[TLE] Why pay to win?

Citation, please? How do you "know" that?

You should roll on Stormhold, then. I personally only know 1 or 2 players there who buy an occasional VIT potion, and most of them aren't max level yet either, they just like maximizing the play time when they get the time.

That isn't EQ2, though, that's Blizzard's Warlords of Draenor.

Yeah the Garrison stuff is just pathetic. They "did away" with dailys but instead make you log in to just pretty much click a button and get random results. One of the main reasons I won't go back to that game at all right now

one of those "spend more time switching chars than doing anything" kind of deals? /mindmelt

Knock them all you want, Blizzard is pretty good at delivering what their player base wants.

Yes they make misteps (RMAH in D3), but they aren't afraid of fixing their mistakes - something a lot of companies could learn from.

You know their subs have gone down by like over half of what they were pre WoD rright? I'm aware it's an old game and such but I can't think of a single person I've talked to in a while who likes WoW in it's current state

Wrath of the Lich King on the other hand was awesome. Of course that was before the server phasing crap when you could actually kill a rare mob you saw rather than "zoning" to some other server instance 20ft from it.

Competitive on the TLE servers how, exactly ... with content that's been cleared 10 years ago? This is where I personally think this argument falls apart. There is nothing new here. For myself, I'm enjoying TLE because it's what I enjoyed years ago. But this notion of competition? Where every quest, every mob's loot table, every raid strat is already known to everyone who can use a browser? I just don't get where "competition" factors in at all with TLE. So why let how quickly (or slowly) someone else levels affect that at all?

I guess I'm still baffled by the concept of getting a sense of accomplishment in life from a video game. It seems to me that if your sense of pride and accomplishment comes from being the first to reach the cap in a video game, something is askew in the real world.

wotlk was VERY VERY CRAP game........... while in the other hand vanilla WOW and MAYBE TBC is a much better game than EQ 2 or even eq 1 we could argue...considerin that eq 1 altho a great game ... its very limited....
wotlk was crap coz it was the first step to inflation on the stats... they as usual made past raid gear obsolete..... it was much more grindin than adventurin comparin to previous games, it turned the dungeon crawlin more of a tank spankin if u have enough gear than strategy than it was in vanilla wow., AH starts to loose it values on low levels etc etc etc

anyway sucess of a game have nothing to do with marketplace or whatever but quality of the game....

eq 2 TLE is a big failure tbh because they just let everything obsolete....

pvp server is getti dead coz people couldnt stand the fact that some classes are dominatin ( people realy had hopes they would balance something )
and pve server s filled with people grindin the same thing all over again coz they have nothing better to do with their time...coz there s nothing of a challenge in the PVE in the state it s now...

if you realy value the time of ur life reconsider what you doin in eq 2...

"Success" of a commercial game is measured by one thing: Profits

Many quality games are not successful. Many less-than-stellar games are.

sorry but are you the developer or the gamer?

me as a gamer the sucess is based on the quality....

if im worried bout the profit of the company then im afraid i would not be playin a game but CREATIN one..

As a gamer I generally don't care too much if a game is successful or not, only if I enjoy it. MMO's are an exception since profits are what let me keep playing the game. But I don't confuse my personal enjoyment with whether or not the game itself was successful.

Love it or hate it WoW is the most successful MMO in history. That's an objective fact. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines is an awesome game (my opinion), but was not successful - Troika is no more.

Well I'd argue that Imo most successful game in history of MMORPG is EQ1 - every clone from EQ1 been less and less successful . Other game that arguably been as successful and EQ is Diablo (not WoW)

diablo have nothing to do with mmorpg scene just because it has spells and medieval classes it doesnt mean its the same thing...

and altho eq 1 s realy sucesful and great... 2 games took what eq had and did a realy good improvement..

WOW in its retail state and Vanguard that had failed due to many other reasons...

Exactly. WoTLK was fun to play, and that's the only really important part.

Edit: Played on Rivendare from the day it launched. PvP server.

beetween eq 2 and wotlk i would keep eq2 at any time...

I did play Vanguard and the reason why it been born dead - exactly as I said - 3rd clone of EQ did not worked at all ... I played it a bit - got druid up to level 42 and got bored to the tears.... I did not have debt of content that EQ1 had. it not been very casual gamer friendly as EQ2 for all purpose it was failure from start
Diablo is not really FPS as some might like to paint it... Diablo was born way before Ultima Online (The FIRST true MMORPG and imo best in terms how they hand chars progression - it's not level based). Diablo had all elements that MMORPG have - main of em - player interaction all across the world.. yes later it degrade mostly down FPS with elements of modern day MMORPG but at the beginning Diablo 1 - was unique and first of it's kind ... like forefather of all MMORPG.
I played UO for a long time- the only reason UO fall to EQ1 is debt of content and storylines.... in UO world you "live" in EQ1 world you "adventure"
EQ2 already just shadow of EQ1 really - content is nowhere near of EQ1, complexity of raids same BUT EQ1 was created and flourish for hard core games and been not very friendly toward casual gamers and that what give a birth of EQ2 as a concept
As for financial success well best money grinders as simple "fash games" in those games EVERYTHING built around sucking cash from you... I played for like half year in few of such games .. OMFG .. when I calculated how much money they suck from you - you will cry - for semi casual play you need at least $100 investment and of course nor content nor story line neither graphic stand even close to EQ2

there are a few ultima online private servers that has more people than TLE servers from eq 2

and eq 2 s a great exemple of money suckin

75 per cent of the quests in eq 2 feels like it was randonly generated by a computer.... that way is very easy to put like 100 quests per zone that u keep doin it doin it and take u to nowhere..

and again diablo 1 has nothing to do with eq 1 or wow or uo or whatever...

Implying I did nothing but gaming. You seem to misunderstand how MMOs can go full-circle and become casual when you reach the top. Lets just say Equilibrium raided half as much as the people trying to keep up with us. It's how you avoid burnout. Which is why when Deathtoll came around that took forever and you had to do it over and over, we said forget that noise and went away.

I didn't even have to log in outside of raids. Good times.
Though, for the record, gaming is legit. I'd do it full time if I could make a living off of it. That would be an achievement. Until then, I'll just settle for sweeping up the SOELive prize money.

See above quote: By being first, there's this nifty privilege of having so much money and so little competition that you can get everything that requires effort with minimal effort in minimal amounts of time. Everything else is lockout based and raids. So, to answer your question.. no. I don't play after I "win". And once you've "won" raids, you don't play at all until new content comes out, unless it's forced upon you.

If you're not playing the game as a race, then there's no "winning" concept, or issue with "pay to win". If you're not competing with other players, obviously you don't care if they get there first.

This whole discussion is regarding the advantage given, among people who are competing, upon paying real money for something.

You're effectively not entitled to any commentary on "pay to win" if you don't "play to win" or even see "winning" as a possibility.