Why Planetside 2 is not pay-to-win

The "defination" of P2W is a broad church ranging from the utterly innocuous to P2W so ridculous no game ever has or ever will have it........... and all or them are right (or wrong) depending on a certain point of view.

So it is pretty (or totally) meaningless to argue about "what is the defination of P2W".




PS2 has gone from having one of the most amazing and fair F2P models to one that is tap-dancing right on the edge of unacceptablility - whether you call it "pay to win", "pay for convenience" or just call it "Susan" (the name simply doesn't matter).


Although ironically I think they may as well make NW/Flak etc. SC buyable at this point.

Yeah, people who think PS2 Is P2W never obviously played a P2W game where all the action was controlled by a handful of single mid-forties guys who got a divorce and sank a third of their six-figure salary into video games to compensate for not having a wife and kids anymore. Go spend a couple days on Facebook games and learn what a P2W game looks like.

Are there really games like that though? That example is the mythical bogeyman under tha bed that just doesn't exist IMO - MMO games like that don't exist because noone would play them and they'd simply close down.

I can't think of any Western MMOs that are remotely so (even STO at its very worst wasn't as bad as the above, and even the worst dreams of EA Games aren't as bad as that).

I always assumed when people talk about winning they mean being able to kill the enemy more...

What? The Orion, and the SAW are free. The mswr is 100 certs. the carnage and the trv are free with the quiz. you also get a free shotgun. Plenty of awesome weaponry is 250 certs.

The thing about 1000 cert weapons is that they are more specialized that the 250 cert ones. The Razor is a "long range carbine", but you can make it work just fine closer up. The GD-7F is a CQC carbine, and if you try to make that work at longer ranges, you will be very disappointed. There are no examples of more expensive things being better overall than cheaper things. Instead, they are a lot better in certain situations- but those situations are rarer than situations where 250 cert weapons shine.

All weapons trade of something for something else. The BASRs trade fire-rate for speed. Most automatic weapons trade effective distance for increased effectiveness within that distance. No weapons are "good" or "bad"- instead, they are good or bad at different things.

I think I can rest my case.. lol

from the Urban Dictionary:
Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.

Of course PS2 is a pay to win game. If the majority of items in the store (including camo) did not offer a perceived advantage, players would not buy them.

Comparing PS2 to a subscription only game (or not pay to win) - in the original EQ a player could purchase better equipment/weapons/spells but couldn't equip the items until they had gained the necessary level through time played. There was no shortcut that would allow a level 1 player to win a pvp battle with a level 40 player.

Not pay to win, but the grind is really long and some core aspects of certain classes and vehicles have to be unlocked.

Paying can help you get up and running much quicker.

Planetside 2 is not P2W, its just got a really tricky learning curve, given its vast expanse and mass amounts of stuff to do and places to go. The starter equipment is more then able to stand its own, in many cases, starter weapons being the best overall weapons by many Players.

Ghost Recon Phantoms, that is a P2W game. Because, if you do not buy a max lvl armor suit and a better gun, you will simply be mauled. It stops putting you with noobs at lvl10 and you are thrown in against everyone....lv11-50. And those lvl50s, should you not P2W, will out do you everytime simply cuz their gear is better.

Starter LMG in that game is 560RpM, 39dmg or something. A Tier 4 gun, whcih is a half way point is 42dmg, 890Rpm. Tier 8 guns are 46dmg, 886Rpm.

It would be like the Gauss SAW having only 500Rpm 143dmg, while the Gauss SAW S being a higher tier gun having 625Rpm 200dmg....and a noob somehow supposed to be able to compete....

Naw, PS2 is one of the best overall balanced in terms of upgrade weapons vs starter gear. Only real difference is knowledge of equipment and skill at the game. Neither of which new players have.

Mostly what I was referring to was the ESFs and how they are incredibly ineffectual at stock. They don't have much defense from anti-air weaponry and they don't have any good offensive weapons either.

Sure, I guess if you're really good and know the game then you can probably dodge locked on weapons with smart use of your abilities and cause a lot of damage with just a stock fighter, but if you're experienced in the game then you're not in a stock fighter.

Also, if you're in a tank there's really no reason not to use AP right now other than not having it unlocked.

MMMMMMM... Tasty

Eating worms... how Vanu of you

Go back and read my post.

It's just my opinion on things. I never accused it of being pay to win.

How can I get 50% nanite boost without spending RM then?
If some company did this in MOBA game it would resemble ghost town after a month & here we call it "convenience".

I wasn't even talking about subscribing. I was talking about using Station cash to buy weapons and attachments and then using earned CERTs to buy passive stuff.

This is all semantics. If it takes a non-payer 6 months to unlock all the gear he needs to be effective, then at least for 6 months it may not be pay2win, but it certainly is not-pay-to-lose. And there will always be people not paying, thus there will always be people paying who have an advantage.

Why do people work so hard to defend free2play systems? *I* am going to defend free2play from a different standpoint. It may touch on pay2win, but people who don't pay aren't supporting the game's existence and should be considered cannon fodder anyway.

No. That is pay to play.

Any PS2 player can pull a tank - we are all equal and balanced.
If a player wants to equip a tank with a weapon that will potentially make their tank more powerful than stock then they can do that, immediately, by spending money. They do not have to earn (through time played, number of kills, etc.) the ability to equip a better weapon.

That is pay to win.

Nah, this game is a great example of free to play and I am happy to pitch in cash for it.

It is all about competition. U won't find P2W or subscription MOBA today simply because it won't stand a chance.
P2W is selling advantage, it does not necessary mean the player that paid will win.

Cert booster is not P2W because u must compare ppl on the same "equip level" of persistent progression.
But resource boost is, despite small, it means selling advantage.