It doesn't matter how much you all want to dress up the context with silly little wordsmithing. In the end, no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig, it's still "Pay to Win."
Actually it would be more truthful to say "Not Pay to Win" since SOE has lightyears of history proving they are one of the worst in the MMO industry when it comes to dealing with cheaters. PS2 will more than likely be just as ridden with aimbots, wall hacks, stealth hacks, etc. as PS1 was and F2P will just encourage people to use free accounts to cheat and then make another when they get caught. Heck the people that 'make' the cheats can use free accounts to test their designs. They don't even need to pay to figure out how to beat the code.
It doesn't matter how much you all want to dress up the context with silly little wordsmithing. In the end, no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig, it's still "Pay to Win."
Period.
No. It's not.
Period.
P.S. League of Legends, read it.
That's probably the worst analogy you could probably have used to try to refute my point.
Buy Runes. Play against someone who has not. You just PURCHASED an edge.
Actually it would be more truthful to say "Not Pay to Win" since SOE has lightyears of history proving they are one of the worst in the MMO industry when it comes to dealing with cheaters. PS2 will more than likely be just as ridden with aimbots, wall hacks, stealth hacks, etc. as PS1 was and F2P will just encourage people to use free accounts to cheat and then make another when they get caught. Heck the people that 'make' the cheats can use free accounts to test their designs. They don't even need to pay to figure out how to beat the code.
Probably the most correct post in the entire thread.
As much as people try to twist or convolute the issue however they can, it really is simple if you don't let yourselves get distracted by comparisons or side discussions about things that are affected BY a micro-transaction F2P model. The issue is the F2P micro-transaction business model itself.
It is simply this:
Any business model does not have all it participants on an equal level of access due to what is or is not paid for, no matter how minor, is a pay to win system.
The absolute only possible exception to this would be if the extra paid for items in game were purely cosmetic that had absolutely zero effect of anyone’s outcome.
Period, end of story.
Sometimes life really is that simple... this is one of those times.
Sub > F2P every day, every time, every game.
Some times simple is more complex than it appears. Subscription is simply one of many possible business models. F2P is another possible business model. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). F2P games have cash shops for a reason... So the Dev's can make a profit on their work. I have no problem with that.
Cash shop items are available to anyone who wishes to purchase them. Time/Money is a matter of what one values the most. Its up to each player to make that determination. Bottom line, if you don't like F2P games, don't play them. Now that IS simple. ^^
I must not have communicated what I was actually trying to say very well. Sorry about that.
I wasn't disputing that F2P was a business model. I was pointing out that unless the only thing available for purchase in a cash shop was vanity items, then no matter how you look at it, the game is a Pay To Win system. I guess I was too ambiguous.
It doesn't matter if items only cost a penny. If the item I buy changes the outcome of any encounter in the game in any way differently than another person that did not pay, than I just "Paid to Win."
A subscription puts everyone on equal plane, where it's up to you as a player, to be as succesful as you desire, not what you decide to charge at the store today.
It is simple.
Once again, its time vs money. They are simply different exchange types. Just so long as the same options are available to everyone, its all the same to me, as long as I enjoy the game. I doubt this debate will ever end. Some people have 10 hours a day to throw at a game. Others have less. Some think nothing of spending money in cash shops, others go into hysterics about such things. Different games for different people. As I said, if you don't like games with cash shops, don't play them. Simple and to the point. ^^
This is just word smithing to justify "Pay to Win" mechanics and I won't fall for simple bait and switches like this.
Time vs. Money as being referred to as "just different exchange types" is not even close to being valid. One is earned rewards through personal goal setting and actions to achieve them, the other is a click of the mouse because that person is too lazy. And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" either. The time spent to
And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" as a variable either. The "time" spent to earn the money has nothing to do with the hobby, just as my time to earn my money at my job has no effect or bearing on my jogging stamina. I have to invest time to reap the benefits.
Any hobby you have, if you want to become good at it, requires your time investment. If you don't have the time to invest in it, then you do what everyone else does and pick a different hobby.
I can only imagine peoples reactions if in the middle of a race a runner went to the sidelines to buy half a lap "because they simply don't have the time." Yet, it's perfectly OK to "buy" instead of earn stat points in these video games to some people.
But I forget, this is the society we live in now... instant gratification. ^%$# the actual sense of trying to work for and earn something. What was I thinking?
"Justify"? No need what so ever for that. If you don't like games that use this business model, by all means don't play them.
No matter what those involved in the crusade/jihad against the "horror" that is "Pay To Win" may say, the fact is its all about choices. Such games wouldn't continue to exist, if they didn't appeal to a sufficient demographic to be quite profitable. That is after all the major reason for this exercise. As I said, I really do not care what a games business model is, just so long as its entertaining. Different things for different people. <shrug>
As much as people try to twist or convolute the issue however they can, it really is simple if you don't let yourselves get distracted by comparisons or side discussions about things that are affected BY a micro-transaction F2P model. The issue is the F2P micro-transaction business model itself.
It is simply this:
Any business model does not have all it participants on an equal level of access due to what is or is not paid for, no matter how minor, is a pay to win system.
The absolute only possible exception to this would be if the extra paid for items in game were purely cosmetic that had absolutely zero effect of anyone’s outcome.
Period, end of story.
Sometimes life really is that simple... this is one of those times.
Sub > F2P every day, every time, every game.
Some times simple is more complex than it appears. Subscription is simply one of many possible business models. F2P is another possible business model. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). F2P games have cash shops for a reason... So the Dev's can make a profit on their work. I have no problem with that.
Cash shop items are available to anyone who wishes to purchase them. Time/Money is a matter of what one values the most. Its up to each player to make that determination. Bottom line, if you don't like F2P games, don't play them. Now that IS simple. ^^
I must not have communicated what I was actually trying to say very well. Sorry about that.
I wasn't disputing that F2P was a business model. I was pointing out that unless the only thing available for purchase in a cash shop was vanity items, then no matter how you look at it, the game is a Pay To Win system. I guess I was too ambiguous.
It doesn't matter if items only cost a penny. If the item I buy changes the outcome of any encounter in the game in any way differently than another person that did not pay, than I just "Paid to Win."
A subscription puts everyone on equal plane, where it's up to you as a player, to be as succesful as you desire, not what you decide to charge at the store today.
It is simple.
Once again, its time vs money. They are simply different exchange types. Just so long as the same options are available to everyone, its all the same to me, as long as I enjoy the game. I doubt this debate will ever end. Some people have 10 hours a day to throw at a game. Others have less. Some think nothing of spending money in cash shops, others go into hysterics about such things. Different games for different people. As I said, if you don't like games with cash shops, don't play them. Simple and to the point. ^^
This is just word smithing to justify "Pay to Win" mechanics and I won't fall for simple bait and switches like this.
Time vs. Money as being referred to as "just different exchange types" is not even close to being valid. One is earned rewards through personal goal setting and actions to achieve them, the other is a click of the mouse because that person is too lazy. And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" either. The time spent to
And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" as a variable either. The "time" spent to earn the money has nothing to do with the hobby, just as my time to earn my money at my job has no effect or bearing on my jogging stamina. I have to invest time to reap the benefits.
Any hobby you have, if you want to become good at it, requires your time investment. If you don't have the time to invest in it, then you do what everyone else does and pick a different hobby.
I can only imagine peoples reactions if in the middle of a race a runner went to the sidelines to buy half a lap "because they simply don't have the time." Yet, it's perfectly OK to "buy" instead of earn stat points in these video games to some people.
But I forget, this is the society we live in now... instant gratification. ^%$# the actual sense of trying to work for and earn something. What was I thinking?
"Justify"? No need what so ever for that. If you don't like games that use this business model, by all means don't play them.
No matter what those involved in the crusade/jihad against the "horror" that is "Pay To Win" may say, the fact is its all about choices. Such games wouldn't continue to exist, if they didn't appeal to a sufficient demographic to be quite profitable. That is after all the major reason for this exercise. As I said, I really do not care what a games business model is, just so long as its entertaining. Different things for different people.
LOLZ
It's "attractive" to the "demographic" of lazy instant gratification individuals who do not want to take the time to make a legitimate effort in the things they do.
It is "quite profitable" because this is the attitude of the vast majority of our population; "Give it to me NOW."
The "choice" of not having to earn but instead to buy your points / stats / attributes will continue to be condoned as perfectly acceptable so long as people "don't care" about issues beyond their personal one dimensional "entertainment" / instant gratification.
I'm glad we agree. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a senate seat to go sell.
Will be interesting to see the final details of the payment options. Hopefully there WILL be options, because in all the so-called F2P games I've played to date, a monthly sub still gives the best overall value.
My main concern is not the payment model, but the fact that F2P offers a great opportunity to hackers. Banning a player account is meaningless in a F2P game. PlanetSide 1 was constantly plagued with hack users, and it was monthly sub only. Unless SOE have found the miracle cure for hax, PS2 will be dead before it's born...
Its soe you know the company run by Smedley we are taling about, think they care about their customers, hacking or the IP? They only want quick $ I'm sure, they are going to promise the world again and fail to deliver like always.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
As much as people try to twist or convolute the issue however they can, it really is simple if you don't let yourselves get distracted by comparisons or side discussions about things that are affected BY a micro-transaction F2P model. The issue is the F2P micro-transaction business model itself.
It is simply this:
Any business model does not have all it participants on an equal level of access due to what is or is not paid for, no matter how minor, is a pay to win system.
The absolute only possible exception to this would be if the extra paid for items in game were purely cosmetic that had absolutely zero effect of anyone’s outcome.
Period, end of story.
Sometimes life really is that simple... this is one of those times.
Sub > F2P every day, every time, every game.
Some times simple is more complex than it appears. Subscription is simply one of many possible business models. F2P is another possible business model. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). F2P games have cash shops for a reason... So the Dev's can make a profit on their work. I have no problem with that.
Cash shop items are available to anyone who wishes to purchase them. Time/Money is a matter of what one values the most. Its up to each player to make that determination. Bottom line, if you don't like F2P games, don't play them. Now that IS simple. ^^
I must not have communicated what I was actually trying to say very well. Sorry about that.
I wasn't disputing that F2P was a business model. I was pointing out that unless the only thing available for purchase in a cash shop was vanity items, then no matter how you look at it, the game is a Pay To Win system. I guess I was too ambiguous.
It doesn't matter if items only cost a penny. If the item I buy changes the outcome of any encounter in the game in any way differently than another person that did not pay, than I just "Paid to Win."
A subscription puts everyone on equal plane, where it's up to you as a player, to be as succesful as you desire, not what you decide to charge at the store today.
It is simple.
Once again, its time vs money. They are simply different exchange types. Just so long as the same options are available to everyone, its all the same to me, as long as I enjoy the game. I doubt this debate will ever end. Some people have 10 hours a day to throw at a game. Others have less. Some think nothing of spending money in cash shops, others go into hysterics about such things. Different games for different people. As I said, if you don't like games with cash shops, don't play them. Simple and to the point. ^^
This is just word smithing to justify "Pay to Win" mechanics and I won't fall for simple bait and switches like this.
Time vs. Money as being referred to as "just different exchange types" is not even close to being valid. One is earned rewards through personal goal setting and actions to achieve them, the other is a click of the mouse because that person is too lazy. And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" either. The time spent to
And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" as a variable either. The "time" spent to earn the money has nothing to do with the hobby, just as my time to earn my money at my job has no effect or bearing on my jogging stamina. I have to invest time to reap the benefits.
Any hobby you have, if you want to become good at it, requires your time investment. If you don't have the time to invest in it, then you do what everyone else does and pick a different hobby.
I can only imagine peoples reactions if in the middle of a race a runner went to the sidelines to buy half a lap "because they simply don't have the time." Yet, it's perfectly OK to "buy" instead of earn stat points in these video games to some people.
But I forget, this is the society we live in now... instant gratification. ^%$# the actual sense of trying to work for and earn something. What was I thinking?
"Justify"? No need what so ever for that. If you don't like games that use this business model, by all means don't play them.
No matter what those involved in the crusade/jihad against the "horror" that is "Pay To Win" may say, the fact is its all about choices. Such games wouldn't continue to exist, if they didn't appeal to a sufficient demographic to be quite profitable. That is after all the major reason for this exercise. As I said, I really do not care what a games business model is, just so long as its entertaining. Different things for different people.
LOLZ
It's "attractive" to the "demographic" of lazy instant gratification individuals who do not want to take the time to make a legitimate effort in the things they do.
It is "quite profitable" because this is the attitude of the vast majority of our population; "Give it to me NOW."
The "choice" of not having to earn but instead to buy your points / stats / attributes will continue to be condoned as perfectly acceptable so long as people "don't care" about issues beyond their personal one dimensional "entertainment" / instant gratification.
I'm glad we agree. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a senate seat to go sell.
Chuckle... I'm glad we have had this chance for a meeting of minds, as it were,,, ^^ First and foremost, this entire exercise is about providing a service. Supply and demand. There is obviously a lot of demand for this, or it wouldn't be nearly as profitable as it is. We may both end up pointing and laughing at it (or each other...^^) but the bottom line, remains the bottom line. As long as its a matter of choice, and not coercion, I see no problem with it.
As I've often stated, if I enjoy a game, I really do not care what its business model is. In fact, I want it to be profitable, so the Dev's have incentive to keep it running, and perhaps expand it. If it stops being enjoyable, I'll find something else to do with my time and money.
As for the other, just remember the first rule of politics... Don't get caught... ^^
Omg if they do it League of Legends style, I might just shit my pants in excitement.
EDIT: After looking through the posts, most users don't even understand how League of Legends works. They just see "F2P" and instantly put all their rage on it. League of Legends offers only COSMETIC upgrades to players, or CONVIENCE upgrades (XP, IP, getting a champion faster). Anything and everything pertaining to actually competing isn't touched. Hell, I've never put a dime into it, have half the champs and rune pages for each role. If you want to play a champion, you play enough games to unlock it via IP (which is earned from winning OR losing games), or spend real life money (RP) money to buy the champion outright. Cosmetic skins can also be bought for RP.
TL;DR League of Legends has the best F2P model to date.
I already said basically the same thing earlier in the thread, but again - ^^^This
Also if you haven't realized it the P2P model is clearly on it's way out. I've been a staunch advocate of subs and P2P for a long time, but it's a lost battle at this point. This is the first year where subscription revenue declined while microtransaction revenue increased. Whether any of us likes it or not it is what's going to happen. Therefore, the key might be assisting to shape these new models of payment rather than simply crying about how much they suck (regardless of whether they do or not). LoL has an amazing system and if you haven't played the game you should check it out just so you can see how it functions.
As much as people try to twist or convolute the issue however they can, it really is simple if you don't let yourselves get distracted by comparisons or side discussions about things that are affected BY a micro-transaction F2P model. The issue is the F2P micro-transaction business model itself.
It is simply this:
Any business model does not have all it participants on an equal level of access due to what is or is not paid for, no matter how minor, is a pay to win system.
The absolute only possible exception to this would be if the extra paid for items in game were purely cosmetic that had absolutely zero effect of anyone’s outcome.
Period, end of story.
Sometimes life really is that simple... this is one of those times.
Sub > F2P every day, every time, every game.
Some times simple is more complex than it appears. Subscription is simply one of many possible business models. F2P is another possible business model. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). F2P games have cash shops for a reason... So the Dev's can make a profit on their work. I have no problem with that.
Cash shop items are available to anyone who wishes to purchase them. Time/Money is a matter of what one values the most. Its up to each player to make that determination. Bottom line, if you don't like F2P games, don't play them. Now that IS simple. ^^
I must not have communicated what I was actually trying to say very well. Sorry about that.
I wasn't disputing that F2P was a business model. I was pointing out that unless the only thing available for purchase in a cash shop was vanity items, then no matter how you look at it, the game is a Pay To Win system. I guess I was too ambiguous.
It doesn't matter if items only cost a penny. If the item I buy changes the outcome of any encounter in the game in any way differently than another person that did not pay, than I just "Paid to Win."
A subscription puts everyone on equal plane, where it's up to you as a player, to be as succesful as you desire, not what you decide to charge at the store today.
It is simple.
Once again, its time vs money. They are simply different exchange types. Just so long as the same options are available to everyone, its all the same to me, as long as I enjoy the game. I doubt this debate will ever end. Some people have 10 hours a day to throw at a game. Others have less. Some think nothing of spending money in cash shops, others go into hysterics about such things. Different games for different people. As I said, if you don't like games with cash shops, don't play them. Simple and to the point. ^^
This is just word smithing to justify "Pay to Win" mechanics and I won't fall for simple bait and switches like this.
Time vs. Money as being referred to as "just different exchange types" is not even close to being valid. One is earned rewards through personal goal setting and actions to achieve them, the other is a click of the mouse because that person is too lazy. And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" either. The time spent to
And no, you can't use "time to earn that money" as a variable either. The "time" spent to earn the money has nothing to do with the hobby, just as my time to earn my money at my job has no effect or bearing on my jogging stamina. I have to invest time to reap the benefits.
Any hobby you have, if you want to become good at it, requires your time investment. If you don't have the time to invest in it, then you do what everyone else does and pick a different hobby.
I can only imagine peoples reactions if in the middle of a race a runner went to the sidelines to buy half a lap "because they simply don't have the time." Yet, it's perfectly OK to "buy" instead of earn stat points in these video games to some people.
But I forget, this is the society we live in now... instant gratification. ^%$# the actual sense of trying to work for and earn something. What was I thinking?
"Justify"? No need what so ever for that. If you don't like games that use this business model, by all means don't play them.
No matter what those involved in the crusade/jihad against the "horror" that is "Pay To Win" may say, the fact is its all about choices. Such games wouldn't continue to exist, if they didn't appeal to a sufficient demographic to be quite profitable. That is after all the major reason for this exercise. As I said, I really do not care what a games business model is, just so long as its entertaining. Different things for different people.
LOLZ
It's "attractive" to the "demographic" of lazy instant gratification individuals who do not want to take the time to make a legitimate effort in the things they do.
It is "quite profitable" because this is the attitude of the vast majority of our population; "Give it to me NOW."
The "choice" of not having to earn but instead to buy your points / stats / attributes will continue to be condoned as perfectly acceptable so long as people "don't care" about issues beyond their personal one dimensional "entertainment" / instant gratification.
I'm glad we agree. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a senate seat to go sell.
Chuckle... I'm glad we have had this chance for a meeting of minds, as it were,,, ^^ First and foremost, this entire exercise is about providing a service. Supply and demand. There is obviously a lot of demand for this, or it wouldn't be nearly as profitable as it is. We may both end up pointing and laughing at it (or each other...^^) but the bottom line, remains the bottom line. As long as its a matter of choice, and not coercion, I see no problem with it.
As I've often stated, if I enjoy a game, I really do not care what its business model is. In fact, I want it to be profitable, so the Dev's have incentive to keep it running, and perhaps expand it. If it stops being enjoyable, I'll find something else to do with my time and money.
As for the other, just remember the first rule of politics... Don't get caught... ^^
You are very good Wraith. I'll give you that. You were able to counter and recounter without getting overly emotional about it, and to that I tip my hat.
It's a trait too many of us lose control of (myself included.)
I can try it out before I decide if I want to spend money on it. As opposed to AoC, which I paid full retail for because it looked good and couldn't even stand to play it a week.
This means that if I have fun with the game then I'll spend my money and if I don't then I won't spend my money. Since SOE wants my money this gives them great incentive to make the game fun.
If the game is P2W then I won't be having any fun getting pwned by all the people who paid up on day 1, and SOE won't get my money. Since SOE wants my money, this gives them some incentive to make the game NOT P2W.
I can play this with my brother at least for a little while, whether its good or bad. My brother is perpetually broke so I normally only get to play games that are free or games that I buy two copies of. Hooray for not having to buy to copies of the game!
Comments
No. It's not.
Period.
P.S. League of Legends, read it.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
Actually it would be more truthful to say "Not Pay to Win" since SOE has lightyears of history proving they are one of the worst in the MMO industry when it comes to dealing with cheaters. PS2 will more than likely be just as ridden with aimbots, wall hacks, stealth hacks, etc. as PS1 was and F2P will just encourage people to use free accounts to cheat and then make another when they get caught. Heck the people that 'make' the cheats can use free accounts to test their designs. They don't even need to pay to figure out how to beat the code.
That's probably the worst analogy you could probably have used to try to refute my point.
Buy Runes. Play against someone who has not. You just PURCHASED an edge.
Pay. To. Win.
Post. Fails. HARD.
PERIOD.
Probably the most correct post in the entire thread.
"Justify"? No need what so ever for that. If you don't like games that use this business model, by all means don't play them.
No matter what those involved in the crusade/jihad against the "horror" that is "Pay To Win" may say, the fact is its all about choices. Such games wouldn't continue to exist, if they didn't appeal to a sufficient demographic to be quite profitable. That is after all the major reason for this exercise. As I said, I really do not care what a games business model is, just so long as its entertaining. Different things for different people. <shrug>
LOLZ
It's "attractive" to the "demographic" of lazy instant gratification individuals who do not want to take the time to make a legitimate effort in the things they do.
It is "quite profitable" because this is the attitude of the vast majority of our population; "Give it to me NOW."
The "choice" of not having to earn but instead to buy your points / stats / attributes will continue to be condoned as perfectly acceptable so long as people "don't care" about issues beyond their personal one dimensional "entertainment" / instant gratification.
I'm glad we agree. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a senate seat to go sell.
Will be interesting to see the final details of the payment options. Hopefully there WILL be options, because in all the so-called F2P games I've played to date, a monthly sub still gives the best overall value.
My main concern is not the payment model, but the fact that F2P offers a great opportunity to hackers. Banning a player account is meaningless in a F2P game. PlanetSide 1 was constantly plagued with hack users, and it was monthly sub only. Unless SOE have found the miracle cure for hax, PS2 will be dead before it's born...
Its soe you know the company run by Smedley we are taling about, think they care about their customers, hacking or the IP? They only want quick $ I'm sure, they are going to promise the world again and fail to deliver like always.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Chuckle... I'm glad we have had this chance for a meeting of minds, as it were,,, ^^ First and foremost, this entire exercise is about providing a service. Supply and demand. There is obviously a lot of demand for this, or it wouldn't be nearly as profitable as it is. We may both end up pointing and laughing at it (or each other...^^) but the bottom line, remains the bottom line. As long as its a matter of choice, and not coercion, I see no problem with it.
As I've often stated, if I enjoy a game, I really do not care what its business model is. In fact, I want it to be profitable, so the Dev's have incentive to keep it running, and perhaps expand it. If it stops being enjoyable, I'll find something else to do with my time and money.
As for the other, just remember the first rule of politics... Don't get caught... ^^
I already said basically the same thing earlier in the thread, but again - ^^^This
Also if you haven't realized it the P2P model is clearly on it's way out. I've been a staunch advocate of subs and P2P for a long time, but it's a lost battle at this point. This is the first year where subscription revenue declined while microtransaction revenue increased. Whether any of us likes it or not it is what's going to happen. Therefore, the key might be assisting to shape these new models of payment rather than simply crying about how much they suck (regardless of whether they do or not). LoL has an amazing system and if you haven't played the game you should check it out just so you can see how it functions.
Steam: Neph
You are very good Wraith. I'll give you that. You were able to counter and recounter without getting overly emotional about it, and to that I tip my hat.
It's a trait too many of us lose control of (myself included.)
See you on the battlefield bro.
wtf how is lol buytowin
Why necro?
I'm glad its F2P. That means several things:
I can try it out before I decide if I want to spend money on it. As opposed to AoC, which I paid full retail for because it looked good and couldn't even stand to play it a week.
This means that if I have fun with the game then I'll spend my money and if I don't then I won't spend my money. Since SOE wants my money this gives them great incentive to make the game fun.
If the game is P2W then I won't be having any fun getting pwned by all the people who paid up on day 1, and SOE won't get my money. Since SOE wants my money, this gives them some incentive to make the game NOT P2W.
I can play this with my brother at least for a little while, whether its good or bad. My brother is perpetually broke so I normally only get to play games that are free or games that I buy two copies of. Hooray for not having to buy to copies of the game!