Pay-to-win 2.0

[sephiroth.4217]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@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.

Thats not it at all. Some things in life are that simple that only an idiot questions it.. That's why it's a saying after all.

So again.. all it comes down too is this.Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.Now apply where applicable. Theres no need to even argue it or question it, but you're more than welcome too.

I own both expansions and have put thousands of dollars into the game, I support the idea of a mount rental system in WvW solely because I prefer an even playing ground in my PvP games.

[LetoII.3782]

Personally I feel like I've funded quite enough content for the free-to-play crowd.

If you can afford a PC and internet service, maybe a few bucks for software isn't too much to ask.

[Cyninja.2954]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@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.

Thats not it at all. Some things in life are that simple that only an idiot questions it.. That's why it's a saying after all.

That is a very infantile view and applies to almost nothing in life. Let us apply this black or white or good and bad view to this current situation since you are conveniently ignoring quite a few things.

@sephiroth.4217 said:So again.. all it comes down too is this.Did your purchase provide an advantage over someone who didnt purchase?Yes? Pay to win.No? Not pay to win.Now apply where applicable. Theres no need to even argue it or question it, but you're more than welcome too.

Pay-to-win has a negative connotation and does not literally mean pay to win but rather encompasses a multitude of different ways, even unrealted to any payments which are considered predatory or customer unfriendly. It ranges is from psychological manipulation as simply as scarcity, over benefits otherwise unable to be purchased over direct in game benefits of any kind. The term pay-to-win is not synonymous with the phrase pay to win.

Given the broadly accepted and understood negative implications, at least for western markets, of pay-to-win, it is customer unfriendly and generally considered bad.

Which leads to the mentioned logical fallacy that a product which is more customer friendly in other areas, like GW2 offering continued access for all players to content even after releasing an expansion. Not an industry standard by the way where it is custom to disallow endgame access until a player purchases all relevant expansions.

As such your riggid word by word definition causes for a situation where a game which is neutral, does something good (if we assume that constant access is consumer friendly and good) but by your definition has become bad. That is the communication dissonance I mentioned which your message has with most people.

@sephiroth.4217 said:I own both expansions and have put thousands of dollars into the game, I support the idea of a mount rental system in WvW solely because I prefer an even playing ground in my PvP games.

I am absolutely neutral on the issue of mounts.

I care for the incorrect use of the term pay-to-win because it gets used by people to blame and attack the developers while they are directly benefitting of their generousity. For all I care, the next expansion should be made mandatory and people who do not purchase it should lose all access to endgame content, just like almost all other developers of MMORPGS do and as is accepted as industry standard and was never considered pay-to-win but rather just what it is: an expansion.

[Chorazin.4107]

People xfer looking for the last bit of action this ded gaem has. Not to cap SMC or karma train doors.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Hmm..

@sephiroth.4217 I guess your ? drop post wasn’t received well.

[Aeolus.3615]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@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.

Due how gimmicks on each new elites must work in every new expansion by being better or carry more simpletons for paying, well that’s definitely play to win.

The issue is how Anet is clever to add a lot of placebos into some mechanics while simpletons aplaude as amazing mechanics..The pay to win effect isn’t strong but it’s a fact that exists due how bad Anet devs are on balance and making classes decisions.

Anet choosed to drop vertical progression in the armor stats but they compensate towards class evolution in the elite specs, that’s why expansions can be seen has pay to win, it is a valid argument since it falls in the genra, has I tend to say gw2 has pw2 it’s just not that effective on how some people expect the pw2 effect to be.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@"Ansau.7326" said:

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.

I think you are wrong here. The pay to win concept is used by anyone now even without knowing where it is valid. Let's see:

"Someone playing with better hardware and internet is p2w" - wrong. The only situation where this can be p2w is if ANet forces you to play on its own Internet circuits and on its own hardware. Then if ANet offers different levels of performance according to the hardware or the bandwith, then YES it is p2w. But I pay for my Internet to my internet provider. And I brought my PC from another seller, different from ANet. How can be this interpreted that I bought from Anet something helping me to win?

"the chair you sit is also p2w" - only if the chair is the condition imposed by Anet to play GW2. And only if they sell different models of chairs, with different prices and different performance level. As long as I bought it from another seller it is not p2w.

"even the country you live is p2w" - HM? Do you pay something to ANet to have the right to live in your country? When ANet tried to force you to move into US and you refused because of a better climate for your game? And how this can be p2w if you don't pay something to ANet?

The rest in in the same note, unfortunately.

In my opinion a perfectly non pay to win attitude can be to restrict gliding to HoT (because it belongs to HoT). The same with HoT elites - only for HoT. Then, to restrict the mounts only to PoF (they belong to poF). The PoF elites too.

No gliding/mounts/elites in core Tyria. Also, no gliding/mounts/elites in WvW. Problem solved.

This may trigger the protests of the expansions owners - they may claim they lose all the advantages they payed for. But in my opinion this is not very serious - they are also supporters that the expansions are not a P2W thing, so, in conclusion they lose nothing.

[Dhemize.8649]

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@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.

Due how gimmicks on the new elites must be better or carry more simpletons for paying well that’s defenutly play to win.

The thing is how Anet is clever to add a lot of placebos into de mechanics while simpletons aplaude as amazing mechanics..The pay to win isn’t strong but it’s a fact that existe by the facthow bad Anet devs are on balance and making classes.

Anet choosed to drop vertical progression in the armor stats but they compensate towards class evolution in the elite specs that’s why expansions can be seen has pay to win, it is a valid argument since it falls in the genra, has I tend to say gw2 has pw2 it’s just not that effective how some people expect the pw2 effect to be.

My dude struggles with English yet has a perfect understanding of the situation. Really says something. Lol

[Aeolus.3615]

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@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.

Due how gimmicks on the new elites must be better or carry more simpletons for paying well that’s defenutly play to win.

The thing is how Anet is clever to add a lot of placebos into de mechanics while simpletons aplaude as amazing mechanics..The pay to win isn’t strong but it’s a fact that existe by the facthow bad Anet devs are on balance and making classes.

Anet choosed to drop vertical progression in the armor stats but they compensate towards class evolution in the elite specs that’s why expansions can be seen has pay to win, it is a valid argument since it falls in the genra, has I tend to say gw2 has pw2 it’s just not that effective how some people expect the pw2 effect to be.

My dude struggles with English yet has a perfect understanding of the situation. Really says something. Lol

Hard to type on mobile with spellchecking for other language.

[SoV.5139]

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@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.

Theres no assumptions in my post. This is what is currently happening in the game industry. The game being the actual product provides an incentive to maintain and add to the product. When the game is merely the environment the real product is used in, the incentive is to create more "products" to be used in the same stagnant environment. This does not assume that when the company adds an expansion that everyone will subjectively like what is added. Those players who left after the expansion did so for their own subjective reasons. This also does not assume that p2w is the only reason why players leave.

What was asked for, was a difference between supporting the game buying an expansion vs supporting the game buying a loot box. That answer was delivered factually, with no assumptions made.

[SoV.5139]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

I care for the incorrect use of the term pay-to-win because it gets used by people to blame and attack the developers while they are directly benefitting of their generousity. For all I care, the next expansion should be made mandatory and people who do not purchase it should lose all access to endgame content, just like almost all other developers of MMORPGS do and as is accepted as industry standard and was never considered pay-to-win but rather just what it is: an expansion.

What other developers lock people out of previous endgame if you dont buy a current expansion?

[Dhemize.8649]

@SoV.5139 said:

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@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.

Theres no assumptions in my post. This is what is currently happening in the game industry. The game being the actual product provides an incentive to maintain and add to the product. When the game is merely the environment the real product is used in, the incentive is to create more "products" to be used in the same stagnant environment. This does not assume that when the company adds an expansion that everyone will subjectively like what is added. Those players who left after the expansion did so for their own subjective reasons. This also does not assume that p2w is the only reason why players leave.

What was asked for, was a difference between supporting the game buying an expansion vs supporting the game buying a loot box. That answer was delivered factually, with no assumptions made.

You throw in opinion and spin it as fact.

"...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."

Funny how this works for my argument too.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

@SoV.5139 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:

I care for the incorrect use of the term pay-to-win because it gets used by people to blame and attack the developers while they are directly benefitting of their generousity. For all I care, the next expansion should be made mandatory and people who do not purchase it should lose all access to endgame content, just like almost all other developers of MMORPGS do and as is accepted as industry standard and was never considered pay-to-win but rather just what it is: an expansion.

What other developers lock people out of previous endgame if you dont buy a current expansion?

He meant CURRENT endgame content.

In WoW when Wrath of the Lich King was released and introduced the Death Knight class, those who didn't buy the expansion still saw all the changes brought with Patch 3.0, and could still play on their characters at LV 70. But they couldn't go to the new continent (Northrend) nor could they advance their character beyond LV 70. They also could encounter leveling Death Knights in open world PvP / Battlegrounds between levels 58-70.

But nobody called the WoTLK expansion a "P2W" because it gave access to a class, 10 more character levels, etc.

People who say that PoF and HoT are P2W are just ignorant, and too close minded to even listen to what other players are saying to learn how they are mistaken. Lot of that going around on these forums.

[SoV.5139]

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@Dhemize.8649 said:

@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.

Theres no assumptions in my post. This is what is currently happening in the game industry. The game being the actual product provides an incentive to maintain and add to the product. When the game is merely the environment the real product is used in, the incentive is to create more "products" to be used in the same stagnant environment. This does not assume that when the company adds an expansion that everyone will subjectively like what is added. Those players who left after the expansion did so for their own subjective reasons. This also does not assume that p2w is the only reason why players leave.

What was asked for, was a difference between supporting the game buying an expansion vs supporting the game buying a loot box. That answer was delivered factually, with no assumptions made.

You throw in opinion and spin it as fact.

"...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."

Funny how this works for my argument too.

No opinion here. No spin. Straight facts. This is what is happening in the industry.

Can you address any of the points made?

[SoV.5139]

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:

I care for the incorrect use of the term pay-to-win because it gets used by people to blame and attack the developers while they are directly benefitting of their generousity. For all I care, the next expansion should be made mandatory and people who do not purchase it should lose all access to endgame content, just like almost all other developers of MMORPGS do and as is accepted as industry standard and was never considered pay-to-win but rather just what it is: an expansion.

What other developers lock people out of previous endgame if you dont buy a current expansion?

He meant CURRENT endgame content.

In WoW when Wrath of the Lich King was released and introduced the Death Knight class, those who didn't buy the expansion still saw all the changes brought with Patch 3.0, and could still play on their characters at LV 70. But they couldn't go to the new continent (Northrend) nor could they advance their character beyond LV 70. They also could encounter leveling Death Knights in open world PvP / Battlegrounds between levels 58-70.

But nobody called the WoTLK expansion a "P2W" because it gave access to a class, 10 more character levels, etc.

People who say that PoF and HoT are P2W are just ignorant, and too close minded to even listen to what other players are saying to learn how they are mistaken. Lot of that going around on these forums.

He said if you dont buy the expansion you are excluded from ALL endgame.

He did not say CURRENT.

And actually, there were threads where people disliked not being able to play the class if not buying the expansion. They just didnt call it p2w, as it was expected the class wasnt going to be head and shoulders above everything else (paying for significant advantage).

In the industry we call this "gating" or "paywalling" and not "p2w". That being said, paywalling the new levels can be viewed as p2w by some degree, because players are being charged to gain access to more character power progression. Dont pay = be satisfied with character being lower level capped and disallowed into current endgame.

The terms are not mutually exclusive. Paywalling does not rule out p2w. They are also not mutually inclusive. One in play does not mean the other is in play.

Having a mount is a grey area as it can provide a significant advantage in WVW by allowing players to run away, but while its not allowing a player to defeat another player power wise, It does allow for a far easier stomp of downed players. On a game forum where some have complained about how downed state rewards larger groups, paywalling the ability to stomp multiple downs far more easily can be viewed as p2w.

Another grey area is elite specs being gated behind xpac purchases. Since any claim that the elite specs do not make the characters more powerful would be laughable, its pretty easy to see how this can be correctly deemed as p2w. By degree its not as bad as if Rev was clearly the most powerful class while it too is gated behind an xpac purchase, but its still paywalling character power, straight up.

[Cyninja.2954]

@SoV.5139 said:

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:

I care for the incorrect use of the term pay-to-win because it gets used by people to blame and attack the developers while they are directly benefitting of their generousity. For all I care, the next expansion should be made mandatory and people who do not purchase it should lose all access to endgame content, just like almost all other developers of MMORPGS do and as is accepted as industry standard and was never considered pay-to-win but rather just what it is: an expansion.

What other developers lock people out of previous endgame if you dont buy a current expansion?

He meant CURRENT endgame content.

In WoW when Wrath of the Lich King was released and introduced the Death Knight class, those who didn't buy the expansion still saw all the changes brought with Patch 3.0, and could still play on their characters at LV 70. But they couldn't go to the new continent (Northrend) nor could they advance their character beyond LV 70. They also could encounter leveling Death Knights in open world PvP / Battlegrounds between levels 58-70.

But nobody called the WoTLK expansion a "P2W" because it gave access to a class, 10 more character levels, etc.

People who say that PoF and HoT are P2W are just ignorant, and too close minded to even listen to what other players are saying to learn how they are mistaken. Lot of that going around on these forums.

He said if you dont buy the expansion you are excluded from ALL endgame.

He did not say CURRENT.

You are splitting hairs. Which content besides current endgame content could I be meaning?

WoW increases the level cap and requires ALL previous expansions to be able to participate in the latest endgame content, while asking for a monthly fee.

SWToR increases the level cap and requires the latest expansion to be able to participate in the latest endgame content while asking for a monthly fee or imposing HEAVY restrictions.

Warframe adds new mechanics (which often make the player more powerful), new content and require the relevant expansions be bought. This might be the most pay-to-win yet I don't see that argument being made there.

Final Fantasy 14 expansions once again increase the level cap and push endgame to the new level cap while requiring a monthly fee.

Literally almost every MMORPG makes expansions a requirement to access all or at the least the most current endgame content. GW2 is the exception. There is way to many players who have only every played GW2 and are absolutely clueless as to what is common practice for MMORPGs.

Instead of asking which MMORPGs require expansions, maybe give examples of pupolar MMORPGS which do NOT require expansions while granting full access to endgame content. I would be quite interested to know myself.

@SoV.5139 said:And actually, there were threads where people disliked not being able to play the class if not buying the expansion. They just didnt call it p2w, as it was expected the class wasnt going to be head and shoulders above everything else (paying for significant advantage).

In the industry we call this "gating" or "paywalling" and not "p2w". That being said, paywalling the new levels can be viewed as p2w by some degree, because players are being charged to gain access to more character power progression. Dont pay = be satisfied with character being lower level capped and disallowed into current endgame.

The terms are not mutually exclusive. Paywalling does not rule out p2w. They are also not mutually inclusive. One in play does not mean the other is in play.

I'm fine with calling it gating, paywalling or expansion requiring. Those terms have other meanings than pay-to-win and are in general accepted by players as the game is being expanded upon and the developer asks a fee for this content.

@SoV.5139 said:Having a mount is a grey area as it can provide a significant advantage in WVW by allowing players to run away, but while its not allowing a player to defeat another player power wise, It does allow for a far easier stomp of downed players. On a game forum where some have complained about how downed state rewards larger groups, paywalling the ability to stomp multiple downs far more easily can be viewed as p2w.

Another grey area is elite specs being gated behind xpac purchases. Since any claim that the elite specs do not make the characters more powerful would be laughable, its pretty easy to see how this can be correctly deemed as p2w. By degree its not as bad as if Rev was clearly the most powerful class while it too is gated behind an xpac purchase, but its still paywalling character power, straight up.

Here is the harsh reality: GW2 is nearing its 7th birthday. If you are unable to afford the base game and 2 expansions within that timeframe, you are uninteresting to the developer. Arenanet is not a charity, neither is the work they do on the game for free.

The fact that they do not restrict people from accessing content after 6.5 years and no monthy subscription AND no expense for any expansion is way more than almost any other developer does.

[shiri.4257]

@Chorazin.4107 said:People xfer looking for the last bit of action this ded gaem has. Not to cap SMC or karma train doors.

speak for yourself. the doors don't theory craft or talk back.

[SoV.5139]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

I care for the incorrect use of the term pay-to-win because it gets used by people to blame and attack the developers while they are directly benefitting of their generousity. For all I care, the next expansion should be made mandatory and people who do not purchase it should lose all access to endgame content, just like almost all other developers of MMORPGS do and as is accepted as industry standard and was never considered pay-to-win but rather just what it is: an expansion.

What other developers lock people out of previous endgame if you dont buy a current expansion?

He meant CURRENT endgame content.

In WoW when Wrath of the Lich King was released and introduced the Death Knight class, those who didn't buy the expansion still saw all the changes brought with Patch 3.0, and could still play on their characters at LV 70. But they couldn't go to the new continent (Northrend) nor could they advance their character beyond LV 70. They also could encounter leveling Death Knights in open world PvP / Battlegrounds between levels 58-70.

But nobody called the WoTLK expansion a "P2W" because it gave access to a class, 10 more character levels, etc.

People who say that PoF and HoT are P2W are just ignorant, and too close minded to even listen to what other players are saying to learn how they are mistaken. Lot of that going around on these forums.

He said if you dont buy the expansion you are excluded from ALL endgame.

He did not say CURRENT.

You are splitting hairs. Which content besides current endgame content could I be meaning?

WoW increases the level cap and requires ALL previous expansions to be able to participate in the latest endgame content, while asking for a monthly fee.

SWToR increases the level cap and requires the latest expansion to be able to participate in the latest endgame content while asking for a monthly fee or imposing HEAVY restrictions.

Warframe adds new mechanics (which often make the player more powerful), new content and require the relevant expansions be bought. This might be the most pay-to-win yet I don't see that argument being made there.

Final Fantasy 14 expansions once again increase the level cap and push endgame to the new level cap while requiring a monthly fee.

Literally almost every MMORPG makes expansions a requirement to access all or at the least the most current endgame content.

GW2 is the exception. There is way to many players who have

only every played GW2 and are absolutely clueless as to what is common practice for MMORPGs.

Instead of asking which MMORPGs require expansions, maybe give examples of pupolar MMORPGS which do NOT require expansions while granting full access to endgame content. I would be quite interested to know myself.

@SoV.5139 said:And actually, there were threads where people disliked not being able to play the class if not buying the expansion. They just didnt call it p2w, as it was expected the class wasnt going to be head and shoulders above everything else (paying for significant advantage).

In the industry we call this "gating" or "paywalling" and not "p2w". That being said, paywalling the new levels can be viewed as p2w by some degree, because players are being charged to gain access to more character power progression. Dont pay = be satisfied with character being lower level capped and disallowed into current endgame.

The terms are not mutually exclusive. Paywalling does not rule out p2w. They are also not mutually inclusive. One in play does not mean the other is in play.

I'm fine with calling it gating, paywalling or expansion requiring.

Those terms have other meanings than pay-to-win and are in general accepted by players as the game is being expanded upon and the developer asks a fee for this content.

@SoV.5139 said:Having a mount is a grey area as it can provide a significant advantage in WVW by allowing players to run away, but while its not allowing a player to defeat another player power wise, It does allow for a far easier stomp of downed players. On a game forum where some have complained about how downed state rewards larger groups, paywalling the ability to stomp multiple downs far more easily can be viewed as p2w.

Another grey area is elite specs being gated behind xpac purchases. Since any claim that the elite specs do not make the characters more powerful would be laughable, its pretty easy to see how this can be correctly deemed as p2w. By degree its not as bad as if Rev was clearly the most powerful class while it too is gated behind an xpac purchase, but its still paywalling character power, straight up.

Here is the harsh reality:

GW2 is nearing its 7th birthday. If you are unable to afford the base game and 2 expansions within that timeframe, you are uninteresting to the developer.

Arenanet is not a charity, neither is the work they do on the game for free.

The fact that they do not restrict people from accessing content after 6.5 years and no monthy subscription AND no expense for any expansion is way more than almost any other developer does.

I'm not the one mincing words here. Charging people for added character power is p2w.

Its not a matter of being able to or not being able to afford it, for me its about how it changes the culture of feedback where requested changes will be monetized rather than provided as QoL in what was already paid for. The mount is a perfect example of this. Some folks asked for downstate to be changed to stop favoring larger groups, and it gets implemented as a far easier way to stomp multiple downs but paywalled behind xpac purchase.

People can debate which term applies to this all they want, it doesnt change the impact this has on games.

The reasoning that other MMOs get away with this so its not big deal if they continue to do it, is simply an example of the market audience being well adjusted to a profoundly sick subculture. We typically find this type of reasoning rears its head sooner or later. Someone always shows up to point out that worse examples exist, fully believing this somehow justifies all lesser examples of it also existing. Likely the most popular one is "WOW double dips charging for subscriptions AND expansions, as well as paywalls their expansions" and by that reasoning it must be OK for all other MMOs to do the same. This reasoning is fully forgetting (or more likely purposely excluding) that GW2 was marketed as being the anti-clone MMO where players should NOT expect the same practices to occur, and this was a significantly large draw to GW2 as a game.

Keep in mind most of the clone-MMOs people use to justify these practices havent survived. The ones that have survived are games people migrated from to come play this one, some for the very reasons you point out as justifications...

TL;DR:...not a great marketing decision to waffle on the entire premise of being a unique anti-clone-MMO, to engage in the same/similar practices the clones do, re-invoking/revisiting the very reasons why some of your audience left those games to come play your game.

[spectrito.8513]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Instead of asking which MMORPGs require expansions, maybe give examples of pupolar MMORPGS which do NOT require expansions while granting full access to endgame content. I would be quite interested to know myself.

Vanilla WoW.Subscription based tho.

[Cyninja.2954]

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Instead of asking which MMORPGs require expansions, maybe give examples of pupolar MMORPGS which do NOT require expansions while granting full access to endgame content. I would be quite interested to know myself.

Vanilla WoW.Subscription based tho.

That game is not even out yet and they haven't ruled out to progressively introduce addons to Vanilla WoW too... also given it's subscription is connected to regular WoW...

@SoV.5139 said:The reasoning that other MMOs get away with this so its not big deal if they continue to do it, is simply an example of the market audience being well adjusted to a profoundly sick subculture. We typically find this type of reasoning rears its head sooner or later. Someone always shows up to point out that worse examples exist, fully believing this somehow justifies all lesser examples of it also existing. Likely the most popular one is "WOW double dips charging for subscriptions AND expansions, as well as paywalls their expansions" and by that reasoning it must be OK for all other MMOs to do the same. This reasoning is fully forgetting (or more likely purposely excluding) that GW2 was marketed as being the anti-clone MMO where players should NOT expect the same practices to occur, and this was a significantly large draw to GW2 as a game.

You are really reaching here with what was promised and how GW2 was supposed to be different than other MMOs. It's still the cheapest MMO or among the cheapest to play without being in anyway impaired. Yes, context matters and if far worse examples exist, one should be as fair to point those out. If almost the entire segment of the market is worse, then that should be pointed out too.

@SoV.5139 said:Keep in mind most of the clone-MMOs people use to justify these practices havent survived. The ones that have survived are games people migrated from to come play this one, some for the very reasons you point out as justifications...

You are drastically overestimating GW2 popularity versus the mentioned MMOs.

TL;DR:...not a great marketing decision to waffle on the entire premise of being a unique anti-clone-MMO, to engage in the same/similar practices the clones do, re-invoking/revisiting the very reasons why some of your audience left those games to come play your game.

I don't recall ever that Arenanet in any way said they would never charge or that players would never have to charge for content in the game. Fun side fact (even if I am all for removal of cash shop items as much as possible) if monetization via the gem store drops (be it due to regulation or w/e) expect that every player will have to pay more regularly since currently a lot of players not paying for game content are subsedized by others who spend more on the game.

[Rod.6581]

This is amazing... Instead of making you buy original game + both expansions, they decide to give free access to original game across all game modes. Yet people still complain about it being "pay to win"???

After this, I would make next expansions to be mandatory for everyone in order to play to game.

[Arioch.6507]

What exactly are you paying to "win"? I mean, what do the victors get? Other than the obviously highly sought after Red BL ownership?

[SoV.5139]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@spectrito.8513 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Instead of asking which MMORPGs require expansions, maybe give examples of pupolar MMORPGS which do NOT require expansions while granting full access to endgame content. I would be quite interested to know myself.

Vanilla WoW.Subscription based tho.

That game is not even out yet and they haven't ruled out to progressively introduce addons to Vanilla WoW too... also given it's subscription is connected to regular WoW...

@"SoV.5139" said:The reasoning that other MMOs get away with this so its not big deal if they continue to do it, is simply an example of the market audience being well adjusted to a profoundly sick subculture. We typically find this type of reasoning rears its head sooner or later. Someone always shows up to point out that worse examples exist, fully believing this somehow justifies all lesser examples of it also existing. Likely the most popular one is "WOW double dips charging for subscriptions AND expansions, as well as paywalls their expansions" and by that reasoning it must be OK for all other MMOs to do the same. This reasoning is fully forgetting (or more likely purposely excluding) that GW2 was marketed as being the anti-clone MMO where players should NOT expect the same practices to occur, and this was a significantly large draw to GW2 as a game.

You are really reaching here with what was promised and how GW2 was supposed to be different than other MMOs. It's still the cheapest MMO or among the cheapest to play without being in anyway impaired. Yes, context matters and if far worse examples exist, one should be as fair to point those out. If almost the entire segment of the market is worse, then that should be pointed out too.

@"SoV.5139" said:Keep in mind most of the clone-MMOs people use to justify these practices havent survived. The ones that have survived are games people migrated from to come play this one, some for the very reasons you point out as justifications...

You are drastically overestimating GW2 popularity versus the mentioned MMOs.

TL;DR:...not a great marketing decision to waffle on the entire premise of being a unique anti-clone-MMO, to engage in the same/similar practices the clones do, re-invoking/revisiting the very reasons why some of your audience left those games to come play your game.

I don't recall ever that Arenanet in any way said they would never charge or that players would never have to charge for content in the game. Fun side fact (even if I am all for removal of cash shop items as much as possible) if monetization via the gem store drops (be it due to regulation or w/e) expect that every player will have to pay more regularly since currently a lot of players not paying for game content are subsedized by others who spend more on the game.

Im not reaching at all. They marketed it as the game to come play when sick of the clone MMOs. Kept it B2P when most other games that were once subscription only went F2P. No one is against them charging for content. Players get irritated when character power is monetized.

As far as drastically overestimating the popularity of GW2, they advertise the game at 11 million players. Got any evidence that counters this?

Or this: https://welcome.guildwars2.com/en/play-guild-wars-2

No one is overestimating the popularity. We are going with what the company advertises. /shrug.

[SoV.5139]

@"Rod.6581" said:This is amazing... Instead of making you buy original game + both expansions, they decide to give free access to original game across all game modes. Yet people still complain about it being "pay to win"???

After this, I would make next expansions to be mandatory for everyone in order to play to game.

And youd own a ghost town.

Once again, no one is complaining about charging for content. Players get irritated when character power is monetized.

[Sovereign.1093]

increase your credit - got money to spend - pay to win. :/ sorry guys. you HAVE to grind irl life too. PERSERVERe