Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Is Guild Wars 2 Pay2win?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Imba.9451 said:

You can get into the game, cash up and be lvl 80 and fully equipped on your first day.

I don't care if people try to stick the literal meaning of "pay to win" down somebodies throat, because in extension, reaching a win condition (perfect equip) is pretty much pay to win, no matter if you could achieve that by only playing the game as well. I mean, you COULD unlock everything in Star Wars battlefront 2 as well.

Unless the ingame monetization is cosmetic only, a game can be considered pay to win. Some games are a bit more excessive than others, but the simple ability to buy progress in a game is pay2win, simple as that.

That literally makes no sense. If someone buys a level 80 boost on the first day, that doesn't mean crap; they're level 80 now, but they have no idea how to play the game, or their class. Meanwhile, everyone else who played the game and earned their gear and level 80, actually knows what they're doing.

 

Buying a level 80 boost gives no inherent advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage. And that's also ignoring that Open World PvE is pitifully easy anyway. You spent money on a level 80 boost, and yet, what did you win? Nothing. You're still no better off than anyone else whose level 80.

 

Now you "GW2 is P2W" people are just reaching really far. Ya'll could be Gold Medalists at the Mental Gymnastics, I swear. 🤣

Edited by Keitaro Dragonheart.9047
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Imba.9451 said:

You win against the game. It's content. The AI. Whatever.

 

People are imho way too literal with their definition of p2w, especially those who try to act as gatekeepers. Just because P2W started in competetive games doesn't mean the concept cannot be transferred to PvE content. I mean, even then, it's in the name: Player vs Enviroment. You win against this enviroment.

P2W didn't start in competitive games, it started in the much older free to play MMORPGs that allowed you to quite literally buy the best possible gear in the game with real world money only and there was nothing equivalent attainable through actual gameplay.

 

Also no. If "winning against the environment" is your criteria as to why that is pay to win then just buying a game qualifies under that weirdly wide umbrella you're casting over it. People can beat Dark Souls with a naked character, does that mean it is pay to win because they bought the game and thus succeeded against the "environment" due to their own level of skill? I mean they paid money for the game, they got access to everything they, specifically, needed to beat the game. Pay to win, right? Someone pays money for Borderlands 3, they play it with their friends in a group or just solo. They load into the game and are able to kill enemies. They paid money, defeated the environment. Pay to win, right?

 

This hypercompetitive mentality people these days seem to be latching onto; where apparently everything is a competition and I do mean everything it seems, started getting so abundant and so bad that psychological research started to conclude that its a mental illness classified under a form of neurosis.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

So, I don't understand why it would matter.  Even if it were P2W for PvE, why should anyone care?  I mean, if I accept the premise, then so many players have finished the existing content.  That has absolutely no impact on me or any other player and whether or not anyone else can finish the existing content.

It does not matter if it has impact on other players. I do not know how this sentiment is even implied with the term "pay to win".

 

It really comes down to a simple cooncept: Is there content in the game that you can only clear with certain criteria met? Are those criteria open for purchase?

If both answers are "yes", then it`s pay to win, even by the literal meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Imba.9451 said:

It does not matter if it has impact on other players. I do not know how this sentiment is even implied with the term "pay to win".

 

It really comes down to a simple cooncept: Is there content in the game that you can only clear with certain criteria met? Are those criteria open for purchase?

If both answers are "yes", then it`s pay to win, even by the literal meaning.

Read my above post.

 

Use Borderlands as an example again;

Content in the game that you can only clear with certain criteria met: Yes, Game story

Are those criteria open for purchase?: Yes, game price.

 

So literally buying any game is pay to win by your criteria. Can't play or clear a game without having purchased it first. So I guess every game should just be straight up free to play?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

P2W didn't start in competitive games, it started in the much older free to play MMORPGs that allowed you to quite literally buy the best possible gear in the game with real world money only and there was nothing equivalent attainable through actual gameplay.

While that is a shittier version of p2w, it doesn't mean that ONLY this qualifies as pay to win.

Quote

 

Also no. If "winning against the environment" is your criteria as to why that is pay to win then just buying a game qualifies under that weirdly wide umbrella you're casting over it. People can beat Dark Souls with a naked character, does that mean it is pay to win because they bought the game and thus succeeded against the "environment" due to their own level of skill? I mean they paid money for the game, they got access to everything they, specifically, needed to beat the game. Pay to win, right? Someone pays money for Borderlands 3, they play it with their friends in a group or just solo. They load into the game and are able to kill enemies. They paid money, defeated the environment. Pay to win, right?

That argument is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

First, buying the game is simply buying the in order to gain access to it's content. However, buying your way into criteria that has to be met in order to clear some of the games content is something different. In order to make your Dark Souls example more fitting: You can clear the game naked, but you cannot jump to the final boss in order to watch the credit instantly. If there'd be an option to do exactly this, then you would have bought your way to the win condition of the game, with the win condition being "finishing the game".

 

Quote

This hypercompetitive mentality people these days seem to be latching onto; where apparently everything is a competition and I do mean everything it seems, started getting so abundant and so bad that psychological research started to conclude that its a mental illness classified under a form of neurosis.

I never said that it's competitive. Also, please don't suggest that I have a mental illness, thats not also intellectually dishonest. And, lastly, please provide sources if you claim to make an argument based on "research".

 

Edit:

 

3 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

Read my above post.

 

Use Borderlands as an example again;

Content in the game that you can only clear with certain criteria met: Yes, Game story

Are those criteria open for purchase?: Yes, game price.

 

So literally buying any game is pay to win by your criteria. Can't play or clear a game without having purchased it first. So I guess every game should just be straight up free to play?

This is a prime example for strawmanning.

Edited by Imba.9451
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Imba.9451 said:

While that is a shittier version of p2w, it doesn't mean that ONLY this qualifies as pay to win.

That argument is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

First, buying the game is simply buying the in order to gain access to it's content. However, buying your way into criteria that has to be met in order to clear some of the games content is something different. In order to make your Dark Souls example more fitting: You can clear the game naked, but you cannot jump to the final boss in order to watch the credit instantly. If there'd be an option to do exactly this, then you would have bought your way to the win condition of the game, with the win condition being "finishing the game".

 

I never said that it's competitive. Also, please don't suggest that I have a mental illness, thats not also intellectually dishonest. And, lastly, please provide sources if you claim to make an argument based on "research".

Hey man, a lot of people in the world suffer from some form mental illness. I have anxiety, no shame in it. As for the research, here I guess (Sources for that article are provided near the bottom of the page); https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/competitiveness

 

Back to the topic; you said people are being too literal with the phrase when that is exactly what you're doing. You're taking the phrase and being specifically literal with it to apply it to everything. Pay to win as a phrase originated as it relates to competing against other players.

 

You said even if it is PvE it is Pay to Win because you are winning against the environment. You are saying that it is competitive;

 

win·ning
/ˈwiniNG/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: winning; superlative adjective: winningest

    1.gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition.
    "a winning streak"

 

The definition of winning. And sure, there are "win" conditions in PvE, but that does not make it pay to win by how the phrase is intended to be applied. Again you are being very literal with the phrase when its intended purpose is to describe gaining unfair advantage against other players through the use of real world money. When you start applying it to practically everything, as you are doing, it entirely loses its meaning. You're trying to create a completely different set of criteria to change the usage of the term to suit your own argument which is, as you are so delightfully saying now, that is intellectually dishonest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

 

Back to the topic; you said people are being too literal with the phrase when that is exactly what you're doing. You're taking the phrase and being specifically literal with it to apply it to everything. Pay to win as a phrase originated as it relates to competing against other players.

I am literaly with the term because many people who try to argue against the notions thatgame xy is p2w usually use the term "p2W" way too literally. Thats why I do it as well to show that the term, even when used literally, does include many forms of monetization.

No matter it's origins, the application is there, based on the arguments I made. heck, this whole debate is generally missing the point anyway, because rather that bashing in our heads about "What is p2w?", we should rather ask: "Is is actually a good idea to design a game in a way that makes paying money in order to play the game less?"

33 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

 

You said even if it is PvE it is Pay to Win because you are winning against the environment. You are saying that it is competitive;

 

win·ning
/ˈwiniNG/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: winning; superlative adjective: winningest

    1.gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition.
    "a winning streak"

When I said I didn't mean it competitive, I got the notion that the original post you made was suggesting a online-wee-wee comparison of who can beat the game faster/has more gold/whatever. Thats what I argued against. I simply argued, that paying in order to beat (or even skip) some instances of the game is, both literally and in spirit, pay to win.

33 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

 

The definition of winning. And sure, there are "win" conditions in PvE, but that does not make it pay to win by how the phrase is intended to be applied. Again you are being very literal with the phrase when its intended purpose is to describe gaining unfair advantage against other players through the use of real world money.

The "unfair advantaged against other players" is a definition you chose to apply to pay to win. Yes, thats obviously a shittier way to do pay to win, that does not mean it's the only way of doing pay to win.

33 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

 

When you start applying it to practically everything, as you are doing, it entirely loses its meaning. You're trying to create a completely different set of criteria to change the usage of the term to suit your own argument which is, as you are so delightfully saying now, that is intellectually dishonest.

I use the term when it's applicable. And based on my argument, it is applicable here, and I still have to see a good argument against it. It does not lose it's meaning, quite the contrary: It elevates the term from a simple black-and-white application (i.e.: it either is p2w or it isn't based on very static checkmarks that take 0 context into consideration) towards a usage that actually, as I said above, describes how the term simply IS very broadly applicable and tricks people into missing the whole point. It shouldn't be "Is it p2w?", rather than "Is this okay/good game design?"

GW2 has very clear P2W monetization mechanics. However, due to points brought up by you and other, like the horizontal gear progression and the seperate PvP, it is much less drastic than other contenders, especially from asia. Obviously, what is acceptable and what is not is up for debate and personal opinion (although an argument can be made when taking the overton window into consideration), however, the term P2W is not. Some terms are just what they are. And apple stays an apple. There are different kinds of apples. Some only like certain types of apples. Some don't like apples at all. But they are all apples in the end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay to win is to get an advantage over others/ingame mobs

You can easilly aquire lvl80 exotic gear from karma traders. And the living story seasons is stuffed with ascended gear options.

Everyone can compete equally here.

Ascended armor is a minimal advantage mainly used for fractals. And you can get far without having them, using all the other slots to socket agony infusions.

Talking of Agony infusions, you only have a minimal gain from being stacked up with full stat infusions.  And you can buy slightly worser stat infusions from the laurel trader. 4 stat instead of 5 stat.

 

Buying living story packs is also not a pay to win advantage, since every could get them for free if logged on during their release.
 

The game showers you with boosters and buffs. Everyone have them.

 

And if you really want QoL improvements you can grind gold to turn into gems to purchase them with.  And they are coniviencies, they offer no player power.

 

The game is called fashion wars for a reason. The sole thing I could see as p2w is to buy fashionable items, which offers no player power others cant get anywere else.

Edited by LucianDK.8615
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

I think we really need to come up with proper terminology to distinguish between the different things a cash shop can offer.
Most of this debate is lost in a war over a terminology, without any progress on debating the actual issue.

Well, imagine what happens when people realize that either way, there isn't an issue to begin with. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, imagine what happens when people realize that either way, there isn't an issue to begin with. 

If it's talked about there is obviously an issue. Taking issue with something is subjective, not objective. Saying there is no issue is simply false, no matter what you or I think on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

If it's talked about there is obviously an issue. Taking issue with something is subjective, not objective. Saying there is no issue is simply false, no matter what you or I think on the matter.

That's not exactly correct. I mean, do the thought experiment here. What is the impact if GW2 was found to be EITHER P2W or not P2W. It's nothing. People who have convinced themselves either way already act on what they believe, as do Anet.

 

If people offended by P2W would leave a game because of it ... they are already gone. They aren't wait for some compelling argument to convince them on the forums. Likewise, no argument on the forum would convince them they were wrong so they come back. 

 

It's irrelevant if the the game is P2W or not ... so no, it's not an issue. These threads are just a really bad attempt by the OP to complain about being able to purchase certain things for whatever reason they don't think they should be purchasable. That's all. 

 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952By your logic anyone who doesn't have an issue with something would be right to say "there is no issue".
I don't have an issue with extremely vulgar language or depiction of extreme violence, others definetely do.
You can only say you don't have an issue with it, not that there is none. What you can do is explain why you have an issue with something or why you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

@Obtena.7952By your logic anyone who doesn't have an issue with something would be right to say "there is no issue".
I don't have an issue with extremely vulgar language or depiction of extreme violence, others definetely do.
You can only say you don't have an issue with it, not that there is none. What you can do is explain why you have an issue with something or why you don't.

Regardless, what I said isn't wrong. It's irrelevant if the game is P2W or not. It is what it is and however people think, they've already acted on it. The whole thread is just a ruse to complain about things being sold the OP doesn't like Anet selling. I mean, it's even worse ... OP didn't even contribute to the discussion that he knew would lead to a big argument. #trolled

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there definitely need to be a better term distinguishing between credit card warriors and outright p2w.  I admit freely ive bought stuff, both conivience as well fashionable items.    Was either of them p2w? Definitely not, neither gave me player power.

 

That is why all the arguments for p2w is utterly flawed as it does not exist in gw2, compared to wow were you can buy boosts. Both for gear or special timelimited cosmetic rewards.   The former is p2w, the later is not.

Edited by LucianDK.8615
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LucianDK.8615 said:

That is why all the arguments for p2w is utterly flawed, as it does not exist in gw2, compared to wow were you can buy boosts.

You refer to players boosting players for ingame gold (which can be bought with real money), right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

It's irrelevant to YOU.

It's not about me, it's about how the game works and it's irrelevant if people want to convince themselves it's P2W or not because it doesn't change that the game works. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not about me, it's about how the game works and it's irrelevant if people want to convince themselves it's P2W or not because it doesn't change that the game works. 

Is that your point? If it works, it's not worth discussing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Malitias.8453 said:

Is that your point? If it works, it's not worth discussing?

I dunno, what's your point? I think my point is pretty clear. It doesn't matter what players think is P2W or not, it's not going to change the game. You are calling people bickering to convince each other one way or the other discussion? OK ... and where does this discussion go? Does someone 'win'? Do we finally put a lid on the question? I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the OP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I've had some time to think about this and I think I can see where the disconnect is on some people.


A few people see Guild Wars 2 as predominantly free to play. To those people, this game is pay to win because you eventually have to spend money to get the real game.


However, a bunch of us see the game as buy to play.  This is the same as Guild Wars 1. Guild Wars 1 was buy to play as well. Each Guild Wars 1 expansion added skills you got in PvE that were more powerful than any native skill. Necrosis anyone?  These Luxon and Kurzick and Deldrimar skills (to name a few) gave people really powerful PvE only skills that only came with the purchase of expansions. But at no time did I ever heard the term pay to win applied to Guild Wars 1 in the 15,000 hours I put into it. No one called Guild Wars 1 pay to win, because it was buy to play.  Guild Wars 2 is the same. It's buy to play with a very long free demo.

 

At the end of the day as a buy to play game, which this game started as, Guild Wars 2 is not pay to win. 

Furthermore, Guild Wars 1 would have been MORE pay to win than Guild Wars 2 because it sold unlocks in the cash shop that really did give you power a lot faster. It unlocked skills and elite skills for your heroes once Nightfall came out, but again you could get that stuff easily enough in game. It was just a time saver.

 

Pay to win never counted for expansions in games back in the day for this reason. When the term was invented there were no free to play MMOs. Not one. Every single MMO had a sub. Guild Wars 1 didn't have a sub, nor was it an MMO.  And as already pointed out, even Guild Wars 1 raised the power cap with games.

The game is buy to play which is different from pay to win. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

I dunno, what's your point?

My point was to explain to you that an issue is subjective, because you said "there isn't an issue". Clearly there is, otherwise the debate wouldn't come up so often.
Before that, I pointed out that we need better terminoligy to productively discuss and answer the question. The "is it pay2win" topic is often discussed and it almost always ends with a debate about what "pay2win" is.
 

3 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

You are calling people bickering to convince each other one way or the other discussion?

Well, as long as people answer on the topic, it's a discussion. The productivity of this one is something I questioned above (better terminoligy needed).

 

8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Do we finally put a lid on the question?

I gurantee you, it will come up again and again for the reason above.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

When the term was invented there were no free to play MMOs. Not one. Every single MMO had a sub

Guild Wars was released in 2005. There were LOTS of free to play MMOs back there. The term was invented BECAUSE of those free to play games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

Guild Wars was released in 2005. There were LOTS of free to play MMOs back there. The term was invented BECAUSE of those free to play games.

Edit: I just looked up free to play on Wikipedia, and this is what it has to say...

 

Free-to-play (F2P or FtP) video games are games that give players access to a significant portion of their content without paying. Free-to-play is distinct from traditional commercial software, which requires a payment before using the game or service. It is also separate from free games, usually referred to as freeware, which are entirely costless. Free-to-play's model is sometimes derisively referred to as free-to-start due to not being entirely free.[1]

 

According to this you eventually have to pay to play Free to Play games, which are different from Freeware. People expect to have to pay to get the full contents of the game. Therefore this whole pay to win discussion is ludicrous because no one can even agree on what the definition of free to play is, or if expansions count. So let's look at it this way.

 

If Guild Wars 2 is a buy to play game, as Guild Wars 1 was and how it was introduced, then it's not pay to win because the model is buy to play. Buying expansions in implied in the buy to play moniker.


If Guild Wars 2 is a free to play game, ie a game where you don't have to buy anything ever, then sure, it would be considered pay to win in the mildesst way possible. However just asking the question is Guild Wars 2 pay to win is completely pointless.

I've seen over and over again the comment that Guild Wars 2 is not free to play it's buy to play with a really long demo. And as a buy to play game it's definitely not pay to win.

 

With no one actually agreeing on definitions all we're doing really is saying our definition is right. The real answer if people ask is you need to buy expansions when they come out but the cash shop isn't pay to win.

Edited by Vayne.8563
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...