Pay-to-win 2.0

[sephiroth.4217]

@PervMonk.4891 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@PervMonk.4891 said:imagine calling cosmetic loot boxes p2w or that expacs are p2w feelsweirdman

Expansions are pay to win for this game.

If the new specs weren't called Elite (which by definition is better than the rest) and didnt out perform its predecessors by a large margin and only content was added, then it wouldnt be pay to win.

Guild Wars went with the model that not only added new content but gave significant power creep to those who purchased said expansion.

Other games like Stellaris, Battlefield, STEEP, Railway Empire and some more only release content with expansions, they dont add a steroid injected character to go with it. Just content. For those games, saying that buying an expansion is p2w is laughable but this isn't the catagory that GW2 fits in.

Gw2 has been P2W since HoT and even more so now that PoF users have a huge combat advantage in WvW over those who dont via mounts. 3 extra dodges, immunity to CC, faster travel times and list goes on just based off that 1 example.

So if Arenanet made expansions a necessity and disallowed access to endgame content and game modes to people who did not buy them, would that not fix the issue? It would definitly not be pay to win any more right?

Also all of those games you mentioned are neither MMOs nor in some cases even multiplayer. A bit apples to oranges or?

Its simple it shouldn't need to be explained. It applies to all expansions for any game.

Did the purchase of an expansion provide you with better equipment, tools and or characters to use that involves Player vs Player? If you answer yes, its pay to win.

Did the purchase of an expansion provide you with more content and nothing else that provides an advantage to a Player in a Player v Player environment? Not pay to win.

Its really simple to understand that it doesn't require any nit picking.

Now our expansions came with Elite specs, look up the definition of Elite and its basically something better than the rest. We didnt get 1 steroid injected toon, we got 9 and content. BY ENGLISH DEFINITION: its pay to win.

Thats by English definition though.

lol u even dont know what's p2wgo do ur research kidif you want to see real p2w look at bdo or archeage. this games doesnt even come close to having p2wjust keep whining cuz u want every thing free

I pay for everything in my family, including bills. I must be Richie Rich ☺

It would be nice if electricity and gas were free.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@PervMonk.4891 said:imagine calling cosmetic loot boxes p2w or that expacs are p2w feelsweirdman

Expansions are pay to win for this game.

If the new specs weren't called Elite (which by definition is better than the rest) and didnt out perform its predecessors by a large margin and only content was added, then it wouldnt be pay to win.

Guild Wars went with the model that not only added new content but gave significant power creep to those who purchased said expansion.

Other games like Stellaris, Battlefield, STEEP, Railway Empire and some more only release content with expansions, they dont add a steroid injected character to go with it. Just content. For those games, saying that buying an expansion is p2w is laughable but this isn't the catagory that GW2 fits in.

Gw2 has been P2W since HoT and even more so now that PoF users have a huge combat advantage in WvW over those who dont via mounts. 3 extra dodges, immunity to CC, faster travel times and list goes on just based off that 1 example.

So if Arenanet made expansions a necessity and disallowed access to endgame content and game modes to people who did not buy them, would that not fix the issue? It would definitly not be pay to win any more right?

Also all of those games you mentioned are neither MMOs nor in some cases even multiplayer. A bit apples to oranges or?

Its simple it shouldn't need to be explained. It applies to all expansions for any game.

Did the purchase of an expansion provide you with better equipment, tools and or characters to use that involves Player vs Player? If you answer yes, its pay to win.

Did the purchase of an expansion provide you with more content and nothing else that provides an advantage to a Player in a Player v Player environment? Not pay to win.

Its really simple to understand that it doesn't require any nit picking.

Now our expansions came with Elite specs, look up the definition of Elite and its basically something better than the rest. We didnt get 1 steroid injected toon, we got 9 and content. BY ENGLISH DEFINITION: its pay to win.

Thats by English definition though.So whats the line here if it applies to expansions 2-3 years apart that basicly replace the base game?

What about games themselves that release this often?

Is every CoD game P2W for the retail cost release version?

Because by your definition, it must be.

I haven't played those games but it applies to all games.

If you paid for something that gives you an advantage over a player who didn't, then it's pay to win my book.

It applied to this game since HoT and its reinforced by calling Elite specs, Elite specs.. This is only if we are following the English Dictionary.

[Diku.2546]

Too good to be true?

Does this phrase have any meaning to you?

Here's my take on this topic, but it's only my opinion. Truth & Value may differ depending on your personal perspective.

---

Would you agree that it takes money to provide, maintain, and upgrade the entertainment this game provides?

Pick the ANSWER that best fits your opinion:

---

NO - It does not take money to provide, maintain, and upgrade the entertainment this game provides.I agree with you. We totally paid for this game & as such we should receive all the benefits that this game provides...including any new things that get added.Developers should never add new features & content unless they give it away to everybody. Go to END.

---

YES - It does take money to provide, maintain, and upgrade the entertainment this game provides.I agree with you. We totally paid for this game & as such we should receive all the benefits that this game provides...including any new things that get added.Developers should add new features & content and give it to everybody with limits.

Players that directly helped ANet financially survive by purchasing the new features & content should have unlimited access to it.

Players that haven't purchased the new features & content should have "limited" access (examples: limited number of hours, visits, etc.).

Players that haven't purchased the new features & content could earn access to it by earning in-game currency that ultimately provides a service/content that ANet can use to capitalize on to in-directly generate real world revenue.

Everybody should have access to the new features & content but their access should be based on their direct or in-direct financial support to allow ANet to survive. Go to END.

---

END - Nice discussion we had there. Have a nice day.

Next discussion...what's your opinion about going to the movies at your local shopping mall?

If we paid once to see it...what kind of access should we continue to have after leaving the theater?

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

[Obtena.7952]

Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

[phokus.8934]

This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

[sephiroth.4217]

@phokus.8934 said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

No one changed definitions, I think you mean the focus shifted to another topic.. the whole point of the expansion talk was about what the definition of what pay to win is.I dont think anybody in that conversation agreed with OP but someone brought up expansions.

[phokus.8934]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@phokus.8934 said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

No one changed definitions, I think you mean the focus shifted to another topic.. the whole point of the expansion talk was about what the definition of what pay to win is.I dont think anybody in that conversation agreed with OP but someone brought up expansions.

You keep stating that expansions and elite specs are pay to win.

[sephiroth.4217]

@phokus.8934 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@phokus.8934 said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

No one changed definitions, I think you mean the focus shifted to another topic.. the whole point of the expansion talk was about what the definition of what pay to win is.I dont think anybody in that conversation agreed with OP but someone brought up expansions.

You keep stating that expansions and elite specs are pay to win.

If you're confused, try reading it again.

[spectrito.8513]

@"Obtena.7952" said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

[Obtena.7952]

@spectrito.8513 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

I'm not encouraging anything here. I think it's funny that someone has mapped this out as P2W ... personally, I think we are all getting trolled by a 17 YO because equating the ability to pay to win and getting end game gear faster to swapping servers is truly ignorant.

In otherwords I'm being sarcastic and you are ruining it :-1:

[Ansau.7326]

@phokus.8934 said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

[spectrito.8513]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

I'm not encouraging anything here. I think it's funny that someone has mapped this out as P2W ... personally, I think we are all getting trolled by a 17 YO because equating the ability to pay to win and getting end game gear faster to swapping servers is truly ignorant.

In otherwords I'm being sarcastic and you are ruining it :-1:

He didnt linked buying gems to getting end game gear.In most P2W games that sell end game gear, you pay to steamroll those who didntIn WvW gear doesnt matter but numbers do matter, so you pay to stack in a server to steamroll less populated servers.

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

[sephiroth.4217]

@Ansau.7326 said:

@phokus.8934 said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

So to you... buying something like an expansion that provides an advantage such as Warclaw which grants immunity to CC, faster travel times, extra evasions, more health and recieving steroid injected characters is not pay to win but buying a booster for an hour to temporarily increase damage is because it came from the gem store? Even though boosters dont work in a PvP environment? Ontop of that, gem store items are essentially free to every player regardless...

Thats a massive contradiction if you ask me and extremely bias... but ok! Its interesting to see the opinions of others.

Dont mind me but im going to keep it simple, maybe im too old to understand all the genders and why things need to be over complicated now and over questioned but to me its as simple as:Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.

Pick your answer because thats as far as the question needs to go.Then all you need to do is apply that to where it fits...

If you compare this game to EA.. this game wouldn't be considered pay to win due to EA extremity but we still have it regardless.

[Sovereign.1093]

do you want a vial of salt with that?

[Obtena.7952]

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

I'm not encouraging anything here. I think it's funny that someone has mapped this out as P2W ... personally, I think we are all getting trolled by a 17 YO because equating the ability to pay to win and getting end game gear faster to swapping servers is truly ignorant.

In otherwords I'm being sarcastic and you are ruining it :-1:

He didnt linked buying gems to getting end game gear.In most P2W games that sell end game gear, you pay to steamroll those who didntIn WvW gear doesnt matter but numbers do matter, so you pay to stack in a server to steamroll less populated servers.

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

You're right ... his objection was so poorly put that hardly anyone undestands WTF he's talking about. Let me put this way ... WHATEVER his P2W argument is ... it's nonsense, figuratively and literally.

[spectrito.8513]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

I'm not encouraging anything here. I think it's funny that someone has mapped this out as P2W ... personally, I think we are all getting trolled by a 17 YO because equating the ability to pay to win and getting end game gear faster to swapping servers is truly ignorant.

In otherwords I'm being sarcastic and you are ruining it :-1:

He didnt linked buying gems to getting end game gear.In most P2W games that sell end game gear, you pay to steamroll those who didntIn WvW gear doesnt matter but numbers do matter, so you pay to stack in a server to steamroll less populated servers.

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

You're right ... his objection was so poorly put that hardly anyone undestands kitten he's talking about. Let me put this way ... WHATEVER his P2W argument is ... it's nonsense, figuratively and literally.

Yeah i agree he wasnt clear, but he's right on his complain.I'll put this again just in case you missed

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

[Vayne.8563]

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

I'm not encouraging anything here. I think it's funny that someone has mapped this out as P2W ... personally, I think we are all getting trolled by a 17 YO because equating the ability to pay to win and getting end game gear faster to swapping servers is truly ignorant.

In otherwords I'm being sarcastic and you are ruining it :-1:

He didnt linked buying gems to getting end game gear.In most P2W games that sell end game gear, you pay to steamroll those who didntIn WvW gear doesnt matter but numbers do matter, so you pay to stack in a server to steamroll less populated servers.

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

You're right ... his objection was so poorly put that hardly anyone undestands kitten he's talking about. Let me put this way ... WHATEVER his P2W argument is ... it's nonsense, figuratively and literally.

Yeah i agree he wasnt clear, but he's right on his complain.I'll put this again just in case you missed

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

I'm not sure I'm worried about people not buying expansions leaving. The truth is, most people who play MMOs expect to buy expansions. New xpacks come out, and generally people buy them, or they're left behind. In most cases that's a higher level and new tiers of gear, as well as content, including zones. Very often classes and races as well. This game is probably less pay to win than any of those games, if you start thinking about it. Pay to win is when you have to keep spending money in the cash shop to remain competitive. Expansions are a whole different matter, and no one ever said in the past expansions are pay to win. It's part of owning the game.

[spectrito.8513]

@Vayne.8563 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold on ... so through some convoluted path, someone has linked buying gems with getting top gear faster in WvW?

Awesome ... Anet should give this guy a reward. Finally a way to encourage WvW people to buy gems. Doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.

Until guilds from your server bandwagon and you will see your server slowly dying.Some people feel~~ forced~~ "encouraged"to buy gems to transfer to have fun because it's not enjoyable play in a dead server being stomped for 2 months , some wont bother with it and will wait until their server becomes a link and some quits, a really good way to lose players, but hey people are giving Anet money thats what matters, right ?

I'm not encouraging anything here. I think it's funny that someone has mapped this out as P2W ... personally, I think we are all getting trolled by a 17 YO because equating the ability to pay to win and getting end game gear faster to swapping servers is truly ignorant.

In otherwords I'm being sarcastic and you are ruining it :-1:

He didnt linked buying gems to getting end game gear.In most P2W games that sell end game gear, you pay to steamroll those who didntIn WvW gear doesnt matter but numbers do matter, so you pay to stack in a server to steamroll less populated servers.

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

You're right ... his objection was so poorly put that hardly anyone undestands kitten he's talking about. Let me put this way ... WHATEVER his P2W argument is ... it's nonsense, figuratively and literally.

Yeah i agree he wasnt clear, but he's right on his complain.I'll put this again just in case you missed

In essence it's the same thing : You pay to steamroll those who didntThe side effect is also the same : People who didnt payed are more likely to leave.

I'm not sure I'm worried about people not buying expansions leaving. The truth is, most people who play MMOs expect to buy expansions. New xpacks come out, and generally people buy them, or they're left behind. In most cases that's a higher level and new tiers of gear, as well as content, including zones. Very often classes and races as well. This game is probably less pay to win than any of those games, if you start thinking about it. Pay to win is when you have to keep spending money in the cash shop to remain competitive. Expansions are a whole different matter, and no one ever said in the past expansions are pay to win. It's part of owning the game.

My point is not about expansions, its about mass server transfers

[Cyninja.2954]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Ansau.7326 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

So to you... buying something like an expansion that provides an advantage such as Warclaw which grants immunity to CC, faster travel times, extra evasions, more health and recieving steroid injected characters is not pay to win but buying a booster for an hour to temporarily increase damage is because it came from the gem store? Even though boosters dont work in a PvP environment? Ontop of that, gem store items are essentially free to every player regardless...

Thats a massive contradiction if you ask me and extremely bias... but ok! Its interesting to see the opinions of others.

Dont mind me but im going to keep it simple, maybe im too old to understand all the genders and why things need to be over complicated now and over questioned but to me its as simple as:Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.

Hence why I asked if disallowing access would solve this definintion dilema for you. If a player does not have access to content he can by definition not "lose" and thus no other player can "win". He is simply not part of that content.

As such, by your simple definition, removing access for all players who do not own certain expansions, as is very common for MMORPGS, would make the game not pay-to-win using your definition. You know something is off when a developers generousity causes his product to suddenly be considered anti consumer. As such your definintion seems off, is what people are saying.

@sephiroth.4217 said:Pick your answer because thats as far as the question needs to go.Then all you need to do is apply that to where it fits...

If you compare this game to EA.. this game wouldn't be considered pay to win due to EA extremity but we still have it regardless.

Except that you are leaving out every and all nuances inbetween Arenanet and EA. My personal experience is that it's seldom wise to deal in pure black and white.

[sephiroth.4217]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Ansau.7326 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

So to you... buying something like an expansion that provides an advantage such as Warclaw which grants immunity to CC, faster travel times, extra evasions, more health and recieving steroid injected characters is not pay to win but buying a booster for an hour to temporarily increase damage is because it came from the gem store? Even though boosters dont work in a PvP environment? Ontop of that, gem store items are essentially free to every player regardless...

Thats a massive contradiction if you ask me and extremely bias... but ok! Its interesting to see the opinions of others.

Dont mind me but im going to keep it simple, maybe im too old to understand all the genders and why things need to be over complicated now and over questioned but to me its as simple as:Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.

Hence why I asked if disallowing access would solve this definintion dilema for you. If a player does not have access to content he can by definition not "lose" and thus no other player can "win". He is simply not part of that content.

As such, by your simple definition, removing access for all players who do not own certain expansions, as is very common for MMORPGS, would make the game not pay-to-win using your definition. You know something is off when a developers generousity causes his product to suddenly be considered anti consumer. As such your definintion seems off, is what people are saying.

@sephiroth.4217 said:Pick your answer because thats as far as the question needs to go.Then all you need to do is apply that to where it fits...

If you compare this game to EA.. this game wouldn't be considered pay to win due to EA extremity but we still have it regardless.

Except that you are leaving out every and all nuances inbetween Arenanet and EA. My personal experience is that it's seldom wise to deal in pure black and white.

The simple things are black and white for a reason.

Also I have no idea what you're going on about with the rest of the post, I dont have any dilemmas.

[Cyninja.2954]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Ansau.7326 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

So to you... buying something like an expansion that provides an advantage such as Warclaw which grants immunity to CC, faster travel times, extra evasions, more health and recieving steroid injected characters is not pay to win but buying a booster for an hour to temporarily increase damage is because it came from the gem store? Even though boosters dont work in a PvP environment? Ontop of that, gem store items are essentially free to every player regardless...

Thats a massive contradiction if you ask me and extremely bias... but ok! Its interesting to see the opinions of others.

Dont mind me but im going to keep it simple, maybe im too old to understand all the genders and why things need to be over complicated now and over questioned but to me its as simple as:Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.

Hence why I asked if disallowing access would solve this definintion dilema for you. If a player does not have access to content he can by definition not "lose" and thus no other player can "win". He is simply not part of that content.

As such, by your simple definition, removing access for all players who do not own certain expansions, as is very common for MMORPGS, would make the game not pay-to-win using your definition. You know something is off when a developers generousity causes his product to suddenly be considered anti consumer. As such your definintion seems off, is what people are saying.

@sephiroth.4217 said:Pick your answer because thats as far as the question needs to go.Then all you need to do is apply that to where it fits...

If you compare this game to EA.. this game wouldn't be considered pay to win due to EA extremity but we still have it regardless.

Except that you are leaving out every and all nuances inbetween Arenanet and EA. My personal experience is that it's seldom wise to deal in pure black and white.

The simple things are black and white for a reason.

Agree to disagree.

Also I have no idea what you're going on about with the rest of the post, I dont have any dilemmas.

That's not an argument though as to why your definintion makes sense.

[sephiroth.4217]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Ansau.7326 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

So to you... buying something like an expansion that provides an advantage such as Warclaw which grants immunity to CC, faster travel times, extra evasions, more health and recieving steroid injected characters is not pay to win but buying a booster for an hour to temporarily increase damage is because it came from the gem store? Even though boosters dont work in a PvP environment? Ontop of that, gem store items are essentially free to every player regardless...

Thats a massive contradiction if you ask me and extremely bias... but ok! Its interesting to see the opinions of others.

Dont mind me but im going to keep it simple, maybe im too old to understand all the genders and why things need to be over complicated now and over questioned but to me its as simple as:Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.

Hence why I asked if disallowing access would solve this definintion dilema for you. If a player does not have access to content he can by definition not "lose" and thus no other player can "win". He is simply not part of that content.

As such, by your simple definition, removing access for all players who do not own certain expansions, as is very common for MMORPGS, would make the game not pay-to-win using your definition. You know something is off when a developers generousity causes his product to suddenly be considered anti consumer. As such your definintion seems off, is what people are saying.

@sephiroth.4217 said:Pick your answer because thats as far as the question needs to go.Then all you need to do is apply that to where it fits...

If you compare this game to EA.. this game wouldn't be considered pay to win due to EA extremity but we still have it regardless.

Except that you are leaving out every and all nuances inbetween Arenanet and EA. My personal experience is that it's seldom wise to deal in pure black and white.

The simple things are black and white for a reason.

Agree to disagree.

Also I have no idea what you're going on about with the rest of the post, I dont have any dilemmas.

That's not an argument though as to why your definintion makes sense.

Look Im sorry if it doesn't make sense to you but it's not my job to educate you.

We'll finish here as there is no need to discuss this further.

[Cyninja.2954]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Ansau.7326 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:This conversation goes from GW2 being pay to win through server transfers to GW2 being pat to win because of expansions.

Since when did we start changing the definitions of terms?

Since we live in the world of sensibility and offense, where pejorative definitions of defined concepts are used left and right in a generalized way to include personal vendettas.In this case, pay to win, concept associated to the bad practices of selling specific items, boosts, upgrades... through the cash shops that give the player a tangible benefit over someone without them. Examples being temporary boosts of damage and survivability that can be used in competitive games, weapons/gear or upgrades applied to those that grant more stats that the ones obtained by playing, items required to succeed in the game...But apparently, nowadays the concept of pay to win is referred to anything that brings any subjective advantage to the game. And such generalization puts everybody in such a difficult territory that even the supporters get backfired. Because by using the same reasoning, if anything can be considered p2w, then everything is p2w and the discussion becomes dull as there is no state of non p2w possible. Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w, the chair you sit is also p2w and even the country you live is p2w as tempered climates grant a more comfortable environment than extreme ones.Of course all these are ridiculous examples, but they are only to emphasize the mistake people are doing by making themselves the concepts instead of using them correctly.

Which brings us to this specific discussion.Elite specs, mounts and gliding cannot be considered p2w, because:

1. They are not sold individually in gem store/trading post. They are content, part of all the included in the expansions, as the monetary model that Arenanet has been using since Guild Wars is a thing, p2p (pay to play).
2. Because neither of them provide a tangible benefit that can be demonstrated as a fact or with a scientific demonstration. You have core builds being as strong as the elite ones (hello zerg core guard during HoT, and core builds at roaming), and while gliding and mounts change the way you play the game, they don't define the outcome of it. Their benefits are situational and completely overshadowed by raw numbers and skill. It doesn't really matter if you can reach faster the place, what matters is if you outnumber or outskill the enemy.

What elites, gliding and mount definitely do is to lower the skill floor of this game by granting more forgiving mechanics to the players. But non of them put us in a position where it is impossible to win fights or matches without them.Which is the reason why they are not p2w, they don't change the fact that the winning side is still the most organized or the most skilled one.

So to you... buying something like an expansion that provides an advantage such as Warclaw which grants immunity to CC, faster travel times, extra evasions, more health and recieving steroid injected characters is not pay to win but buying a booster for an hour to temporarily increase damage is because it came from the gem store? Even though boosters dont work in a PvP environment? Ontop of that, gem store items are essentially free to every player regardless...

Thats a massive contradiction if you ask me and extremely bias... but ok! Its interesting to see the opinions of others.

Dont mind me but im going to keep it simple, maybe im too old to understand all the genders and why things need to be over complicated now and over questioned but to me its as simple as:Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.

Hence why I asked if disallowing access would solve this definintion dilema for you. If a player does not have access to content he can by definition not "lose" and thus no other player can "win". He is simply not part of that content.

As such, by your simple definition, removing access for all players who do not own certain expansions, as is very common for MMORPGS, would make the game not pay-to-win using your definition. You know something is off when a developers generousity causes his product to suddenly be considered anti consumer. As such your definintion seems off, is what people are saying.

@sephiroth.4217 said:Pick your answer because thats as far as the question needs to go.Then all you need to do is apply that to where it fits...

If you compare this game to EA.. this game wouldn't be considered pay to win due to EA extremity but we still have it regardless.

Except that you are leaving out every and all nuances inbetween Arenanet and EA. My personal experience is that it's seldom wise to deal in pure black and white.

The simple things are black and white for a reason.

Agree to disagree.

Also I have no idea what you're going on about with the rest of the post, I dont have any dilemmas.

That's not an argument though as to why your definintion makes sense.

Look Im sorry if it doesn't make sense to you but it's not my job to educate you.

We'll finish here as there is no need to discuss this further.

A valid approach, but realize it just tells everyone one thing: you are stuck on your illogical definition (from a consumer and connotation perspective) and are unwilling to either:a.) explain how a more generous product policy is more consumer unfriendly using your definition (which might very well be possible with a pay-to-win approach, the term doesn't necessary have to have a negativ impact on cosumer even if it has a very negativ connotation)b.) are to stubbern to reevaluate your applied definition and maybe bring it more in line with industry standards and what other people understand under pay-to-win

You are correct though, you are not required to educate anyone but do expect communication dissonance with others when your definitions wildly vary from what most people assume or understand.

[Dhemize.8649]

It's pretty clear. I'm sure we're all just tired of finding ways to repeat and dumb things down.

It's kind of frustrating to see how many people with a PvP advantage absolutely refuse to admit it. I feel like I'm dealing with people who believe Earth is flat. At some point you give up on them.

[SoV.5139]

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@derd.6413 said:

@Dhemize.8649 said:I mean... we already have P2W mounts so I don't see a valid argument from previous mount defenders to be against P2W loot boxes. They're both paying for additional buffs.

"Mounts are P2W buffs.""You can just buy PoF too."Well..."You can just buy P2W loot boxes.""I don't like paying for loot boxes."Hurrrrr!

are you new to the MMO genre and the concept of xpacs

No. Care to explain the difference in supporting a company via an expac or buying loot boxes?

Xpac = game is the product being sold. Game system integrity remains constant. Strong game sells more so there is more motivation to continue to make, maintain, and add to a strong game.

Loot boxes = game is the environment the real product is sold in. Furthermore, loot boxes in particular take advantage of addictive personalities where people apply the gamblers fallacy in full belief that the next one will grant the rare item they want. Also easier to code, so more companies that make money in this fashion lay off more employees and go with the "minimum viable product" model. Game stagnates, as game system integrity is ignored in favor of continuing to make money on loot boxes and other p2w gimmicks. Environment is kept around and afloat merely to continue to sell p2w hilarity which gets shilled and white knighted by a small group of forumites while the rest of the community moves on to a new game, or seeing this culture take hold in many games, a new hobby altogether.

TL;DR: The former is what actual system gamers want, the latter is what those seeking entertainment but could care less about game system integrity want.

[Dhemize.8649]

@SoV.5139 said:

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@derd.6413 said:

@Dhemize.8649 said:I mean... we already have P2W mounts so I don't see a valid argument from previous mount defenders to be against P2W loot boxes. They're both paying for additional buffs.

"Mounts are P2W buffs.""You can just buy PoF too."Well..."You can just buy P2W loot boxes.""I don't like paying for loot boxes."Hurrrrr!

are you new to the MMO genre and the concept of xpacs

No. Care to explain the difference in supporting a company via an expac or buying loot boxes?

Xpac = game is the product being sold. Game system integrity remains constant. Strong game sells more so there is more motivation to continue to make, maintain, and add to a strong game.

Loot boxes = game is the environment the real product is sold in. Furthermore, loot boxes in particular take advantage of addictive personalities where people apply the gamblers fallacy in full belief that the next one will grant the rare item they want. Also easier to code, so more companies that make money in this fashion lay off more employees and go with the "minimum viable product" model. Game stagnates, as game system integrity is ignored in favor of continuing to make money on loot boxes and other p2w gimmicks. Environment is kept around and afloat merely to continue to sell p2w hilarity which gets shilled and white knighted by a small group of forumites while the rest of the community moves on to a new game, or seeing this culture take hold in many games, a new hobby altogether.

TL;DR: The former is what actual system gamers want, the latter is what those seeking entertainment but could care less about game system integrity want.

Tons of assumptions in that but ok.

The game is stagnant as is. The drop of an expansion does not equate to a "strong game" as many players were/are pissed off and left after seeing garbage expansion content and what they changed/ruined.

It's ok if you pay to win. I understand. Just come to terms with it.