"there is literally no reason to play anything else"

Unless....you enjoy...playing anything else. . .?

If you're in a guild that is all end game score pushing meta requiring everyone to play the max dps spec you were previously forced to play a NB anyways, now it's something else.

and for everyone else, play what you like. just play it well.

I've paid only 20$, you got screwed

And I don't play necro, don't like it.
Also he's gonna be nerf in few month just like warden.
So chill a bit.

What exactly are we winning if we spend money though?

TheZachinator wrote: »

Krayl wrote: »

"there is literally no reason to play anything else"

Unless....you enjoy...playing anything else. . .?

If you're in a guild that is all end game score pushing meta requiring everyone to play the max dps spec you were previously forced to play a NB anyways, now it's something else.

and for everyone else, play what you like. just play it well.

Yes, but NB comes with the base game, not a $40 chapter.

so your argument is that you're fine with being forced to play one class if it's part of the base game you paid for, but not part of an expansion you paid for?

I see, sound logic.

You use that term, but I don't think you know what it means.

Seems like a pretty straight forward thing to me.

You have a competitive goal that has some concrete form of attainment (ranking, prize, bragging rights).
You have resources to attain that goal (items, skills, some form of tangible progression).
Those resources can be attained for free at a fixed rate, or more quickly or advantageously at a paid rate.
Ergo: Pay to Win.

Whether or not a thing is pay to win is determined by if it falls within that paradigm.
So if you put in money, and get out winning, its paying to win.
There's no grey area about it, nor is it a self-defined idea.

...and to apply a legislative definition to it set forward by capitalistic enterprise is pretty ridiculous, since the term or expression is loosely used to imply that only people with money get to play competitively. That's like if you took the expression "The pot calling the kettle black" and letting kitchen-aid define it as "You should buy the black kettle to go with your black pot." A pre-existing legal definition is not going to do justice to the actual concept, because it is rooted in accessible game-play and anti-oppressive appropriation of competitive gaming, and capital models are inherently antithetical to that idea (which is pretty much why it rubs players the wrong way, since hardline micro-transactions at a competitive level are a giant FU to competitive players who are being viewed as gaming addiction cash cows, and it pushes players away rather than brings them in).

Krayl wrote: »

every expansion pack ever released is pay2win!

Broadly speaking yes, it is. But there is also an acceptable standard I think. They are a company, who makes video games, you have to buy SOMETHING for their enterprise to be successful. Whether that manifests as expansions, in game content, or ad revenue. The issue is the level to which they are being deceptive, to where in order to play competitively for an attainable goal, you are being coerced into putting in more and more money to attain the same goal because the competitive environment necessitates it. At that point it's essentially "juicing" your player base. Coercion is a big problem with every industry, not just gaming, and it is why people take hard-line pro-social stances because given the opportunity, deregulated industry hurts people to make money -- and if you don't view it that way that's fine, but understand the idea that you not realizing it feeds that problem.

With respect to this game, I think they have a pretty solid model in that they expect you to buy "chapters" or "dlc content" which predominantly focuses on pve/story elements. At an itemization level it opens up options, but doesn't make those options mandatory. Summerset was a bit more pay to win than most I think when it added it's skill line, but pretty shortly after release it got toned down. I think that and cranking up paid classes has been the closest p2w flavour... and I mean it is nothing we haven't seen all along like with maelstrom weapons or other new release content. I think it's also reasonable to understand that it is an entertainment industry and they are going to do things to appease shareholders/whoever else.

Okay leave legal out of it and go by social norms in the gaming community for over several years now.

Pay to win is the ability to pay for an advantage in the game that can not be obtained through playing the game.

The pay to win threads claiming buying guild levels sky shards and other stuff fall short of the definition because all those things can be gained in game just by playing.

This thread fall shorts because there is no evidence showing other races can't compete with Necromancers in every aspect of the game.

To date nobody has shown an example of pay to win in ESO if we use the definition the majority of the gaming community has used for years.

Skwor wrote: »

ryzen_gamer_gal wrote: »

The new and shiny will always be favored over the less new and less shiny. That is their business model. Buff the new, nerf the not so new.

You dont need a necro to win at this game in open world and dungeons and trials. But i bet it helps a whole lot.

As has been said b4 many times. It is not pay to win just because it isnt convenient not to pay. It's only pay to win if you need stuff you must buy to win. You dont need to but a necro or an elsweyr or a summerset or a morrowind or a craft bag... it just becomes tedious if you dont...

The historical use of P2W is much broader than that and has typically included providing an in game advantage even if it was only a matter of reducing time to achieve and in game goal.

P2W is not officially defined in any form, that you chose to define as such is your opinion, you however do not get to thrust it on others who have an equally valid yet different opinion of P2W.