Kaiser.9873 Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 > @"Skeletor.9360" said: > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > @"Skeletor.9360" said: > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > @"Aleen.8561" said: > > > > > On a serious note, this is a b2p game, what have you expected? In most cases such games have expansions that come out once in a while, and you need to buy them for extra content. By the way, if you're a casual player, that doesn't get bored with the regular content, so you don't want to buy expansions, you don't have to be the meta in WvW ;) Leave it to hardcore players that strive for the glory. > > > > > > > > Good post to bump. **This is a buy to play game.** If you want to continue playing old content, that is your choice. You are not impacted in your ability to play through all the old content if you do not get an expansion - hence not p2w. WvW contains new content (where you end up fighting against expansion specs) and it is unreasonable to expect the ability to play through new content without buying it. The fact that you get access to fight against the new specs in WvW without the expansion means you're being given partial access to new content for free. > > > > > > Actually you made my point. I AM impacted by the new content. ALL of my original toons are inferior to new ones. So it is 100% pay to win. I don't "get" to play against players with better abilities...I am forced to. How about this. Make WvW only classic abilities. Then it is even. You still have those skills for PVE which is what the expansion is about. OR maybe add something for WvW. > > > > You are NOT impacted in playing core content. That is what you paid for. Stop arguing that you somehow deserve to do well in new content you didn't even pay for. > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > @"Skeletor.9360" said: > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > @"Aleen.8561" said: > > > > > On a serious note, this is a b2p game, what have you expected? In most cases such games have expansions that come out once in a while, and you need to buy them for extra content. By the way, if you're a casual player, that doesn't get bored with the regular content, so you don't want to buy expansions, you don't have to be the meta in WvW ;) Leave it to hardcore players that strive for the glory. > > > > > > > > Good post to bump. **This is a buy to play game.** If you want to continue playing old content, that is your choice. You are not impacted in your ability to play through all the old content if you do not get an expansion - hence not p2w. WvW contains new content (where you end up fighting against expansion specs) and it is unreasonable to expect the ability to play through new content without buying it. The fact that you get access to fight against the new specs in WvW without the expansion means you're being given partial access to new content for free. > > > > > > Actually you made my point. I AM impacted by the new content. ALL of my original toons are inferior to new ones. So it is 100% pay to win. I don't "get" to play against players with better abilities...I am forced to. How about this. Make WvW only classic abilities. Then it is even. You still have those skills for PVE which is what the expansion is about. OR maybe add something for WvW. > > > > You are NOT impacted in playing core content. That is what you paid for. Stop arguing that you somehow deserve to do well in new content you didn't even pay for. > > Other players with better skills is not new content. Therte is NO new content for a WvW player. That is why. Period end of story. With that logic they could have just removed skills from non-upgraded accounts and then you'd be saying I was playing new content because I bought back my skills....get a clue. Here's what I'm hearing. "I am entitled to everything regardless of whether I support the game at all." Expacs, and new content are generally something ALL games put out in order to raise new revenue. You don't want the new content? Great. Core Warrior, Core Thief, Core Mesmer, Core Guard, Core Ranger, etc are all still playable, usable, and can be strong if played well. You want a buy to play game that you don't have to buy. This is not happening, and complaining about it makes you look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 > @"MachineManXX.9746" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness. > > > > Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2. > > > > The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in. > > > > > It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is. > > > > I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases. > > > > So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.) > > > > Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not? > > > > > Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way. > > > > The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with. > > It seems to me you are arguing, just for the sake of arguing. If every game you have ever played is pay to win, then the way you use the term has no meaning. If every game ever played was pay to win, why would the term even be brought up? We are obviously discussing something different. Now, if you choose to open your eyes and realize this discussion is about something different than your self imposed literal definition, then maybe you would have something meaningful to add. I'm not arguing at all anymore. I don't agree with your definition. My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others. In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions. If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current. In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win. Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before. The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 Anyone who considers a $30 xpac, released every couple years, as “pay to win” is being silly. It’s almost 2020 people... if you can afford to have internet, a gaming computer and spend time gaming, then you can afford a minuscule amount to update the game and support the studio... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. > > > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. > > > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. > > > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. > > > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. > > But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others. > > In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions. > > If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current. > > In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win. > > Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before. > > The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point. You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view. Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X. You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question. What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions? What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineManXX.9746 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"MachineManXX.9746" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness. > > > > > > Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2. > > > > > > The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in. > > > > > > > It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is. > > > > > > I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases. > > > > > > So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.) > > > > > > Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not? > > > > > > > Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way. > > > > > > The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with. > > > > It seems to me you are arguing, just for the sake of arguing. If every game you have ever played is pay to win, then the way you use the term has no meaning. If every game ever played was pay to win, why would the term even be brought up? We are obviously discussing something different. Now, if you choose to open your eyes and realize this discussion is about something different than your self imposed literal definition, then maybe you would have something meaningful to add. > > I'm not arguing at all anymore. I don't agree with your definition. My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. Actually Vayne, I was agreeing with you, though that may not have been clear in my post. It seems to me that Israel is arguing for the sake of arguing. Every game that is not 100% free, is then pay to win by the literal definition. But the literal definition is just semantics and has nothing to do with the generally accepted meaning of "pay to win". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"MachineManXX.9746" said: > generally accepted meaning of "pay to win". There doesn't appear to be any generally accepted meaning. Instead there seems to be some nebulous sense of what qualifies based on what appears to me to be personal taste. So for example, Vayne happens to think 50 dollars a month qualifies as pay to win but another person might consider that to be an entirely reasonable expense. Arbitrary: adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. > > > > > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. > > > > > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. > > > > > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. > > > > > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. > > > > But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others. > > > > In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions. > > > > If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current. > > > > In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win. > > > > Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before. > > > > The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point. > > You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view. > > Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X. > > You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question. > > What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions? > > What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that? Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure. I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a damn poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"MachineManXX.9746" said: > > generally accepted meaning of "pay to win". > > There doesn't appear to be any generally accepted meaning. Instead there seems to be some nebulous sense of what qualifies based on what appears to me to be personal taste. > > So for example, Vayne happens to think 50 dollars a month qualifies as pay to win but another person might consider that to be an entirely reasonable expense. > > Arbitrary: > adjective > based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Nope it's not the case here. I'm saying most people don't include expansions in the pay to win definition full stop. No money involved. Expansions are not considered or haven't traditionally been considered pay to win for as long as I've been playing MMOs, which is a pretty long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineManXX.9746 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"MachineManXX.9746" said: > > generally accepted meaning of "pay to win". > > There doesn't appear to be any generally accepted meaning. Instead there seems to be some nebulous sense of what qualifies based on what appears to me to be personal taste. > > So for example, Vayne happens to think 50 dollars a month qualifies as pay to win but another person might consider that to be an entirely reasonable expense. > > Arbitrary: > adjective > based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Well, expansions are generally accepted as not pay to win, more like pay to play. If there was a mini sidekick that you could only acquire with real life cash, that would follow you around in pvp or wvw and buff or heal you, then that would generally be accepted as pay to win, regardless of cost. Cost does not seem to be the deciding factor, rather the method of acquirement and competitive advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure. So would you consider buying BiS gear from another player for real money to be a form of pay to win? If not, don't you think a lot of redditers might consider that to be pay to win? > I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a kitten poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess. I'm not contesting what redditers think I'll take your word for it. What I find mind boggling here is that you concede that expansions usually raise your power level so to speak and that they cost money to buy but that they still don't count. That seems to me to be a clear inconsistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"MachineManXX.9746" said: >Cost does not seem to be the deciding factor, rather the method of acquirement and competitive advantage. I agree that it seems to conceptually be about paying for a competitive advantage. I don't really understand why the method would matter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Player.9621 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 op wants the whole game to change just incase he might want to randomly and casually drop into wvw some day total troll 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure. > > So would you consider buying BiS gear from another player for real money to be a form of pay to win? > > If not, don't you think a lot of redditers might consider that to be pay to win? > > > I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a kitten poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess. > > I'm not contesting what redditers think I'll take your word for it. > > What I find mind boggling here is that you concede that expansions usually raise your power level so to speak and that they cost money to buy but that they still don't count. That seems to me to be a clear inconsistency. > It's not an inconsistency. It has to do with the way the term has developed. For years, pretty much since the beginning, the level cap went up with MMOs and people got more powerful with those expansions. This was normal. This is what people accepted, because it's been like that as long as we can remember. But then other MMOs started coming out that did things differently. They started being "free to play" instead of having a subscription but they started adding things to the cash shop that seemed distinctly uncomfortable. The expansions, having always been there, weren't an issue for anyone and people didn't complain about them. It was how the whole system was set up and we all knew and agreed by that standard. But the new stuff, selling power in the cash shop that continually changed, or having to buy potions you needed to revive or have more power, that sort of thing we hadn't had to deal with. Those games, like Maple Story, were called pay to win. I think most of the Perfect World games fell into that category. Looking back to you it may seem inconsistent, but back then, no one would consider not buying an expansion and keeping on playing an MMO anyway. We were buying the expansion to further our story, and move forward into the world, so whatever power creep their was was just part of continuing the game. Looking back, sure it looks the same. But from our perspective of when the term came out, we used it to differentiate games that sold expansions which included as part of that some sort of power creep and games that just sold power, in and of itself, separately, or ways to get that power. Within that aspect, there were degrees of course, and some might consider one thing pay to win and another not. But no one was using the term pay to win to talk about the games we were already playing. We were using them to talk about the games coming out that did things differently, that we felt was different. Obviously giving us a whole new segment of story, along with new skills and stats...well that was the game itself.. You either stayed with the game and supported it, or you were left behind. We all bought into that, before the term P2W came to be, and P2W was used to point out games that did something other than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. > > > > > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. > > > > > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. > > > > > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. > > > > > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. > > > > But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others. > > > > In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions. > > > > If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current. > > > > In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win. > > > > Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before. > > > > The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point. > > You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view. > > Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X. > > You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question. > > What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions? > > What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that? I’m going to comment on this specifically... “You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view.” Vayne’s comments were pretty easy to comprehend, it’s just that you’re more interested in arguing and redefining the words “pay to win”... Sorry, but the majority in the gaming community understands that game companies release paid xpacs/add-on packs that provide various “extras”... Whether it be level increases, new classes, weapons... or you name it... to update the game. The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs. Again, you’re only interested in arguing and redefining words just because there is some monetary requirement involved along the chain, but your efforts aren’t going to change the meaning of “pay to win” as most of us know it. Rational minded people know that not everything is free, and that a company like Anet has treated their customers fairly and avoided shady cash grab practices... unlike some other companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure. > > > > So would you consider buying BiS gear from another player for real money to be a form of pay to win? > > > > If not, don't you think a lot of redditers might consider that to be pay to win? > > > > > I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a kitten poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess. > > > > I'm not contesting what redditers think I'll take your word for it. > > > > What I find mind boggling here is that you concede that expansions usually raise your power level so to speak and that they cost money to buy but that they still don't count. That seems to me to be a clear inconsistency. > > > > It's not an inconsistency. It has to do with the way the term has developed. For years, pretty much since the beginning, the level cap went up with MMOs and people got more powerful with those expansions. This was normal. This is what people accepted, because it's been like that as long as we can remember. > > But then other MMOs started coming out that did things differently. They started being "free to play" instead of having a subscription but they started adding things to the cash shop that seemed distinctly uncomfortable. The expansions, having always been there, weren't an issue for anyone and people didn't complain about them. It was how the whole system was set up and we all knew and agreed by that standard. > > But the new stuff, selling power in the cash shop that continually changed, or having to buy potions you needed to revive or have more power, that sort of thing we hadn't had to deal with. Those games, like Maple Story, were called pay to win. I think most of the Perfect World games fell into that category. Looking back to you it may seem inconsistent, but back then, no one would consider not buying an expansion and keeping on playing an MMO anyway. We were buying the expansion to further our story, and move forward into the world, so whatever power creep their was was just part of continuing the game. > > Looking back, sure it looks the same. But from our perspective of when the term came out, we used it to differentiate games that sold expansions which included as part of that some sort of power creep and games that just sold power, in and of itself, separately, or ways to get that power. Within that aspect, there were degrees of course, and some might consider one thing pay to win and another not. But no one was using the term pay to win to talk about the games we were already playing. We were using them to talk about the games coming out that did things differently, that we felt was different. Obviously giving us a whole new segment of story, along with new skills and stats...well that was the game itself.. You either stayed with the game and supported it, or you were left behind. We all bought into that, before the term P2W came to be, and P2W was used to point out games that did something other than that. Alright a very helpful post thank you. Before I attempt to unpack all that I want to know your thoughts on the scenario I posed in my previous post where a player pays another player(s) for high grade gear or BiS gear in order to have an immense competitive advantage over other players who dont have that level of gear. I'm thinking now of games like aion and archeage that allowed this sort of behavior at least when I was playing them. Would you consider that kind of behavior "pay to win?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. > > > > > > > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. > > > > > > > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. > > > > > > > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. > > > > > > > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. > > > > > > But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others. > > > > > > In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions. > > > > > > If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current. > > > > > > In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win. > > > > > > Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before. > > > > > > The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point. > > > > You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view. > > > > Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X. > > > > You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question. > > > > What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions? > > > > What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that? > > I’m going to comment on this specifically... > > “You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view.” > > Vayne’s comments were pretty easy to comprehend, it’s just that you’re more interested in arguing and redefining the words “pay to win”... > > Sorry, but the majority in the gaming community understands that game companies release paid xpacs/add-on packs that provide various “extras”... Whether it be level increases, new classes, weapons... or you name it... to update the game. The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs. > > Again, you’re only interested in arguing and redefining words, but your efforts aren’t going to change the meaning of “pay to win” as most of us know it. > > Did you happen to read his follow up post and see how muddled the reasoning is? He seems well intentioned but his posts read like a logic textbook example of special pleading. "It's similar granted but it's ok because we've always been ok with it so it doesn't count." "We need to preserve the term to have a name to call gaming practices we don't agree with." Textbook special pleading. What the majority thinks or doesn't think is logically irrelevant. A=A regardless of how many people think otherwise. You and many others may be totally comfortable twisting yourselves into a mental pretzel to try to justify an exception without any clear logical distinction but I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: >The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs. I missed this part. To me all online games are like poker in that there's always a buy in. The buy in changes depending on the game so I just need to be clear going in what the buy in is going to be so I can determine whether or not I can afford to stay competitive over the long run. I can usually look at a game for a few days and get a very clear sense what the buy in is going to be, but sometimes not. If I think the buy in is more than I can afford I don't play the game. If there are people who want to spend real money to buy statistical advantages or whatever other thing to have a competitive advantage in a game that offers them whether it be from a cash shop or from one another I don't care that's all fine with me. I just don't play that kind of game. Simple as that. With GW2 I have an understanding that I'm probably going to need to drop 60 dollars every few years to stay competitive even though I don't care about the story or anything other than WvW. I can afford that buy in so I keep playing GW2. But I don't delude myself into thinking I'm not paying money for a competitive advantage over the people who don't pay the buy in. I know I am and it's ok, I'll run over those people all day and not think twice about it because I paid for that advantage and they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience. > > > > > > > > > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own. > > > > > > > > > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is. > > > > > > > > > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not. > > > > > > > > > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp. > > > > > > > > But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others. > > > > > > > > In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions. > > > > > > > > If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current. > > > > > > > > In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win. > > > > > > > > Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before. > > > > > > > > The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point. > > > > > > You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view. > > > > > > Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X. > > > > > > You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question. > > > > > > What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions? > > > > > > What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that? > > > > I’m going to comment on this specifically... > > > > “You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view.” > > > > Vayne’s comments were pretty easy to comprehend, it’s just that you’re more interested in arguing and redefining the words “pay to win”... > > > > Sorry, but the majority in the gaming community understands that game companies release paid xpacs/add-on packs that provide various “extras”... Whether it be level increases, new classes, weapons... or you name it... to update the game. The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs. > > > > Again, you’re only interested in arguing and redefining words, but your efforts aren’t going to change the meaning of “pay to win” as most of us know it. > > > > > > Did you happen to read his follow up post and see how muddled the reasoning is? He seems well intentioned but his posts read like a logic textbook example of special pleading. "It's similar granted but it's ok because we've always been ok with it so it doesn't count." "We need to preserve the term to have a name to call gaming practices we don't agree with." Textbook special pleading. > > What the majority thinks or doesn't think is logically irrelevant. A=A regardless of how many people think otherwise. > > You and many others may be totally comfortable twisting yourselves into a mental pretzel to try to justify an exception without any clear logical distinction but I'm not. > The OP, and seems like you too, basically want free “stuff” by the looks of it, so you paint a paid xpac as “pay to win”. The OP could have easily asked that anet unlock all elites inside of wvw for any player that bought the original game, not make up stuff and accuse Anet of “pay to win” practices... just because they want things handed out free... Instead of the request being honest and transparent, people want twist the charging of an xpac into some immoral practice by a game company... in reality it’s just someone being cheap and feeling entitled to some free stuff. The entire argument is petty and unreasonable. And Vayne doesn't need to do mental gymnastics to prove any point, it’s just that you want to make this into some moral and philosophical argument because cash is used during the process, and need simple concepts over-explained to you... If you want free stuff just ask for it, don’t be silly about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure. > > > > > > So would you consider buying BiS gear from another player for real money to be a form of pay to win? > > > > > > If not, don't you think a lot of redditers might consider that to be pay to win? > > > > > > > I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a kitten poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess. > > > > > > I'm not contesting what redditers think I'll take your word for it. > > > > > > What I find mind boggling here is that you concede that expansions usually raise your power level so to speak and that they cost money to buy but that they still don't count. That seems to me to be a clear inconsistency. > > > > > > > It's not an inconsistency. It has to do with the way the term has developed. For years, pretty much since the beginning, the level cap went up with MMOs and people got more powerful with those expansions. This was normal. This is what people accepted, because it's been like that as long as we can remember. > > > > But then other MMOs started coming out that did things differently. They started being "free to play" instead of having a subscription but they started adding things to the cash shop that seemed distinctly uncomfortable. The expansions, having always been there, weren't an issue for anyone and people didn't complain about them. It was how the whole system was set up and we all knew and agreed by that standard. > > > > But the new stuff, selling power in the cash shop that continually changed, or having to buy potions you needed to revive or have more power, that sort of thing we hadn't had to deal with. Those games, like Maple Story, were called pay to win. I think most of the Perfect World games fell into that category. Looking back to you it may seem inconsistent, but back then, no one would consider not buying an expansion and keeping on playing an MMO anyway. We were buying the expansion to further our story, and move forward into the world, so whatever power creep their was was just part of continuing the game. > > > > Looking back, sure it looks the same. But from our perspective of when the term came out, we used it to differentiate games that sold expansions which included as part of that some sort of power creep and games that just sold power, in and of itself, separately, or ways to get that power. Within that aspect, there were degrees of course, and some might consider one thing pay to win and another not. But no one was using the term pay to win to talk about the games we were already playing. We were using them to talk about the games coming out that did things differently, that we felt was different. Obviously giving us a whole new segment of story, along with new skills and stats...well that was the game itself.. You either stayed with the game and supported it, or you were left behind. We all bought into that, before the term P2W came to be, and P2W was used to point out games that did something other than that. > > Alright a very helpful post thank you. > > Before I attempt to unpack all that I want to know your thoughts on the scenario I posed in my previous post where a player pays another player(s) for high grade gear or BiS gear in order to have an immense competitive advantage over other players who dont have that level of gear. I'm thinking now of games like aion and archeage that allowed this sort of behavior at least when I was playing them. Would you consider that kind of behavior "pay to win?" I don't know the specifics of it in detail enough to answer, but if you're paying real life money for a power advantage, continually, just as power, yeah, I think I would call that pay to win. But I don't want to malign any game without knowing first hand what I'm talking about, so let's keep it hypothetical. We're expected to pay for expansions as part of the ongoing maintenance of the game. Those expansions, therefore, can include power creep, which almost all do, because players want to progress. They want to get stronger/better/more power. It's the nature of people. Progression is what drives MMOs. We've bought into a word/lore/story and now we're paying to continue that and because we're expected to do that, they can raise the player power. But when a company offers just power as a seperate purchase, or something that makes it a lot easier to get power, or disadvantages you if you don't buy that specifically, I'd call that pay to win. And I'd call a company where players can sell each other stuff for real money pay to win as well... theoretically. Obviously, each situation would have be judged differently and different people will have different lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > The OP, and seems like you too, basically want free “stuff” by the looks of it, so you paint a paid xpac as “pay to win”. The OP could have easily asked that anet unlock all elites inside of wvw for any player that bought the original game, not make up stuff and accuse Anet of “pay to win” practices... just because they want things handed out free... Here you go again trying to read into someone else's motives. I've told you before and I'll tell you again that's a very poor argumentation strategy. I don't want anything for free and I'm not accusing Anet of anything. I've been playing MMOs for a long time I know the drill. I knew going in I'd have to spend money to stay competitive and I figured at the time that I could afford it and so far I've been right. I'm just not going to pretend that I'm not paying to win to make myself feel good. I am and it's fine. > Instead of the request being honest and transparent, people want twist the charging of an xpac into some immoral practice by a game company... in reality it’s just someone being cheap and feeling entitled to some free stuff. The entire argument is petty and unreasonable. Where did I say that I thought paying to win was immoral? > And Vayne doesn't need to do mental gymnastics to prove any point, it’s just that you want to make this into some moral and philosophical argument because cash is used during the process, and need simple concepts over-explained to you... If you want free stuff just ask for it, don’t be silly about it. I think I'm the one explaining a simple concept over and over. A=A. Expansions are a form of pay to win because I'm paying real money to gain a competitive advantage over those who don't and stay even with those who do. He's even granted that and just said "well we've always been ok with that because it's always been expected." Ok but it's still a form of pay to win because I'm still paying to stay competitive, particularly in GW2 where someone like me only buys expacs for the elite specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > >The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs. > > I missed this part. > > To me all online games are like poker in that there's always a buy in. The buy in changes depending on the game so I just need to be clear going in what the buy in is going to be so I can determine whether or not I can afford to stay competitive over the long run. I can usually look at a game for a few days and get a very clear sense what the buy in is going to be, but sometimes not. If I think the buy in is more than I can afford I don't play the game. If there are people who want to spend real money to buy statistical advantages or whatever other thing to have a competitive advantage in a game that offers them whether it be from a cash shop or from one another I don't care that's all fine with me. I just don't play that kind of game. Simple as that. > > With GW2 I have an understanding that I'm probably going to need to drop 60 dollars every few years to stay competitive even though I don't care about the story or anything other than WvW. I can afford that buy in so I keep playing GW2. But I don't delude myself into thinking I'm not paying money for a competitive advantage over the people who don't pay the buy in. I know I am and it's ok, I'll run over those people all day and not think twice about it because I paid for that advantage and they didn't. And in my mind anyone who's serious about a game and gets 2 years out of it for $60, should be happy getting two years out of it. Except it's $50 now for both expacs with all elite specs. So if they get $25 a year for a game, you know that's the cost of entrance. The problem is you're viewing an MMO as a driving game, or a shoot em up. It's not. It's an ongoing game that requires ongoing maintenance. Whether you care about the story or don't, the game isn't based around PvP. It's based around the story and the world and the lore. It's the main selling point of the game. You can buy a season pass to Disneyworld, but if you only ride rollercoasters, you're not going to get the full value of the membership. You can decide if that's worth it or not. If it's not worth it, you can pay to play it for a limited time and bow out when an expansion comes out. But you can't play an everchanging game forever for free. And that's the issue. Buy a driving game and they don't have 300 plus devs sitting there getting paid every month. Those people need to be paid from somewhere. Paid expansions get the game's name back out there, give the game an influx of funds to keep the game going. And when you play ANY MMO, you should be knowing that buy in exists, because that's how it's always been...for every MMO I've ever played. It's when you're forced to buy stuff in between for real life cash JUST to stay competitive that the real issue arises. And that line will be different for different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > The OP, and seems like you too, basically want free “stuff” by the looks of it, so you paint a paid xpac as “pay to win”. The OP could have easily asked that anet unlock all elites inside of wvw for any player that bought the original game, not make up stuff and accuse Anet of “pay to win” practices... just because they want things handed out free... > > Here you go again trying to read into someone else's motives. I've told you before and I'll tell you again that's a very poor argumentation strategy. > > I don't want anything for free and I'm not accusing Anet of anything. I've been playing MMOs for a long time I know the drill. I knew going in I'd have to spend money to stay competitive and I figured at the time that I could afford it and so far I've been right. I'm just not going to pretend that I'm not paying to win to make myself feel good. I am and it's fine. > > > Instead of the request being honest and transparent, people want twist the charging of an xpac into some immoral practice by a game company... in reality it’s just someone being cheap and feeling entitled to some free stuff. The entire argument is petty and unreasonable. > > Where did I say that I thought paying to win was immoral? > > > And Vayne doesn't need to do mental gymnastics to prove any point, it’s just that you want to make this into some moral and philosophical argument because cash is used during the process, and need simple concepts over-explained to you... If you want free stuff just ask for it, don’t be silly about it. > > I think I'm the one explaining a simple concept over and over. A=A. Expansions are a form of pay to win because I'm paying real money to gain a competitive advantage over those who don't and stay even with those who do. He's even granted that and just said "well we've always been ok with that because it's always been expected." > > Ok but it's still a form of pay to win because I'm still paying to stay competitive, particularly in GW2 where someone like me only buys expacs for the elite specs. > Love to see you to take up this “paid mmo xpacs are pay to win practices” with Anet... From Mike O’Brien... https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license “Hi, We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment...” Pretty sure the consensus among most gamers on what “pay to win” means wouldn’t include paid mmo expansions... That argument usually comes from players wanting, or feel entitled to, more free stuff from a company... Again, the OP could have just asked for elites to be unlocked in wvw, not create some over dramatic and misleading title and thread. Silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > From Mike O’Brien... > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license > > “Hi, > We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment...” > > Pretty sure the consensus among most gamers on what “pay to win” means wouldn’t include paid mmo expansions... That argument usually comes from players wanting, or feel entitled to, more free stuff from a company... > > Again, the OP could have just asked for elites to be unlocked in wvw, not create some over dramatic and misleading title and thread. Silly... > > Again i say to you that consensus is logically irrelevant. It might be an effective rhetorical device to appeal to the crowd for confirmation but logic doesn't care about what crowds think. The way you seem to think about argumentation is also incredibly cynical and I've seen you approach discussions like this before. You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a bad actor. This is a bad way to approach a discussion in my opinion. I feel neither entitled to anything in GW2 nor do I want anything for free from Anet or Mike O Brien. I'm simply saying that I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I didn't buy the expansions to have a competitive advantage over others who didn't buy them because I did. I knew what I was doing when I bought them and I'm not going to lie to myself or the OP to make myself feel better. That would be intellectually dishonest. That doesn't mean that I think p2w is morally wrong or that OP should get his silly legacy server request granted. If you read my initial responses you will see that i told him to basically deal with it or quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts