We should just adopt the pay by hour model they use in the East so people would just quit crying already. Most people don't even understand the defintion of pay 2 win and use it too loosely.
Just a thought exercise: Would Dream_Chaser create a new topic explaining the rest of us how it's actually a good idea to eat shit, if Anet would announce that eating shit is part of the GW2 experience?
We should just adopt the pay by hour model they use in the East so people would just quit crying already. Most people don't even understand the defintion of pay 2 win and use it too loosely.
Wrong reply sorry.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
As far as I know, EVE is the only MMORPG where paying for sub time gives you an advantage over other players by rewarding you for the money you spend.
In any other case, it isn't so much how long you sub but how much time you play while you are subbed. There are people who put more time into the first month of their MMO sub than I do in 4.
So no, subscription isn't anything like pay to win except in one very rare case, and even there, once you get a certain point down the road even that becomes irrelevant.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Try subscribing to a game for an entire year, and never play. Then, at the end of the year, logon to the game and see how powerful you are.
My guess is...you'll be just as powerful as the day you bought the game. And that is why subscription is not P2W...it's pay to PLAY. If you don't play...you do not get more powerful.
I'm going to pitch a concept here... a game where you log in and are immediately presented with a picture of your mother (or mother figure) and are told in a soothing voice, " You're a winner champ. Nobody is better than you. Mommy loves you".
NO time investment required.
NO monetary investment required.
NO intelligence required.
EVERYBODY WINS!
NO ONE IS SAD!
Mark my words people. THIS is the future of MMOs.
*falls to knees screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"* i could almost believe you...
No. In a subscription model you're not paying for time to play. You're paying for access to the game. Its not pay-to-win, It's pay-to-play. The thing nice thing about a sub based game: Once you've paid your entrance fee, money should have nothing to do with how the game plays.
We should just adopt the pay by hour model they use in the East so people would just quit crying already. Most people don't even understand the defintion of pay 2 win and use it too loosely.
Or better yet, why not offer both a subscription and a cash shop so we have a choice?
EQ2 already does this. They have a cash shop whether you pay monthly or play f2p style. They've had it for years and to my knowledge (I played for 7 years) it was never a problem due to what they had IN the shop. I don't think the problem is the cash shop itself, I think it is what is IN the shop. The "convienience items" are definitely borderline or totally not cool in some peoples' minds. I understand that, myself. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I would have been happier had it stayed with the same things that were in GW1 shop rather than adding gems to gold and gold to gems conversion. I know I don't like THAT much of the shop.
Gems need to go away, imo, or be account bound.
And I repeat....there are forms of cheating in sub games too, like when a high level tailor makes a lowbie a bunch of bags. Yes, that certainly gives some advantage, but it's done all the time.
I honestly feel as though the post went over the heads of some people, or... maybe it's just fans of old systems clinging so hard to the past that they want to misrepresent things on some level. Can't tell. Not relevant.
Anyway, the point is is that you pay for the privelege of paying. If someone is able to pay less, they have less of an advantage. Therefore, the person who can pay more, can play more. Thus, that person will have more of an advantage. And logically that leads us to the conclusion that the person who can pay to subscribe more often is paying to win. Because they're paying for faster progression than the other guy is.
If someone can only pay for three months out of a year, and someone can pay for the whole year, then the latter is paying for a whole year's worth of advantages. Bringing in the 'play' element is obviously semantics, because everyone is going to be playing the game anyway. So essentially, a subscription viewed in this light can be as pay-to-win as a cash shop.
Either that, or, the point I'm trying to make is what someone else said: Pay-to-win doesn't really have a definition, and it's just a buzz word people use to hate on the MMORPG they don't like. I brought up the subscription argument because I find it less ridiculous than some of the other pay-to-win arguments I've seen going around about Guild Wars 2.
I really don't have a lot to add to this other than to say, great question. A very interesting perspective you've brought us OP, and something to think about.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Here's another thought exercise... Try subscribing to a game for an entire year, and never play. Then, at the end of the year, logon to the game and see how powerful you are. My guess is...you'll be just as powerful as the day you bought the game. And that is why subscription is not P2W...it's pay to PLAY. If you don't play...you do not get more powerful.
Isn't that the equivalent of purchasing ~$150 in gems and just deleting them?
an even playing field where everyone is losing. The only winners are the developers charging and dont delivering enough. But you cant argue with loyal payers since they are blind
Now, this is a thought that occurred to me that amused me greatly. We have people hating on the cash shop, but isn't a subscription technically pay to win as well? Due to there being no skill involved in the vast majority of MMORPG releases, it all comes down to how much time you play for.
Let's say that I pay for one month out of four, I play, and I get some neat stuff. Let's say that you pay for all four moths and grind some really amazing shit. In PvP, let's say that gear decides things and the clear victory is yours. (This is the case in games like WoW.) Isn't that paying to win?
Again, just a thought exercise.
Oh i think it's definitely NOT a thought exercise because if you apply the same model that these people claiming that buying a potion to increase experience would in a game like GW2 somehow grant a benefit, then having a sub would apply the same way because it allows an advantage technically over those who are on trial accounts. Before anyone laughs it's exactly as stupid as it sounds and is exactly as stupid as the experience potion argument they've made about GW2 shop.
Originally posted by Dream_Chaser I honestly feel as though the post went over the heads of some people, or... maybe it's just fans of old systems clinging so hard to the past that they want to misrepresent things on some level. Can't tell. Not relevant. Anyway, the point is is that you pay for the privelege of paying. If someone is able to pay less, they have less of an advantage. Therefore, the person who can pay more, can play more. Thus, that person will have more of an advantage. And logically that leads us to the conclusion that the person who can pay to subscribe more often is paying to win. Because they're paying for faster progression than the other guy is. If someone can only pay for three months out of a year, and someone can pay for the whole year, then the latter is paying for a whole year's worth of advantages. Bringing in the 'play' element is obviously semantics, because everyone is going to be playing the game anyway. So essentially, a subscription viewed in this light can be as pay-to-win as a cash shop. Either that, or, the point I'm trying to make is what someone else said: Pay-to-win doesn't really have a definition, and it's just a buzz word people use to hate on the MMORPG they don't like. I brought up the subscription argument because I find it less ridiculous than some of the other pay-to-win arguments I've seen going around about Guild Wars 2.
I think it even goes beyond this. Even if both types of players were able to afford a twelve month sub, but one player can log only 100 hours, and the other 300 hours. Who benefits more?
The person logging less time Is actually at a disadvantage with the way current MMO's give weight to time investment, and yet pays the same. I'd argue that current sub models are "pay to lose" if you have any life outside the game.
No. In a subscription model you're not paying for time to play. You're paying for access to the game. Its not pay-to-win, It's pay-to-play. The thing nice thing about a sub based game: Once you've paid your entrance fee, money should have nothing to do with how the game plays.
actually you are paying for time to play. When the sub ends your time is up. No more money? sorry wont play my game. I noticed people complain that GW2 has exp boost items, therefore thats p2w. Sub games have exp boost potions too (+ the sub) lol
Now, this is a thought that occurred to me that amused me greatly. We have people hating on the cash shop, but isn't a subscription technically pay to win as well? Due to there being no skill involved in the vast majority of MMORPG releases, it all comes down to how much time you play for.
Let's say that I pay for one month out of four, I play, and I get some neat stuff. Let's say that you pay for all four moths and grind some really amazing shit. In PvP, let's say that gear decides things and the clear victory is yours. (This is the case in games like WoW.) Isn't that paying to win?
Again, just a thought exercise.
No, it's not P2W because you both didn't access the game for the same amount of time. Where P2W comes in is if we both played for 4 months and you paid for 1 month, I paid for 4 months and because I paid my loot drops were better than yours, which caused me to pwn your ass in PvP.
Although....in a hybrid model, such as LotRO, your argument could work. In that case, the F2P player doesn't have access to the good stuff in PvP while the P2P player gets to take all their kick ass gear they've been getting from raids. The F2P player can do the raids also, but can't use their game character in PvP, they have to use a specially made character, and only have a couple choices at that.
And finally, in a general sense, you're right because anyone who plays a sub based game pwns me in that game because I won't play it because of the sub!
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
I honestly feel as though the post went over the heads of some people, or... maybe it's just fans of old systems clinging so hard to the past that they want to misrepresent things on some level. Can't tell. Not relevant.
Anyway, the point is is that you pay for the privelege of paying. If someone is able to pay less, they have less of an advantage. Therefore, the person who can pay more, can play more. Thus, that person will have more of an advantage. And logically that leads us to the conclusion that the person who can pay to subscribe more often is paying to win. Because they're paying for faster progression than the other guy is.
If someone can only pay for three months out of a year, and someone can pay for the whole year, then the latter is paying for a whole year's worth of advantages. Bringing in the 'play' element is obviously semantics, because everyone is going to be playing the game anyway. So essentially, a subscription viewed in this light can be as pay-to-win as a cash shop.
Either that, or, the point I'm trying to make is what someone else said: Pay-to-win doesn't really have a definition, and it's just a buzz word people use to hate on the MMORPG they don't like. I brought up the subscription argument because I find it less ridiculous than some of the other pay-to-win arguments I've seen going around about Guild Wars 2.
I can see your arguement. I get what you are saying, but I don't think that a true Sub model is pay to win. And the only reason I say this is because. It's not always about time.
If we use WoW for example. And let's just say that we are all in the same patch so there is no change from one to another. (IE the XP rate gains of patch 2.3)
How much "power" one gains...after the entry fee is paid, is almost entirely up to the player to decide.
Even for yourself. I can assume you leveld an alt after your 1st. Was it not tremendously easier the 2nd time?
I also rememebr some of the early leveling guides that helped progress faster. Certain classes would level faster, certain methods of questing could level faster.
Back in Vanilla and TBC A Beast Master Hunter alone would blow the doors off a paladin in terms of leveling Unless of course the hunter was a huntard and the pally was really good and knoew how to spec for AOE for example.
All these things are under the control of the players. A skilled levelr could do much more in much less time.
It all boiled down to how you used your time, not how much of it you had.
I honestly feel as though the post went over the heads of some people, or... maybe it's just fans of old systems clinging so hard to the past that they want to misrepresent things on some level. Can't tell. Not relevant.
Either that, or, the point I'm trying to make is what someone else said: Pay-to-win doesn't really have a definition, and it's just a buzz word people use to hate on the MMORPG they don't like. I brought up the subscription argument because I find it less ridiculous than some of the other pay-to-win arguments I've seen going around about Guild Wars 2.
Precisely, pay to win doesn't have an actual definition, it's up to interpretation and perspective based on an individuals idea of what is P2W.
But back to the original question, and this part at the beginning of your post. As it also relates to this last part I just replied to. You're asking what people think about the question, yet you won't trust someone to give you an honest answer based on those thoughts. Instead you look at these replies as posturing.
I do not feel GW2 is P2W, just as I don't feel most sub-based games are P2W. As I usually do, I will look back to SWG and use that as an example of why your opinion of old players and clinging to their ways is highly irrelevant to these questions.
Some old games were not about winning! They were about doing whatever you wanted to do, be it sit in a cantina playing music, dancing, chatting, hanging out, etcc. Being a humble merchant running a shop, cutting out your own little niche within the big picture, selling things no one else did. These were true virtual worlds, you could have just about any objective you wanted in these games, they didn't focus just on combat or e-hardness as many later games have. They were all about having fun in your own way.
In short old players have a totally different perspective on what these games were about.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I honestly feel as though the post went over the heads of some people, or... maybe it's just fans of old systems clinging so hard to the past that they want to misrepresent things on some level. Can't tell. Not relevant.
Anyway, the point is is that you pay for the privelege of paying. If someone is able to pay less, they have less of an advantage. Therefore, the person who can pay more, can play more. Thus, that person will have more of an advantage. And logically that leads us to the conclusion that the person who can pay to subscribe more often is paying to win. Because they're paying for faster progression than the other guy is.
If someone can only pay for three months out of a year, and someone can pay for the whole year, then the latter is paying for a whole year's worth of advantages. Bringing in the 'play' element is obviously semantics, because everyone is going to be playing the game anyway. So essentially, a subscription viewed in this light can be as pay-to-win as a cash shop.
Either that, or, the point I'm trying to make is what someone else said: Pay-to-win doesn't really have a definition, and it's just a buzz word people use to hate on the MMORPG they don't like. I brought up the subscription argument because I find it less ridiculous than some of the other pay-to-win arguments I've seen going around about Guild Wars 2.
I think it even goes beyond this. Even if both types of players were able to afford a twelve month sub, but one player can log only 100 hours, and the other 300 hours. Who benefits more?
The person logging less time Is actually at a disadvantage with the way current MMO's give weight to time investment, and yet pays the same. I'd argue that current sub models are "pay to lose" if you have any life outside the game.
Which goes back to what I orginally said, it's the vertical progression that is to blame.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
P2W apply to all games, one is Pay to Win and the other is Play to Win. Like I always said, time is money, some ppl have more time to play and less money, while others have more money and less time to play. So if we both sub for 1 month, but you play 12 hrs/day 7days/week and I play 3 hrs/day 7days/week, you will have a clear advantage on me. Like those ppl hitting lvl 50 in SWTOR before the headstart was even over, they had a clear advantage over me and many other in PvP. It will take a while before I get there.
So yes time=money so P2P=P2W, some sh*t, different view. The difference now, is the hardcore are piss because they can own the casual since they can buy time.
Get a life you freaking Gamer.....no no, you don't understand, I'm a Gamer, I have many lives!!
I really wonder how people can justify pay to win and call themselves gamers. If I'm going to get my accomplishments handed to me for money am I really accomplishing anything? I'd really analyze why I'm even playing a game in the first place. It's certainly not fun to win something when you put no effort into winning it.
@OP I don't think you understand what people are trying to say here. It's not that we don't understand the point we you are trying to make, it's just that we'd rather pay for an even playing field rather than have the play field skewed by cash shop items, whether minor convenience or game breaking power items. Imagine how few people would be playing League of Legends for example if the skins gave you stat boosts. Why would I play it over DOTA or HoN which offer a level playing field regardless. Even if everyone bought skins (essentially the same as paying a subscription) and leveled the playing field there would still be a chance someone in a game wouldn't have a purchase skin and they'd be at a disadvantage. Beating them wouldn't be fair for because they'd have that handicap.
We need to stop justifying the GW2 cash shop. Now is the time to complain about it. Arenanet SHOULD be able to get by on a cosmetic only cash shop (as evidence based on two of the most popular F2P games: Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends) there is no reason we should have these items shoved down our throats. It's by far the worst news right now about an absolutely stellar game. We know Arenanet listens, so speaking up in protest of this isn't a bad thing, stop coming to Anet's defense on every little thing please. Even if the advantages are minor, they still offer advantages (convenience is an advantage).
It would be the equivalent of me going to a trophy shop and buying out awards that say I was the #1 in various competitions. I'm suddenly the best Archer in the state even though I've never shot a bow, or I'm suddenly the #1 track runner in the country even though I can barely run a block without getting winded. What's the point in having the accomplishment if all it takes to earn it is shelling out the most money? Games aren't suppose to be about reality, and someone who is poor or lower income should be on an equal playing field as someone who is a billionaire.
Time is an investment, but it's not necessarily the most critical aspect of most games. Arenanet is trying to change that paradigm by offering equal terms in PvP in Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2. That's a good thing in my opinion. Still, even if PvP is more skill based you aren't likely to master any one skill without investing enough time in it even if you have lots of natural talent in it, so there is always going to be a gap between someone who invested a lot of time into something and someone who didn't. Games are no different and they shouldn't be, or else the "game" aspect becomes quite questionable.
I can't believe the spin the OP is actually trying to put on this, lets justify the cash shop somehow, unbelievable. I guess it is ok as well to charge a full price pre purchase to get a spot in beta, something which has NEVER been done before, but you know ANET did it so lets fall on our hands and knees and praise them.
I can't believe the spin the OP is actually trying to put on this, lets justify the cash shop somehow, unbelievable. I guess it is ok as well to charge a full price pre purchase to get a spot in beta, something which has NEVER been done before, but you know ANET did it so lets fall on our hands and knees and praise them.
Well, in the OP's defense it's actually common practice now to offer beta spots to people who prepurchase games. In fact, it's been done with several games over the last few years. Not to mention the whole "head start" thing that is now common.
Mortal Online, Star Wars the Old Republic, and TERA are 3 examples of games that have done it.
I can't believe the spin the OP is actually trying to put on this, lets justify the cash shop somehow, unbelievable. I guess it is ok as well to charge a full price pre purchase to get a spot in beta, something which has NEVER been done before, but you know ANET did it so lets fall on our hands and knees and praise them.
Well, in the OP's defense it's actually common practice now to offer beta spots to people who prepurchase games. In fact, it's been done with several games over the last few years. Not to mention the whole "head start" thing that is now common.
Mortal Online, Star Wars the Old Republic, and TERA are 3 examples of games that have done it.
I really wonder how people can justify pay to win and call themselves gamers. If I'm going to get my accomplishments handed to me for money am I really accomplishing anything? I'd really analyze why I'm even playing a game in the first place. It's certainly not fun to win something when you put no effort into winning it.
@OP I don't think you understand what people are trying to say here. It's not that we don't understand the point we you are trying to make, it's just that we'd rather pay for an even playing field rather than have the play field skewed by cash shop items, whether minor convenience or game breaking power items. Imagine how few people would be playing League of Legends for example if the skins gave you stat boosts. Why would I play it over DOTA or HoN which offer a level playing field regardless. Even if everyone bought skins (essentially the same as paying a subscription) and leveled the playing field there would still be a chance someone in a game wouldn't have a purchase skin and they'd be at a disadvantage. Beating them wouldn't be fair for because they'd have that handicap.
We need to stop justifying the GW2 cash shop. Now is the time to complain about it. Arenanet SHOULD be able to get by on a cosmetic only cash shop (as evidence based on two of the most popular F2P games: Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends) there is no reason we should have these items shoved down our throats. It's by far the worst news right now about an absolutely stellar game. We know Arenanet listens, so speaking up in protest of this isn't a bad thing, stop coming to Anet's defense on every little thing please. Even if the advantages are minor, they still offer advantages (convenience is an advantage).
It would be the equivalent of me going to a trophy shop and buying out awards that say I was the #1 in various competitions. I'm suddenly the best Archer in the state even though I've never shot a bow, or I'm suddenly the #1 track runner in the country even though I can barely run a block without getting winded. What's the point in having the accomplishment if all it takes to earn it is shelling out the most money? Games aren't suppose to be about reality, and someone who is poor or lower income should be on an equal playing field as someone who is a billionaire.
Time is an investment, but it's not necessarily the most critical aspect of most games. Arenanet is trying to change that paradigm by offering equal terms in PvP in Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2. That's a good thing in my opinion. Still, even if PvP is more skill based you aren't likely to master any one skill without investing enough time in it even if you have lots of natural talent in it, so there is always going to be a gap between someone who invested a lot of time into something and someone who didn't. Games are no different and they shouldn't be, or else the "game" aspect becomes quite questionable.
So...
... at what point does the purchasing of time translate into power in Guild Wars 2? To be on equal terms in PvP in Guild Wars 2, literally, requires absolutely NO time investment beyond that of a 15 minute tutorial. Structured PvP, the truly competetive game type, is available the MOMENT you enter the actual game world, and is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY untouched and unaffected by any money you spend in the cash shop.
I don't know who you're replying to, but there seems to be a disconnect in what ArenaNet is actually offering the players. The items you can buy are time. In GW2, time does not equal power. No items are being shoved down your throat. Money people spend on the game will not affect you.
Comments
We should just adopt the pay by hour model they use in the East so people would just quit crying already. Most people don't even understand the defintion of pay 2 win and use it too loosely.
Just a thought exercise: Would Dream_Chaser create a new topic explaining the rest of us how it's actually a good idea to eat shit, if Anet would announce that eating shit is part of the GW2 experience?
Wrong reply sorry.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
As far as I know, EVE is the only MMORPG where paying for sub time gives you an advantage over other players by rewarding you for the money you spend.
In any other case, it isn't so much how long you sub but how much time you play while you are subbed. There are people who put more time into the first month of their MMO sub than I do in 4.
So no, subscription isn't anything like pay to win except in one very rare case, and even there, once you get a certain point down the road even that becomes irrelevant.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Here's another thought exercise...
Try subscribing to a game for an entire year, and never play. Then, at the end of the year, logon to the game and see how powerful you are.
My guess is...you'll be just as powerful as the day you bought the game. And that is why subscription is not P2W...it's pay to PLAY. If you don't play...you do not get more powerful.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
*falls to knees screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"* i could almost believe you...
No. In a subscription model you're not paying for time to play. You're paying for access to the game. Its not pay-to-win, It's pay-to-play. The thing nice thing about a sub based game: Once you've paid your entrance fee, money should have nothing to do with how the game plays.
EQ2 already does this. They have a cash shop whether you pay monthly or play f2p style. They've had it for years and to my knowledge (I played for 7 years) it was never a problem due to what they had IN the shop. I don't think the problem is the cash shop itself, I think it is what is IN the shop. The "convienience items" are definitely borderline or totally not cool in some peoples' minds. I understand that, myself. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I would have been happier had it stayed with the same things that were in GW1 shop rather than adding gems to gold and gold to gems conversion. I know I don't like THAT much of the shop.
Gems need to go away, imo, or be account bound.
And I repeat....there are forms of cheating in sub games too, like when a high level tailor makes a lowbie a bunch of bags. Yes, that certainly gives some advantage, but it's done all the time.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I honestly feel as though the post went over the heads of some people, or... maybe it's just fans of old systems clinging so hard to the past that they want to misrepresent things on some level. Can't tell. Not relevant.
Anyway, the point is is that you pay for the privelege of paying. If someone is able to pay less, they have less of an advantage. Therefore, the person who can pay more, can play more. Thus, that person will have more of an advantage. And logically that leads us to the conclusion that the person who can pay to subscribe more often is paying to win. Because they're paying for faster progression than the other guy is.
If someone can only pay for three months out of a year, and someone can pay for the whole year, then the latter is paying for a whole year's worth of advantages. Bringing in the 'play' element is obviously semantics, because everyone is going to be playing the game anyway. So essentially, a subscription viewed in this light can be as pay-to-win as a cash shop.
Either that, or, the point I'm trying to make is what someone else said: Pay-to-win doesn't really have a definition, and it's just a buzz word people use to hate on the MMORPG they don't like. I brought up the subscription argument because I find it less ridiculous than some of the other pay-to-win arguments I've seen going around about Guild Wars 2.
I really don't have a lot to add to this other than to say, great question. A very interesting perspective you've brought us OP, and something to think about.
Isn't that the equivalent of purchasing ~$150 in gems and just deleting them?
an even playing field where everyone is losing. The only winners are the developers charging and dont delivering enough. But you cant argue with loyal payers since they are blind
Oh i think it's definitely NOT a thought exercise because if you apply the same model that these people claiming that buying a potion to increase experience would in a game like GW2 somehow grant a benefit, then having a sub would apply the same way because it allows an advantage technically over those who are on trial accounts. Before anyone laughs it's exactly as stupid as it sounds and is exactly as stupid as the experience potion argument they've made about GW2 shop.
I think it even goes beyond this. Even if both types of players were able to afford a twelve month sub, but one player can log only 100 hours, and the other 300 hours. Who benefits more?
The person logging less time Is actually at a disadvantage with the way current MMO's give weight to time investment, and yet pays the same. I'd argue that current sub models are "pay to lose" if you have any life outside the game.
actually you are paying for time to play. When the sub ends your time is up. No more money? sorry wont play my game. I noticed people complain that GW2 has exp boost items, therefore thats p2w. Sub games have exp boost potions too (+ the sub) lol
No, it's not P2W because you both didn't access the game for the same amount of time. Where P2W comes in is if we both played for 4 months and you paid for 1 month, I paid for 4 months and because I paid my loot drops were better than yours, which caused me to pwn your ass in PvP.
Although....in a hybrid model, such as LotRO, your argument could work. In that case, the F2P player doesn't have access to the good stuff in PvP while the P2P player gets to take all their kick ass gear they've been getting from raids. The F2P player can do the raids also, but can't use their game character in PvP, they have to use a specially made character, and only have a couple choices at that.
And finally, in a general sense, you're right because anyone who plays a sub based game pwns me in that game because I won't play it because of the sub!
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
I can see your arguement. I get what you are saying, but I don't think that a true Sub model is pay to win. And the only reason I say this is because. It's not always about time.
If we use WoW for example. And let's just say that we are all in the same patch so there is no change from one to another. (IE the XP rate gains of patch 2.3)
How much "power" one gains...after the entry fee is paid, is almost entirely up to the player to decide.
Even for yourself. I can assume you leveld an alt after your 1st. Was it not tremendously easier the 2nd time?
I also rememebr some of the early leveling guides that helped progress faster. Certain classes would level faster, certain methods of questing could level faster.
Back in Vanilla and TBC A Beast Master Hunter alone would blow the doors off a paladin in terms of leveling Unless of course the hunter was a huntard and the pally was really good and knoew how to spec for AOE for example.
All these things are under the control of the players. A skilled levelr could do much more in much less time.
It all boiled down to how you used your time, not how much of it you had.
Precisely, pay to win doesn't have an actual definition, it's up to interpretation and perspective based on an individuals idea of what is P2W.
But back to the original question, and this part at the beginning of your post. As it also relates to this last part I just replied to. You're asking what people think about the question, yet you won't trust someone to give you an honest answer based on those thoughts. Instead you look at these replies as posturing.
I do not feel GW2 is P2W, just as I don't feel most sub-based games are P2W. As I usually do, I will look back to SWG and use that as an example of why your opinion of old players and clinging to their ways is highly irrelevant to these questions.
Some old games were not about winning! They were about doing whatever you wanted to do, be it sit in a cantina playing music, dancing, chatting, hanging out, etcc. Being a humble merchant running a shop, cutting out your own little niche within the big picture, selling things no one else did. These were true virtual worlds, you could have just about any objective you wanted in these games, they didn't focus just on combat or e-hardness as many later games have. They were all about having fun in your own way.
In short old players have a totally different perspective on what these games were about.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Which goes back to what I orginally said, it's the vertical progression that is to blame.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
P2W apply to all games, one is Pay to Win and the other is Play to Win. Like I always said, time is money, some ppl have more time to play and less money, while others have more money and less time to play. So if we both sub for 1 month, but you play 12 hrs/day 7days/week and I play 3 hrs/day 7days/week, you will have a clear advantage on me. Like those ppl hitting lvl 50 in SWTOR before the headstart was even over, they had a clear advantage over me and many other in PvP. It will take a while before I get there.
So yes time=money so P2P=P2W, some sh*t, different view. The difference now, is the hardcore are piss because they can own the casual since they can buy time.
Get a life you freaking Gamer.....no no, you don't understand, I'm a Gamer, I have many lives!!
I really wonder how people can justify pay to win and call themselves gamers. If I'm going to get my accomplishments handed to me for money am I really accomplishing anything? I'd really analyze why I'm even playing a game in the first place. It's certainly not fun to win something when you put no effort into winning it.
@OP I don't think you understand what people are trying to say here. It's not that we don't understand the point we you are trying to make, it's just that we'd rather pay for an even playing field rather than have the play field skewed by cash shop items, whether minor convenience or game breaking power items. Imagine how few people would be playing League of Legends for example if the skins gave you stat boosts. Why would I play it over DOTA or HoN which offer a level playing field regardless. Even if everyone bought skins (essentially the same as paying a subscription) and leveled the playing field there would still be a chance someone in a game wouldn't have a purchase skin and they'd be at a disadvantage. Beating them wouldn't be fair for because they'd have that handicap.
We need to stop justifying the GW2 cash shop. Now is the time to complain about it. Arenanet SHOULD be able to get by on a cosmetic only cash shop (as evidence based on two of the most popular F2P games: Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends) there is no reason we should have these items shoved down our throats. It's by far the worst news right now about an absolutely stellar game. We know Arenanet listens, so speaking up in protest of this isn't a bad thing, stop coming to Anet's defense on every little thing please. Even if the advantages are minor, they still offer advantages (convenience is an advantage).
It would be the equivalent of me going to a trophy shop and buying out awards that say I was the #1 in various competitions. I'm suddenly the best Archer in the state even though I've never shot a bow, or I'm suddenly the #1 track runner in the country even though I can barely run a block without getting winded. What's the point in having the accomplishment if all it takes to earn it is shelling out the most money? Games aren't suppose to be about reality, and someone who is poor or lower income should be on an equal playing field as someone who is a billionaire.
Time is an investment, but it's not necessarily the most critical aspect of most games. Arenanet is trying to change that paradigm by offering equal terms in PvP in Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2. That's a good thing in my opinion. Still, even if PvP is more skill based you aren't likely to master any one skill without investing enough time in it even if you have lots of natural talent in it, so there is always going to be a gap between someone who invested a lot of time into something and someone who didn't. Games are no different and they shouldn't be, or else the "game" aspect becomes quite questionable.
I can't believe the spin the OP is actually trying to put on this, lets justify the cash shop somehow, unbelievable. I guess it is ok as well to charge a full price pre purchase to get a spot in beta, something which has NEVER been done before, but you know ANET did it so lets fall on our hands and knees and praise them.
Well, in the OP's defense it's actually common practice now to offer beta spots to people who prepurchase games. In fact, it's been done with several games over the last few years. Not to mention the whole "head start" thing that is now common.
Mortal Online, Star Wars the Old Republic, and TERA are 3 examples of games that have done it.
Then we need to stop calling them betas
So...
... at what point does the purchasing of time translate into power in Guild Wars 2? To be on equal terms in PvP in Guild Wars 2, literally, requires absolutely NO time investment beyond that of a 15 minute tutorial. Structured PvP, the truly competetive game type, is available the MOMENT you enter the actual game world, and is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY untouched and unaffected by any money you spend in the cash shop.
I don't know who you're replying to, but there seems to be a disconnect in what ArenaNet is actually offering the players. The items you can buy are time. In GW2, time does not equal power. No items are being shoved down your throat. Money people spend on the game will not affect you.