Great post about pay2win and pay2savetime

[BladeDVD]

In Guild Wars 2, levels do serve a few purposes. Not only brain candy, but effective at that too. They make you advance the content in a specific fashion. You don't just buy the best weapons at the beginning and run through the last part of the content. Or worse, pick up best weapons from auction house and speedrun through the (boring with that much advantages) main quest that would still be mandatory.

What if all areas were geared to lvl 80 players and gear and there were just a few areas with progressively more intelligent AI so people would be able to learn the game at their own speed and not have to worry about leveling up?

GW2 already does this to some degree with the dynamic level adjustment, lowering your health and base stats to the appropriate level for the area.

I don't recall if you've said you played GW1, but in there, the max level was 20 and it was a common catch phrase to say that the game begins at 20, meaning that now that you had the leveling to 20 out of the way you could go play the real meat of the game. You spent the great bulk of all storyline missions at level 20 with easy access to max weapons and armor and could still have a blast.

[Alaris]

Yet they already exist in game as craftable items. (...) then by your definition GW2 is already pay2win.

If they removed that, I would be happy. Not a big fan of those in GW1 either.

In Guild Wars 2, levels (...) make you advance the content in a specific fashion.

This is pretty much the only good reason to include levels, but people don't like this. I wish devs would figure out a better alternative.

Most alternative ways to throttle a game, though, involve forcing you to do given types of content.

[raspberry jam]

There was a game where they wanted players to pay for bullets. They scrapped that idea, but I believe the game failed anyway because let's face it, if you can announce that idea to the public, you don't have the sharpest minds on board.

As teina mentioned, World of Tanks. Also, EA's boss mentioned this:
(skip to 10 seconds into the clip)



That's where we'll end up if this kind of thing is tolerated.

Well, yes, of course. But I thought we were talking about Guild Wars and having a discussion from the perspective of introducing pay2win/pay2save time items into a known game model that doesn't include them. Or (re: PVP) where the cost for the boosts would be considered "extra" vs. WoTs where it seems it's more like paying for extra content, or an alternate way of paying for content (ie, the standard free2play model)

I do think I now see what you mean, but I still have to disagree with your conclusion. As you say, they speed up getting to the fun, but until the speed up gets to a point where it doesn't make sense to not use them to the average player, it's still a pay2save time (for yourself) rather than pay2win, as people can still achieve the same enjoyment without the items, it will just take them a little bit longer. As long as that "little bit longer" doesn't feel unfair or make you feel like you are wasting your time by doing it just by in-game methods, then it doesn't reduce your own fun no matter which method you use.

We are not talking about Guild Wars, we are talking about the brand new and completely different game Guild Wars 2. The only thing these have in common is the IP. The game model, which you mention, is completely different from GW1's. To begin with, GW2 is a true MMO. To go on, it has a substantial leveling phase, dynamic events, crafting grind, the list goes on and on, it's two different games. And GW2 includes buyable grind timesaves, pay2savetime, from the start.

Yes, it's pay2savetime. Which still is the same thing as PvP pay2win. You are paying to modify the game mechanics in order to make the attainment of your goals more efficient.

This is pretty much the only good reason to include levels, but people don't like this. I wish devs would figure out a better alternative.

Most alternative ways to throttle a game, though, involve forcing you to do given types of content.

The funny thing is, with GW2 having a huge map, storyline instances, and a system that allows events to be chained to each other, ANet have the tools to implement progression without having to artificially throttle the game at all.

[BladeDVD]

As teina mentioned, World of Tanks. Also, EA's boss mentioned this:
(skip to 10 seconds into the clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...-u8OIJTE#t=10s

That's where we'll end up if this kind of thing is tolerated.

Then those of us who don't like that kind of thing will just play different games. You aren't trying to imply that Anet is going to take GW2 in a direction that is at all similar to what the guy in your video is talking about, are you?

We are not talking about Guild Wars, we are talking about the brand new and completely different game Guild Wars 2. The only thing these have in common is the IP.

And the company that made and designed and supported (or will support) the games. But fine, I don't dispute this overall point.

And GW2 includes buyable grind timesaves, pay2savetime, from the start.

Yay! Jam finally agrees with me!

Yes, it's pay2savetime. Which still is the same thing as PvP pay2win.

You are paying to modify the game mechanics in order to make the attainment of your goals more efficient.

Again, the reason people don't like p2w is because people feel it creates an unfair advantage to the people you are competing with. Goal attainment efficiency is time saved, not won.

The funny thing is, with GW2 having a huge map, storyline instances, and a system that allows events to be chained to each other, ANet have the tools to implement progression without having to artificially throttle the game at all.

Agreed.

[raspberry jam]

Then those of us who don't like that kind of thing will just play different games. You aren't trying to imply that Anet is going to take GW2 in a direction that is at all similar to what the guy in your video is talking about, are you?

And the company that made and designed and supported (or will support) the games. But fine, I don't dispute this overall point.
Yay! Jam finally agrees with me!




Again, the reason people don't like p2w is because people feel it creates an unfair advantage to the people you are competing with. Goal attainment efficiency is time saved, not won.


Agreed.

lol you find yourself unable to defend your point in a piece of running text? Of course, when you know that you're wrong, that happens. Anyway, I'll try to respond to your post as if it was even remotely readable.

I don't know how you can think that I think that ANet will charge money per cast spell or something like that. Riccitiello is a spawn of the devil but not even EA does it. What he was talking about (as was I), is the future of microtransactions. It's not something that will happen any time soon. Also, of course, it was in response to Alaris' comment about games that made people pay for bullets.
Note however that ANet is charging for item repair kits. Of course, it's free to run back to the city to repair (well, that is, it costs in-game cash to repair, and it costs in-game cash to teleport to the city, and since gold can buy gems, the gold sinks will actually serve to keep revenue from the cash shop up).

Yes, ANet made both GW1 and GW2, that doesn't change the facts. You claimed that pay2win items were introduced where they didn't exist before. This is wrong for two reasons: first, GW1 had them (they had boosts, just not pay2win boosts since you could not buy them with real money), second, GW2 isn't GW1.
Also, much of the original GW1 team seems completely absent from GW2. I mean did Colin work for ANet in 2005? Nope.

Yes, pay2win in PvP confers advantages to the people who pay ("unfair", though, is beside the point; by playing the game, you accept the rules of the game). The point is not that someone else has the advantage over you, it is that you can be more efficient (either gaining an advantage yourself, or negating the advantage of your opponent). The end result is exactly the same as pay2savetime in PvE: you pay to be more efficient at attaining your goal. Therefore, they are the same.

[bearsfwd]

Yes, pay2win in PvP confers advantages to the people who pay ("unfair", though, is beside the point; by playing the game, you accept the rules of the game). The point is not that someone else has the advantage over you, it is that you can be more efficient (either gaining an advantage yourself, or negating the advantage of your opponent). The end result is exactly the same as pay2savetime in PvE: you pay to be more efficient at attaining your goal. Therefore, they are the same.

You must be forgetting what you had said much earlier in this thread. The goal is not to beat other people to level 80. Therefore, pay2savetime =/= pay2win. In p2w, you are paying to beat other people. P2st is paying to do exactly that, save time. I'm not sure when saving time became the same as beating people. But according to you, if we aren't racing to level 80, then tell me how does p2w = p2st.

And don't simply turn around and quote the same post of yours that I just quoted. That's lame, a cop out, and makes you look like you have no comprehension skills. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't contradict yourself quite often. First it's "we aren't racing to level 80", but then, despite saying otherwise, you continue to imply that is the goal. If getting to 80 first isn't the goal, then p2st shouldn't be a big deal, as long as it doesn't feel required, which, in my experience with the BWEs, they don't feel required.

[raspberry jam]

You must be forgetting what you had said much earlier in this thread. The goal is not to beat other people to level 80. Therefore, pay2savetime =/= pay2win. In p2w, you are paying to beat other people. P2st is paying to do exactly that, save time. I'm not sure when saving time became the same as beating people. But according to you, if we aren't racing to level 80, then tell me how does p2w = p2st.

And don't simply turn around and quote the same post of yours that I just quoted. That's lame, a cop out, and makes you look like you have no comprehension skills. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't contradict yourself quite often. First it's "we aren't racing to level 80", but then, despite saying otherwise, you continue to imply that is the goal. If getting to 80 first isn't the goal, then p2st shouldn't be a big deal, as long as it doesn't feel required, which, in my experience with the BWEs, they don't feel required.

No, in pay2win you do not pay to beat other people. You pay to increase your efficiency, which could mean that you have a better chance at beating other people - or that the advantage that they paid for is negated. Pay2savetime in PvE is the same: you pay to increase your efficiency. The difference is that instead of being efficient at winning the match, you are efficient at getting to level 80. It doesn't matter that people are playing against you or not. Fair play doesn't even enter the equation. Paying for efficiency does.

The big deal isn't about racing someone somewhere, or beating someone at anything. It's that you pay to be more efficient at attaining your goal.

[RabidCoqui]

Some define the term one way and others have a different meaning for it... this argument keeps going in circles.

Personally, I view p2w in pve as being able to buy something that isnt available through noncash methods that gives an edge in combat... similar to what I consider p2w in pvp. This is a general "definition" so I would mostly treat everything case by case.

[Alaris]

That's where we'll end up if this kind of thing is tolerated.

We are not talking about Guild Wars, we are talking about the brand new and completely different game Guild Wars 2.

Keep in mind that ArenaNet's goal is to make money by making great games that remove as much of the stuff that annoy people. Pay2win annoys people A LOT and so ArenaNet is careful not to break that.

Of course, there's always some unhappy troll who will re-interpret facts and definitions to argue some ill-supported point, but what can you do about that.

The end result is exactly the same as pay2savetime in PvE: you pay to be more efficient at attaining your goal. Therefore, they are the same.

If your goal is time efficiency, it's pay2savetime, get that through your thick skull.
Also, buying cosmetics isn't pay2win, even if your goal is to be a fluffy pink unicorn dancing on rainbows.

In p2w, you are paying to beat other people.

Also, it would be pay2win if you were stuck in-game, and could pay to get a buff so you become unstuck. Radiant Defense is pay2win because you can't beat the game without buying some upgrades from the store.

Some define the term one way and others have a different meaning for it... this argument keeps going in circles.

No, only jam is using a weird definition, and everyone is arguing against her.

It's a circle of one.

[BladeDVD]

lol you find yourself unable to defend your point in a piece of running text? Of course, when you know that you're wrong, that happens. Anyway, I'll try to respond to your post as if it was even remotely readable.

"running text"? This is a friendly debate right? You're not under the impression that I'm upset with you or anything? I was simply making sure you weren't linking that video to Anet (the focus of this thread) since it seemed such a stretch and responding to your p2w definition. The rest was just a bit of humor. Why the ridicule?

As to the future of microtransactions...hasn't this kind of thing been going on for a long time in Asian gaming communities? I still think Western gamers have a strong expectation that buying a game means you are getting a working game, not one that you will get 1/3 of the way through and then have to pay more money to keep going. I think the kind of microtransactions the video talked about will continue to be the domain of the free2play games, at least in the West.

Note however that ANet is charging for item repair kits. Of course, it's free to run back to the city to repair (well, that is, it costs in-game cash to repair, and it costs in-game cash to teleport to the city, and since gold can buy gems, the gold sinks will actually serve to keep revenue from the cash shop up).

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. It sounds like you're saying that because you can buy gems with money and convert gems to in-game gold, that people will essentially be using the cash shop to buy boosts. Given that these boosts are only good for PVE, I think they still fall under the definition of p2st. And is highly unlikely. I doubt the shop will be used like that much. It doesn't make sense to buy stuff in game with money when in-game gold is readily available.

Yes, ANet made both GW1 and GW2, that doesn't change the facts.

Hence my saying I didn't dispute you're overall point. You tempt me to bring out your somewhat oft used direction to learn to read. ;-)

Yes, pay2win in PvP confers advantages to the people who pay ("unfair", though, is beside the point; by playing the game, you accept the rules of the game). The point is not that someone else has the advantage over you, it is that you can be more efficient (either gaining an advantage yourself, or negating the advantage of your opponent). The end result is exactly the same as pay2savetime in PvE: you pay to be more efficient at attaining your goal. Therefore, they are the same.

"The point... is that you can be more efficient," and thus win over your opponent who does not buy the p2w item. Thus creating a condition where in order to have a chance at winning a fair game, you have to pay for more than the purchase price of the game. Whereas with PVE, you can still achieve your goals without buying the p2st items. How fast is up to you and your pocketbook, but absent significantly large time savings, most people don't care, which would not be true in a p2w PVP setting.

But you and I are just repeating the same things to each other at this point. We're just going to have to agree to disagree about the definition of pay2win.