The Guild Wars 2 Thread

[Shannow]

Cheating = not following the official rules.
Winning with your wallet is official part of many games. Get over it.

 

[Xenich]

Cheating = not following the official rules.
Winning with your wallet is official part of many games. Get over it.

Winning with your wallet, pay to win. Check.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Edit:
====================

As long as people accept that they are doing such, there is no real argument to be had. People want cheat avenues in games to get around content they dislike and are willing to pay the game maker real money to give them that ability.

Fine, understood. Though...

Do people accept that? Do they say such? Nope... them as well as the game companies make major excuses and argue anyway they can to try and claim what they are doing is not that.

It is retarded, but then again... IMHO, people who pay to circumvent game play are retarded in the first place, so I guess that explains why they argue as they do/ /shrug

 

[Shannow]

You are welcome. Though the information didn't even take hold until your edit. I'm not surprized

OT:
South Park actually analysed the whole microtransactions system quite nicely.
The gist was:
1. Make a game easy. Give the player huge positive feedback right from the beginning. Make the gameplay not good enough that you'd actually be expected to ask a normal price for it.
2. Have the gameplay feed into the addiction tendencies a certain percentage of the population has. (So RPG elements and grinding.)
3. Make the player "wait" unless he pays.
4. Profit.

Now that's mostly for the mobile phone app game industry, of which I have no knowledge. But I compared it to Neverwinter Online and browser games (eg on kongregate) and it's pretty close to the mark.

 

[Xenich]

You are welcome. Though the information didn't even take hold until your edit. I'm not surprized

OT:
South Park actually analysed the whole microtransactions system quite nicely.
The gist was:
1. Make a game easy. Give the player huge positive feedback right from the beginning. Make the gameplay not good enough that you'd actually be expected to ask a normal price for it.
2. Have the gameplay feed into the addiction tendencies a certain percentage of the population has. (So RPG elements and grinding.)
3. Make the player "wait" unless he pays.
4. Profit.

Now that's mostly for the mobile phone app game industry, of which I have no knowledge. But I compared it to Neverwinter Online and browser games (eg on kongregate) and it's pretty close to the mark.

What do you mean? I was discussing with those above about GW2 being PTW, they denied it using all kinds of excuses, you... then came in and clarified the point I was making.

The edit was to attend to a different approach to the discussion, you weren't denying games being PTW, agreed they mostly were and stated it as a part of the game.

So no, not a delayed understanding a separation of premises and logical attention to their points.

 

[Xenich]

You are welcome. Though the information didn't even take hold until your edit. I'm not surprized

OT:
South Park actually analysed the whole microtransactions system quite nicely.
The gist was:
1. Make a game easy. Give the player huge positive feedback right from the beginning. Make the gameplay not good enough that you'd actually be expected to ask a normal price for it.
2. Have the gameplay feed into the addiction tendencies a certain percentage of the population has. (So RPG elements and grinding.)
3. Make the player "wait" unless he pays.
4. Profit.

Now that's mostly for the mobile phone app game industry, of which I have no knowledge. But I compared it to Neverwinter Online and browser games (eg on kongregate) and it's pretty close to the mark.

Sure... I am not really arguing the motives, setups and plans for such. Most games these days have some form of P2W, that I would agree is true. My point of argument was with those who tried to claim that a game wasn't P2W because it didn't meet some tortured excuse they make to justify it.

Edit:

Adding rather than making a new post.

Here is the thing about this issue. If people would just admit they are demanding P2W rather than lying about it and trying to make up ridiculous excuses as to why they aren't paying to win, then there could be an honest discussion about the effects of such features in the game. Until then, there is no way to get to an honest discussion because people are too busy trying to justify their petty cheating behaviors.

 

[Average Manatee]

GW2's PTW features aren't horrifically insurmountable. If the gameplay itself wasn't shit and the PvE was rescaled to a more reasonable 1-40 level span then I could live with it.

That said, the fact that GW2 has a very expansive cash shop is the reason Anet hasn't been forced to release actual content updates that people would pay for.

 

[Xenich]

GW2's PTW features aren't horrifically insurmountable. If the gameplay itself wasn't shit and the PvE was rescaled to a more reasonable 1-40 level span then I could live with it.

That said, the fact that GW2 has a very expansive cash shop is the reason Anet hasn't been forced to release actual content updates that people would pay for.

As time goes on, people get more and more comfortable with PTW features. Initially, it was considered blatant cheating and the thought of someone actually paying real money to get ahead in a game was laughable back then. Seriously, in the early days of EQ, people buying digital items and services were considered low lifes who were too lazy or stupid to play the game by its own systems. I mean, why play a game if you are going to cheat at it? If I had to resort to cheating, I wouldn't be playing the game at all. It defeats the entire point of a game.

That said, time has gone on and PTW has become so common that people are "used" to it as if it were a standard feature. It is a cancer to gaming and the mentality that it caters to is exactly why games are in decline. I can't see how anyone could complain about the decline of gaming and then turn around and support PTW.

As you mentioned, you tolerate it and the other bulk of people playing games these days are just idiots seeking to pass the time with entertainment, so as long as there is a market, that is what will be offered.

Honestly though, that is fine... If that is what people want, by all means, they can tard it up fooling themselves by paying real money to get ahead in a game.

My problem is when those pathetic turds swarm into every game that is trying to be different and throws tantrums to have their retarded cheat systems added.

 

[Shannow]

So you're saying, GW2 is not p2w? Ok.
You don't play p2w games cause nobody forces you to? Ok.

Spoiler

 

[Xenich]

So you're saying, GW2 is not p2w? Ok.
You don't play p2w games cause nobody forces you to? Ok.

Spoiler

Very funny.

 

[Dire Roach]

You can't win an MMO generally, so the taking "win" literally without context to the use is meaningless. What "win" meant was people could circumvent rules to get past obstacles (ie win past them). For instance, someone buying gold was paying to win because they no longer had to spend the time and effort to obtain the gold. They had an instant win button to get what they wanted. They wanted a new item... press the "I win" button someone brought you one for real cash. Wanted to be max level without doing the work yourself? Press that "I win" button and someone would level you to max for you. Don't want to take the time to earn a mount so you can move faster through the world? Why... just pull out some cash, call out "I win" and bam... here is a new mount for you!

That is what it means in the context of play. People just over time decided to change the meaning so they could justify such. Game studios began to adjust the meaning so they could claim they weren't selling "Pay to Win", they were selling "convenince" and the dreaded ignorant phrase of "what it means to me" trumped proper understanding to which the word now is completely meaningless. Go out and ask people and you will get multiple definitions, it is pointless. Even the GW2 team gave their own "version" of why their game is not Pay To Win with excuses as to what they term Pay to Win to really mean. It is a total Clinton style defense of "Well, that isn't technically sex" all to avoid the main issue.

I watched it over the years change and it was ridiculous to see one idiot after the next change the meaning of the word to fit whatever stupid social acceptance of it was at the time. So... sure... I can go with you and accept that the idiomatic meaning of the word is no longer its original one (similar to gay no longer meaning happy), but at the end of the day, it is still cheating and no amount of excuses can justify people who do it.

Actually, I was under the impression that the phrase "Pay to Win" came about due to more specific historical reasons.

Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, when a few online games started to popularize the phrase "Free to Play" to describe their business model, they also became notorious for including built-in microtransactions that gave huge advantages to paying players, especially in the case of Korean MMOs. Since most of these games featured PvP modes, it was very common to see paying players defeat non-paying players with ease because they had access to more powerful items that their opponents did not. These items were so much more powerful compared to items that free players had access to, that they practically invalidated the role of player skill in determining who was the victor in a match. By purchasing these items for PvP, you were literally paying to win fights against other players, hence the phrase Pay to Win.

The idea that Free to Play games were inherently unbalanced in PvP became so popular that people became skeptical of any new game that announced itself to use that business model, automatically accusing it of being Pay to Win until proven otherwise ("F2P = P2W"). However, in the context of P2W referring particularly to unbalanced PvP scenarios, some game companies nowadays try hard to appear like they're avoiding P2W in their design philosophy. And people agree with their "bullshit" because, like I said before, most people don't really care if players pay to advance in a game when there is no competition involved, but they will complain when others pay to gain a clear advantage over them in a contest that's not supposed to be about who pays more.

Like you said, I also witnessed the birth of the phrase and watched how it changed over time, but it seems like a lot of people agree with my definition of it as well.

 

[Xenich]

Actually, I was under the impression that the phrase "Pay to Win" came about due to more specific historical reasons.

Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, when a few online games started to popularize the phrase "Free to Play" to describe their business model, they also became notorious for including built-in microtransactions that gave huge advantages to paying players, especially in the case of Korean MMOs. Since most of these games featured PvP modes, it was very common to see paying players defeat non-paying players with ease because they had access to more powerful items that their opponents did not. These items were so much more powerful compared to items that free players had access to, that they practically invalidated the role of player skill in determining who was the victor in a match. By purchasing these items for PvP, you were literally paying to win fights against other players, hence the phrase Pay to Win.

The idea that Free to Play games were inherently unbalanced in PvP became so popular that people became skeptical of any new game that announced itself to use that business model, automatically accusing it of being Pay to Win until proven otherwise ("F2P = P2W"). However, in the context of P2W referring particularly to unbalanced PvP scenarios, some game companies nowadays try hard to appear like they're avoiding P2W in their design philosophy. And people agree with their "bullshit" because, like I said before, most people don't really care if players pay to advance in a game when there is no competition involved, but they will complain when others pay to gain a clear advantage over them in a contest that's not supposed to be about who pays more.

Like you said, I also witnessed the birth of the phrase and watched how it changed over time, but it seems like a lot of people agree with my definition of it as well.

Pay to Win was a term that originated from gold selling. I am aware of the PvP argument as a conditional for it being PTW or not, but that was as I said, a means to excuse the behavior in PvE. By claiming it was only PTW when it concerned PvP, people excused their cheating behaviors in PvE games. Your definition did/does exist, but it is an evolution of the process of people justifying the behavior in PvE.

 

[Norfleet]

Everyone's vision of "P2W" differs. Some people will declare any advantage that can be bought for cash to be "P2W". I, on the other hand, only consider it P2W if a comparable and competitive equivalent cannot be acquired by any other means in a feasible manner. An example of this would have been STO: Pretty much everything that appears in the store gets accused of being "P2W", but as an individual who has acquired over 10K in value of such goods, I dispute the very notion of P2W there. Of course, that does not make it a good game. It's a terrible place run by a terrible company, and I can't say I terribly miss it, seeing as I learned a valuable lesson there that probably has ruined MMOs for me forever now, since now I can't stop seeing anything in a game without trying to equate it to real-world value and accounting for gains, losses, and expenses in such terms.

Most, however, would agree that "P2W" excludes anything which is cosmetic and provides no in-game advantage whatsoever, like hats.

 

[Xenich]

The reason PTW differs is that very reason of people thinking thier acceptance of a cheat really isn't cheating. It is a rationalization process and has continued to be rationalized since it was coined early on. If you were to go back to the inception and asked people if what we see now is PTW, it wouldn't simply be a yes... it would be a a HELL YES.

PTW is at its basic core, paying to circumvent game play. That is, it is paying to achieve progress, reward, advantage, merit, etc... Any attempt to claim otherwise is rationalizing to justify a given acceptance. /shrug

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

That's not the case for Xenich here, obviously. He's the special kind of internet elite.

 

[Norfleet]

The reason PTW differs is that very reason of people thinking thier acceptance of a cheat really isn't cheating. It is a rationalization process and has continued to be rationalized since it was coined early on. If you were to go back to the inception and asked people if what we see now is PTW, it wouldn't simply be a yes... it would be a a HELL YES.

Well, yes/no. Consider the above example: I, a non-payer, dismiss the notion of something being P2W not because I am trying to rationalize "cheating", but because I possess the item in question and did not pay, and therefore, I can win it without paying. Most are sort of grudgingly forced to accept this explanation when I fling this fact back at them in PvP, since I can hardly be called a P2W wallet-warrior if I did not pay.

Of course, there's also the distinction between P2W, the act, and P2W, the item/power/service/etc. One can potentially "P2W" by buying the item from an aftermarket site, despite the fact that such an item is not offered for any money anywhere by any official game source, but the items gained in such a manner are never called P2W because they cannot normally be officially paid for at all. Meanwhile, an item can be called P2W, even though it can be acquired in-game without paying, at least not personally, but yet you can dismiss an accusation of P2W by revealing that you did not pay.

PTW is at its basic core, paying to circumvent game play. That is, it is paying to achieve progress, reward, advantage, merit, etc... Any attempt to claim otherwise is rationalizing to justify a given acceptance. /shrug

I disagree. Paying merely to circumvent gameplay isn't necessarily P2W, it's just paying to not-play. One has to achieve some kind of WIN for it to be pay-to-win, otherwise you've paid to LOSE, as is typical of the guy who has bought a big expensive shiny in a permanent-destruction game, only to immediately lose it as he has insufficient experience and skill to wield it. A thing, especially to me, is pay-to-win ONLY if it cannot be feasibly acquired as a normal product of gameplay...and what is feasible, obviously, differs widely by the willingness of the individual to take the actions required. Paying to be max level isn't pay-to-win because it grants no advantage over anyone else who is max-level, and people are normally able to achieve max-level, probably within merely days to weeks, without paying anything. Paying for the Premium Asswhupping Device you can't get anywhere else, is pay-to-win. Paying for the device that can also be bought for a large sum of Golds from the Auction House...more of a gray area. After all, I have a dozen of the things and didn't pay anything...

 

[Xenich]

That's not the case for Xenich here, obviously. He's the special kind of internet elite.

Oh I am sure that your version of PTW is special in that it allows all kinds of exceptions and it is only PTW if it is something you personally disapprove of.

The difference in position here is I don't add a bunch of exceptions to the meaning.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, at the most basic level of meaning, pay-to-win requires that the individual pay, and then win. If you pay, but do not win, it's not pay to win because you lost, and if you have it and didn't pay, then it's not pay. What would happen if someone pays, but does not win, and someone else has it and wins, but does not pay? Is THAT still pay-to-win? Someone paid, and someone won, but the individual paying and the individual winning are not the same or otherwise affiliated...

 

[Xenich]

Well, yes/no. Consider the above example: I, a non-payer, dismiss the notion of something being P2W not because I am trying to rationalize "cheating", but because I possess the item in question and did not pay, and therefore, I can win it without paying. Most are sort of grudgingly forced to accept this explanation when I fling this fact back at them in PvP, since I can hardly be called a P2W wallet-warrior if I did not pay.

Unless I am missing your point... The fact that you can earn it in game is irrelevant to the issue of Pay to Win. Pay to Win means someone pays real money to circumvent game play. That circumvention is what is required if one does not pay money. So, if you have the optin to grind hours to obtain an item or to pay for it in the store, you are circumventing the game play (grind) to to achieve the item. Again, the fact that one can obtain it in game through game play is irrelevant.

Of course, there's also the distinction between P2W, the act, and P2W, the item/power/service/etc. One can potentially "P2W" by buying the item from an aftermarket site, despite the fact that such an item is not offered for any money anywhere by any official game source, but the items gained in such a manner are never called P2W because they cannot normally be officially paid for at all. Meanwhile, an item can be called P2W, even though it can be acquired in-game without paying, at least not personally, but yet you can dismiss an accusation of P2W by revealing that you did not pay.

Irrelevant. Pay to win is paying money to circumvent game play. In EQ/UO, etc... it was paying real money for plat or a specific item. Obviously Sony did not sell virtual items back then, so it was obtained through a 3rd party. It is all Pay To Win. The fact that game companies have now assumed what was originally the 3rd party role changes nothing.

 

[Xenich]

Well, at the most basic level of meaning, pay-to-win requires that the individual pay, and then win. If you pay, but do not win, it's not pay to win because you lost, and if you have it and didn't pay, then it's not pay. What would happen if someone pays, but does not win, and someone else has it and wins, but does not pay? Is THAT still pay-to-win? Someone paid, and someone won, but the individual paying and the individual winning are not the same or otherwise affiliated...

Win means progress, achievement, etc... You are trying to use a definition of "win" out of context in order to break the meaning of the phrase.

So, if you earn exp at an increased pace because you paid money, then you "win" that exp by paying, not through earned game play. Win in context of this discussion means to overcome obstacles, progression, achievement, milestone, etc...


Edit:

I shouldn't have to respond to your point concerning "what if they didn't win". We both know that is an argument of absurdity.

 

[Norfleet]

So, if you earn exp at an increased pace because you paid money, then you "win" that exp by paying, not through earned game play. Win in context of this discussion means to overcome obstacles, progression, achievement, milestone, etc...

Nah, I'm not. We agree on this point. But I known guys who load their toons out with a fortune in high-powered premium goodies...take worst DPS in the missions and lose to my white vendortrash. I made his ship better by telling him to rip out all those silly toys and install this vendortrash.

I shouldn't have to respond to your point concerning "what if they didn't win". We both know that is an argument of absurdity.

Sadly, having been there, this is not an absurdity, but a reality. $150 worth of premium hardware. 2K DPS to my 12K with white trash and freebie gear. Paying to lose. It was a failure by any metric of "win", and cost a fortune. They paid a lot of money, and were worse off than if they hadn't. Pretty much nobody would have accused this guy of paying to win...for the simple reason that he lost.

 

[Xenich]

Nah, I'm not. We agree on this point. But I known guys who load their toons out with a fortune in high-powered premium goodies...take worst DPS in the missions and lose to my white vendortrash. I made his ship better by telling him to rip out all those silly toys and install this vendortrash.

Sadly, having been there, this is not an absurdity, but a reality. $150 worth of premium hardware. 2K DPS to my 12K with white trash and freebie gear. Paying to lose. It was a failure by any metric of "win", and cost a fortune. They paid a lot of money, and were worse off than if they hadn't. Pretty much nobody would have accused this guy of paying to win...for the simple reason that he lost.

Well, certainly money can't buy someone skill or a brain, so I completely agree there are cases of people "paying to win", but ultimately "losing". So I see where you are coming from and now understand that you weren't disagreeing, merely pointing out that the result of those who "Pay To Win" isn't always as they intend.

 

[Rahdulan]

So yeah, it's real.



And because I'm lazy.
http://dulfy.net/2015/01/24/gw2-heart-of-thorns-pax-south-livestream-notes/

 

[Avellion]

So,

New Mastery System: Certainly beats bloating hte level cap even more.
Maguuma Jungle: Still set in the most boring of the 3 continents. Sigh
Profession specializations: Works like a subprofession they claim. Will wait to find out more. That said, new weapon choices are nice, thieves can carry rifles, engineers can carry hammers. Necroes can finally carry greatswords like they have been doing for a long time now.
New Profession Revenent: Uses avatars and supposedly summons spirits of the past to fight for you.
New PvP mode: Finally and it seems to be similar to GvG too. In a worst case scenario it should still be better than fucking conquest.
Guild Halls: Took them long enough.

Overall, while the new additions are good. I fear it may be too little too late.

 

[Rahdulan]

I am disappointed to see they're still doing absolutely nothing with Home Instances, though.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Not enough pve additions to bring me back. I'm tired of the event grinding gameplay, much prefer a proper quest progression system