If you define P2W stupidly enough then EVERYTHING ever is pay to win.
You didn't buy a sub to WOW so you can't play so it is pay to win.
I have a faster internet connection and better PC than you so Fortnite/LOL/COD/Starcraft whatever is pay to win.
You have slightly better eyesight because you bought glasses so rock, paper, scissors is pay to win.
You went to a fancy private school while someone else went to a ghetto school, so life is pay to win.
Please stop making the definition so wide that is it meaningless.
If ZoS sold a BiS CP200 armour set that you could ONLY get in the crown shop that would be pay to win.
Stuff that you can get for free in the game anyway (without totally unreasonable grind) is not pay to win.
Please stop.
Once again pay ty o win is paying for an advantage UNOBTAINABLE by other means that makes you better then those who dont pay. But what do I know idiots now days call everything p2w.
Here is a perfect example of declaring something above others.
I have a much different definition, why exactly is the above definition correct and others incorrect?
I say P2W is basically paying to get a significant, to include reducing time, in-game advantage regardless of the ability to obtain it in game.
Now anyone explain to me why my definition must be wrong and the other right as opposed to being just two opinions?
Because the vast majority of the gaming community across many types of games do not share the opinion you have suggested. The majority shares the opinion that pay to win is obtaining something with funds outside the game that gives you an advantage and can't be obtained through game play. The majority is significant enough that this has become the accepted definition. People are trying to redefine the phrase to fit their particular argument.
Facefister wrote: »Game's dead PvE and PvP endgame wise. At this point, it doesn't matter anymore, let them spend hundreds of $€ for their questing and RPing experience.
Because the vast majority of the gaming community across many types of games do not share the opinion you have suggested. The majority shares the opinion that pay to win is obtaining something with funds outside the game that gives you an advantage and can't be obtained through game play. The majority is significant enough that this has become the accepted definition. People are trying to redefine the phrase to fit their particular argument.
The "majority" you see is "significant" to you. You and your majority are the ones twisting definitions to fit your level of tolerance to corruption. Pay-to-win is paying out-of-game for a competitive advantage in-game. Simple as that, no need for elaborate ifs or whens. That you consider certain level of pay-to-win acceptable doesn't change the fact it's pay-to-win.
Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »Massacre_Wurm wrote: »P2W was defined long ago and OP has it wrong. P2W is being able to by something with real world money that is stronger than what you can get in game.
My guess is OP has never really played a P2W game based on how wrong they are here.
So you will be okay with BiS gear in store if you can grind it in , lets say , 6 months ?
I mean you can get it in game. So no big deal ?
That's not the same. Your comparing Apples and Aardvarks. This whole subject is a grey line. If they put BIS gear in the crown store, that is what I would call pay to win. The rest that we seem to be discussing is what I call pay to advance faster.
Some people have more money to spend that time, and this is what the gaming companies are targeting. That convenience of pay to advance faster.
Keeping in mind that someone needs to pay for everything that keeps the company running. I want to say thanks to all of those players that have more money than time/sense that do purchase all of these things that I personally would not. There spending on these advancement items is what allows me to play the game.
Here is another theoretical case for you.
So Player "A" is a student on summer break and can grind the skills all day during the week. No one is currently complaining about that. Player "B" has to work and chooses to buy the crown store upgrade so that he can keep up with Player A that didn't have to work like he did. (Player B would have had to do this on another character in the past to be able to do this)
So in this situation, Player B is skipping the grind in trying to keep up with player "A" that did not have Real Life time commitments outside of the game. No one wants to argue about the time the some people have the luxury of spending on the game.
Thorvik
Because the vast majority of the gaming community across many types of games do not share the opinion you have suggested. The majority shares the opinion that pay to win is obtaining something with funds outside the game that gives you an advantage and can't be obtained through game play. The majority is significant enough that this has become the accepted definition. People are trying to redefine the phrase to fit their particular argument.
The "majority" you see is "significant" to you. You and your majority are the ones twisting definitions to fit your level of tolerance to corruption. Pay-to-win is paying out-of-game for a competitive advantage in-game. Simple as that, no need for elaborate ifs or whens. That you consider certain level of pay-to-win acceptable doesn't change the fact it's pay-to-win.