Guild Wars 2

Ayrilana.1396:

Then everything is pay to win by that very broad definition which is very far from what it originally refers to when it was coined.

I’m definitely going to win by fulfilling my dream of flooding my bank and inventory with stacks of soiled rags when I buy gold through gems in the gem store.

It completely depends on the goal ofc. Eating lots of pie wont help in running a marathon, but it will help win in a pie eating contest.

Except that pay to win is typically associated with paying to get an ADVANTAGE, and cosmetic items don’t offer any advantage PHYSICALLY. they don’t offer more damage. They don’t autokill mobs etc.

Anything that helps in obtaining a goal when it’s present over when it’s not is (yes) an advantage. They are not limited to physicality. A mental advantage comes to mind.

If the terminology is to be applied to varied scenarios where there are various possible goals, then it needs to evolve to encompass such. If not then it can only be applied to the situation where it was coined, thus not applicable to any other thing. To elaborate: If someone rejects the evolution of the term then it would only possibly be applicable to the single goal of where/when it was coined. So if that goal was to win a 5v5 by killing all the opposing team members, then that would be the only possible scenario where p2w would be applicable. Other games with other goals such capture the flag, king of the hill, etc etc….would not have possible p2w scenarios…ofc unless evolution of the terminology is accepted to encompass other goals. Which leads us back to…….being dependent on the goal at hand.

Andred.1087:

“Shortcuts?” Are you aware that some of us who play this game have jobs? Not everybody has unlimited time to dump into the game. Cash shops have always been a good means of evening out the playing field for people who don’t have much time but do have money to spare, a.k.a. “working adults.”

Pretty much this. Some of us have other things that we have to do during the day, like get paid, feed pets, feed the family, etc.

And doing this would cut one of Anet’s main sources of income/funding for this game.
So no.

edgarallanpwn.8739:

phys.7689:

edgarallanpwn.8739:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

Except that pay to win is typically associated with paying to get an ADVANTAGE, and cosmetic items don’t offer any advantage PHYSICALLY. they don’t offer more damage. They don’t autokill mobs etc.

they give you an advantage at getting rewards.
someone may have to kill 1000 monsters to get enough drops to get a certain item
someone may pay Xdollars to buy enough drops to get that certain item.

The advantage of autokilling monsters is what? faster loot, and exp, gold can also buy you faster loot, and exp.

you can also pay gold to make other people kill monsters for you, ala dungeon selling.

You don’t pay gems for dungeon spots so not pay to win. Never seen dungeon selling, and don;t see a reason anyone would pay for that so using extremes doesn’t help either.

Pay to win also only applies to paying cash to gain said advantage, of which there is none.

No in game items that offer stats are also offered in the gem store. Items in the gem store are 100% separate, and don’t offer any advantages that make it easier to kill mobs, etc etc.

Any exp boosts and other junk purchasable is also findable in game.

Next.

dungeon selling is fairly common, they even have a dungeon selling guild organizing in the dungeon forum. The main reason people buy the dungeon paths, is because they want to get the gears that were designed to require you to beat certain dungeons, without putting forth that effort/waiting themselves. Most commonly, i think they want the tokens to finish some legendary. You will often find arah, since pugging that is either time consuming, or difficult.

and this whole thread is more focused on the buy gems then exchange them for gold side of the equation.

basically you can buy gold, and then you can have anything in game that having gold gets you. Which due to meta economy, includes paying players gold to do things for you.

kuben.9826:

Never saw such topic, so don’t bite if it’s here already.
The game wouldnt be “p2w” for most people. You’d have to do everything by yourself-no shortcuts for those who “don’t have enough time to farm money for legendary”.
What do You guys think?

I’m what I consider a casual/serious player. I’m about to hit 16.5k AP and have been playing since two months after launch. I dump real money into this game since it’s my main form of personal entertainment (outside of blurays and, oh yeah, real people/friends/family).

They shouldn’t change this feature because, simply put, they would lose money. I convert gems to gold occasionally to get in-game cool skins/new dyes/etc. I don’t have time to farm because I live the majority of my life in the real world. This just helps me get cool stuff…not beat the game.

Also, I have six sets of Ascended armor – 2 Zerker, 2 Sentinel, 1 Valkyrie, and 1 Cleric. Sure, spending real money helps me get these things, but I had to craft them all at level 500…so it’s not like I’m not putting in what I consider a reasonable amount of time. But Ascended armor has something like .5% more effectiveness than Exotic armor…the weapons are worth it, but the armor is totally not from an effectiveness scale.

Also, I have ONE Legendary…which I farmed before I started putting in real world money…Legendaries are just for status – I did it for the skin (Flameseeker Prophecies). Shields are relatively useless. I think your concern is more of a gripe than a legitimate point.

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

Then everything is pay to win by that very broad definition which is very far from what it originally refers to when it was coined.

I’m definitely going to win by fulfilling my dream of flooding my bank and inventory with stacks of soiled rags when I buy gold through gems in the gem store.

it basically means any game where you can use real money, to achieve game objectives would be considered pay to win.
Which makes sense for what the phrase is supposed to be about anyhow. Many of the first games that were called p2win werent directly competitive anyway.

But really people should get over the terminology, and more focus on the reality. What is acceptable as far as paying money to achieve in game goals?
what are the pitfalls, etc

those are the real questions people should be considering, rather than the semantics of the term.

P2W isn’t about convenience though. It’s P2W if the only method to acquiring something is through real world currency and such item gives you a competitive advantage over other players. It’s like those games which offer a new tier of armor with better stats exclusively through their online store. It does not refer to personal objectives set by the player.

I’ve never been a fan of systems like this. Games like D3 greatly improved by removing theirs.

kuben.9826:

Never saw such topic, so don’t bite if it’s here already.
The game wouldnt be “p2w” for most people. You’d have to do everything by yourself-no shortcuts for those who “don’t have enough time to farm money for legendary”.
What do You guys think?

I’m not sure I follow. How do you propose Anet continue to make enough money to release new content and support the game?

The fact of the matter is that any game that is
A) MMO in some fashion
B) Continues to release new content

Has to have a way to generate new cash inflows to pay for that. It’s Econ 101. Anet has to remain profitable for NCSoft to continue fronting a game like GW2.

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

Well then gathering boosters, exp boosters, WvW experience boosters, crafting boosters, and karma boosters all would fall into your definition of P2W. Personally, I don’t see it that way since anyone can get these items in-game, without spending real-world cash. Anyone can get that “advantage.” The gem to gold conversion likewise does not create any mechanic or situation that a player cannot achieve in-game without spending real-world cash.

Will someone who buys gems and converts them to gold get a legendary faster than someone who farms for it? Sure. But if the goal is the achievement, their doing so takes nothing away from your crafting one on your own. In fact, if anything, it makes crafting a legendary more rewarding because you did it without a gem “shortcut.” They have won nothing, and you have lost nothing.

The primary reason I oppose ending the gem to gold exchange, though, has nothing to do with shortcuts to legendary weapons. I like it because of the fact that it gives players who cannot or will not purchase gems with cash the ability to exchange hard-earned gold into gems. Nothing in the gem store is exclusive to cash buyers. That, in my opinion, is what differentiates GW2 from other F2P games, and keeps it from being P2W.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

You misread…I was using that compression as an example of why winning cannot be confined to a single objective.

Without the gem to gold conversion, Anet would likely have to switch to a subscription system.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

^

I’m stealing this quote for the next time someone pulls out the p2w card.

AegisRunestone.8672:

Conncept.7638:

edgarallanpwn.8739:

Conncept.7638:

It’s not pay to win, because PvE is entirely non-competitive in GW2, and there is no winning without competition.

However, that said.

I’ve thought this since day one, no idea why the playerbase puts up with this crap. It is the exact same story as the Diablo auction house, except Blizzard players were smart enough to boycott that crap and even the game until it was removed, because it is a flat out, indisputable, con of a monetary system to run a game on.

The conversion option makes it so that players are more likely to support Anet and GW2 the less rewarding the game is, just like the debunked D3 auction house.

If it goes like the D3 auction house did, GW2 becomes better for everyone who plays for rewards, customization, exploration, and progress. When the Diablo auction house went down, every single reward in the games drop rate was increased, some by as much as 40%, and they found other honest methods of making money off the game. So it turned out better for everyone, as will the removal of the conversion system should the players ever choose to take a stand against it.

There’s a HUGE OVERSIGHT you’re missing.

d3 auctionhouse sold items for REAL CASH back to your BATTLENET ACCOUNT. You could use this to pay for games, and other merchandise etc.

THAT’s the reason it shut down. Because people were hoarding the best items and selling them for absurd amounts of cash, and people were buying them, literally turning it into a pay to win.

d3 was gated by gear, just like most dungeon crawlers were, but even more so due to the removal of skill trees from d2.

gw2 has 0 pay to win features. 0.
Do some research before you spout nonsense.

And people aren’t doing exactly that here? Precursors, mystic forge skins, T6 mats, BL weapon skins, all things only available for horrendous drop rates compared to similar items in any other game, and ALL of them horded by players to sell for exploitative prices.

It is exactly the same system, the only difference is, as I said, GW2s PvE is non-competitive, meaning you aren’t ‘winning’. But that does not change the fact that each players loss is Anets monetary gain. The less players get what they want, the more appealing converting gems to gold becomes to get it.

Did you even read his post? He said PLAYERS were getting RL MONEY back from the auction house. That doesn’t happen in GW2.

Yes I did, and as I said, the system is doing here exactly what it did there, the fact that GW2 prohibits players from trading items for real world money and D3 allowed it is entirely beside the point. The problem was that the system was causing exploitative economic conduct by players and opening a venue for exploitative monetization to the developers.

kuben.9826:

Never saw such topic, so don’t bite if it’s here already.
The game wouldnt be “p2w” for most people. You’d have to do everything by yourself-no shortcuts for those who “don’t have enough time to farm money for legendary”.
What do You guys think?

Experience boosters, karma boosters, gold find boosters, crafting boosters, gathering boosters, etc are all shortcuts for those who “don’t have enough time to…” For some people, skin collecting is a goal, which the gem store provides shortcuts for. Merchant express, permanent pics/axes/sickles, bank access expresses, etc are all shortcuts. None of these give any player a direct advantage over other players, just time savings.

If you want to eliminate shortcuts, you would need to eliminate the gem store altogether. Eliminating the gem store would likewise eliminate Anet’s source of continued funding, which would necessitate implementing a subscription fee if we want the servers to stay live and new content to continue coming out.

I am not a gem buyer. The few gems I’ve acquired and spent were gained through exchanging gold for gems. I know several people who buy gems and have converted them to gold in order to get their legendary weapon sooner. In no way does their taking a shortcut diminish my accomplishments. I’m about half way towards saving up mats for my legendary, and I can tell you that for me, the accomplishment will be that much more personally rewarding knowing that I did it “the hard way.”

Essence Snow.3194:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

You misread…I was using that compression as an example of why winning cannot be confined to a single objective.

I did not misread. You’re posing a strawman argument. Deciding that P2W refers to purchasing a numerical advantage in competitive play is not an attempt to confine the term “win” to a single objective, it’s confining the term pay-to-win to the entire range of competitive play available across all games, which was its original meaning.

If you (or others) want to coin a new term which means “pay to accomplish an in-game goal,” knock yourself out. Attempts to migrate the existing term are bullgravy though. Why? Because the underlying intent is to borrow the disgust people feel at players using cash to beat another player in a game (with the implication that they wouldn’t win a fair fight) and attach it to some other aspect of a game.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

short version, we should create a new term to define that type of system? a Rose by any other name? still the same is it not?

Honestly at this point, from a semantic standpoint, the word may evolve, this debate that comes up constantly is because some people are evolving the word, and others dont think it should evolve in that direction.

essentially this is a war on word definition, that will basically be decided by consensus at some later date.
but really it doesnt matter what word we use.

the crux of the matter is some people are disatisfied with being able to gain things built to be obtained in the game world with money from outside the game.

the OP proposes to remove that functionality to solve the debate.

i think that while the issue at hand is worth discussing, i think the solution presented, really has no chance of happening.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

You misread…I was using that compression as an example of why winning cannot be confined to a single objective.

I did not misread. You’re posing a strawman argument. Deciding that P2W refers to purchasing a numerical advantage in competitive play is not an attempt to confine the term “win” to a single objective, it’s confining the term pay-to-win to the entire range of competitive play available across all games, which was its original meaning.

If you (or others) want to coin a new term which means “pay to accomplish an in-game goal,” knock yourself out. Attempts to migrate the existing term are bullgravy though. Why? Because the underlying intent is to borrow the disgust people feel at players using cash to beat another player in a game (with the implication that they wouldn’t win a fair fight) and attach it to some other aspect of a game.

I disagree. You’re confining it via “your definitions” of numerical advantage and competitive play. I was explaining why doing such is illogical. Take dungeon speed clears for example. Go onto gwsc.com or whatever it is and ask if it’s competitive. Then ask if things like speed, armor, and/or strength boosters, if one team uses all ascended gear and the other cannot afford it (max full ascended is expensive), or if one team has knowledge about the area that the other, count as having advantage. Does the difference in it’s objective from the standard pvp model invalidate the possibilities of p2w?

If you really want a straw man I can oblige. I hear that originally “marriage” was coined to only be between one man and one woman. I think we know your opinions on that.

phys.7689:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

short version, we should create a new term to define that type of system? a Rose by any other name? still the same is it not?

Honestly at this point, from a semantic standpoint, the word may evolve, this debate that comes up constantly is because some people are evolving the word, and others dont think it should evolve in that direction.

essentially this is a war on word definition, that will basically be decided by consensus at some later date.
but really it doesnt matter what word we use.

the crux of the matter is some people are disatisfied with being able to gain things built to be obtained in the game world with money from outside the game.

the OP proposes to remove that functionality to solve the debate.

i think that while the issue at hand is worth discussing, i think the solution presented, really has no chance of happening.

Ah, but why are they seeking to adapt the term? They’re doing it to capitalize on the negative connotations attached to games that allow players to pay cash to win in PvP. Thus, it very much does matter what term is used. The stigma attached to P2W is being used as a tool to influence poster opinions.

That said, I also think the solution presented has no chance.

I hate threads like these, even more so the people who throw around words like “p2w” without any actual understanding of their meaning. The guy who buys his legendary with real life money that he worked to earn is equal to the one who farms like crazy to craft his legendary in-game.

I have 8 legendaries and have crafted 9 (sold one) if I had the option hell yes I’d have bought them all straight off the tp.

IndigoSundown.5419:

phys.7689:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

short version, we should create a new term to define that type of system? a Rose by any other name? still the same is it not?

Honestly at this point, from a semantic standpoint, the word may evolve, this debate that comes up constantly is because some people are evolving the word, and others dont think it should evolve in that direction.

essentially this is a war on word definition, that will basically be decided by consensus at some later date.
but really it doesnt matter what word we use.

the crux of the matter is some people are disatisfied with being able to gain things built to be obtained in the game world with money from outside the game.

the OP proposes to remove that functionality to solve the debate.

i think that while the issue at hand is worth discussing, i think the solution presented, really has no chance of happening.

Ah, but why are they seeking to adapt the term? They’re doing it to capitalize on the negative connotations attached to games that allow players to pay cash to win in PvP. Thus, it very much does matter what term is used. The stigma attached to P2W is being used as a tool to influence poster opinions.

That said, I also think the solution presented has no chance.

i think you are overestimating peoples guile, and skill at propaganda.

Its probably simply because to some people these things seem like winning. This debate doesnt only appear in this game, and it isnt just use by expert debaters. Many of the people are just using the term because it feels accurate to them.

There are people who think this game is p2w?

What items give crazy good advantages cus… I’m not seeing it…

OP, have you ever played Last Chaos , a free2play game by Aeriagames ? now, that’s a pay-to-win game….

kuben.9826:

You can obtain EVERY single item via gold.

Now we know the real reason Tequatl’s Hoard is so rare: people are buying it from him!

And I can’t say I really care if someone wants to spend their real life money on legendaries. The only advantage I feel they have over me and ascended weapons is storage space, but I like having different weapon skins so I’m not worried about a single stat-swapping weapon. But this isn’t P2W anwyays.

azizul.8469:

OP, have you ever played Last Chaos , a free2play game by Aeriagames ? now, that’s a pay-to-win game….

I played Shaiya for more years than I’d care to admit. Aeria really knows how to take a mediocre game and make it unplayable for people not willing to spend hundreds of dollars per month.

phys.7689:

i think you are overestimating peoples guile, and skill at propaganda.

Its probably simply because to some people these things seem like winning. This debate doesnt only appear in this game, and it isnt just use by expert debaters. Many of the people are just using the term because it feels accurate to them.

Regardless of how much or how little a single poster may think about the underlying psychology, I will guarantee that the people who use the term are using it because of the negative connotation.

Essence Snow.3194:

I disagree. You’re confining it via “your definitions” of numerical advantage and competitive play. I was explaining why doing such is illogical. Take dungeon speed clears for example. Go onto gwsc.com or whatever it is and ask if it’s competitive. Then ask if things like speed, armor, and/or strength boosters, if one team uses all ascended gear and the other cannot afford it (max full ascended is expensive), or if one team has knowledge about the area that the other, count as having advantage. Does the difference in it’s objective from the standard pvp model invalidate the possibilities of p2w?

Definitions, by definition limit words or terms. Words can be and are used to create terms. P2W is a term with a specific meaning. Definitions can certainly evolve. However, in this case, people are trying to adapt the term because of its negative connotation, which is rooted in competition, not in “winning” by getting a rare cosmetic item.

As to your examples:

1. Boosts are irrelevant to P2W in the context of this thread. A case could certainly be made that boosts are P2W, but that’s not what’s being debated here. Gems —→ gold does not enable the purchase of boosts.
2. As to Ascended gear, this gear can be attained in game over time, with no expenditure other than the time to collect everything and a trivial amount of coin. Ergo it does not pass the other test for P2W (cash being the only means to acquire the advantage, or in game methods being so egregiously difficult and/or time consuming as to be unattainable in any realistic time frame. As much as I despise Ascended gear and the laundry list of mats to make it, its proponents argue that it is not that hard to make). At best, purchasing Ascended would be “pay to win sooner.”
3. How is “knowledge about the area” (presumably the dungeon) something that can be purchased?

phys.7689:

short version, we should create a new term to define that type of system? a Rose by any other name? still the same is it not?

Honestly at this point, from a semantic standpoint, the word may evolve, this debate that comes up constantly is because some people are evolving the word, and others dont think it should evolve in that direction.

essentially this is a war on word definition, that will basically be decided by consensus at some later date.
but really it doesnt matter what word we use.

This seems spot on.

the crux of the matter is some people are disatisfied with being able to gain things built to be obtained in the game world with money from outside the game.

the OP proposes to remove that functionality to solve the debate.

Personally I’m not really bothered by it. I am however bothered by the declaration that it doesn’t exist. It’s kinda like someone trying to claim a platypus isn’t a mammal b/c it lays eggs. There’s no real hidden agenda besides discussion/debate. I mean isn’t that kinda what forums are for?

i think that while the issue at hand is worth discussing, i think the solution presented, really has no chance of happening.

Agreed

kuben.9826:

You can obtain EVERY single item via gold.

Stat-wise, nearly all items, some are time gated (ascended -> laurels/guild commendation). As for skins, you definitely cannot get them all simply with gold. Fractals, Wvw, Pvp, dungeon and boss/event skins are all barred from using gold to acquire them.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Definitions, by definition limit words or terms. Words can be and are used to create terms. P2W is a term with a specific meaning. Definitions can certainly evolve. However, in this case, people are trying to adapt the term because of its negative connotation, which is rooted in competition, not in “winning” by getting a rare cosmetic item.

As to your examples:

1. Boosts are irrelevant to P2W in the context of this thread. A case could certainly be made that boosts are P2W, but that’s not what’s being debated here. Gems —-> gold does not enable the purchase of boosts.
2. As to Ascended gear, this gear can be attained in game over time, with no expenditure other than the time to collect everything and a trivial amount of coin. Ergo it does not pass the other test for P2W (cash being the only means to acquire the advantage, or in game methods being so egregiously difficult and/or time consuming as to be unattainable in any realistic time frame. As much as I despise Ascended gear and the laundry list of mats to make it, its proponents argue that it is not that hard to make). At best, purchasing Ascended would be “pay to win sooner.”
3. How is “knowledge about the area” (presumably the dungeon) something that can be purchased?

I just don’t buy into p2w having a set definition that doesn’t evolve and that’s agreed upon. Is there a valid dictionary that says that it’s specifically limited to certain scenarios? Is there a standardized criteria that has been agreed upon that something must meet written somewhere?

I’m really not trying to adapt it to portray a negative connotation. I am simply applying logic to the discussion.

kuben.9826:

kuben.9826:

You can obtain EVERY single item via gold.

Stat-wise, nearly all items, some are time gated (ascended -> laurels/guild commendation). As for skins, you definitely cannot get them all simply with gold. Fractals, Wvw, Pvp, dungeon and boss/event skins are all barred from using gold to acquire them.

I’ve been thinking about this one a little and the only ones I am having issues not finding method of payment for are wvw. One can pay gold to others for dungeon runs. One can pay pvp teams to carry them or pay for custom arenas. One can pay to be run through fractals. One can pay gold to bypass most timegates as well. I just can’t really think of how to pay for a wvw skin aside from paying to transfer to be on winning servers for rewards that are distributed. Idk…there’s probably someway. As they say “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”.

Essence Snow.3194:

I’ve been thinking about this one a little and the only ones I am having issues not finding method of payment for are wvw. One can pay gold to others for dungeon runs. One can pay pvp teams to carry them or pay for custom arenas. One can pay to be run through fractals. One can pay gold to bypass most timegates as well. I just can’t really think of how to pay for a wvw skin aside from paying to transfer to be on winning servers for rewards that are distributed. Idk…there’s probably someway. As they say “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”.

If that’s the case, why even bother playing if you’re going to depend on just about everyone to cradle you through nearly every aspect of the game?

And those are only indirect ways to acquire them. Getting all those skins directly by buying gems > converting to gold > going to x vendor is very much impossible. Fractal wep skins has no such vendor, and all others require indirect means.

Lastly, unless one could successfully convince Anet to re-release discontinued skins (bunny ears, aviator glasses, wide rim glasses, tequatl wings, shattered wings, ect); that’s just pointing out even more how false “the statement” is.

mXz.4512:

If that’s the case, why even bother playing if you’re going to depend on just about everyone to cradle you through nearly every aspect of the game?

And those are only indirect ways to acquire them. Getting all those skins directly by buying gems > converting to gold > going to x vendor is very much impossible. Fractal wep skins has no such vendor, and all others require indirect means.

Lastly, unless one could successfully convince Anet to re-release discontinued skins (bunny ears, aviator glasses, wide rim glasses, tequatl wings, shattered wings, ect); that’s just pointing out even more how false “the statement” is.

I’m not saying I agree or participate in it or not. I’m just saying it’s a thing.

The bit about discontinued items is a good point.

Yes I buy gems to convert it to gold. I use those gold to craft ascended gears and bought me some Foefire weapon for looks. As a matter of fact, I think I’ve used abut 500 bucks from GW2 day 1 until today. Is there a problem there?

I didn’t know you can pay gold to get Luminescent armor, Don’t Tread On Me, Dodgy Crowd and Wicked Rodeo etc

I also didn’t know I win anything at all by spending real money.

“don’t have enough time to farm money for legendary” I would consider it grinding, not farming. But how about this. Instead of only giving the option to buy your things (being it for a legendary or any other items / skins / services / animation (like mail and finisher animations) ) or grind gold for them… Make them also, and best available in the game to play directly for them. Like how it works in most (none F2P) games. Complete a dungeon and get it, or JP x has 5% chance to drop item Y (and so on).

Pretty much boils down to this topic: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/No-grind-philosophy/

But the problem you have now is that if they would remove the gems > gold conversion they would most likely also have to remove the gold > gems conversion.

Now they can always hide behind “but you can get it with gold”, if you grind grind grind. What is fine according to Anet because it does not fit into their no-grind-philosophy.

But without that option it would only be acceptable if the cash-shop would finally become what it should be in a none F2P game. So putting almost everything in the game, only having a few things left in the cash-shop like transferring or full-makeover or race-changer or additional character slots, name-change or maybe even the full game and the expansion or merchandise. But only that sort of ‘out of game’ services and products.

OP you have to understand that :

1. Pay to win is not what you think it is.
2. Anet is a company that’s trying to make money.

phys.7689:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essence Snow.3194:

I see the same faulty premise time and time again, that winning is confined to one objective only. Winning it completely dependent on the goal at hand. If the goal is building a better sandcastle, then tools that help achieve such, help in winning. If the goal is to knock out an opponent, then brass knuckles help in winning. If the goal finishing an achievement, then ofc anything that aided in such helped to win. It’s very simple logic.

To be replaced with your faulty premise that all competitive play is now being compressed into a single objective? Pay-to-win should be reserved to subjects that involve competitive play. As such, it should be reserved for things which can be purchased that provide a numerical advantage.

Pay-to-win is a term that has a stigma in western gaming culture. Those seeking to expand the definition to encompass anything they dislike about a game’s payment options are seeking to use that stigma to shame the developer into removing any and all for-cash options they dislike.

As to "simple logic,’ the logical extension of a process by which more and more pay options get stigmatized is that any optional payment features put in by a developer will be pay-to-win.

Dislike gems —> gold all you like. However, in changing the definition of a pejorative term to suit your point because the term is a bugaboo, all you’re doing is distracting the discussion from the real issues.

short version, we should create a new term to define that type of system? a Rose by any other name? still the same is it not?

Honestly at this point, from a semantic standpoint, the word may evolve, this debate that comes up constantly is because some people are evolving the word, and others dont think it should evolve in that direction.

essentially this is a war on word definition, that will basically be decided by consensus at some later date.
but really it doesnt matter what word we use.

the crux of the matter is some people are disatisfied with being able to gain things built to be obtained in the game world with money from outside the game.

the OP proposes to remove that functionality to solve the debate.

i think that while the issue at hand is worth discussing, i think the solution presented, really has no chance of happening.

Quick question: why do you care or should you care, how the person next to you obtained his gear? Are you paying attention to everyone around you, looking at their gear to find which one looks good and which is not and then feel jealous you don’t have it?

Why does the method of obtaining a cool looking skin by someone else matters to you? And why should it?

If there is a problem with getting items through real money, then what about low random chances? If someone is upset the person next to them got an expensive skin paying with real money, then shouldn’t he also be upset if said person got it through seer luck?

kuben.9826:

You can obtain EVERY single item via gold. its not having overpowerd eq like in f2ps, but you still have advantage if You earn a lot IRL. If You earn a lot IRL you’re a boss IRL. Same with games. why RL money should make You a boss in a game? Does game currency make You a boss IRL?
P.S. I work, study and still have time to play enough and dont spend RL money on game

Clearly you are harbouring a inferiority complexity. Like everyone in this forum has pointed out just having flashy items does not equal them having an advantage. Go whine about this stuff some where else.

A short definition of “pay2win-Games” from Urban Dictionary:
Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.

You can neither buy better gear nor can you craft them faster as anyone actually playing the game. Even if you buy the best gear (i.e. legendary weapons) then you’re still not stronger as someone with ascended gear. You may look more shiny but that’s about it. So there’s also no imbalance given.

Side note: You would even have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to get legendary weapons.

So, OP, there is absolutely no p2w given here.

p2ls (pay to look shiny) maybe but it’s not for the win

Not even the “boosters” in the shop will give you advantages to someone actually knowing how to handle his character by playing for a while.

BUT
the topic is interesting anyways since:

- ANet makes money with the shop
- ANet only makes money if people buy gems for real cash, not for gold.
- This said, giving tons of gold to players actually harms their own income.
- Because they don’t want to destroy their income, RNGesus does not listen to your prayers.
- Drops are not worth a lot.

so IF (and that’s a big, big IF) ANet removes the gold→gem conversion and people had to actually spend real cash to get gem store stuff, ingame drops could be way better and everyone could have one or two legendary weapons easily, because it does not matter if people are hoarding gold. Traders could not buy fancy costumes, not even with 1000s and millions of gold.
But as long as gold interferes with ANets monthly income, you will always find gold sinks and RNGesus mechanisms all over the game.

Just my 2 cents…

Behellagh.1468:

Without gems to gold, the price for gold to gems would keep rising. It’s the selling of gems for gold that helps keep that rate in partial check. And since the exchange doesn’t create gold but actually sink gold like the TP, it’s not inflationary either.

Actually, no. Without gems to gold, the price of gold to gems would go to infinity, since there would be no more gems in the market. Gems → gold = gold → gems. When you buy gems with gold, you’re buying the gems from a player who’s buying gold with gems. Take one away and the other disappears.

Without gems → gold, the only way to get gem shop items would be by paying Anet RL $$$. Gems → gold is what enables you to buy gem store items with in-game gold instead of having to fork over $$$. Someone else forks over the $$$ to Anet to buy gems, and you fork over your gold to him to buy the gems from him.

And GW2 is P2W only if you consider it to be a MMOFS. Massively Multiplayer Online Fashion Show.

I think you are overly concerned with things other people do and their wallets.

Schumi.4285:

…

BUT
the topic is interesting anyways since:

- ANet makes money with the shop
- ANet only makes money if people buy gems for real cash, not for gold.
- This said, giving tons of gold to players actually harms their own income.
- Because they don’t want to destroy their income, RNGesus does not listen to your prayers.
- Drops are not worth a lot.

so IF (and that’s a big, big IF) ANet removes the gold->gem conversion and people had to actually spend real cash to get gem store stuff, ingame drops could be way better and everyone could have one or two legendary weapons easily, because it does not matter if people are hoarding gold. Traders could not buy fancy costumes, not even with 1000s and millions of gold.
But as long as gold interferes with ANets monthly income, you will always find gold sinks and RNGesus mechanisms all over the game.

Just my 2 cents…

You do know that the gold -> gem and gem -> gold ratios are affected by how much players trade in either direction? If you trade gold -> gem you basically buy the gems that someone else traded gem -> gold.

If they removed the currency-exchange, then most players that want to buy everything with farmed gold will think twice before buying anything in the gemshop. The amount of money spent on gems in this group would slightly rise, however I could also see many players boycotting the forced credit-card draw.

On the other side of the exchange the players that have more money than free time won’t be able to get gold for their money anymore. That’d be one huge reason less to buy gems. The amount of money spent on gems in this group would drastically decrease. I could also imagine many of these players leaving the game because they can no longer afford the items they want.

The current system is a win-win situation for both, players that want to be able to get everything by farming gold and players that want the shortcut by paying money. Especially since the current system generates neither gold, nor gems. It only exchanges them from one player to another (although it’s an indirect trade via a pool of available gems and gold).

tl;dr No, don’t disable it!

I think disabling gems > gold would enable real money traders further if I’m being honest.

If you take away the players ability to get easy money through ways that don’t violate the games terms of service it can cause some problematic issues.

If you’re sick of gold sellers sending you messages now you’d be in for it a lot more. I’ve played MMOs where there was no premium currency you could trade for in game currency and the RMT harass you constantly.

Not to mention, if Anet removed this some would succumb to the temptation of buying from gold sellers and it could result in their accounts getting compromised. (Be it stolen or banned.)

I’d much rather Arena Net have this option than it not to exist at all. Every person in my Guild converts gems > gold for quick money and there’s nothing wrong with it!

cerisebarradin.5639:

I think disabling gems > gold would enable real money traders further if I’m being honest.

If you take away the players ability to get easy money through ways that don’t violate the games terms of service it can cause some problematic issues.

If you’re sick of gold sellers sending you messages now you’d be in for it a lot more. I’ve played MMOs where there was no premium currency you could trade for in game currency and the RMT harass you constantly.

Not to mention, if Anet removed this some would succumb to the temptation of buying from gold sellers and it could result in their accounts getting compromised. (Be it stolen or banned.)

I’d much rather Arena Net have this option than it not to exist at all. Every person in my Guild converts gems > gold for quick money and there’s nothing wrong with it!

I’ve always hated that they allowed it and tradable precursors and legendary weapons. I consider in-game gold something you only acquire in game and I’ve never converted my gems to gold. The in-game “economy” is designed to foster gem sales and the game’s worse for it.

/Rant

Essence Snow.3194:

I just don’t buy into p2w having a set definition that doesn’t evolve and that’s agreed upon. Is there a valid dictionary that says that it’s specifically limited to certain scenarios? Is there a standardized criteria that has been agreed upon that something must meet written somewhere?

I’m really not trying to adapt it to portray a negative connotation. I am simply applying logic to the discussion.
—

Good luck with that. For most people definition means same as their own opinion.

I have actually researched this quite a bit and checked dozens of p2w discussions on various games. To conclude, p2w means same as “artificial difficulty” or “cheap tactics”. It’s just something which the person doesn’t personally like.

Disablind gem to gold = rise gold selling sites

Never going to happen.

End of topic.

Toodles.

The other thing that invalidates a comparison beyween D3 and GW2 s that buying the gear in d3 gave you a substantial in game advantage over other players in that you would be able to plqy at the higher levels of the game. In effect you had access to the levels where the best loot was thus allowing you to confer on yourself a monetary advantage through the outlay of real life cash over those who did not pay.

You can pay money to get you the gold to buy the stuff to make your ascended armour but that conferred no advantage over those players who didn’t because they are still able to make their ascended armour just at a slower rate.

Azrael.4960:

The other thing that invalidates a comparison beyween D3 and GW2 s that buying the gear in d3 gave you a substantial in game advantage over other players in that you would be able to plqy at the higher levels of the game. In effect you had access to the levels where the best loot was thus allowing you to confer on yourself a monetary advantage through the outlay of real life cash over those who did not pay.

You can pay money to get you the gold to buy the stuff to make your ascended armour but that conferred no advantage over those players who didn’t because they are still able to make their ascended armour just at a slower rate.

Exactly the other point. They hoarded all the top gear, sold it for top dollar. If you wanted to get ahead you had to pay practically out the kitten to get ahead, till they stomped on that idea. Those with money or ultra ultra lucky on drops made tons and enjoyed the game more so than others because the market was crashing.

AS someone who played it heavily from day 1, and ended up in t6 within a week of ROS opening, i was glad it went away but that killed it for a lot of people

maddoctor.2738:

Quick question: why do you care or should you care, how the person next to you obtained his gear? Are you paying attention to everyone around you, looking at their gear to find which one looks good and which is not and then feel jealous you don’t have it?

Why does the method of obtaining a cool looking skin by someone else matters to you? And why should it?

If there is a problem with getting items through real money, then what about low random chances? If someone is upset the person next to them got an expensive skin paying with real money, then shouldn’t he also be upset if said person got it through seer luck?

i personally am not that concerned by it, unless the design of aquisition through normal means gets effected by the monetization strategy.

However, its not really true that people who do feel that way do not have a valid point. Playing a social game means having many players, and at its very fabric, a game must have people playing by the same ruleset. Outworld money for ingame objectives basically works outside the ruleset of the game.
spoiler for a long story of a past situation
PSO...One of my first online games was phantasy star online, I loved the game, however it was insanely riddled with cheaters. It was probably like 80-90% of the online population that cheated or used items obtained from cheating. This essentially changed the game. The main focus was on obtaining rare special items, so everyone having access to these rare items, totally changed the game. Theoretically trading items was supposed to be a thing, but why trade that item you worked hours on for that hacked item? Basically i played with a smaller subset of people, in passworded rooms, who didnt cheat. We had fun hunting rare items. But we essentially had to section ourselves off from most of the social gameworld. Only trading/playing with "legits"

So yea, out of game means of achieving ingame goals, does have an effect, you can choose to ignore it, but it by its very nature changes the way the game is experienced.

In the case of luck, luck is defined within the game system, everyone (should) have the same chances. A person getting lucky, is an expression of the game world ruleset. A person winning a huge pot at the roulette table is beating the casino, other gamblers respect that he is playing the same game as them. A guy buying a whole bunch of chips and not gambling, isnt really a part of the world.

Now in this case, i think the fact that its an exchange makes it a little better, the value they get is based on how much value people in game think it has. But mostly, i am not playing the game that socially, so other people arent as important to me. But in an MMO the goal isnt really to be asocial eh?

I think buy doing this you would actually damage the game and it’s development. We have to remember that GW2 is not a subscription game, so once the initial purchase of the game is done, ANET only gain additional money through gem purchases.

Without that extra income, Anet probably wouldn’t be able to hire so many staff which means we can say good-bye to living story and expansions would be bashed out as quickly as possible with a lot of shortcuts taken and not half as good as they could be…

All in all, this gets a -1 from me. Sorry!

Why are we even caring about stupid post like that?

Lytalm.5673:

Why are we even caring about stupid post like that?

Grrrr, i really wanna tell you off for not being constructive… but, I agree lol

This mechanic pays for the game your playing.