I think ya’ll are misunderstanding. While ya’ll are trying to convince those like me that p2w only applies if there is a set level of advantage (which ya’ll can’t reference), we are saying there are levels of it.
I don’t need to convince you of anything. Please feel free to call “P2W” whatever you wish. As long as you understand, deep down, that your definition is flawed and incorrect. Why? Every argument that you make fails the litmus test. Please refer to the following quote:
Here are questions to determine if something is P2W:
1) Does it give you a statistical advantage in game?
2) Does it cost real money?
3) Is it only available to paying players?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, then it’s P2W.
Until you can manage to pass that test, your side of the debate fails.
You do know that this is YOUR decider? This test is made up by you, has your constraints, and therefore does not necessarily apply to others. There is no official “litmus test” for P2W even though you may wish yours to be it. There inlies your issue. You think you are the authority. I am here to gladly inform you that you’re not.
win guild missions by being able to port to a friend when you found the objective of a guild bounty for example
Oh okay, well that is a shame. Now they can more effectively farm guild bounties.
But you should change your threadtitle to pay2win guildbounties.
“for example”
How about some other examples then
why should I? I’ve provided an example that should make this completely unacceptable.
Because of the threadtitle. If there are no other examples just change it to “pay2win guildbounties”
so if I said that the resurrection buff allows you to basically skip through most PvE content and hence get world exploration much easier by just face ramming into POIs does that mean I need to include that to the title?
Man, I wish WE had revival orbs in the gem store to do exactly that.
You do know that this is YOUR decider? This test is made up by you, has your constraints, and therefore does not necessarily apply to others. There is no official “litmus test” for P2W even though you may wish yours to be it. There inlies your issue. You think you are the authority. I am here to gladly inform you that you’re not.
I didn’t “decide” on this. This is simply based on how things are. I’m just providing you an avenue to try and prove the points you’ve been debating. For instance: “Saving time” – That fails all 3 questions in the test, therefore it’s not P2W. See how it works?
Then ofc you know I am going to ask for a legitimate source. We know that’s rhetorical b/c you don’t have one….ie you made that specific worded criteria up. I cannot help you if you do not understand simple concepts such as your own words vs someone else’s words.
Then ofc you know I am going to ask for a legitimate source. We know that’s rhetorical b/c you don’t have one….ie you made that specific worded criteria up. I cannot help you if you do not understand simple concepts such as your own words vs someone else’s words.
If you took that worded criteria from some other place it can be sourced. Pretty easy huh?
If you did not get that specific worded criteria from somewhere else, you created it. Not too hard to process eh?
“The classic free-to-play model, particularly in regards to pay-to-win elements, follows one simple tenet — the more you pay, the greater your advantage over other players. It results in huge payments from a small number of users (the so-called “whales”) and increases a game’s average ARPU [average revenue per user] and ARPPU [average revenue per paying user] numbers. Top-payers end up never losing, while those who pay less or don’t pay grow dissatisfied with the game. Eventually, many leave entirely and the overall player base shrinks. "
I think the issue here has completely devolved into a semantic discussion about what “Pay to Win” means.
The expression originated in PvP contests where the game publisher would offer items for sale that literally allowed you to pay for a win by getting an item that the other player could not overcome with skill. While primarily still used in that same PvP context, it has seen increasing use in PvE arenas (where PvP “winning” isn’t possible since players are in competition with the AI, not each other), usually applied to cash shop items that provide some form of non-cosmetic benefit.
I suggest we find a new term for advantage granting cash shop items in a PvE context, as that would eliminate a lot of confusion and linguistic discussion. Can anyone contact those ISO folks and see if they are working on a standard? :P
Seriously though, I do think we need a new term for PvE advantage granting items so as to not confuse them with PvP Pay to Win items. Even if it means simply adding PvE to the name, I’m down with that too.
I think the issue here has completely devolved into a semantic discussion about what “Pay to Win” means.
The expression originated in PvP contests where the game publisher would offer items for sale that literally allowed you to pay for a win by getting an item that the other player could not overcome with skill. While primarily still used in that same PvP context, it has seen increasing use in PvE arenas (where PvP “winning” isn’t possible since players are in competition with the AI, not each other), usually applied to cash shop items that provide some form of non-cosmetic benefit.
I suggest we find a new term for advantage granting cash shop items in a PvE context, as that would eliminate a lot of confusion and linguistic discussion. Can anyone contact those ISO folks and see if they are working on a standard? :P
Seriously though, I do think we need a new term for PvE advantage granting items so as to not confuse them with PvP Pay to Win items. Even if it means simply adding PvE to the name, I’m down with that too.
I think the issue here has completely devolved into a semantic discussion about what “Pay to Win” means.
The expression originated in PvP contests where the game publisher would offer items for sale that literally allowed you to pay for a win by getting an item that the other player could not overcome with skill. While primarily still used in that same PvP context, it has seen increasing use in PvE arenas (where PvP “winning” isn’t possible since players are in competition with the AI, not each other), usually applied to cash shop items that provide some form of non-cosmetic benefit.
I suggest we find a new term for advantage granting cash shop items in a PvE context, as that would eliminate a lot of confusion and linguistic discussion. Can anyone contact those ISO folks and see if they are working on a standard? :P
Seriously though, I do think we need a new term for PvE advantage granting items so as to not confuse them with PvP Pay to Win items. Even if it means simply adding PvE to the name, I’m down with that too.
The problem is, there are so many gripes out there, it’s hard to compile them into a single term. Example:
Some players are not happy that fancy skins are available for sale.
Some players are not happy with a tank that has more powerful rounds.
Some players are not happy with items that eliminate time games.
Some players are not happy with items that offer conveniences.
Some players are not happy with the ability to buy private arenas for SPvP.
Because of the negative association with the term “P2W”, people lump all these together. It’s like an endless cycle of fallacies. It would be better if the complaints were just: “I don’t like X because of Y and Z.” When you say “I don’t like X because P2W kitten kitten ”, that starts a new round of debate that completely gets off track.
Here are questions to determine if something is P2W:
1) Does it give you a statistical advantage in game?
2) Does it cost real money?
3) Is it only available to paying players?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, then it’s P2W.
Until you can manage to pass that test, your side of the debate fails.
doesn’t belong on that list. Many developers (or monetization managers) of P2W games are smart enough to create unrealistic, but still possible avenues to acquire the same things in game.
Put an item in the cash shop that gives an advantage, and then also put it on the loot table for a specific mob with an astronomically small chance of dropping. In a game with hundreds of thousands of players, you’ll have some who spent a week just killing that one stupid mob to get it, as well as some who just got lucky and had it drop. Defenders of the game can point to them and say, “See, you don’t have to spend any money!” and “Buying it from the store is just a convenience!” Of course, plenty of people will try to grind those mobs for a while, then give up and drop the cash to just get it over with.
In the end, P2W isn’t binary. “This game is, or isn’t P2W.” It’s a spectrum. The moment you introduce items that offer a game play advantage in the store, you’ve stepped away from the “not at all P2W” end of the spectrum and inched toward the “completely P2W” end. It’s all a matter of the tolerance levels for your player base. Americans and Europeans will tolerate less than Asian players, but we will tolerate some.
And some of us will crusade on forums arguing that if you can’t show it’s midnight black, it must be white.
Here are questions to determine if something is P2W:
1) Does it give you a statistical advantage in game?
2) Does it cost real money?
3) Is it only available to paying players?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, then it’s P2W.
Until you can manage to pass that test, your side of the debate fails.
doesn’t belong on that list. Many developers (or monetization managers) of P2W games are smart enough to create unrealistic, but still possible avenues to acquire the same things in game.
Put an item in the cash shop that gives an advantage, and then also put it on the loot table for a specific mob with an astronomically small chance of dropping. In a game with hundreds of thousands of players, you’ll have some who spent a week just killing that one stupid mob to get it, as well as some who just got lucky and had it drop. Defenders of the game can point to them and say, “See, you don’t have to spend any money!” and “Buying it from the store is just a convenience!” Of course, plenty of people will try to grind those mobs for a while, then give up and drop the cash to just get it over with.
In the end, P2W isn’t binary. “This game is, or isn’t P2W.” It’s a spectrum. The moment you introduce items that offer a game play advantage in the store, you’ve stepped away from the “not at all P2W” end of the spectrum and inched toward the “completely P2W” end. It’s all a matter of the tolerance levels for your player base. Americans and Europeans will tolerate less than Asian players, but we will tolerate some.
And some of us will crusade on forums arguing that if you can’t show it’s midnight black, it must be white.
But when you introduce a system that allows non-paying customers to access the same goods that a paying customer gets, “P2W” flies out the window. If a P2W MMO did the same thing that GW2 did with the Gem Exchange, their business would suffer. P2W Whales would rage to the high heavens that their exclusive “paid” items were now available to players who didn’t pay. There’s less incentive for them to spend ridiculous amounts of money for virtual advantages.
Why spend $16,000 for a sword when you can just grind it out in game? The P2W business model caters to those willing to pay real money for real advantages.
Then ofc you know I am going to ask for a legitimate source. We know that’s rhetorical b/c you don’t have one….ie you made that specific worded criteria up. I cannot help you if you do not understand simple concepts such as your own words vs someone else’s words.
See post above yours.
You’ve spent hours of your day arguing about the definition of “P2W” with strangers who you’ve now polarized, and for what? You haven’t convinced anyone and you’ve wasted your own time. But I’m sure Anet will send you a card in the mail come Christmas.
Then ofc you know I am going to ask for a legitimate source. We know that’s rhetorical b/c you don’t have one….ie you made that specific worded criteria up. I cannot help you if you do not understand simple concepts such as your own words vs someone else’s words.
See post above yours.
You’ve spent hours of your day arguing about the definition of “P2W” with strangers who you’ve now polarized, and for what? You haven’t convinced anyone and you’ve wasted your own time. But I’m sure Anet will send you a card in the mail come Christmas.
Also, you’re wrong.
[redacted] is a boring and thankless job. Luckily GW2 is not firewalled, thus giving me ample time to have a healthy debate that I win.
By the way, when industry executives agree with me, you have no foot to stand on:
“The classic free-to-play model, particularly in regards to pay-to-win elements, follows one simple tenet — the more you pay, the greater your advantage over other players. It results in huge payments from a small number of users (the so-called “whales”) and increases a game’s average ARPU [average revenue per user] and ARPPU [average revenue per paying user] numbers. Top-payers end up never losing, while those who pay less or don’t pay grow dissatisfied with the game. Eventually, many leave entirely and the overall player base shrinks. "
Here are questions to determine if something is P2W:
1) Does it give you a statistical advantage in game?
2) Does it cost real money?
3) Is it only available to paying players?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, then it’s P2W.
Until you can manage to pass that test, your side of the debate fails.
doesn’t belong on that list. Many developers (or monetization managers) of P2W games are smart enough to create unrealistic, but still possible avenues to acquire the same things in game.
Put an item in the cash shop that gives an advantage, and then also put it on the loot table for a specific mob with an astronomically small chance of dropping. In a game with hundreds of thousands of players, you’ll have some who spent a week just killing that one stupid mob to get it, as well as some who just got lucky and had it drop. Defenders of the game can point to them and say, “See, you don’t have to spend any money!” and “Buying it from the store is just a convenience!” Of course, plenty of people will try to grind those mobs for a while, then give up and drop the cash to just get it over with.
In the end, P2W isn’t binary. “This game is, or isn’t P2W.” It’s a spectrum. The moment you introduce items that offer a game play advantage in the store, you’ve stepped away from the “not at all P2W” end of the spectrum and inched toward the “completely P2W” end. It’s all a matter of the tolerance levels for your player base. Americans and Europeans will tolerate less than Asian players, but we will tolerate some.
And some of us will crusade on forums arguing that if you can’t show it’s midnight black, it must be white.
You’re right and for your own health I’d just let it go: we all know no reasonable person would disagree with you; cynically, the conversation was successfully derailed.
Here are questions to determine if something is P2W:
1) Does it give you a statistical advantage in game?
2) Does it cost real money?
3) Is it only available to paying players?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, then it’s P2W.
Until you can manage to pass that test, your side of the debate fails.
doesn’t belong on that list. Many developers (or monetization managers) of P2W games are smart enough to create unrealistic, but still possible avenues to acquire the same things in game.
Put an item in the cash shop that gives an advantage, and then also put it on the loot table for a specific mob with an astronomically small chance of dropping. In a game with hundreds of thousands of players, you’ll have some who spent a week just killing that one stupid mob to get it, as well as some who just got lucky and had it drop. Defenders of the game can point to them and say, “See, you don’t have to spend any money!” and “Buying it from the store is just a convenience!” Of course, plenty of people will try to grind those mobs for a while, then give up and drop the cash to just get it over with.
In the end, P2W isn’t binary. “This game is, or isn’t P2W.” It’s a spectrum. The moment you introduce items that offer a game play advantage in the store, you’ve stepped away from the “not at all P2W” end of the spectrum and inched toward the “completely P2W” end. It’s all a matter of the tolerance levels for your player base. Americans and Europeans will tolerate less than Asian players, but we will tolerate some.
And some of us will crusade on forums arguing that if you can’t show it’s midnight black, it must be white.
You’re right and for your own health I’d just let it go: we all know no reasonable person would disagree with you; cynically, the conversation was successfully derailed.
Oh, I counted that a few posts up. I’ll quote myself for your convenience:
But when you introduce a system that allows non-paying customers to access the same goods that a paying customer gets, “P2W” flies out the window. If a P2W MMO did the same thing that GW2 did with the Gem Exchange, their business would suffer. P2W Whales would rage to the high heavens that their exclusive “paid” items were now available to players who didn’t pay. There’s less incentive for them to spend ridiculous amounts of money for virtual advantages.
Why spend $16,000 for a sword when you can just grind it out in game? The P2W business model caters to those willing to pay real money for real advantages.
As developers, the important thing to us is that we hold true to our standards of what should be and what shouldn’t be purchasable. You may have read my 2012 blog post on this subject. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll summarize. We think it’s right that players can spend money on items to provide visual distinction or customization, and can spend money on account services and time-saving conveniences. We think it’s right that players can trade gems for gold and vice-versa, such that players can keep up with other players and be on a level playing field, whether they use their time or money to do so. But we think it’s never ok for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases. And we think it’s never ok for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time. These are our guiding principles. They’re obviously different from what you see other developers doing. Particularly in China it seems common for games to have VIP systems that make characters more powerful than they could ever be without VIP. That’s not a level playing field; that’s “pay to win”.
As developers, the important thing to us is that we hold true to our standards of what should be and what shouldn’t be purchasable. You may have read my 2012 blog post on this subject. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll summarize. We think it’s right that players can spend money on items to provide visual distinction or customization, and can spend money on account services and time-saving conveniences. We think it’s right that players can trade gems for gold and vice-versa, such that players can keep up with other players and be on a level playing field, whether they use their time or money to do so. But we think it’s never ok for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases. And we think it’s never ok for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time.
These are our guiding principles. They’re obviously different from what you see other developers doing. Particularly in China it seems common for games to have VIP systems that make characters more powerful than they could ever be without VIP. That’s not a level playing field; that’s “pay to win”.
P2W conspiracy debunked.
Just like what they are doing with GW2 in China……………lol. Thanks! I didn’t have to do anything,,,,,lol
As developers, the important thing to us is that we hold true to our standards of what should be and what shouldn’t be purchasable. You may have read my 2012 blog post on this subject. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll summarize. We think it’s right that players can spend money on items to provide visual distinction or customization, and can spend money on account services and time-saving conveniences. We think it’s right that players can trade gems for gold and vice-versa, such that players can keep up with other players and be on a level playing field, whether they use their time or money to do so. But we think it’s never ok for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases. And we think it’s never ok for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time.
These are our guiding principles. They’re obviously different from what you see other developers doing. Particularly in China it seems common for games to have VIP systems that make characters more powerful than they could ever be without VIP. That’s not a level playing field; that’s “pay to win”.
P2W conspiracy debunked.
Just like what they are doing with GW2 in China……………lol. Thanks! I didn’t have to do anything,,,,,lol
Actually this in regards to China. If you read carefully, this supports my position.
Unless you meant to compliment me on winning this debate.
As developers, the important thing to us is that we hold true to our standards of what should be and what shouldn’t be purchasable. You may have read my 2012 blog post on this subject. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll summarize. We think it’s right that players can spend money on items to provide visual distinction or customization, and can spend money on account services and time-saving conveniences. We think it’s right that players can trade gems for gold and vice-versa, such that players can keep up with other players and be on a level playing field, whether they use their time or money to do so. But we think it’s never ok for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases. And we think it’s never ok for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time.
These are our guiding principles. They’re obviously different from what you see other developers doing. Particularly in China it seems common for games to have VIP systems that make characters more powerful than they could ever be without VIP. That’s not a level playing field; that’s “pay to win”.
P2W conspiracy debunked.
Just like what they are doing with GW2 in China……………lol. Thanks! I didn’t have to do anything,,,,,lol
Actually this in regards to China. If you read carefully, this supports my position.
Unless you meant to compliment me on winning this debate.
The 1st part does, but then the second part contradicts their actions, which is the reason I separated the two in the quote. Maybe you should have read it through and left that bit out…..lol
Pay to win = pay to get an advantage, regardless if it’s just saving time imho.
While it’s true that your own opinion is formed on the matter, the industry standard for the term “P2W” is “paying real money to win”. Saving time does not equal winning.
As developers, the important thing to us is that we hold true to our standards of what should be and what shouldn’t be purchasable. You may have read my 2012 blog post on this subject. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll summarize. We think it’s right that players can spend money on items to provide visual distinction or customization, and can spend money on account services and time-saving conveniences. We think it’s right that players can trade gems for gold and vice-versa, such that players can keep up with other players and be on a level playing field, whether they use their time or money to do so. But we think it’s never ok for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases. And we think it’s never ok for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time.
These are our guiding principles. They’re obviously different from what you see other developers doing. Particularly in China it seems common for games to have VIP systems that make characters more powerful than they could ever be without VIP. That’s not a level playing field; that’s “pay to win”.
P2W conspiracy debunked.
Just like what they are doing with GW2 in China……………lol. Thanks! I didn’t have to do anything,,,,,lol
Actually this in regards to China. If you read carefully, this supports my position.
Unless you meant to compliment me on winning this debate.
The 1st part does, but then the second part contradicts their actions, which is the reason I separated the two in the quote. Maybe you should have read it through and left that bit out…..lol
Actually, if you read it through, you’ll see the Mike O’Brien explains that even with the added conveniences of the Gem Store offerings in China, it does not equal “P2W”. The playing field is even, thus GW2 is not P2W. Not sure where there’s a contradiction in that.
Pay to win = pay to get an advantage, regardless if it’s just saving time imho.
Time is money. Money is power.
Ergo:
Time is power.
Ding, winning.
Let’s agree that there are variants. P2W is a concept, not a mathematical fact.
If I have a large customerbase who wants a “VIP” mechanic (a la p2w) because they are accustomed to it, so be it.
For what it’s worth if you are a chinese player and you are against it and you are posting on the chinese forums – you have my support. Just link me the text that I can’t read and I’ll sign it with “Sincerely, Rouven”.
“Whose Kitten is this?” – “It’s a Charr baby.”
“Whose Charr is this?”- “Ted’s.”
“Who’s Ted?”- “Ted’s dead, baby. Ted’s dead.”
Pay to win = pay to get an advantage, regardless if it’s just saving time imho.
time is only won if others lose out, in a game like this, time is your own and doesn’t affect anyone else.
thus time savers doesn’t make you win, only use less time to achieve the same.
Pay to win = pay to get an advantage, regardless if it’s just saving time imho.
time is only won if others lose out, in a game like this, time is your own and doesn’t affect anyone else.
thus time savers doesn’t make you win, only use less time to achieve the same.
To add to this, since time savers are available to all players for the same costs, there’s a “level playing field”.
Pay to win = pay to get an advantage, regardless if it’s just saving time imho.
While it’s true that your own opinion is formed on the matter, the industry standard for the term “P2W” is “paying real money to win”. Saving time does not equal winning.
What is the industry standard? Coz I can also quote stuff.
“Basically, whenever a game offers significant advantages for paying money, it becomes pay-to-win. No, you don’t actually pay to win, but you do stack the odds significantly in your favour.”
Like many other players, Dave uses money to save time. Technically, you can grind your way to a superstar team in FIFA UT, but if you want to be competitive straight away (and who doesn’t?) then you need the right tools. In that sense, FIFA Ultimate Team really is a prime example of the pay-to-win model. Yes, you can spend hours getting humiliated by your opponents to scrape together the cash for a decent midfielder, or you could drop real money to save time and torment. “I started buying packs on FUT for a variety of reasons—firstly, I’m a gamer and have a deep rooted compulsion to explore every mode in a game I buy. Secondly I’m a football fanatic. Thirdly, it’s because I hate losing…” admits Dave.
When money provides an objectively better experience when playing, meaning that if the purchasable content creates a noticeable distinction between the haves and the have-nots.
“Better Experience” includes in game advantages, stronger in game gear or anything that makes the paying players stand above the free players.
this category also includes spending money for in game advantages or an “elite status.” This can be tricky to define but we can say that anything that provides a noticeable difference in how the game is played can be applied here.
Such as saying that anyone with an elite status gets all their equipment repaired for free, while free players will have to constantly spend in game resources.
Queen Of The Moors (Blackgate)
Deaths Fear [Fear] / The Hardcore Caravan [HC]
Forum Warrior: Black Belt in Ninja Edits
The argument about the definition of P2W is simply semantics. The reality is that these items are available to everyone; they allow you to WIN just as much as ascended armor wears ‘WIN’ over exotic ones.
The precedent argument is not relevant. You can make that argument about anything new to fallaciously claim it’s a ‘bad’ thing. My problem with this argument is that no one has presented an argument that says WHY setting this precedent is a bad thing.
The only argument I feel for is the people that feel cheated because they bought other picks previously for the same price. That was me for a very short time. I don’t think anyone anticipated such a nice upgrade so I can see why they feel this way but then you suck it up, buy one and reap the rewards. I hope you guys come out again when upgraded harvesting tools come around again .. I can’t say I mind this bonus.
“Basically, whenever a game offers significant advantages for paying money, it becomes pay-to-win. No, you don’t actually pay to win, but you do stack the odds significantly in your favour.”
Like many other players, Dave uses money to save time. Technically, you can grind your way to a superstar team in FIFA UT, but if you want to be competitive straight away (and who doesn’t?) then you need the right tools. In that sense, FIFA Ultimate Team really is a prime example of the pay-to-win model. Yes, you can spend hours getting humiliated by your opponents to scrape together the cash for a decent midfielder, or you could drop real money to save time and torment. “I started buying packs on FUT for a variety of reasons—firstly, I’m a gamer and have a deep rooted compulsion to explore every mode in a game I buy. Secondly I’m a football fanatic. Thirdly, it’s because I hate losing…” admits Dave.
When money provides an objectively better experience when playing, meaning that if the purchasable content creates a noticeable distinction between the haves and the have-nots.
“Better Experience” includes in game advantages, stronger in game gear or anything that makes the paying players stand above the free players.
this category also includes spending money for in game advantages or an “elite status.” This can be tricky to define but we can say that anything that provides a noticeable difference in how the game is played can be applied here.
Such as saying that anyone with an elite status gets all their equipment repaired for free, while free players will have to constantly spend in game resources.
You can quote stuff all you want, but I’ll trump yours with the following:
Guild Wars 2 has an exchange that allows players to take in game currency, and convert that into real money virtual currency (Gems). Because now all players have access to the same items, there is no P2W (paying and non-paying). Level playing field.
Technically, you can grind your way to a superstar team in FIFA UT, but if you want to be competitive straight away (and who doesn’t?) then you need the right tools. In that sense, FIFA Ultimate Team really is a prime example of the pay-to-win model. Yes, you can spend hours getting humiliated by your opponents to scrape together the cash for a decent midfielder, or you could drop real money to save time and torment.
Queen Of The Moors (Blackgate)
Deaths Fear [Fear] / The Hardcore Caravan [HC]
Forum Warrior: Black Belt in Ninja Edits
Yes, you can spend hours getting humiliated by your opponents to scrape together the cash for a decent midfielder, or you could drop real money to save time and torment.
Gem exchange allows non-paying customers to access the same content as paying customers.
You missed the part where it says “technically, you can grind”. Ninja edited by me.
BTW, this is just to back the idea up of time-rich vs money-rich.
All of the games I’ve played prior to GW2 are all asian mmo’s, where paying to gain an advantage is the norm, and yes that includes saving yourself from the torment of having to do things the long way. Some pay-to-win (or gain an advantage) models are more acceptable than others, and in fact, I’m not opposed to the chinese GW2’s system at all, since I’m one who is willing to dish out cash for convenience.
Queen Of The Moors (Blackgate)
Deaths Fear [Fear] / The Hardcore Caravan [HC]
Forum Warrior: Black Belt in Ninja Edits
“Basically, whenever a game offers significant advantages for paying money, it becomes pay-to-win. No, you don’t actually pay to win, but you do stack the odds significantly in your favour.”
“Basically, whenever a game offers significant advantages for paying money, it becomes pay-to-win. No, you don’t actually pay to win, but you do stack the odds significantly in your favour.”
Gem exchange allows non-paying customers to access the same content as paying customers.
Level playing field. So GW2 is not P2W.
It doesn’t matter how you look at it. Unless paying customers have that “advantage” over non-paying customers, it’s not P2W. Mike O’Brien was smart to offer the Gem Exchange, because the same “paid content” is free available to the non-paying customers. I know of a player who has thousands upon thousands of Gems, and paid not a single penny beyond the box price of this game.
“Basically, whenever a game offers significant advantages for paying money, it becomes pay-to-win. No, you don’t actually pay to win, but you do stack the odds significantly in your favour.”
Gem exchange allows non-paying customers to access the same content as paying customers.
Level playing field. So GW2 is not P2W.
It doesn’t matter how you look at it. Unless paying customers have that “advantage” over non-paying customers, it’s not P2W. Mike O’Brien was smart to offer the Gem Exchange, because the same “paid content” is free available to the non-paying customers. I know of a player who has thousands upon thousands of Gems, and paid not a single penny beyond the box price of this game.
I think you’re wasting your time trying to teach those that don’t know what P2W is.
Even if i was to say that Anet would offer us a weapon that does 2,000 flat dmg and then steals 2g from the player that you kill, but you must spend $50.00 worth of gems to get one. You would say well thats P2W cause you can’t just find that weapon in the game and you must spend real life money to get it. Lets say you can instead trade in gold for gem to get that same weapon, people would still scream out “OMG P2W Anet is Evil and wants all my money!!”
Good thing Anet doesn’t do that but instead gives us armor skins and gathering tools that saves us time going out and buying 20+ of them to sit in our bags, or doing dungeons for the cool set of armor. You could say “Well saving time is still P2W!” Ok but if you work x amount of time throughout the week and you dont have enough time or effort to farm for the gold to get those times well its not really P2W more of helping those that cant get what others can in the same time period.
My point is don’t waste your time Smooth Penguin on them :P
“Basically, whenever a game offers significant advantages for paying money, it becomes pay-to-win. No, you don’t actually pay to win, but you do stack the odds significantly in your favour.”
Gem exchange allows non-paying customers to access the same content as paying customers.
Level playing field. So GW2 is not P2W.
It doesn’t matter how you look at it. Unless paying customers have that “advantage” over non-paying customers, it’s not P2W. Mike O’Brien was smart to offer the Gem Exchange, because the same “paid content” is free available to the non-paying customers. I know of a player who has thousands upon thousands of Gems, and paid not a single penny beyond the box price of this game.
I think you’re wasting your time trying to teach those that don’t know what P2W is.
Even if i was to say that Anet would offer us a weapon that does 2,000 flat dmg and then steals 2g from the player that you kill, but you must spend $50.00 worth of gems to get one. You would say well thats P2W cause you can’t just find that weapon in the game and you must spend real life money to get it. Lets say you can instead trade in gold for gem to get that same weapon, people would still scream out “OMG P2W Anet is Evil and wants all my money!!”
Good thing Anet doesn’t do that but instead gives us armor skins and gathering tools that saves us time going out and buying 20+ of them to sit in our bags, or doing dungeons for the cool set of armor. You could say “Well saving time is still P2W!” Ok but if you work x amount of time throughout the week and you dont have enough time or effort to farm for the gold to get those times well its not really P2W more of helping those that cant get what others can in the same time period.
My point is don’t waste your time Smooth Penguin on them :P
I actually enjoy debates like this. Keeps my mind fresh. Leo had some good comebacks that made me pause for a moment. It’s kinda like a challenge to see if they can actually come up with arguments that will effectively counter mine.
As for your sword idea, I would soooooo buy that for WvW.
You can’t seem to accept the idea of using “money to save time.”
It’s not just him. There are a handful of usual suspects that the concept (as well as scaling) is lost on. They just keep trying to hammer that square peg into the round hole.
Meh this isn’t an issue I’m particularly passionate about since the games that are available here locally ARE p2w (an advantage).. I don’t mind if they NEVER understand. It’s must be a cultural thing or something.
I don’t get where they’re getting the idea that if it can be bought with ingame currency, then it isn’t P2W. Try arguing that with a game like perfect world where you’ll see that GW2’s model is no different. What resource are you gonna use to gain that ingame currency in the first place anyway? Yep – time. And to bypass that restriction, you use IRL cash. You pay to win an advantage. Simple.
What is surprising though is how appalled some people are with the concept although I’m aware how some p2w models are just grossly exploitative.
Queen Of The Moors (Blackgate)
Deaths Fear [Fear] / The Hardcore Caravan [HC]
Forum Warrior: Black Belt in Ninja Edits
