Well, their logic isn't totally off. I paid to get the striker rocket launcher. Before I got it, I could not kill aircraft. After, I was slaughtering them. Most people could not unlock this rocket launcher without weeks of gameplay due to the ingame cert cost, and thus almost all non paying players did not have it. They did not pay, and could not win. I paid, and I won. Put two and two together.
If 'pay not to grind' is not P2W so what is then? If grinding IS in the game it should be equal for everybody, it shouldn't exist only for those who can't afford\don't want to pay to avoid this.
yes planetside 2 is a "pay 2 not grind" i don't consider these game "p2w". But for a lot of people a game that give faster method of unluck weapon (for example i need 30 hours who pay need 20 hours) is P2W. (also on ps2 there is extra resource gain IIRC this can be easily considered p2w in particolare now that they have removed Cooldown for vehicles and there is only one resource but i'm not too much informed about ps2) edit: instead of edit i created a new reply
Well, technically I could kill tanks with the default rocket launcher, and in certain situations it is the better choice (the striker can't dumbfire, and it has to lock on which means it's bad for sneak attacks and infantry). So it is technically a "sidegrade". There are many games (usually cheap and dirty MMORPGs) in which I could actually purchase a rocket launcher that was superior to the default version in every way. So there are some who claim that this is the only true version of PtW, since PS2 does have the cert purchase option (prohibitively expensive as it is) and all guns have (mostly) horizontal variation. I don't think that excuses the fact that I was a far more versatile soldier with the striker, racked up two orders of magnitude more aircraft kills than could ever have been done with the default, and in general became a superior force on the battlefield when compared to default FtP soldiers. And I'm afraid of the same thing happening in EC, only with the more extreme case where most people can't unlock these elite guns with RP or even with real money as a non-founder post launch. And at least PS2 didn't lock off entire vehicle classes to their playerbase. Everybody could harass with the Harasser, even if paying players got to equip it a little better.
I have a very simple approach to this: both of these examples you mentioned are P2W. The only difference is that the second one is more blatant and the first is more 'camouflaged'. You can call me old school now anybody.
I also bought the striker as soon as it came out, and the lancer, and the pump action shotguns and almost every single weapon in the 10 months I played, but I paid 1k certs for each weapon... IMO PS2 model it's not even close to P2W BUT it makes you grind* to much, if they reduced weapon prices to 750-700 certs instead of 1k it will be much better IMO. It's not really grind when you get rewarded by killing people in a pvp game.
The definition of Pay to win is at the heart of most of these discussions and a lot of it is very subjective. The most reasonable and commonly accepted definition I've run across is the following: "Pay to win exists in a system where players can attain an indisputable advantage over other players that cannot be attained through any method other than real money purchase." Now tolerances vary, some people claim even the smallest edge it tantamount to P2W and some are of the opinion that unless the purchase means you can win half asleep and with one hand it's not P2W. On top of that we have the arguments of what "advantage" means is it variety, is it higher stats, is it new potential tactics... all of which are not universally indisputably advantageous. Throw on top of that mix the debate over time for money and what accounts for an unreasonable grind vs. paying to shortcut it and you have a right mess in any discussion about it. We almost have to define our terms and accept we may never agree because we may not even be speaking the same language. The best i can do by example (and I'm probably going to regret wading back into this) is define what it means to me and hope that understanding if not agreement is reached. What pay to win means to AoC: 1. Purchasing something that gives a marked advantage (roughly 15% or better raw chance of victory by simply having/using it) between 2 players of equal skill. 2. Said Item or equivalent is not also attainable through game play without paying. What pay to win isn't in AoC's Opinion: 1. Equivalent but different 2. Paying to skip grind 3. Paying for 'premium time' (speeding grind see point 2) My tolerance for variation and minor differences which might be considered situational advantages may shock or upset some but honestly minor ups and downs don't worry me. My concerns are with real game breaking issues and even still as I have said we haven't seen any numbers yet so there aren't any real basis for calling P2W yet or not. Lastly comes the spectre of "pro players" or "high level players" and while it is true that a certain segment of players will abuse any edge they can get and exploit any advantage it needs to be said that general game balance needs to exist on the level of the majority of players otherwise you end up driving poisonous metas that drive the majority of players away. What i'm getting at by this is that what is considered Pay2Win by one player for whatever reason may not be by another for his own reasons. The Only reason this is important is that True Pay2Win tends to be easy to see and screaming about it before there's any evidence it's actually going to happen just makes people ignore you when it is actually happening. Civil discourse and debate is the best policy to remain heard. That said, we need a better explanation of what they are thinking about with the Vyper/Attack bike and how there is going to be any equivalent in Game for non-founders.
