Unpopular opinion: ESO is NOT pay-to-win

Kiralyn2000

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Way overbroad definition of p2w, makes it so broad that it's meaningless. Because at that point, you can stretch it to cover literally anything with a $ cost.


If you're after costumes, and certain costumes can only be gotten in a DLC or expansion, then buying the expansion is p2w.

Heck, even buying the game in the first place could be considered p2w at that point.

Tandor

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Totally false. Wearing the skin of your choice is not winning. It simply means the game caters well to your preferred playstyle, but it doesn't confer you with any advantage over another player who doesn't wear that skin and that is very much at the heart of any commonly accepted definition of Pay to Win.

Tommy_The_Gun

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Yep, if "fashion" is an end game, then yes - as best skins, appearance and furnishing come from crown store. Also, ESO+ gets double furnishing limit, so in a contest for "best decorated house" - ESO+ player would win and non-eso+ would be in a terrible disadvantage.

Very similar situation when it come to combat. We have 2 classes that for the most part are kinda stronger than base game classes (not always, just "overall"). Also, for the most part "BIS" (or best-in-slot) gear comes from DLC dungeons - and in order to get those, you either have to have ESO+ subscription, or buy the DLC dungeon. Either way - you have to pay to have access to "slightly" better gear.

Anyway, I am gonna say that it could have been far worse. I mean there are a lot of customization we can get from the crown store with crown gems (just by watching a lot of twitch streams) or seals of endeavors. With antiquities system we also can "excavate" a lot of cool customization.

If you would ask me if ESO is P2W, in a "digital" or "binary" 0/1 or yes/no answer, I would say, yes - eso is P2W.
But if you would ask me again my "analogue" answer would be: ESO is 2 - 3% P2W.

So (imho) ESO is P2W, but it is barely noticeable, so I guess it is ok.

gamma71

Play Neverwinter and you will understand pay 2 win. Eso has a very balanced system. And people complaining about Necros and wardens it really doesn't cost that much. I think 14.99 just to have a craft bag is worth there's no way I could live with out it and you will have crowns In no time to buy ne cro and warden.

And almost every game on Android is true pay 2 win.

jedtb16_ESO

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Yep, if "fashion" is an end game, then yes - as best skins, appearance and furnishing come from crown store. Also, ESO+ gets double furnishing limit, so in a contest for "best decorated house" - ESO+ player would win and non-eso+ would be in a terrible disadvantage.

Very similar situation when it come to combat. We have 2 classes that for the most part are kinda stronger than base game classes (not always, just "overall"). Also, for the most part "BIS" (or best-in-slot) gear comes from DLC dungeons - and in order to get those, you either have to have ESO+ subscription, or buy the DLC dungeon. Either way - you have to pay to have access to "slightly" better gear.

Anyway, I am gonna say that it could have been far worse. I mean there are a lot of customization we can get from the crown store with crown gems (just by watching a lot of twitch streams) or seals of endeavors. With antiquities system we also can "excavate" a lot of cool customization.

If you would ask me if ESO is P2W, in a "digital" or "binary" 0/1 or yes/no answer, I would say, yes - eso is P2W.
But if you would ask me again my "analogue" answer would be: ESO is 2 - 3% P2W.

So (imho) ESO is P2W, but it is barely noticeable, so I guess it is ok.

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Yep, if "fashion" is an end game, then yes - as best skins, appearance and furnishing come from crown store. Also, ESO+ gets double furnishing limit, so in a contest for "best decorated house" - ESO+ player would win and non-eso+ would be in a terrible disadvantage.

Very similar situation when it come to combat. We have 2 classes that for the most part are kinda stronger than base game classes (not always, just "overall"). Also, for the most part "BIS" (or best-in-slot) gear comes from DLC dungeons - and in order to get those, you either have to have ESO+ subscription, or buy the DLC dungeon. Either way - you have to pay to have access to "slightly" better gear.

Anyway, I am gonna say that it could have been far worse. I mean there are a lot of customization we can get from the crown store with crown gems (just by watching a lot of twitch streams) or seals of endeavors. With antiquities system we also can "excavate" a lot of cool customization.

If you would ask me if ESO is P2W, in a "digital" or "binary" 0/1 or yes/no answer, I would say, yes - eso is P2W.
But if you would ask me again my "analogue" answer would be: ESO is 2 - 3% P2W.

So (imho) ESO is P2W, but it is barely noticeable, so I guess it is ok.

ok, but how do i know when i have won?

Amottica

I haven’t seen any indication that the majority of players or even forum goers think ESO is P2W. I have only seen some comments that stretch things to suggest the game is P2W or going in that direction.

Kwoung

Amottica wrote: »

I haven’t seen any indication that the majority of players or even forum goers think ESO is P2W. I have only seen some comments that stretch things to suggest the game is P2W or going in that direction.

I agree... Just reading the title of the post confused me actually, as the rare P2W thread that pops up here, always seems to get hammered down. The "Unpopular" position, would be trying to stretch the P2W definition to include ESO.

Easy example for those not fully versed in what P2W actually is:

• Buying 1000 troops, tanks and rocket launchers in the game store to crush your enemies with is P2W. You spent money to buy something you didn't earn... and crushed the opposition who didn't.
• Wearing an outfit you think looks cool (others may or may not even think its cool) or buying the biggest house in the game, is not P2W. You have not in any way affected the gameplay of the game by purchasing that outfit or house, regardless of how important *you* feel housing or fashion is.

kargen27

I hate when the unpopular opinion has 83% of the support. Makes me begin to question what unpopular really means. Questioning things makes my brain itch.
You ever try to scratch your brain? The pain becomes almost unbearable long before the knitting needles get deep enough to do any good.

And a random screen shot.

spartaxoxo

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Even if you were to say cosmetics can be p2w, which I don't really agree with but let's say for argument sake that it does, then I don't merely having crown store cosmetics would suffice. Because by that over broad defintion, having cash shop exclusives at all is p2w, even if they are lower in quality because someone didn't want the more detailed dress they wanted THAT cash shop dress and had to spend money to fix it. And that seems absurd to me.

Instead if we're gonna include cosmetics it should follow the same rules as other items, which is how they compare.

ESO has high quality and desires cosmetics release for free all the time, that compare favorably to crown store exclusives. The crown store items are more plentiful but you can create gorgeous looks at no cost.

Therefore I don't think even including cosmetics it can be considered p2w.

Kwoung

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Therefore I don't think even including cosmetics it can be considered p2w.

You are correct, I have no clue who Jim Sterling is, but he is 100% off the mark if he thinks fashion items are PTW. Bottom line, if the item doesn't help you progress through content more easily, if it doesn't give you an edge in combat, if it can't get you on the leaderboards, etc... it isn't P2W.

That said, if there was a "fashion" based game where characters were judged on looks or something to progress, and outfits sold in their store for money gave an edge in that progression, then that would be P2W.

francesinhalover

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

Pay-to-win criteria:
1. Cash shop contains weapon/armor that is unobtainable in the game. (✘)
2. Cash shop contains direct xp boost that is unobtainable in the game (easily). (✘)
3. Cash shop contains skip for previous contents. (✘)
4. Cash shop contains resources that is unobtainable in the game (easily). (✘)
5. Cash shop contains pay-for-convenience items. (✔)
(1)Skyshards/Skill line: you must complete the requirements on at least 1 character. (optional)
(2)Armory/character slots. (optional)
(3)pocket banker/merchant. (optional)

As you can see, ESO cash shop only offers what you want, such as optional convenience items and cosmetics, instead of what you need, like endgame gear, mats, etc.

Thus, strictly speaking, ESO is NOT pay-to-win.

Josh Strife Hayes has a great video on pay-to-win games, posted a few days ago. Here is the link:
What makes a game 'Pay to Win'?

[Editted for formating]

you are 90% right, the issue is when new events drop people that bought them can farm sets, and sell them for insane prices.
i still remember the jewelary crafting...

anyways i wouldnt say eso is p2w ,idk , depends on the person

spartaxoxo

Kwoung wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Therefore I don't think even including cosmetics it can be considered p2w.

You are correct, I have no clue who Jim Sterling is, but he is 100% off the mark if he thinks fashion items are PTW. Bottom line, if the item doesn't help you progress through content more easily, if it doesn't give you an edge in combat, if it can't get you on the leaderboards, etc... it isn't P2W.

That said, if there was a "fashion" based game where characters were judged on looks or something to progress, and outfits sold in their store for money gave an edge in that progression, then that would be P2W.

There are actually some fashion games like that where the story progresses based on your look, and the premium outfits get you better story outcomes or let you automatically win or make it easier to win confrontational scenes/better endings.

amapola76

redspecter23 wrote: »

Also, consider that ESO has a large and very passionate housing community. If you "win" by participating in housing, either competitions or just for your own enjoyment, ESO is very much pay to win on a level of over $100 per new house potentially. Again, a general playerbase doesn't currently consider that winning in pay to win terms so it slides through. Player perceptions change so we may see the definition of pay to win change over time to cover other game monetization.

I care quite a bit about housing. But I would never consider "winning" to be a concept that applies to housing in any way, shape, or form, in this game or any other.

kargen27

amapola76 wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

Also, consider that ESO has a large and very passionate housing community. If you "win" by participating in housing, either competitions or just for your own enjoyment, ESO is very much pay to win on a level of over $100 per new house potentially. Again, a general playerbase doesn't currently consider that winning in pay to win terms so it slides through. Player perceptions change so we may see the definition of pay to win change over time to cover other game monetization.

I care quite a bit about housing. But I would never consider "winning" to be a concept that applies to housing in any way, shape, or form, in this game or any other.

There are guilds that have contests where homes are judged. I've entered a few and afterwards went and looked at the other homes in the competition. With unlimited items and unlimited time I would never get close to some of the amazing things players are doing with their homes.

I did do really well in a contest for cluttered homes used just for storage because even with homes just for storage they couldn't help but put everything down in a nice fashion. Mine was a real heap. Point being though the extra slots aren't going to make up for lacking the artistry to pull off what some of the housing elite are doing.

Edited because I spelled "and" wrong.

Kwoung

kargen27 wrote: »

amapola76 wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

Also, consider that ESO has a large and very passionate housing community. If you "win" by participating in housing, either competitions or just for your own enjoyment, ESO is very much pay to win on a level of over $100 per new house potentially. Again, a general playerbase doesn't currently consider that winning in pay to win terms so it slides through. Player perceptions change so we may see the definition of pay to win change over time to cover other game monetization.

I care quite a bit about housing. But I would never consider "winning" to be a concept that applies to housing in any way, shape, or form, in this game or any other.

There are guilds that have contests where homes are judged. I've entered a few and afterwards went and looked at the other homes in the competition. With unlimited items and unlimited time I would never get close to some of the amazing things players are doing with their homes.

I did do really well in a contest for cluttered homes used just for storage because even with homes just for storage they couldn't help but put everything down in a nice fashion. Mine was a real heap. Point being though the extra slots aren't going to make up for lacking the artistry to pull off what some of the housing elite are doing.

Edited because I spelled "and" wrong.

Yes, players create mini-games in most MMO's. Player created events do not affect the actual functioning of the game mechanics or progress you through it whatsoever, so nothing that allows you to *win* in player created content, can be considered PTW.

Toxic_Hemlock

gamma71 wrote: »

Play Neverwinter and you will understand pay 2 win. Eso has a very balanced system. And people complaining about Necros and wardens it really doesn't cost that much. I think 14.99 just to have a craft bag is worth there's no way I could live with out it and you will have crowns In no time to buy ne cro and warden.

And almost every game on Android is true pay 2 win.

Exactly. I played that game for a year, more or less, and in that time they made all the gear I had earned/bought become less than useless once a new mod was released. I loved the combat, the D&D style and in most cases the atmosphere, but it meant little when you had to upgrade all your gear every 3 months. And we're not talking just your rings or just some minor enchantments, in most, all?, cases they rebuilt the game from the ground up and remade it thus forcing you to no longer be good at what you were great at a week ago.

In this game I don't mind spending real money on cosmetics and the occasional mount, but at least it is not pried out of my wallet if I want to continue to play with any competence. HUGE difference!

spartaxoxo

kargen27 wrote: »

amapola76 wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

Also, consider that ESO has a large and very passionate housing community. If you "win" by participating in housing, either competitions or just for your own enjoyment, ESO is very much pay to win on a level of over $100 per new house potentially. Again, a general playerbase doesn't currently consider that winning in pay to win terms so it slides through. Player perceptions change so we may see the definition of pay to win change over time to cover other game monetization.

I care quite a bit about housing. But I would never consider "winning" to be a concept that applies to housing in any way, shape, or form, in this game or any other.

There are guilds that have contests where homes are judged. I've entered a few and afterwards went and looked at the other homes in the competition. With unlimited items and unlimited time I would never get close to some of the amazing things players are doing with their homes.

I did do really well in a contest for cluttered homes used just for storage because even with homes just for storage they couldn't help but put everything down in a nice fashion. Mine was a real heap. Point being though the extra slots aren't going to make up for lacking the artistry to pull off what some of the housing elite are doing.

Edited because I spelled "and" wrong.

Honestly as someone who has won and participated in housing contests and has some decent homes, this is very true. And honestly I find the biggest limiter of making a nice one is coin rather than crowns. A lot of the meat and bones of a home is player crafted furnishings and luxury vendor furnishings. People often have a few crown only items in their houses that really spruce things up, but most of what makes those houses pop is the creativity and skill.

Narvuntien

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

I am not sure I completely agree with Jim-Stephanie Sterling. But I can follow the logic and I do agree with them that lookboxes are gambling even if you can't cash out. (They are non-binary use They/Them)

In order to follow their logic you need to look at micro transaction from there otherside of the equation, how is ESO monetized? To some extent in order for the game to exist it needs to make money and is there any other way to do that other than pay to "win"?

There needs to be some people spending thousands of dollars on crownstore items to keep the game running. We are playing on the backs of whales.

MMOs are leveraging the social interaction aspect, imagine you are a lonely down on your luck person but in ESO you have a fabulous house and a guild that loves to visit it. But in order to have this positive social interactions going you feel a psychological need to be spending money you likely don't have on the biggest house and pritfying it with the shiniest objects. Can you see how that can become a kind of dependence?

I am a person with more time than money so I put up with the annoiances and play, inventory management online from time to time. But not everyone has the time to do that they might only have a couple of hours to play each day and the amount of junk you get during events quickly fills your inventory and your bank and your other characters inventory. This will lead to people putting money down on a subscription.

In defence of ESO: The "best" gear is actually pretty meaningless since all the content can be completed with Hundings/Spriggans or whatever, similar for best class. Unless you are doing like Vet content achievement hunting the game is not preventing you from playing the game you have paid for to the best of your ability.

I, an unemployed person without income, prefer being able to buy to play rather than subscription models that lock me out of other MMOs. I can put down that $30 a year for the new expansion no problem. That isn't an option with ESO compedators. (Also expansions come out around my birthday )

Also, this game is generous with its cosmetics, usually you get something cool from completing quests, motifs can be bought and sold in the guild stores so you can get your hands on them. There are plenty of achievement based cosmetics that encourage gameplay and not getting your wallet out.

It is low on the Pay to Win scale but we have to understand it is still playing psychological tricks on the people suseptable to it.

FeedbackOnly

I believe few people who play game would say this. We do get close a few times but still aren't there

Uvi_AUT

Narvuntien wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

I am not sure I completely agree with Jim-Stephanie Sterling. But I can follow the logic and I do agree with them that lookboxes are gambling even if you can't cash out. (They are non-binary use They/Them)

I know that, my sentence just didnt have any pronouns in it ;-)

Uvi_AUT

Tandor wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Totally false. Wearing the skin of your choice is not winning. It simply means the game caters well to your preferred playstyle, but it doesn't confer you with any advantage over another player who doesn't wear that skin and that is very much at the heart of any commonly accepted definition of Pay to Win.

Allright, then riddle me this.
If my definition of winning would be to own every mount in the game, how would I "win" without "pay" ?
As for the definition. I strongly disagree with that. Cosmetics are definitely pay to win, if theyre deliberately way cooler than the ones you can get by playing the game.
Remember, Combat is by no means the most important part of an mmorpg for many people.

spartaxoxo

Narvuntien wrote: »

It is low on the Pay to Win scale but we have to understand it is still playing psychological tricks on the people suseptable to it.

Pay to Win isn't about whether or not some people may have mental health issues that are exacerbated by gaming. It's about whether or not spending money in the cash shop allows you to "win" over other players. Jim's definition of p2w would basically make any exclusive monetization p2w, regardless if it confers an advantage or not. Which defeats the purpose of examining it because p2w is essentially a way for consumers to hold companies responsible for not allowing economic class to have a large impact on success at the game.

Thus if we are going to apply "p2w" logic to things not traditionally viewed as winning such as having social indicators of success like cosmetics, or economic success in the game, we should be looking at whether the cash shop items compare unfavorably to the regular game.

And the answer to that is no. They actually don't release nice cosmetics as exclusively cash shop items. There are nice houses, outfits, skins, furniture and mounts added to the game that do no require the cash shop every year. The nicest outfits even come from motif combos which are mostly added to the game outside the cash shop.

I think resource gathering is the only thing in this game that's p2w.

_adhyffbjjjf12

Apart from the occasional ill informed rant on a forum I have never heard anyone say ESO is pay to win, what's the point of the post OP?

Iron_Warrior

Someone needs to explain the meaning of the word "Unpopular" to op. These forums are something else...

Larcomar

?

Tandor

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Of course it is.

Jim Sterling has a take on Pay to Win that stuck with me.
Customization, Skins and such is the main gameplaypart for a lot of players. So if getting skins is your goal in a game and there are skins that are only available in a cash shop, the game is per definition pay to win.

I holeheartedly agree with this. Winning doesnt always mean getting more powerful in terms of killing stuff.

Totally false. Wearing the skin of your choice is not winning. It simply means the game caters well to your preferred playstyle, but it doesn't confer you with any advantage over another player who doesn't wear that skin and that is very much at the heart of any commonly accepted definition of Pay to Win.

Allright, then riddle me this.
If my definition of winning would be to own every mount in the game, how would I "win" without "pay" ?
As for the definition. I strongly disagree with that. Cosmetics are definitely pay to win, if theyre deliberately way cooler than the ones you can get by playing the game.
Remember, Combat is by no means the most important part of an mmorpg for many people.

You can define winning however you want, but it isn't how everyone else defines winning in the context of Pay to Win. You're fulfilling your ambition to own every mount, but that isn't winning the game in any generally accepted sense.

Pay to Win is about being able to buy something that is only available in the cash shop that gives you a competitive advantage over a player who only uses things that are available through playing the game. Owning every mount in the game may well fulfil a player's most important purpose in playing the game but it would not give that player any competitive advantage whatsoever, and therefore having to buy some of them in the cash shop doesn't constitute Pay to Win.

Now, if those cash shop mounts came with enhanced stats over the ones in the game, and those enhanced stats gave you a competitive advantage over other players who didn't buy those mounts, then that would constitute Pay to Win.

Riptide

It isn’t pay to win, but it is a singularly annoying company bent towards the crown store. Drives so many small decisions about the game that it is responsible for a long list of meh.

Drilling down to the subatomic level of what “pay to win” means is, well, distinction without a difference when the crown store is simply annoying in a sometimes outsized and often borderline predatory way.

But hey, this is fine.

AJones43865

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

Pay-to-win criteria:
1. Cash shop contains weapon/armor that is unobtainable in the game. (✘)
2. Cash shop contains direct xp boost that is unobtainable in the game (easily). (✘)
3. Cash shop contains skip for previous contents. (✘)
4. Cash shop contains resources that is unobtainable in the game (easily). (✘)
5. Cash shop contains pay-for-convenience items. (✔)
(1)Skyshards/Skill line: you must complete the requirements on at least 1 character. (optional)
(2)Armory/character slots. (optional)
(3)pocket banker/merchant. (optional)

As you can see, ESO cash shop only offers what you want, such as optional convenience items and cosmetics, instead of what you need, like endgame gear, mats, etc.

Thus, strictly speaking, ESO is NOT pay-to-win.

Josh Strife Hayes has a great video on pay-to-win games, posted a few days ago. Here is the link:
What makes a game 'Pay to Win'?

[Editted for formating]

Except:

ZOS absolutely does put their best gear and classes behind a paywall. The strongest gear has always been one of the new sets that requires purchasing the latest content. And Warden and Necro classes are inherently the strongest, so have to buy new expansions to get those classes too. Most of the game is structured in a way that encourages lots of spending. For instance, the craft bag isn't pay to win, but it's pretty much required for a dedicated player trying to get things done and build new gear sets.

So you are right, strictly speaking, ESO is not pay to win. But your post didn't outline the whole picture either.

Reverb

I don’t think that’s an unpopular opinion at all, I think all rational people understand this isn’t pay to win. There is not a single thing in the crown store that gives a gameplay advantage that isn’t also available in-game.

AJones43865

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

Thus, strictly speaking, ESO is NOT pay-to-win.

I don't hear anyone seriously claiming that ESO is pay to win. Generally it is billed as "pay for convenience." It mostly fits that bill, though it does hug the line. Things like instant crafting research completion scrolls from the cash shop allow repeat use, while the ones attainable in-game have a 24-hour cooldown. Still, that is only "winning" the ability to craft high end sets yourself. You could always just find a guild mate to craft them with your mats.

I think whether ESO is pay to win is the wrong question. I think a better question would be, are the prices they charge for convenience and cosmetics fair and competitive? 2-3 years ago I would have said yes. I remember getting the cool ice horse for 2500 crowns, which is the equivalent of around $25 USD, which was comparable to mounts in other games like WoW.

However, something happened internally within this company over the last few years that has turned that on its head. Items like that horse, or even special cosmetic outfits, are basically never released for just crowns anymore. Instead, everything is a "limited time" Crown Gem exclusive selling for between 400-600 Crown Gems. This serves to obfuscate the true price behind a layer of virtual currency abstraction. So, what does that actually come out to, dollar-wise?

Well, if you are lucky in the RNG casino when you buy crates for real money and gamble them at the Pacrooti crate merchant, you will average around 100 Gems per 5000 crown pack of 15 crates. Each of these costs about $50 USD. So just to do the quick math, that cool limited time horse that used to go for ~$25 will now cost you $200-$300 dollars in Crown Gems, if you are lucky on RNG. Houses can easilly go for twice that. And before anyone says anything about Endeavors, I have been collecting them almost since they released and still after two+ crown seasons don't have nearly enough for ONE of these, and you can't get houses for Endeavors to my knowledge.

That to me is simply a disgusting level of gouging behind a pretty egregious level of price obfuscation and real money gambling. I feel it is totally inappropriate in a game that already basically makes it mandatory to pay $14 per month for the crafting bag to avoid having no inventory space for loot. It isn't like it is costing them more to run the game now than three years ago either. This is just more of the money industry treating games the same way they do hedge funds, and maximizing value extraction at the cost of long-term viability and quality, just like any other Wall Street pump and dump asset.

So is ESO pay to win? No. But are its prices fair for the content we actually get? Also a big no from me. YMMV and I still enjoy the game for what it is, but the more they drive these prices to truly insane levels without any substantial equivalent improvement in the quality or quantity of actual content to show for it (still waiting on those new servers), it becomes increasingly difficult to stay positive about its future.

The sad thing is that most people who actually work there LOVE the game and Elder Scrolls and want to do the best they can. But like everything in our society, the ship of passion is ultimately driven to ground by the whims of high finance.

Great post. Thanks for putting in the effort.

This is why I radically reduced my spending on ESO several years ago and never again will be spending on crowns or other cosmetics. [snip]

[edited for bashing]