Defining Pay to Win

Lunaugh

Greetings fellow forum dwellers,
I am of the opinion that the term 'Pay-to-win' is loosely used and, as a whole, we could all benefit from gaining insight on this topic.

In this thread I will define Pay-To-Win as I see it. I hope that others will do the same.
I encourage others to challenge my definition of Pay-To-Win, as I plan to challenge every definition contrary to mine which is posted herein.

*Note* While I border on obstinance, my point of view is not unshakeable. This thread may well end with me modifying my current definition in response.


Pay-To-Win: When a player is allowed an 'unfair' advantage over players who do not opt to pay.
Definition of an Unfair advantage: Any unique ability or gear which can ONLY be obtained via purchase.
In an FPS, allowing members to buy$ superior weapons in damage and accuracy that can not be obtained by any amount of grinding; only available for Cash$ purchase=Unfair advantage, P2W.

What is not Pay-To-Win: Allowing a player to decrease the amount of time it takes to reach specific goals (I.E. Making it easier to find good loot, increasing exp gains, etc)
Money is an agreed upon symbol which may be exchanged for time/effort. Enabling one to exchange money for this rational is the way of currency. I work for 4 hours, I take home money$ in exchange for those 4 hours. I exchange that money for another good or substance which holds 4 hours (hopefully more, hopefully not less) of value to me.
To this point, I could have spent those 4 hours grinding instead of working. My time input is not changed in this scenario.

I look forward to reading multiple iterations of Pay-To-Win, and to dancing with delectable trolls in the interim.

∞Lunaugh

VaranisArano

So, if I understand correctly, you are trying to distinguish Pay-to-Win from Pay-For-Convenience?

Question: If Pay-To-Win is any unique ability or gear which can ONLY be obtained via purchase, what about Pay-For-Convenience items that are ONLY available via purchase?

Lunaugh

VaranisArano wrote: »

So, if I understand correctly, you are trying to distinguish Pay-to-Win from Pay-For-Convenience?

Question: If Pay-To-Win is any unique ability or gear which can ONLY be obtained via purchase, what about Pay-For-Convenience items that are ONLY available via purchase?

Given that items for convenience are expressions of time, I feel that they are not unfair.

For the sake of argument, lets pretend that Psijic Ambrosia did not exist, only crown scrolls. Now, only one item exists which supremely boosts exp gains, and it can only be obtained in the crownstore.
I would not view this scenario as Pay-To-Win. One can still obtain the same exp gains grinding over a longer period of time.
In my mind, convenience is a function of time.
[EDIT: I could have gone to the Ring of Mara as an example, though it comes with it's own penalty (taking up a ringslot)]

I do not include Pay-For-Fun under Pay-To-Win or Pay-For-Convenience.

davey1107

I’d agree with your assessment, but phrase it more succinctly as:

Purchased item increases overall character stats beyond what can be earned in game, that’s p2w.

Or purchased item provides beneficial item that is considered hard to obtain in regard to skill, not time commitment, that’s p2w

Item speeds up process, not p2w.

I can’t think of anything in eso that has ever felt it crosses the line.

phermitgb

I'm just spitballing here

regarding your fps example - what if a particular selection of weapons with differing rates of fire, damage, pen, etc were available IN-GAME - assume that there's a certain degree of balance with each of these weapons (i.e. get more damage for worse accuracy, trade-off rate of fire for damage, etc)

now, what if there was a weapon that was ONLY AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE that had one particular set of statistics that no other weapon in the game had, but was still balanced in the above manner

example - there are 4 "assault rifles" in your fps - one has super damage, low rate of fire, avg everything else - number 2 had super something else, low something different, etc, etc...

but there is one PAY ONLY available weapon that has super damage, low something that NO OTHER WEAPON HAS, and avg everything else

in other words, if the pay rifle had the exact same total balance as generally available weapons, but it was the ONLY ONE OF IT'S KINDS with those particular stats - would that qualify as pay-to-win? pay-for-convenience?

shrug - I don't actually have an answer - just a question that occurred to me while reading your post

also, on another note

many of the pay-to-win arguments argue, with some merit, that convenience DOES in fact equate to material advantage, at least, over a short term

for example, star wars bf2 (the recent one) makes an excellent model - EVERYONE can, eventually, get the same overall card selection - but some people can pay money and get a ton of cards earlier than the others AND those cards carry a significant gameplay advantage (bonus damage, lower refresh rates on damaging and self heal skills, etc)

so, at least for a TIME, the players with disposable incomes (or irresponsible spending habits, or both) do gain a significant and material advantage over other players

I'd say this actually DOES qualify as play to win, at least temporarily - sure, other players can eventually catch up, but you will factually have a much harder time making any kind of progression because there will be a select group of people with significant advantage over you initially; which means it'll take even longer for you to reach the same level, if progression is tied to rewards/performance per-match

anyway, those were the first two ideas that popped into my head - take them for what you will

Stinkyremy

I think you have pay to win incorrect.

If in an fps game it takes me 6 months of grinding for a gun, the superior gun, that others can just buy off the bat with irl cash that IS P2W.

So in ESO, these 15 day crafting scrolls are P2W (at crafting).
There seems to be quite a few people on this forum screaming for champion points being bought with irl, that is P2W.
Buying any sort of gear bound gear that takes effort to accumulate, malestrom trial gear ect, with irl cash is P2W.

Slick_007

if you cant earn it without buying it, and it gives you an advantage over other players, its p2w. getting somewhere faster (excluding physical locations that is) is not p2w. because you'd still get there if you didnt pay.
cosmetic anything is not p2w
faster research is not p2w
buying levels is not p2w

doesnt mean i want any of those necessarily in the game, but they arent p2w. nothing eso does is p2w.

TelvanniWizard

As I see it, looking awesome is winning, so all the cosmetics are pay to win

Turelus

If you boil it down to the very simplistic of "something you can get which gives an advantage by paying money" then ESO and most games are P2W. ESO would have been P2W since launch because those who got Pre-Order or Imperial Edition gained treasure maps and a race.

However for myself and most I believe the line is drawn at selling gear or consumables which grant a superior ability to what can be earned within the game.

Slick_007

Turelus wrote: »

If you boil it down to the very simplistic of "something you can get which gives an advantage by paying money" then ESO and most games are P2W. ESO would have been P2W since launch because those who got Pre-Order or Imperial Edition gained treasure maps and a race.

those treasure maps dont even have as good gear as the regular maps though. they are not p2w

DRAGON_KILLER_HUNTER

warden = pay2win

SecretJoy

DRAGON_KILLER_HUNTER wrote: »

warden = pay2win

If the Warden was an overpowered class that dominated in any particular area, I would agree with you. But the overwhelming opinion is that it doesn't.

Tai-Chi

I am sorry to say @Lunaugh but the whole premise of your argument is flawed. Why?

1. Pay-to-win has not been put into a proper context. The term can mean different things when applied to diverse situations or subject matters. From your later statements, one can presume that you are referring to the computer game industry because you state; "Pay-To-Win: When a player is allowed an 'unfair' advantage over players who do not opt to pay."
2. One does not define something by stating what it is not because the list could be endless and meaningless - especially if there is no context to start with. eg, it would be pointless to include in a list;
   Pay-to-win is not:-
   - Eating fish & chips before a session of playing ESO.
   - Wearing one's lucky hat to play ESO.
   - The dog barking next door.
   - The sun in the sky.

The word "unfair" can have different meanings, eg:-

• As defined by law.
• As defined by people from a more moralistic or mundane viewpoint.
• Similarly, "unfair advantage" has different meanings and definitions, depending on context. The context is needed in order to anchor the whole argument and to ascertain if (and where) the line has been crossed or deviated from.

As far as I can see, so far ZOS has not done anything that is legally "unfair" but there are a couple of instances where they fall short as to "fairness" on more moral/mundane grounds.

The two items I have in mind in particular are Aetherial Mythic Ambrosia and Buoyant Armiger Style drops vs Crown purchases for 150% Xp Pots and Crown Crates for BA style. I personally have no need for XP pots and I can wait for BA style drops to become more abundant before purchasing any. I have more pressing ways in which to spend my hard-earned £s and albeit not having the said items might be slightly annoying, it does not spoil my enjoyment for the rest of the game.

Azurya

VaranisArano wrote: »

So, if I understand correctly, you are trying to distinguish Pay-to-Win from Pay-For-Convenience?

Question: If Pay-To-Win is any unique ability or gear which can ONLY be obtained via purchase, what about Pay-For-Convenience items that are ONLY available via purchase?

No, imho he is just distinguishing pP2W from buy yourself some cosmetics, so you look funny, or PFC (pay for cosmetics)
well essentiell that is all the crap from crownstore!
anything from the crownstore and ESO+, is just cosmetics.
have a nice day

Azurya

Tai-Chi wrote: »

The word "unfair" can have different meanings, eg:-

• As defined by law.
• As defined by people from a more moralistic or mundane viewpoint.
• Similarly, "unfair advantage" has different meanings and definitions, depending on context. The context is needed in order to anchor the whole argument and to ascertain if (and where) the line has been crossed or deviated from.

The two items I have in mind in particular are Aetherial Mythic Ambrosia and Buoyant Armiger Style drops vs Crown purchases for 150% Xp Pots and Crown Crates for BA style. I personally have no need for XP pots and I can wait for BA style drops to become more abundant before purchasing any. I have more pressing ways in which to spend my hard-earned £s and albeit not having the said items might be slightly annoying, it does not spoil my enjoyment for the rest of the game.

Unfair defined by ppl, is in the least troublesome, in the worst a reason for a war!
what YOU define as unfair, maybe perfect for the person next door!
and if you like BA-style that much, then buy it, I can be perfectly happy with that fact,
but I am also happy that I don´t have it!

the CS is like any other store in the world, you can buy something, but you don´t have to.

Turelus

Slick_007 wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

If you boil it down to the very simplistic of "something you can get which gives an advantage by paying money" then ESO and most games are P2W. ESO would have been P2W since launch because those who got Pre-Order or Imperial Edition gained treasure maps and a race.

those treasure maps dont even have as good gear as the regular maps though. they are not p2w

At game launch people got more items and gold than someone who didn't buy them. That's why I said if you're boiling it all the way down to "any advantage for money" however in reality yes, those maps and anything ZOS sells isn't going to stop a good player beating a bad player or be considered P2W.

Pops_ND_Irish

What exactly are you winning ?

Tai-Chi

Azurya wrote: »

Tai-Chi wrote: »

The word "unfair" can have different meanings, eg:-

• As defined by law.
• As defined by people from a more moralistic or mundane viewpoint.
• Similarly, "unfair advantage" has different meanings and definitions, depending on context. The context is needed in order to anchor the whole argument and to ascertain if (and where) the line has been crossed or deviated from.

The two items I have in mind in particular are Aetherial Mythic Ambrosia and Buoyant Armiger Style drops vs Crown purchases for 150% Xp Pots and Crown Crates for BA style. I personally have no need for XP pots and I can wait for BA style drops to become more abundant before purchasing any. I have more pressing ways in which to spend my hard-earned £s and albeit not having the said items might be slightly annoying, it does not spoil my enjoyment for the rest of the game.

Unfair defined by ppl, is in the least troublesome, in the worst a reason for a war!
what YOU define as unfair, maybe perfect for the person next door!
and if you like BA-style that much, then buy it, I can be perfectly happy with that fact,
but I am also happy that I don´t have it!

the CS is like any other store in the world, you can buy something, but you don´t have to.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make and why you have chosen to highlight two of my statements and take them out of context. I cannot make out whether you are attacking me or if you agreeing with me.

I have neither said that I like BA style, nor that I would like it for one of my chars. That is pure fabrication on your part.

I have not defined 'unfair' but simply listed (as examples) some areas under which the word 'unfair' comes into use and that it has different meanings depending on which context one is looking at.