| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (209)

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 3:40PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Pay 2 win doesn't really work though from what we know. As long as they don't offer up buffs from the cash shop ect. (which they've said they won't a million times), the horizontal gear progression at max level means that there's really nothing to buy that can really make you "win". The other points are totally valid though. There are plenty of inherent risks with the system.

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 4:28PM jeremys said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0 That's assuming pay-to-win is about paying to win "combat"

Winning is whatever is seen as most important in a game. If the value of combat and gear is lessened and the value of costumes is upped in GW2, then that means pay-to-win = getting all the coolest looking stuff.

Whatever the players, based on where the game-design placed value, deem most important is what you actually "win". Up until now, it's been about combat, because in other games the game-design puts a high-value on combat, thus anything adding to that is valuable.

Games like Second Life place a high value on stationary actions(what a player is doing when you aren't moving around) You could have your player tapping his toes impatiently or doing a dance, but that is a valuable thing to have in Second Life, so many people go after that and it makes them money.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@jeremys
I'm sorry but no, you can't change the definition to whatever suits you. Pay 2 Win means you have to pay to not only be competitive, but usually you have the advantage. This is exclusive to combat. Whether in competitive pvp or in pve. Paying to win in a fashion show is beyond ludicrous.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 5:02PM jeremys said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@(Unverified) But then what does it mean if the most valuable aspect of a game is to look cool and that's what a game sells? Is the term Pay-to-look-cool? And... isn't that the same thing?
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 5:14PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@jeremys

No. Unverified dude is right. Pay to win is ONLY applicable when there is a direct competition between players (i.e. PvP or competitive PvE races). You could say that ANY game with a microtransaction shop is pay 2 win with your definition. Nobody with a brain calls League of Legends cash shop pay to win, but they sell champions, ip boosts, skins, and other things in the shop. The difference is that NONE of those make you any "better" than another player.

You can't change definitions to support your argument. If you're unclear of a definition, look it up before using the word.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 5:24PM jeremys said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0 Isn't there direct competition in singing, dancing and looking good? Albeit, combat is the big thing in MMOs these days, but value is what people are really after and value can be anything people want. It doesn't have to be combat.

The term is faulty in my opinion. One reason is that is assumes it has to be combat, when combat is not the only thing people want.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 5:33PM Soulstitchmmo said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@jeremys Yes exactly, trying to say 'pay2win' = vanity is completely ridiculous as was your entire article.

It really was just a very long article... that said nothing. About the only interesting part of the entire article might have been the gaming the system parts, but that's about it.

Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 6:18PM ihatemmorpgscom said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0 When people stop buying cosmetic garbage, they will start inching up the item quality. A subscription service is the only way to ensure that developers want to keep a fair playing field.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 6:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@ihatemmorpgscom
Considering they haven't done that in GW1 I don't see why they would change now.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 6:46PM Yoh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ihatemmorpgscom
Nonsense.
GW1 did perfectly well with it's B2P model, even thou the only way to 'compete' outside of PvP, was cosmetic. Didn't stop people from pouring there time, and even money into these activities.
And it was completely fair and balanced.

Just give it a go and see if it works first.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 7:01PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@ihatemmorpgscom

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Your username gives me a good idea of how trolly you are so I'm not even going to bother giving you a legitimate response.

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 8:23PM ArcherAvatar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0
You can't buy "player skill."

There is clearly more specific information needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn, however, what we do already know is the same poorly designed, flawed systems present in other games featuring this type of financial model were open to abuse - those systems are NOT present in GW2. Will the systems that ARE present in GW2 be open to similar abuse? Only time will tell...
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 9:38PM kalipou134 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0

Sorry but Pay to win has been proven tow ork, over and over and over.

THe list of Pa2win MMOs on the market is ridiculously long and they're almost ALL making a healthy profit off of it.

The only thing worse than competitive nerds is competitive nerds with their parents' mastercard.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2012 5:44PM Borick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0 Pay to win does work in some environments. Global Agenda does pretty well embracing the 'pay to win' mantra, although admittedly they must be small change compared to the big boy studios.
Reply

Posted: Mar 25th 2012 3:43AM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jeremys

while i can see why some people here are opposing what you're saying, you make a great point.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2012 3:20PM alycat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jeremys 1) What looks cool is pretty subjective. Who wins a PvP match for example, is not.

2) Even if looking better was defined as winning and we could all agree on what looked best, there's still nothing in the shop that can't be earned through gameplay so even if your definition was accepted, the game still wouldn't be p2w.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 3:45PM FireWraith said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As someone who is looking forward to GW2, here's my concern.

Any "successful" micro-transaction system involves items that they want the player to feel they NEED. They need that in order to make money. If they don't do that, they don't make money.

I'm sure vanity items will make up a large portion of the shop, but many players don't feel they need vanity items. The hot items are going to be things like bank upgrades, scrolls, enchants, etc. Now, we could say "hopefully they won't have any of those in there" except we know they will because they won't make enough money from vanity items alone.

Look at LOTRO, they have slowly started to add "pay-to-win" items to their cash shop, breaking their own vow to never sell gear in the cash shop. They did it because it leads to more money, and this is a business.

It's one reason I prefer pay-to-play and because pay-to-play puts everyone at the same level and doesn't decide anything based on income. Someone will say "then just pay $15 in the cash shop per month and enjoy your cash shop items" except that doesn't balance it. You pay $15, and the guy next to you might pay $30. You pay $30 and that guy might pay $45. He's still going to have an edge.

And that's exactly what games WANT. They want that price inflation, they want people to spend more than $15 a month and they want that to cause other people to spend more and more.

I would rather they just be up front about money with a subscription fee and say "we need $15 a month from our players to operate our game" rather than try and support through a microtransaction system.

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 4:01PM Lenn said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@FireWraith Guild Wars has no items in its shop that are "needed" and yet the game has been running for 7 years now and will keep on running, even when GW2 is out. They did something right. Given that precedent, I'm not too worried about what will be in GW2's cash shop.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 4:05PM Mikx said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@FireWraith Regarding pay to win, that's why I hope Arenanet uses HOM technology in the cash shop. The HOM items are supposed to have low level stats, but their main value is that they are essentially unlockable skins that you can apply to your existing items.

The tech already exists, and it is an elegant way to structure the cash shop. Plus, the HOM items do double duty as an advertisement for the cash shop.

And of course they want you to spend money. WoW wants you to subscribe and buy sparkle ponies. And they better have bank space (permanent please, renting bank space is insane) in the shop.
Reply

Posted: Mar 21st 2012 4:08PM j3w3l said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@FireWraith
I'm sorry but i hardly call lotro's new additions to the cash shop p2win since there not even close to being end game gear. Even though they are stat based gear and the backflip in their attitudes is a bit annoying i really would only call the gear convenience.
Reply

Featured Stories

Betawatch: December 13 - 19, 2014

Posted on Dec 19th 2014 8:00PM

Massively's Best of 2014 Awards: MMO of the Year

Posted on Dec 19th 2014 11:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW