Is the game now Pay To Win?

Or people can just learn to get better and not rely on crutches? Honestly, does every part of the game have to be shallow instant gratification to be enjoyed? Gamers these days...

You weren't their when the game were new and people didn't have alot of Anti air, Pretty much the either map was all air. Lock on missile are a good way for ground to take care of air. A skill piloit are able to deal with lock on.

Resource gain is not pay to win as long as the standard resource gain is reasonable for a non-subscription player. Can the subscriber, pull additional vehicles and other resource dependent consumables, then the non-subscriber, YES. However, that doesn't really impact the non-subscriber other then they can't do those things as often and it does not put them at a direct disadvantage, because even though a subscriber may be able to pull vehicles more often, the non-subscriber can use Rocket Launchers, Base Turrets, AV Mana Turrets to counter those vehicles at no resource cost...

I disagree I think all mt other point are very relevant. Sure that the starter weapon are good at killing all the same but what if those weapons does not fit this player's play style what if he would be better with the other ones you need to buy. until he's able to get that gun then he is not as good as he would be.

The definition that paid to win where pay=always win then no game in excites are pay to win but if you say pay= become better faster then yes it's pay to win.

This is coming from a subscriber, The side that can pull more armor, air or whatever more have an advantage, so your argument isn't valid.

So you say that a mosquitos... nothing is 100% competitive with a ravens A2A or hornet missiles??Or heat with AP??You only think in infantry weapons.Although i don't understand how a carv or saw is competitive against a jackhammer or cyclone in cqc?

OH! no I'm a subscriber, the travesty... I also skin puppies on the weekend...

The side that can pull more Armor or Air would have an advantage if all the subscribers where on one faction and all the non- subscribers are on another faction, but subscribers and non-subscribers play side by side, this is a red herring argument. I play with many non-subscribers and they benefit from my subscription, just as much as I do, because if they haven't the resources to pull their vehicle, they hop in and gun for mine, I might even argue they are benefiting more, since I'm the one driving...

What, you skin puppies on the weekend? I think you need help mate, not to mention it's illigel.

It doesn't matter if you have subscribers and non subscribers on each team. A game isn't F2P and not P2W if it's like you are at a disadvantage than other payed players but don't worry you have payed players on your team too.

Yeah, I agree. Why they don't allow you to pick and choose what you want to start with I don't know. I still don't classify anything as pay-to-win though. They just need to make things more palatable for the new players. I think sometimes it's a matter of perception.

I wish, but this game is more about making money than making the game good experiences for new and free members.

Right? I mean it isn't like other free to play games only let you use a small group of things available at a time, why doesn't League let you pick any champ you want and not use free rotation? Why doesn't Warframe let you pick whichever frame you want at the start? Why doesn't ever free to play game just let the players pick whatever they want to have at the start and limits them to things that they have to unlock or earn by money or by time? They should just charge one fee and give everything! That would work right? Oh wait...or they could just allow people to have whatever they want at the start and then decide if they want to donate money to the devs for having given them anything they wanted?

Don't forget that you also get a shotgun as a default weapon now ... So it evens that aspect up a bit ..

And the HA with overshield might have the survival time to make the gauss saw work closer in some cases, but ya shotgun option and grenade spam still work =p

@Prodavit: you are equating the weapon unlocks w/ noobs not being able to get more guns equating to sticking around.

Regardless of any of that, PS2 has so much going on that it's going to be a challenge for anyone new to figure out what killed them and from there. There are going to be a lot of deaths and you're kind of being forced into playing support at the beginning. If your friends are coming from being bad-arses on whatever game they're playing to a lowly scrub, that's not going to keep people around longer.

Let's take the Korean Crown server closure to the influx on Connery. Those guys had to start over, but they had the situational awareness experience and have been doing just fine. As with my own experience, I have a BR126 according to DA and I still get randomly sniped, hit by tanks or air. If the first shot doesn't kill me or I hear a wizz missing me, I'm going to hop around and find cover. So I have also started alts on Briggs and Emerald. I know that until I get my nanoweave up, my IVI is going to suffer, but I know how to position and aim to still get my kills.

I agree completely, that's why I said devs should remove lock-ons.

First of all, I'm very explicitly talking about A2A missiles, not G2A missiles. Second, I've been here since mid-beta so yeah I remember that.

Every free to play is a Pay to Win in the relative sense.
Every free to play game will offer some way to get a point faster than a free-to-player can get.

This is true for Planetside, this is true for Warframe.

In Warframe i can buy a Boltor Prime or Soma Prime (two of the most powerfull weapons ingame) with money from another player.
A free-to-player will have to grind through the game to get these weapons. The person with money will be more powerfull for the duration the F2Per has collected the same weapons/gear. But this gap always has the potential to be closed by 100%. That is what i meant with the 'Pay to win in the relative sense'.

The same goes for Planetside.
A premium membership will get you certs a bit faster, meaning with money i can reach upgrades before the F2Per. But this gap is also close-able by 100%, and it shouldn't take that much time. Even if the gap is not yet closed by 100%, it doesn't mean the player with money is going to win every single time. Because the game never revolves around the actions of 1 player. Or better to say: it never revolves around these two specific individuals facing each other under the same circumstances with no outsiders over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over with no end.

I mean, theoretically it is pay to win. But the execution is such that resources are so generous that it works.

I think the argument many have is that some see pay-to-win as a negative term. You say a game is pay-to-win when something is unfair about it, especially when talking about PvP games and the pay model being unbalanced between free customer and paying customer.

I agree, if the standard resource gain wasn't reasonable it definitely would be pay to win. I think PS2 does F2P better then most games and if anything I think they make it almost too easy to play for free, you really are not restricted at all.

I read a pretty good description of Pay 2 Win and it is the standard which I go by.

P2W - is when a game offers an item for money that gives that player an advantage that would be unattainable without paying money or if it is offered for free, the time and effort needed to achieve that item is so severe, that buying the item is really the only reasonable and reliable way to obtain it.

Obviously, there is some room for interpretation even in that definition, especially in regards to the words "severe" and "reasonable" and "reliable" but those are terms that need to be defined individual for each game.

I like to look at in another way as well, You can either buy a game for $60+ dollars outright and then pay some set amount for add-ons or you can pay a subscription of $10-15 per month, both of which I think are reasonable prices for a game. I look at F2P games, much like I would a regular game that I play and if I play it on a nightly basis or at least a few hours every so often, then I think it is only reasonable that I should support that game by spending at least $10 / month. and I do not have an issue with those player with subscriptions to have an easier time at playing or can do more things more often, because they are spending $10/ month as long as I am not at a 1 vs 1 disadvantage, based primarily on those purchases. I still maybe at a 1 vs 1 disadvantage, but mostly that is because I have less time invested in the game, more so then having less money invested.

I guess what I am saying, is even though a game is F2P, you should not think you are entitled to play that game for free indefinitely and it is reasonable to expect to pay approximately $10/month to get the most out of the game.

It has always been P2W. It is even more P2W now.

When you can buy things with real world cash that other people are paying CERTs for you are paying to win the worth of those CERTs.

When you can not unlock certain Directives without buying an item to unlock those Directives, the only option to get those Directives is to pay to win.

It's a fun game and the P2W doesn't often override the fun of this game, but it is very much P2W.

Using Hacks in game to Cheat seem to be the most grievous detriment to player enjoyment. (I know that faction imbalance is a real issue on some servers during parts of the day.)

I'm an All Access member at this point. I will admit that, in paying, I'm getting shorter queue times, ~48 CERTS per day per character for each of my 7 characters that I log-in each day, and more resources, etc.

As for the difference between a Market-based P2W and the Subscription-model as P2W, I'm more prone to support the Subscription-model. I feel that the Subscription-model is a more level playing field - there is a limit to the amount that you can spend on the game per month with a subscription only model. The only limit to how much you can spend in a Market-based game is how much real world money you have to spend on the game.