Interview with Bioware (Gamescom)

[Urael]

I didn't say it was p2w. I asked if anyone thought it was.

 

But since you pointed it out, isn't it interesting that you get better experience buffs from logging out than from buying all the legacy exp perks combined? It's almost as if it's more advantageous to NOT play the game...

 

You only hold up to one levels worth of double exp so, only to a point. But then again you are not playing so you are not progressing. If you are playing multiple atls this works well. If you are only playing one toon and wait to always have a full double exp bar then some of that time you are not playing. Sure your "time played" when you type /played may be smaller but that doesn't necessarily equate to total amount of time spent getting there in real time. So in short, maybe.

[Andryah]

Take it on a small scale then

 

Lets say you and a friend just started playing the game. Your friend pays for xp pots and you dont. You both play the exact same time. He is leveling 50% faster then you are. Even though you get boosted in warzones, you still dont have the same skills as someone higher level. He may have stuns that you do not have access to. He may have healing abilities you do not have access too. He may have other hitting abilities you dont have access to. You cant deny that a higher level does have a leg up in PVP just in abilities alone.

 

If just the two of you PVP against each other ... and you are equally skilled. What is the result? Most likely, your friend, who bought level potions, will win more often then not.

 

Total conflation on your part because you don't like what they are doing. Any two people who are at different levels in this game experience your scenario.

 

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Compare them at the same level of play (ie: level 30 to level 30) and neither has an advantage from XP perks. And let's face it, no two people level at the same pace unless they only play together 100% of the time (and in such a situation, there is little likelyhood of one using XP perks and the other not as it defeats the whole purpose of playing together).

Edited August 15, 2012 by Andryah

[Andryah]

While xp pots dont have immeditate P2Win returns... they definately put a leg up.

 

They offer one advantage: time played vs level achieved. Which varies widely between any two people in this game anyway.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Andryah

[DarthTHC]

Total conflation on your part because you don't like what they are doing. Any two people who are at different levels in this game experience your scenario.

 

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Compare them at the same level of play (ie: level 30 to level 30) and neither has an advantage from XP perks. And let's face it, no two people level at the same pace unless they only play together 100% of the time (and in such a situation, there is little likelyhood of one using XP perks and the other not as it defeats the whole purpose of playing together).

 

In other words, it's accelerating the pace at which one player is "better" than another from the time they both start leveling until the time they both reach max level.

 

In doing that, it seems to be giving an ingame advantage to the player buying the perk, if only for the time that the lower level character is not max level.

[greatmilenk]

People who are saying an XP Boost is Pay 2 win... You my friends are quite sad. The time it takes to level to 50 does not affect anyone but yourself...... Really people?

[RobNightfall]

speeding up XP and leveling faster, especially allowing new players to do things faster.... ... well, that's not exactly pay-to-win. And we would never do pay to win.

 

 

Translated: They are willing to put stuff on the cash shop that speeds up XP gain.

 

Anyone here think that's Pay-to-win?

 

Like another poster I'm on the fence about it being pay to win. I consider it to be a bad idea in general, as it will encourage solo play and skipping to the end over group play, and MMOs aren't about solo play. I'm seriously thinking they should have just made KOTOR 3 and offered a multiplayer option. Then they could have added DLC expansions for that crowd and made money that way.

[Emeda]

Total conflation on your part because you don't like what they are doing. Any two people who are at different levels in this game experience your scenario.

 

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Compare them at the same level of play (ie: level 30 to level 30) and neither has an advantage from XP perks. And let's face it, no two people level at the same pace unless they only play together 100% of the time (and in such a situation, there is little likelyhood of one using XP perks and the other not as it defeats the whole purpose of playing together).

 

If someone is the same level then even in a P2W game there would be no difference between them.

 

Also listen to his example that you make up excuses for as it not to mean P2W.

 

Both him and his friend log onto the game at the same time all the time and do everything together (I would think that would include doing each players story line also) The one who purchased the XP boost would then have an advantage over the other because he would be a higher level than the other.

 

Higher level means better spells and better gear that you can wear which in return make you stronger than the other player. All that extra stuff from buying something when you do everything else in the game together is a form of P2W.

[DarthTHC]

People who are saying an XP Boost is Pay 2 win... You my friends are quite sad. The time it takes to level to 50 does not affect anyone but yourself...... Really people?

 

The other side to this coin is actually the more insidious one.

 

If this perk goes into the cash shop and it's expensive enough that subscribers' monthly stipend won't cover a month's worth of play, then it's generating yet more revenue from subscribers. It's one that a lot of subscribers would gladly pay for. So on top of their $15/month, they're paying another $15-$30 in xp boosts so their alts don't have to grind the same craptastic side missions as they level...

 

Smart. Very smart.

[Andryah]

In other words, it's accelerating the pace at which one player is "better" than another from the time they both start leveling until the time they both reach max level.

 

In doing that, it seems to be giving an ingame advantage to the player buying the perk, if only for the time that the lower level character is not max level.

 

Distort it all you want, but that dog won't hunt. There are dozens of ways for people to advance faster then one another in this game today.

 

Now, if they allowed you to buy class skills directly from the shop at level 1, then you have something you could argue is P-2-W because that would let a level 1 buy level 30 skills, or maybe even level 50 skills. You know they are not going to do that, so that dog was never born.

[Jnight]

Q: yeah especially the 1.2 with the UI and the legacy stuff.

Answer: Yeah, we focused a lot of energy on stuff that's not content, because we had to because they are core UI updates and features updates behind us, now we are going to focus almost completely on content updates.

I think that's an important thing right there.

 

Do people want a polished game or lots of content to just amble through?

 

Personally I would prefer a good base (polished UI) to build things off of, and then start adding in the content, which seems to be their philosophy. But then I didn't just rush through all the content when the game came out.

 

You can yell until you're blue in the face of what should and shouldn't have been in at launch, but that's bygones now.

 

Q: No AAA MMO has ever gone F2P so soon.

Answer: That's what we're excited about!

That line made me sick inside. Really? Going F2P within months of launching is exciting? A positive change? I'm a TOR fan but even I can see the duplicity in that comment.

You have to remember that that was a loose translation. But continue to feel sick if it makes you happy.

 

speeding up XP and leveling faster, especially allowing new players to do things faster.... ... well, that's not exactly pay-to-win. And we would never do pay to win.

Translated: They are willing to put stuff on the cash shop that speeds up XP gain.

Anyone here think that's Pay-to-win?

Nope. Looks like pay to reach end game faster to me...and if you were to believe half the complainers on this forum "game doesn't even begin until end game". So no its not pay to win.

 

This guy isn't a Star Wars fan yet he's running the game? Huh?

You will look for anything to complain about wont you. FYI that's not what he said at all.

 

But since you pointed it out, isn't it interesting that you get better experience buffs from logging out than from buying all the legacy exp perks combined? It's almost as if it's more advantageous to NOT play the game...

OK you are just trolling at this point, but do you even understand the concept? Its so people who are logged out because they don't have time to play have a chance of staying toe to toe level wise with their friends that play more. Edited August 15, 2012 by Jnight

[DarthTHC]

Distort it all you want, but that dog won't hunt. There are dozens of ways for people to advance faster then one another in this game today.

 

Now, if they allowed you to buy class skills directly from the shop at level 1, then you have something you could argue is P-2-W because that would let a level 1 buy level 30 skills, or maybe even level 50 skills. You know they are not going to do that, so that dog was never born.

 

There is no distortion in the post you replied to. An XP bonus, given two otherwise identical players, gives the one buying the boost a real ingame advantage over the one not buying the boost, right up to the point that the one not buying the boost reaches max level.

[Andryah]

The other side to this coin is actually the more insidious one.

 

If this perk goes into the cash shop and it's expensive enough that subscribers' monthly stipend won't cover a month's worth of play, then it's generating yet more revenue from subscribers. It's one that a lot of subscribers would gladly pay for. So on top of their $15/month, they're paying another $15-$30 in xp boosts so their alts don't have to grind the same craptastic side missions as they level...

 

Smart. Very smart.

 

Subscribers have other ways to accelerate XP in game that non-subs wont have unless they pay to access it.

 

Oh, I'm sure there will be some people that will sub, take all the in game accelerators, AND add cash xp accelerators on top of that. But that's a time to level choice by them, and for an impatient choice there is an option and a price for that option.

[Urael]

In other words, it's accelerating the pace at which one player is "better" than another from the time they both start leveling until the time they both reach max level.

 

In doing that, it seems to be giving an ingame advantage to the player buying the perk, if only for the time that the lower level character is not max level.

 

No.

 

Your argument could be applied as follows:

 

If one PLAYS MORE than another then they are at an advantage becasue they will level faster. We should put a govenor on the amount of experience gained as time played increases so EVERYONE STAYS ON THE SAME LEVEL.

 

This is what our Freaking Non-Education System does in the USA ( on that and you have to use purple to grade papers becasue red offends some people and makes them feel bad).

 

A bit reductio ad absurdum but, thats how it sounds to me as you argue your point. I will have to side with Andryah on this one.

[kosiah]

He's only been working there since May?

[DarthTHC]

No.

 

Your argument could be applied as follows:

 

If one PLAYS MORE than another then they are at an advantage becasue they will level faster. We should put a govenor on the amount of experience gained as time played increases so EVERYONE STAYS ON THE SAME LEVEL.

 

This is what our Freaking Non-Education System does in the USA ( on that and you have to use purple to grade papers becasue red offends some people and makes them feel bad).

 

A bit reductio ad absurdum but, thats how it sounds to me as you argue your point. I will have to side with Andryah on this one.

 

No, that's not how I'm arguing my point. My point actually has little practical application; it's just theoretical, because it assumes that both players are identical except for buying the xp boost.

 

*shrug*

[Andryah]

There is no distortion in the post you replied to. An XP bonus, given two otherwise identical players, gives the one buying the boost a real ingame advantage over the one not buying the boost, right up to the point that the one not buying the boost reaches max level.

 

For your conflation to be accurate, both parties would have to play identical curves of play time and play content. Which as I said (and you ignored) only really happens between people who play 100% together (and who would either both forgoe any xp boost, or both go for it SINCE THEY PLAY TOGETHER 100% of the time, and level TOGETHER).

 

You are trying too hard to make it about P-2-W. It's just not there.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Andryah

[Urael]

No, that's not how I'm arguing my point. My point actually has little practical application; it's just theoretical, because it assumes that both players are identical except for buying the xp boost.

 

*shrug*

 

Hey man I am just waiting for all the ZOMG NERF EXP GAIN NAO threads.

 

[greatmilenk]

For your conflation to be accurate, both parties would have to play identical curves of play time and play content. Which as I said (and you ignored) only really happens between people who play 100% together (and who would either both forgoe any xp boost, or both go for it SINCE THEY PLAY TOGETHER 100% of the time, and level TOGETHER).

 

You are trying too hard to make it about P-2-W. It's just not there.

 

Pay 2 Win is not in the equation for leveling speed. Now lets say Campaign gear was available at level 50 for 60 bucks a slot.... That my friends is Pay 2 Win. Oh and I agree with the quote.

Edited August 15, 2012 by greatmilenk

[Soluss]

Total conflation on your part because you don't like what they are doing. Any two people who are at different levels in this game experience your scenario.

 

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Compare them at the same level of play (ie: level 30 to level 30) and neither has an advantage from XP perks. And let's face it, no two people level at the same pace unless they only play together 100% of the time (and in such a situation, there is little likelyhood of one using XP perks and the other not as it defeats the whole purpose of playing together).

 

Total conflation on your part because you will eat anything BW throws at you.

 

Im not comparing apples to oranges. One that levels faster has a leg up in PVP. When you go in a warzone, you are not pitted against equal levels are you? This wouldnt happen but lets say all the republic used xp pots and all the imps didnt. Who gets access to skills quicker? Who gets access to WH faster? Who gets stomped? Its not comparing apples to oranges because you are put in the warzones with these same people. You are not put in against equal level.

 

Take it to open world... higher levels will stomp lower levels.

[Andryah]

My point actually has little practical application; it's just theoretical, because it assumes that both players are identical except for buying the xp boost.

 

On this, we agree. So I am happy to hear you acknowledge this.

 

Net/Net: No practical basis to argue it's P-2-W.

[Urael]

Total conflation on your part because you will eat anything BW throws at you.

 

Im not comparing apples to oranges. One that levels faster has a leg up in PVP. When you go in a warzone, you are not pitted against equal levels are you? This wouldnt happen but lets say all the republic used xp pots and all the imps didnt. Who gets access to skills quicker? Who gets access to WH faster? Who gets stomped? Its not comparing apples to oranges because you are put in the warzones with these same people. You are not put in against equal level.

 

Take it to open world... higher levels will stomp lower levels.

 

Ad hominem attack is ad hominem.

 

Andryah is not a biodrone. Remember when one tosses about pejoritives one has lost the debate.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Urael

[Andryah]

Total conflation on your part because you will eat anything BW throws at you.

 

Im not comparing apples to oranges. One that levels faster has a leg up in PVP. When you go in a warzone, you are not pitted against equal levels are you? This wouldnt happen but lets say all the republic used xp pots and all the imps didnt. Who gets access to skills quicker? Who gets access to WH faster? Who gets stomped? Its not comparing apples to oranges because you are put in the warzones with these same people. You are not put in against equal level.

 

Take it to open world... higher levels will stomp lower levels.

 

There are many ways to out level another player in this game. That is self-evident.

 

Are those all P-2-W too??? No, they are not, and you know it.

 

Pick a negative argument about the game that you can win, IMO.

[Nagadeath]

i took many things from the video.

 

first that judging from his insistence that they want to add warzones and ops at a high rate. we will be getting insane amounts of power creep in this game in the near future.

 

the only ways to avoid the level of power creep they are setting themselves up for are either make all the new ops gear side grades or up the level cap every few ops to equalize the player power level. both options have drawbacks. the side grade route will spread the player base out at endgame and will cause guild drama over what ops to do. the level cap route will cause the game to grow to quickly and require constant balancing.

 

 

second he seemed to want to downplay stories. stories are the only unique aspect of this mmo. cutting back on that would make this just another generic mmo and will run off a fairly large segment of this games subscribers.

 

third and this one could be a game killer. he seemed to think that adding ops and warzones was all they needed to do for endgame. one of the main issues with endgame right now is outside of ops and warzones there is nothing else to do. when asked about single player endgame content (aka the stuff you do when not in ops or warzones) he seemed to think they didn't need to work on anything else.

 

you need other things for players to do at endgame outside ops and warzones. you need things to keep people busy and enjoying themselves or people will leave. if they do not get this after all the mini game requests this game is doomed. adding more multiplayer is good but not giving people things to do outside the multiplayer is a huge mistake.

 

fourth this guy has one of the worst poker faces i have ever seen..... you could see those facial ticks every time he had to put the EA spin on free to play from a mile away. it almost looked like he was going to puke getting some of the spin out.

 

look i know you guys think F2P will bring in tons of players but with the system requirements of this game that's just not going to happen. F2P games only thrive when they can bring in older, lower powered systems. no one is going to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade their systems for a free to play game and this game does not work well on lower powered, older systems. just look at all the "will this system play this game" threads and see what people are telling others to upgrade to then go price all these things.

 

overall the video gave me less hope for the game moving forward than i had before.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Nagadeath

[DarthTHC]

For your conflation to be accurate, both parties would have to play identical curves of play time and play content. Which as I said (and you ignored) only really happens between people who play 100% together (and who would either both forgoe any xp boost, or both go for it SINCE THEY PLAY TOGETHER 100% of the time, and level TOGETHER).

 

You are trying too hard to make it about P-2-W. It's just not there.

 

There's a difference between the buff not providing an ingame advantage and you not caring that the buff provides an ingame advantage, right?

[Soluss]

No.

 

Your argument could be applied as follows:

 

If one PLAYS MORE than another then they are at an advantage becasue they will level faster. We should put a govenor on the amount of experience gained as time played increases so EVERYONE STAYS ON THE SAME LEVEL.

 

This is what our Freaking Non-Education System does in the USA ( on that and you have to use purple to grade papers becasue red offends some people and makes them feel bad).

 

A bit reductio ad absurdum but, thats how it sounds to me as you argue your point. I will have to side with Andryah on this one.

 

No, because if you play the same amount of time one is greatly advancing over the other. You are actually proving my point by saying this.