The argument is that GW2 circumvents "p2win" buy allowing people to buy gems with gold.
For example, I believe buying 800 gem armor with gold is actually cheaper than the high end cultural armor, (can someone do the math and verify?)
The argument is that GW2 allows you to complete your end-game goals for cash. People keeping muddying the waters with what "p2win" is. P2Win goes beyond a player-vs-player mindset. Its just viewed as more "unfair" because it has a direct effect on a competitive environment. Theoretically there is no competition in PvE, there are however, personal conditions for 'victory' in one player that don't necessarily impact other players. Completing an item, getting a Legendary. None of these impact other players in a direct way, affecting their own personal conditions for victory in the PvE game. This is the essence of "p2win." To pay to meet whatever victory conditions you've set for yourself.
They do have an indirect effect, which is that they affect game-play development.
The entire point of the argument against any form of micro-transaction game is that it encourages developers design in game-play by encouraging that player tithes be coerced through micro-transactions. The Candy Crush models. The Smurf Village model. "Don't want to wait 24 hour to make progress? Buy some!"
Its the same logic that drives injecting multi-player into single-player games, because multi-player pulls in the player group that enjoys multi-player as well as justifies further expense in map-packs that all your friends and you have to buy to play together, as well as the Live or Plus subscription if you're on a console. Not to mention the weapon lockers/crates/boxes what have you, which short-cut an arduous weapon/skill unlocking system that is designed to be arduous to encourage micro-ts.
If only certain conditions are going to drive people to paying cash for gems, that's behavior any business person wants to encourage.
Edited by MazingerZ, 02 April 2014 - 03:10 PM.