win if you like.

Either way I'm done with this conversation, I've said my piece.

[meowtier.1364]

I'm not sure how serious this post actually is but I think the amount of classes that can do well without elite specs (warr, guard, thief, maybe ele for example) show that core accounts can be just as competitive as account with expansions. I have both and regularly play core warrior /shrug

[LetoII.3782]

@Skeletor.9360 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Israel.7056 said:If you can find a game that doesn't ask for any money whatsoever in order to be able to play it and you prefer that game's gameplay to GW2 then play that other game.

If you aren't the customer, you may be the product. Things only get worse out there for freeloaders than gw2

Missing the point. I paid MORE than someone who never has played the game and now buys the latest version.I didn't get any extra value because a free account is the same as mine now.

Correct, your version (Vanilla Gw2) of the game went Free to Play years ago, did you expect the development of the original game to go unto perpetuity?

Its like buying a ticket on a boat. You get 1/2 across the river and they ask for the same amount again. If you don't pay people start calling you a free loader.

You got your trip though, now that ticket is toilet paper.

[Dagger.2035]

I’d rather have them keep the elite specializations at the same power level as core. I have plenty of income to spend but I try to spend the least amount possible in this game since I’m not happy with balance. It was pretty obvious what they did to the HOT specs:

• Nerf unhindered combant for Daredevil
• Nerf Tempest damage
• Nerf sustain for Berserker
• Nerf Reaper shroud

They don’t need power creep to get me to buy the expansion. I have 14 level 80s and would be willing to invest in the game to have more play options, but I have little goodwill left for this game.

[Dagger.2035]

All games use power creep for sales it’s too bad they try to manipulate the player base instead of trying to create the best game possible...

[MachineManXX.9746]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2.

The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in.

It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases.

So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.)

Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not?

Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with.

It seems to me you are arguing, just for the sake of arguing. If every game you have ever played is pay to win, then the way you use the term has no meaning. If every game ever played was pay to win, why would the term even be brought up? We are obviously discussing something different. Now, if you choose to open your eyes and realize this discussion is about something different than your self imposed literal definition, then maybe you would have something meaningful to add.

[Israel.7056]

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2.

The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in.

It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases.

So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.)

Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not?

Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with.

It seems to me you are arguing, just for the sake of arguing. If every game you have ever played is pay to win, then the way you use the term has no meaning. If every game ever played was pay to win, why would the term even be brought up? We are obviously discussing something different. Now, if you choose to open your eyes and realize this discussion is about something different than your self imposed literal definition, then maybe you would have something meaningful to add.

I'm essentially just agreeing with the op about the xpacs being pay to win. Maybe read the thread next time before posting in a thread just a suggestion.

With pay to win in mmos the difference is always in the degree which is where people draw arbitrary lines in the sand depending on their own purchasing power and relative willingness to spend money on a given game. As I said before some people have no problem spending thousands on a game whereas others might draw the line at a hundred dollars. Gw2 has what I consider to be very affordable pay to win expansions but for some it might be too expensive.