Ok, so let's say that we do consider PvE as a competitive activity, I mean there are PvE Dungeon Runs in WoW, for instance where the "best" runs are actually tracked. So, I suppose if you could purchase gear or buffs that would allow you to compete at a higher level than someone else in that same dungeon, that would be at least an argument. However, P2W is still the act of purchasing an advantage that would not be available to others in the game. This means buying a cash shop buff, armor, etc. If you'd like, feel free to explain how purchasing an XP potion is P2W. Let's think of it in another light. P2W could be categorized as anything available in a cash shop that cannot be purchased through a third party (gold seller).
Easy... If you make it so that 1 level takes 50 hours of play to obtain it. Then getting a level using a potion, or even accelerating the levelling process is easily considered "pay to win" (also gives you access to rarer materials earlier for more money, so you're ahead of the economy = massive compounded advantage).
But again you're ignoring the elephant in the room: what is it to win? Depends on the player and on the game.
Of course, this levelling thing is valid for games that have limited endgame but they exist. MapleStory (old version) comes to mind as it was exactly this (endless levelling, some dude was playing 24/7 to level to max and it took him several years). Your opinion on the quality of the said game is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but just know that it had (and still has) a significant player base and fully qualifies as an MMORPG - so it is a valid argument.
PvP => direct competition, thus, automatically becomes P2W.
PvE => only competition if scores or ranks are displayed publicly.
Does a fansite keeping track of people dungeons time qualifies as "displayed publicly"? Yep. I think it does.
STOP THE BS about P2W is SUBECTIVE... IT IS NOT.
Just proved you it is with my example.
Even more so because you say it isn't subjective and I say it is. When everyone has a different perception on the topic, it's called subjective by definition.
This topic is hilarious btw. Keep em' coming guys, it's fun.
My definition seems to be quite comparable with the OP's.
However in the end one has to examine each game on it's own because all of the things listed which I agree with in your average western themepark mmo such as wow or gw2, could very well be p2w in mmo with a very different design.
Ok, so let's say that we do consider PvE as a competitive activity, I mean there are PvE Dungeon Runs in WoW, for instance where the "best" runs are actually tracked. So, I suppose if you could purchase gear or buffs that would allow you to compete at a higher level than someone else in that same dungeon, that would be at least an argument. However, P2W is still the act of purchasing an advantage that would not be available to others in the game. This means buying a cash shop buff, armor, etc. If you'd like, feel free to explain how purchasing an XP potion is P2W. Let's think of it in another light. P2W could be categorized as anything available in a cash shop that cannot be purchased through a third party (gold seller).
Easy... If you make it so that 1 level takes 50 hours of play to obtain it. Then getting a level using a potion, or even accelerating the levelling process is easily considered "pay to win" (also gives you access to rarer materials earlier for more money, so you're ahead of the economy = massive compounded advantage).
But again you're ignoring the elephant in the room: what is it to win? Depends on the player and on the game.
Of course, this levelling thing is valid for games that have limited endgame but they exist. MapleStory (old version) comes to mind as it was exactly this (endless levelling, some dude was playing 24/7 to level to max and it took him several years). Your opinion on the quality of the said game is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but just know that it had (and still has) a significant player base and fully qualifies as an MMORPG - so it is a valid argument.
First of all, I'm not aware of a potion that just gives you a level. If you've got one, throw it out there because I might actually agree that's kinda shady. Maybe not P2W specifically, but definitely on the line.
Yes, I've played, and actually enjoyed, Maplestory at one point, but the time sink is completely unreasonable. You said yourself, that it took someone years to get to max level, playing 24/7. Does it seem reasonable that "most" people would be able to reach max level then? In a lifetime? On top of that, they can simply continue to extend the string on the carrot. However, that being said, you can't (to my knowledge) but a level in the game. You can buy experience potions that advance you more quickly, but I highly doubt that you can gain any "reasonable" advantage in doing so.
Honestly, the best case that you could use as PvE being P2W would be Neverwinter. It was a well known fact that the first person to reach max level in Neverwinter did so using experience potions, etc. However, that's an exception, not the rule. In fact, in the majority of cases, it's people using exploits and theorycrafting who reach the maximum level first. ESO was a great example of this. Actually, the first person to reach max level in ESO and claim Emperor did so more quickly than the person who use experience potions in Neverwinter, even though you could argue that ESOs levelling process is significantly slower than Neverwinter. The commonality here, is that once these people are at that maximum level, they may have an advantage for hours or days, but it's significant diminishing returns thereafter. In fact, apart from the launch of a game, there is zero advantage to using experience potions, based on your own definition, since the power within the game has already, largely, been determined before you were ever there.
Now! If there was a cash shop that sold me PvE gear that was better than what I could get through something like a dungeon run or end-game raiding, then you might have a point, but to my knowledge, there isn't a game that sells gear through the cash shop that's better than what can be found within the game with some effort.
We all know what it means. The only people defending it or trying to make us doubt about it are industry people and whales.
The real question isn't "what is P2W?", it's "why do we still play it even though we know it's bad?".
I disagree, I'm neither an industry person, nor do I spend money in F2P cash shops regularly. I have never exceeded what I spend in WoW in any F2P game.
I would like to think that I'm an Ambassador of Logic and I truly want to understand all perspectives, but it's difficult to reason with people who simply say that anything that you buy in a cash shop that impacts the game is P2W. If that's how someone views it, it's too bad because, essentially, any game becomes P2W. If you really want to see P2W, take a look at the mobile space. Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Game of War, anything by Kaboom!. These are examples of Pay to Win games. There isn't a single MMORPG that I would put in the same class as any of those games. If you have empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. Trust me, I have no problem being/admitting I'm wrong. I'm married.
Pay. To. Win.
Pay => Means to "pay" or use real money.
To => To do what?... Leads to...
Win => "Winning" what?
The Game => What does "the game" consist of?
PvP and-or PvE.
PvP => direct competition, thus, automatically becomes P2W.
PvE => only competition if scores or ranks are displayed publicly.
Pay to Win is very simply using real money to gain otherwise nonexistent advantage.
This INCLUDES any time real money can be used to buy an in-game or in-cashshop item in order to exchange for in-game currency, which in FACT allows one to build up in-game wealth in order to purchase (as without said real world money, such would be impossible) gears and other such advantages, whether or not they can directly be bought in the cash shop.
STOP THE BS about P2W is SUBECTIVE... IT IS NOT.
I thought I'd highlight that non-existent. I think that's a great differentiation and is something that people don't focus on enough. The thing is, you can buy just about anything you'd like from places like this for just about any game you could imagine. Although you could question the legitimacy of doing so, that doesn't stop people. So the people with money could, actually, pay to win any game they wish, anyway, based on some of the definitions given. Hence, that's why the non-existent part is important. If items don't exist outside a real money transaction, that's a big deal. Otherwise, this all happens, and is happening, right now as it is, but it puts zero dollars into the pockets of the developer.
PvP => direct competition, thus, automatically becomes P2W.
PvE => only competition if scores or ranks are displayed publicly.
Does a fansite keeping track of people dungeons time qualifies as "displayed publicly"? Yep. I think it does.
STOP THE BS about P2W is SUBECTIVE... IT IS NOT.
Just proved you it is with my example.
Even more so because you say it isn't subjective and I say it is. When everyone has a different perception on the topic, it's called subjective by definition.
This topic is hilarious btw. Keep em' coming guys, it's fun.
The Earth is obviously flat.
Since I countered your opinion and brought proof that your demonstration is invalid - does that mean you agree that I'm right then and that it is subjective?
This, or you need to think again and read my first paragraph.
Ok, so let's say that we do consider PvE as a competitive activity, I mean there are PvE Dungeon Runs in WoW, for instance where the "best" runs are actually tracked. So, I suppose if you could purchase gear or buffs that would allow you to compete at a higher level than someone else in that same dungeon, that would be at least an argument. However, P2W is still the act of purchasing an advantage that would not be available to others in the game. This means buying a cash shop buff, armor, etc. If you'd like, feel free to explain how purchasing an XP potion is P2W. Let's think of it in another light. P2W could be categorized as anything available in a cash shop that cannot be purchased through a third party (gold seller).
Easy... If you make it so that 1 level takes 50 hours of play to obtain it. Then getting a level using a potion, or even accelerating the levelling process is easily considered "pay to win" (also gives you access to rarer materials earlier for more money, so you're ahead of the economy = massive compounded advantage).
But again you're ignoring the elephant in the room: what is it to win? Depends on the player and on the game.
Of course, this levelling thing is valid for games that have limited endgame but they exist. MapleStory (old version) comes to mind as it was exactly this (endless levelling, some dude was playing 24/7 to level to max and it took him several years). Your opinion on the quality of the said game is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but just know that it had (and still has) a significant player base and fully qualifies as an MMORPG - so it is a valid argument.
First of all, I'm not aware of a potion that just gives you a level. If you've got one, throw it out there because I might actually agree that's kinda shady. Maybe not P2W specifically, but definitely on the line.
Yes, I've played, and actually enjoyed, Maplestory at one point, but the time sink is completely unreasonable. You said yourself, that it took someone years to get to max level, playing 24/7. Does it seem reasonable that "most" people would be able to reach max level then? In a lifetime? On top of that, they can simply continue to extend the string on the carrot. However, that being said, you can't (to my knowledge) but a level in the game. You can buy experience potions that advance you more quickly, but I highly doubt that you can gain any "reasonable" advantage in doing so.
Now! If there was a cash shop that sold me PvE gear that was better than what I could get through something like a dungeon run or end-game raiding, then you might have a point, but to my knowledge, there isn't a game that sells gear through the cash shop that's better than what can be found within the game with some effort.
Well, that's true that MS (to my knowledge) doesn't sell any "+1 lvl XP potion".
However, my point was more: the pay to win part truly depends on the goals of the player - because there is no "universal victory condition" in MMORPGs. So even a simple XP pot could theoretically fall under this P2W umbrella - or not.
If the player's goal is to be the first max level in NA, then XP pots becomes P2W. In a game like MapleStory (where the goal is essentially levelling), the fact that pots are P2W is truer than in a game like WoW (centred around raids and easy to reach level cap content).
The thing is you keep saying: "There is zero advantage", but it's according to your own terms, these are your own objectives - but for someone with different objectives (e.g. World's first level 80 thief achievement in WoW) then an XP pot can be a big advantage.
PvP => direct competition, thus, automatically becomes P2W.
PvE => only competition if scores or ranks are displayed publicly.
Does a fansite keeping track of people dungeons time qualifies as "displayed publicly"? Yep. I think it does.
STOP THE BS about P2W is SUBECTIVE... IT IS NOT.
Just proved you it is with my example.
Even more so because you say it isn't subjective and I say it is. When everyone has a different perception on the topic, it's called subjective by definition.
This topic is hilarious btw. Keep em' coming guys, it's fun.
The Earth is obviously flat.
Since I countered your opinion and brought proof that your demonstration is invalid - does that mean you agree that I'm right then and that it is subjective?
This, or you need to think again and read my first paragraph.
I don't think that you proved that P2W is subjective, you gave very contextually-specific cases in which P2W cases would apply. A great way to see if something is subjective or not is to perform a negative test. So why not provide some F2P MMORPGs which you consider are NOT P2W?
The problem is that you didn't give any examples of games that actually execute to the model you described. So in any PvE game could be considered P2W based on your definition. It's not that the term is subjective, it's that people confuse the term and use it on a greater scope than what it was originally intended to define. You know, like bandaid.... or elevator.... or tylenol. Give an example of something which sells gear that is better than what can be acquired within the game itself. Similarly, if you can give a game that sells PvP gear that is better than what can be obtained within the game, then I would say that's P2W. However, the vast majority of MMORPGs are not P2W.
Ok, so let's say that we do consider PvE as a competitive activity, I mean there are PvE Dungeon Runs in WoW, for instance where the "best" runs are actually tracked. So, I suppose if you could purchase gear or buffs that would allow you to compete at a higher level than someone else in that same dungeon, that would be at least an argument. However, P2W is still the act of purchasing an advantage that would not be available to others in the game. This means buying a cash shop buff, armor, etc. If you'd like, feel free to explain how purchasing an XP potion is P2W. Let's think of it in another light. P2W could be categorized as anything available in a cash shop that cannot be purchased through a third party (gold seller).
Easy... If you make it so that 1 level takes 50 hours of play to obtain it. Then getting a level using a potion, or even accelerating the levelling process is easily considered "pay to win" (also gives you access to rarer materials earlier for more money, so you're ahead of the economy = massive compounded advantage).
But again you're ignoring the elephant in the room: what is it to win? Depends on the player and on the game.
Of course, this levelling thing is valid for games that have limited endgame but they exist. MapleStory (old version) comes to mind as it was exactly this (endless levelling, some dude was playing 24/7 to level to max and it took him several years). Your opinion on the quality of the said game is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but just know that it had (and still has) a significant player base and fully qualifies as an MMORPG - so it is a valid argument.
First of all, I'm not aware of a potion that just gives you a level. If you've got one, throw it out there because I might actually agree that's kinda shady. Maybe not P2W specifically, but definitely on the line.
Yes, I've played, and actually enjoyed, Maplestory at one point, but the time sink is completely unreasonable. You said yourself, that it took someone years to get to max level, playing 24/7. Does it seem reasonable that "most" people would be able to reach max level then? In a lifetime? On top of that, they can simply continue to extend the string on the carrot. However, that being said, you can't (to my knowledge) but a level in the game. You can buy experience potions that advance you more quickly, but I highly doubt that you can gain any "reasonable" advantage in doing so.
Now! If there was a cash shop that sold me PvE gear that was better than what I could get through something like a dungeon run or end-game raiding, then you might have a point, but to my knowledge, there isn't a game that sells gear through the cash shop that's better than what can be found within the game with some effort.
Well, that's true that MS (to my knowledge) doesn't sell any "+1 lvl XP potion".
However, my point was more: the pay to win part truly depends on the goals of the player - because there is no "universal victory condition" in MMORPGs. So even a simple XP pot could theoretically fall under this P2W umbrella - or not.
If the player's goal is to be the first max level in NA, then XP pots becomes P2W. In a game like MapleStory (where the goal is essentially levelling), the fact that pots are P2W is truer than in a game like WoW (centred around raids and easy to reach level cap content).
The thing is you keep saying: "There is zero advantage", but it's according to your own terms, these are your own objectives - but for someone with different objectives (e.g. World's first level 80 thief achievement in WoW) then an XP pot can be a big advantage.
Sure, but if someone is wanting to be "World's First" these titles are generally purchased, anyway. However, they are not purchased using in-game cash shops, they are purchased by, literally, hiring external third party players in order to assist you in progressing as fast as possible. Take a look at just about any World First and how it was accomplished and it's generally well-timed, well-executed, tediously-practised plans. It's not XP Potions. Also, as I said as well, even if there was an XP Potion, it's existence as a "Pay 2 Win" item exists almost exclusively at the launch of the game, but I will concede that if that's your end goal, then yes XP Pots could be considered P2W. However, is that really reasonable? I mean I said before that I'm an Ambassador of Logic, but we're basically arguing semantics over what could arguably be a fraction of a tenth of a percent of a community. It's a niche that probably amounts to a couple hundred (maybe thousand) people in a gaming community.
We all know what it means. The only people defending it or trying to make us doubt about it are industry people and whales.
The real question isn't "what is P2W?", it's "why do we still play it even though we know it's bad?".
I disagree, I'm neither an industry person, nor do I spend money in F2P cash shops regularly. I have never exceeded what I spend in WoW in any F2P game.
I would like to think that I'm an Ambassador of Logic and I truly want to understand all perspectives, but it's difficult to reason with people who simply say that anything that you buy in a cash shop that impacts the game is P2W. If that's how someone views it, it's too bad because, essentially, any game becomes P2W. If you really want to see P2W, take a look at the mobile space. Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Game of War, anything by Kaboom!. These are examples of Pay to Win games. There isn't a single MMORPG that I would put in the same class as any of those games. If you have empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. Trust me, I have no problem being/admitting I'm wrong. I'm married.
Ok you're neither an industry person nor a whale but I don't really see you defending P2W either. All you're saying is there's a lot more P2W in mobile gaming than there is in MMOs. Does that make the MMO P2W more acceptable? No.
You're right about one thing though, any game with a cash shop is inherently P2W. Which is why I'm 100% anti cash shop, even cosmetic ones. MMOs are all about increasing your toon's power over time through ingame activities. If you allow people to bypass this very foundation of the MMO genre by allowing them to gain power simply by throwing money at a cash shop, you're doing it all wrong. Cash shops are everything an MMO should NOT be.
Any game mechanic that can only be bought with real money or which cannot be easily obtained with in game means that gives one player a combat advantage of any size against players of their own level.
*Even if it's attainable in game, if cash allowed you to beat the system by say, 2 months sooner (due to expected grind), you can stay ahead by raiding that much more. In a subbed game, you saved 2 month's sub. Even noncombat advantages can have you win economically, eg. faster mount -> more resources -> more gold -> better purchasable spells/gear.
By this definition, I primarily exclude experience boosters and "buying levels" right off the bat, as these do not provide an advantage over other players of one's level. It merely gets one's level up faster, and this can actually be a disadvantage when trying to learn and gear characters.
refer to *
I also exclude useful non-combat utilities like character slots, storage, and other such items. These provide an economic advantage of sorts, but they do not transition directly into gameplay.
Inventory is huge. Carry more health/mana pots, variety of weapons suitable to every situation. Ranged, fire/ice/holy/health leach swords...
Lastly, I've excluded currency conversion. I do not personally believe that money -> gold conversion is a form of pay-to-win simply because the advantages gained from it are designed to be readily obtained in game. The mileage here may vary depending on how gear tiers are designed, however. But overall, I feel like currency conversion is a praiseworthy mechanic that allows anyone to obtain cash shop items with effort, and I tend to applaud devs for including it.
refer to *
Gold buys gear and walkthroughs.
I consider purchasable WoW battle pets p2w too as you can beat npc's/players.
This is a topic of some controversy. The pay-to-win label is one with a lot of grey areas and has a lot of varied definitions. What is pay-to-win to one player may be perfectly acceptable to another.
So, how then, do you personally define it?
Anything that provides an in-game advantage. I include XP potions in this: the first people to end-game have a huge advantage in gearing up and farming. Currency just outright boosts player power, allowing both progression and economic advantages, advantages that only continue to multiply over time, long after the initial investment.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
P2W is very simple. It is any microtransaction item that can be purchased to give the player an advantage to achieve their goal. Everybody has different goals and play styles and defining P2W along the lines of what items are inappropriate is an extremely arrogant and naive way to define it.
In that case, WoW is p2w. If you did not shelf out money for the expansion (item that can be purchased), you cannot reach max level (an advantage to achieve their goal).
In fact, every game with an expansion that increase the level limit is p2w. Great .... i suppose everyone should be FOR p2w now, otherwise there is no games to play.
P2W is really "Pay to compete" (pay to compete at a chance of winning).
If you do not purchase the game, you forfeit your right to compete and thus you forfeit your right to win.
That too .. but thinktank001's definition is pretty clear that all games with expansions are p2w.
That too .. but thinktank001's definition is pretty clear that all games with expansions are p2w.
Game expansions are in a different category. In your traditional subscription based game, all players are assumed to have all expansions. Additional real-life funds beyond simply owning the game and maintaining a current subscription gain you no advantage.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
We all know what it means. The only people defending it or trying to make us doubt about it are industry people and whales.
The real question isn't "what is P2W?", it's "why do we still play it even though we know it's bad?".
I disagree, I'm neither an industry person, nor do I spend money in F2P cash shops regularly. I have never exceeded what I spend in WoW in any F2P game.
I would like to think that I'm an Ambassador of Logic and I truly want to understand all perspectives, but it's difficult to reason with people who simply say that anything that you buy in a cash shop that impacts the game is P2W. If that's how someone views it, it's too bad because, essentially, any game becomes P2W. If you really want to see P2W, take a look at the mobile space. Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Game of War, anything by Kaboom!. These are examples of Pay to Win games. There isn't a single MMORPG that I would put in the same class as any of those games. If you have empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. Trust me, I have no problem being/admitting I'm wrong. I'm married.
Ok you're neither an industry person nor a whale but I don't really see you defending P2W either. All you're saying is there's a lot more P2W in mobile gaming than there is in MMOs. Does that make the MMO P2W more acceptable? No.
You're right about one thing though, any game with a cash shop is inherently P2W. Which is why I'm 100% anti cash shop, even cosmetic ones. MMOs are all about increasing your toon's power over time through ingame activities. If you allow people to bypass this very foundation of the MMO genre by allowing them to gain power simply by throwing money at a cash shop, you're doing it all wrong. Cash shops are everything an MMO should NOT be.
Actually, did I say that all cash shops were P2W? I would say that all games are P2W regardless whether there is a cash shop or not. Based on the grey lines that are painted by radicals on either side, you could make the argument either way. If I had all the money in the world, I could, technically, hire an entire village in China to play video games for me and make sure that I'm the greatest player in every single MMORPG on the market. Therefore, all games are pay to win.
That being said, since I'm an Ambassador or Logic, I would say that there has to be an amount of reason and the arguments that the masses are in competition for something like a World First, are extremely bold and unfounded and unreasonable. There is a very small niche of players who consider this competition, and they may take any advantage they can get, but if an item is available to them, they will be likely to buy it. It would not impact a player base en masse. It's like this, if I'm a Longest Drive (golf) competitor, how likely would it be that I would have a Walmart off-the-shelf no-name driver? It's not likely. I'd probably have a VERY expensive custom-made driver. That doesn't mean I'm paying to win. If I gave those same resources to someone on any golf course in America, and I were to use their club, 999 times out of 1000 maybe 9999 times out of 10000 I would out drive them. Your arguing that if you had that same driver, you could be the World's Longest Drive Champion.
We all know what it means. The only people defending it or trying to make us doubt about it are industry people and whales.
The real question isn't "what is P2W?", it's "why do we still play it even though we know it's bad?".
I disagree, I'm neither an industry person, nor do I spend money in F2P cash shops regularly. I have never exceeded what I spend in WoW in any F2P game.
I would like to think that I'm an Ambassador of Logic and I truly want to understand all perspectives, but it's difficult to reason with people who simply say that anything that you buy in a cash shop that impacts the game is P2W. If that's how someone views it, it's too bad because, essentially, any game becomes P2W. If you really want to see P2W, take a look at the mobile space. Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Game of War, anything by Kaboom!. These are examples of Pay to Win games. There isn't a single MMORPG that I would put in the same class as any of those games. If you have empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. Trust me, I have no problem being/admitting I'm wrong. I'm married.
Ok you're neither an industry person nor a whale but I don't really see you defending P2W either. All you're saying is there's a lot more P2W in mobile gaming than there is in MMOs. Does that make the MMO P2W more acceptable? No.
You're right about one thing though, any game with a cash shop is inherently P2W. Which is why I'm 100% anti cash shop, even cosmetic ones. MMOs are all about increasing your toon's power over time through ingame activities. If you allow people to bypass this very foundation of the MMO genre by allowing them to gain power simply by throwing money at a cash shop, you're doing it all wrong. Cash shops are everything an MMO should NOT be.
Actually, did I say that all cash shops were P2W? I would say that all games are P2W regardless whether there is a cash shop or not. Based on the grey lines that are painted by radicals on either side, you could make the argument either way. If I had all the money in the world, I could, technically, hire an entire village in China to play video games for me and make sure that I'm the greatest player in every single MMORPG on the market. Therefore, all games are pay to win.
That being said, since I'm an Ambassador or Logic, I would say that there has to be an amount of reason and the arguments that the masses are in competition for something like a World First, are extremely bold and unfounded and unreasonable. There is a very small niche of players who consider this competition, and they may take any advantage they can get, but if an item is available to them, they will be likely to buy it. It would not impact a player base en masse. It's like this, if I'm a Longest Drive (golf) competitor, how likely would it be that I would have a Walmart off-the-shelf no-name driver? It's not likely. I'd probably have a VERY expensive custom-made driver. That doesn't mean I'm paying to win. If I gave those same resources to someone on any golf course in America, and I were to use their club, 999 times out of 1000 maybe 9999 times out of 10000 I would out drive them. Your arguing that if you had that same driver, you could be the World's Longest Drive Champion.
Quibbling over semantics again. We all know P2W doesn't litterally mean you'll WIN if you PAY more, we all know there's nothing to win in an MMO and we all know a pro golfer will always beat you regardless of the price tag on his clubs.
Tired of this endless debate. All I can say is cash shops make me vomit and I won't touch any MMO that has one.
If you can buy something(s) that are considered a thing that grants the most power in the game then the game is invariably a pay to win game.
Now there are two variants of pay to win. There is MUST pay to win and CAN pay to win.
The difference is simply a change in being able to buy something that is just as powerful as something gettable in game vs the most powerful stuff on gettable via a store. So its a simple a > vs >= thing.
Generally theses things are items, but can be skills or abilities or buffs or a bit of anything really.
Now some "subjective" variance can be introduced here as some things in game are "theoretically" gettable but behind some kind of crazy not at all fun/interesting/worthwhile barrier that in practice no one actually gets it that way. I put subjective in quotes because its hard to put out actual figures in a theoretical basis but since in practice no one actually does it, we have established an objective trend. So we can add in a corrollary for games that have been out for a while concerning player behavior and how a game really fits in.
Note: this "subjective" part is hard to nail until things are done in practice and therefore at release it will be hard to convince some people, even with past performance from other games. They can always say This Time Its Different. I would argue that the burden of proof should lay upon people who say its different and unless they can prove otherwise it should be assumed its not.
Anyway it really should that hard to identify the basics of P2W the only real confusion is about what is actually gettable in game and the mechanisms for getting them and their consequences. This is where most of the arguing comes down to. Sadly a lot of the arguing revolves around how much work it is and not about how fun things are.
If you CAN use any form of real cash to gain anything other than playtime, (meaning a monthly subscription, not exp boosters ect.), then you are paying to "Win", since you are dishing out more money to make yourself better, either in appearance, or in competitiveness.
Everything else is semantics, and ways for people to excuse themselves for having said advantage.
I have paid to win before (particularly in card games), and I make no apologies.
We all know what it means. The only people defending it or trying to make us doubt about it are industry people and whales.
The real question isn't "what is P2W?", it's "why do we still play it even though we know it's bad?".
I disagree, I'm neither an industry person, nor do I spend money in F2P cash shops regularly. I have never exceeded what I spend in WoW in any F2P game.
I would like to think that I'm an Ambassador of Logic and I truly want to understand all perspectives, but it's difficult to reason with people who simply say that anything that you buy in a cash shop that impacts the game is P2W. If that's how someone views it, it's too bad because, essentially, any game becomes P2W. If you really want to see P2W, take a look at the mobile space. Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Game of War, anything by Kaboom!. These are examples of Pay to Win games. There isn't a single MMORPG that I would put in the same class as any of those games. If you have empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. Trust me, I have no problem being/admitting I'm wrong. I'm married.
Ok you're neither an industry person nor a whale but I don't really see you defending P2W either. All you're saying is there's a lot more P2W in mobile gaming than there is in MMOs. Does that make the MMO P2W more acceptable? No.
You're right about one thing though, any game with a cash shop is inherently P2W. Which is why I'm 100% anti cash shop, even cosmetic ones. MMOs are all about increasing your toon's power over time through ingame activities. If you allow people to bypass this very foundation of the MMO genre by allowing them to gain power simply by throwing money at a cash shop, you're doing it all wrong. Cash shops are everything an MMO should NOT be.
Actually, did I say that all cash shops were P2W? I would say that all games are P2W regardless whether there is a cash shop or not. Based on the grey lines that are painted by radicals on either side, you could make the argument either way. If I had all the money in the world, I could, technically, hire an entire village in China to play video games for me and make sure that I'm the greatest player in every single MMORPG on the market. Therefore, all games are pay to win.
That being said, since I'm an Ambassador or Logic, I would say that there has to be an amount of reason and the arguments that the masses are in competition for something like a World First, are extremely bold and unfounded and unreasonable. There is a very small niche of players who consider this competition, and they may take any advantage they can get, but if an item is available to them, they will be likely to buy it. It would not impact a player base en masse. It's like this, if I'm a Longest Drive (golf) competitor, how likely would it be that I would have a Walmart off-the-shelf no-name driver? It's not likely. I'd probably have a VERY expensive custom-made driver. That doesn't mean I'm paying to win. If I gave those same resources to someone on any golf course in America, and I were to use their club, 999 times out of 1000 maybe 9999 times out of 10000 I would out drive them. Your arguing that if you had that same driver, you could be the World's Longest Drive Champion.
Quibbling over semantics again. We all know P2W doesn't litterally mean you'll WIN if you PAY more, we all know there's nothing to win in an MMO and we all know a pro golfer will always beat you regardless of the price tag on his clubs.
Tired of this endless debate. All I can say is cash shops make me vomit and I won't touch any MMO that has one.
I am also tired of it. Honestly, that's nothing less than I would have suspected and there are plenty of people who feel the same, that cash shops are P2W, and that's fine. However, what's unproductive. It's basically like generalizing and stereotyping, really. The large majority of F2P games with cash shops do NOT adhere to P2W mechanics.
That too .. but thinktank001's definition is pretty clear that all games with expansions are p2w.
Game expansions are in a different category. In your traditional subscription based game, all players are assumed to have all expansions. Additional real-life funds beyond simply owning the game and maintaining a current subscription gain you no advantage.
bad assumption.
Just like you assume all players buy all virtual p2w items in a cash shop.
I define P2W as a subjective catch-all term people use as a reason they hate a f2p MMO when they can't think of a reason why it's bad. I also define it as a subjective catch-all term people use as an explanation as to why others should hate a f2p game and use it to sway others to thinking that the MMO is bad.
Comments
Easy... If you make it so that 1 level takes 50 hours of play to obtain it. Then getting a level using a potion, or even accelerating the levelling process is easily considered "pay to win" (also gives you access to rarer materials earlier for more money, so you're ahead of the economy = massive compounded advantage).
But again you're ignoring the elephant in the room: what is it to win? Depends on the player and on the game.
Of course, this levelling thing is valid for games that have limited endgame but they exist. MapleStory (old version) comes to mind as it was exactly this (endless levelling, some dude was playing 24/7 to level to max and it took him several years). Your opinion on the quality of the said game is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but just know that it had (and still has) a significant player base and fully qualifies as an MMORPG - so it is a valid argument.
Does a fansite keeping track of people dungeons time qualifies as "displayed publicly"? Yep. I think it does.
Just proved you it is with my example.
Even more so because you say it isn't subjective and I say it is. When everyone has a different perception on the topic, it's called subjective by definition.
This topic is hilarious btw. Keep em' coming guys, it's fun.
My definition seems to be quite comparable with the OP's.
However in the end one has to examine each game on it's own because all of the things listed which I agree with in your average western themepark mmo such as wow or gw2, could very well be p2w in mmo with a very different design.
First of all, I'm not aware of a potion that just gives you a level. If you've got one, throw it out there because I might actually agree that's kinda shady. Maybe not P2W specifically, but definitely on the line.
Yes, I've played, and actually enjoyed, Maplestory at one point, but the time sink is completely unreasonable. You said yourself, that it took someone years to get to max level, playing 24/7. Does it seem reasonable that "most" people would be able to reach max level then? In a lifetime? On top of that, they can simply continue to extend the string on the carrot. However, that being said, you can't (to my knowledge) but a level in the game. You can buy experience potions that advance you more quickly, but I highly doubt that you can gain any "reasonable" advantage in doing so.
Honestly, the best case that you could use as PvE being P2W would be Neverwinter. It was a well known fact that the first person to reach max level in Neverwinter did so using experience potions, etc. However, that's an exception, not the rule. In fact, in the majority of cases, it's people using exploits and theorycrafting who reach the maximum level first. ESO was a great example of this. Actually, the first person to reach max level in ESO and claim Emperor did so more quickly than the person who use experience potions in Neverwinter, even though you could argue that ESOs levelling process is significantly slower than Neverwinter. The commonality here, is that once these people are at that maximum level, they may have an advantage for hours or days, but it's significant diminishing returns thereafter. In fact, apart from the launch of a game, there is zero advantage to using experience potions, based on your own definition, since the power within the game has already, largely, been determined before you were ever there.
Now! If there was a cash shop that sold me PvE gear that was better than what I could get through something like a dungeon run or end-game raiding, then you might have a point, but to my knowledge, there isn't a game that sells gear through the cash shop that's better than what can be found within the game with some effort.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I thought I'd highlight that non-existent. I think that's a great differentiation and is something that people don't focus on enough. The thing is, you can buy just about anything you'd like from places like this for just about any game you could imagine. Although you could question the legitimacy of doing so, that doesn't stop people. So the people with money could, actually, pay to win any game they wish, anyway, based on some of the definitions given. Hence, that's why the non-existent part is important. If items don't exist outside a real money transaction, that's a big deal. Otherwise, this all happens, and is happening, right now as it is, but it puts zero dollars into the pockets of the developer.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Since I countered your opinion and brought proof that your demonstration is invalid - does that mean you agree that I'm right then and that it is subjective?
This, or you need to think again and read my first paragraph.
Well, that's true that MS (to my knowledge) doesn't sell any "+1 lvl XP potion".
However, my point was more: the pay to win part truly depends on the goals of the player - because there is no "universal victory condition" in MMORPGs. So even a simple XP pot could theoretically fall under this P2W umbrella - or not.
If the player's goal is to be the first max level in NA, then XP pots becomes P2W. In a game like MapleStory (where the goal is essentially levelling), the fact that pots are P2W is truer than in a game like WoW (centred around raids and easy to reach level cap content).
The thing is you keep saying: "There is zero advantage", but it's according to your own terms, these are your own objectives - but for someone with different objectives (e.g. World's first level 80 thief achievement in WoW) then an XP pot can be a big advantage.
I don't think that you proved that P2W is subjective, you gave very contextually-specific cases in which P2W cases would apply. A great way to see if something is subjective or not is to perform a negative test. So why not provide some F2P MMORPGs which you consider are NOT P2W?
The problem is that you didn't give any examples of games that actually execute to the model you described. So in any PvE game could be considered P2W based on your definition. It's not that the term is subjective, it's that people confuse the term and use it on a greater scope than what it was originally intended to define. You know, like bandaid.... or elevator.... or tylenol. Give an example of something which sells gear that is better than what can be acquired within the game itself. Similarly, if you can give a game that sells PvP gear that is better than what can be obtained within the game, then I would say that's P2W. However, the vast majority of MMORPGs are not P2W.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Sure, but if someone is wanting to be "World's First" these titles are generally purchased, anyway. However, they are not purchased using in-game cash shops, they are purchased by, literally, hiring external third party players in order to assist you in progressing as fast as possible. Take a look at just about any World First and how it was accomplished and it's generally well-timed, well-executed, tediously-practised plans. It's not XP Potions. Also, as I said as well, even if there was an XP Potion, it's existence as a "Pay 2 Win" item exists almost exclusively at the launch of the game, but I will concede that if that's your end goal, then yes XP Pots could be considered P2W. However, is that really reasonable? I mean I said before that I'm an Ambassador of Logic, but we're basically arguing semantics over what could arguably be a fraction of a tenth of a percent of a community. It's a niche that probably amounts to a couple hundred (maybe thousand) people in a gaming community.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Ok you're neither an industry person nor a whale but I don't really see you defending P2W either. All you're saying is there's a lot more P2W in mobile gaming than there is in MMOs. Does that make the MMO P2W more acceptable? No.
You're right about one thing though, any game with a cash shop is inherently P2W. Which is why I'm 100% anti cash shop, even cosmetic ones. MMOs are all about increasing your toon's power over time through ingame activities. If you allow people to bypass this very foundation of the MMO genre by allowing them to gain power simply by throwing money at a cash shop, you're doing it all wrong. Cash shops are everything an MMO should NOT be.
Anything that provides an in-game advantage. I include XP potions in this: the first people to end-game have a huge advantage in gearing up and farming. Currency just outright boosts player power, allowing both progression and economic advantages, advantages that only continue to multiply over time, long after the initial investment.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
That too .. but thinktank001's definition is pretty clear that all games with expansions are p2w.
Game expansions are in a different category. In your traditional subscription based game, all players are assumed to have all expansions. Additional real-life funds beyond simply owning the game and maintaining a current subscription gain you no advantage.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Actually, did I say that all cash shops were P2W? I would say that all games are P2W regardless whether there is a cash shop or not. Based on the grey lines that are painted by radicals on either side, you could make the argument either way. If I had all the money in the world, I could, technically, hire an entire village in China to play video games for me and make sure that I'm the greatest player in every single MMORPG on the market. Therefore, all games are pay to win.
That being said, since I'm an Ambassador or Logic, I would say that there has to be an amount of reason and the arguments that the masses are in competition for something like a World First, are extremely bold and unfounded and unreasonable. There is a very small niche of players who consider this competition, and they may take any advantage they can get, but if an item is available to them, they will be likely to buy it. It would not impact a player base en masse. It's like this, if I'm a Longest Drive (golf) competitor, how likely would it be that I would have a Walmart off-the-shelf no-name driver? It's not likely. I'd probably have a VERY expensive custom-made driver. That doesn't mean I'm paying to win. If I gave those same resources to someone on any golf course in America, and I were to use their club, 999 times out of 1000 maybe 9999 times out of 10000 I would out drive them. Your arguing that if you had that same driver, you could be the World's Longest Drive Champion.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Quibbling over semantics again. We all know P2W doesn't litterally mean you'll WIN if you PAY more, we all know there's nothing to win in an MMO and we all know a pro golfer will always beat you regardless of the price tag on his clubs.
Tired of this endless debate. All I can say is cash shops make me vomit and I won't touch any MMO that has one.
I have a pretty simple definition:
If you can buy something(s) that are considered a thing that grants the most power in the game then the game is invariably a pay to win game.
Now there are two variants of pay to win. There is MUST pay to win and CAN pay to win.
The difference is simply a change in being able to buy something that is just as powerful as something gettable in game vs the most powerful stuff on gettable via a store. So its a simple a > vs >= thing.
Generally theses things are items, but can be skills or abilities or buffs or a bit of anything really.
Now some "subjective" variance can be introduced here as some things in game are "theoretically" gettable but behind some kind of crazy not at all fun/interesting/worthwhile barrier that in practice no one actually gets it that way. I put subjective in quotes because its hard to put out actual figures in a theoretical basis but since in practice no one actually does it, we have established an objective trend. So we can add in a corrollary for games that have been out for a while concerning player behavior and how a game really fits in.
Note: this "subjective" part is hard to nail until things are done in practice and therefore at release it will be hard to convince some people, even with past performance from other games. They can always say This Time Its Different. I would argue that the burden of proof should lay upon people who say its different and unless they can prove otherwise it should be assumed its not.
Anyway it really should that hard to identify the basics of P2W the only real confusion is about what is actually gettable in game and the mechanisms for getting them and their consequences. This is where most of the arguing comes down to. Sadly a lot of the arguing revolves around how much work it is and not about how fun things are.
Dear OP, I pretty much agree with your definition. It is fairly close to the somewaht simpler one I use:
"P2W is when game balance altering items can be only realisticly be obtained through the use of RL cash."
If you CAN use any form of real cash to gain anything other than playtime, (meaning a monthly subscription, not exp boosters ect.), then you are paying to "Win", since you are dishing out more money to make yourself better, either in appearance, or in competitiveness.
Everything else is semantics, and ways for people to excuse themselves for having said advantage.
I have paid to win before (particularly in card games), and I make no apologies.
I am also tired of it. Honestly, that's nothing less than I would have suspected and there are plenty of people who feel the same, that cash shops are P2W, and that's fine. However, what's unproductive. It's basically like generalizing and stereotyping, really. The large majority of F2P games with cash shops do NOT adhere to P2W mechanics.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
bad assumption.
Just like you assume all players buy all virtual p2w items in a cash shop.
And it is his definition, not yours.
Since when is Tuesday a direction?