My weekly podcast can be downloaded here this week the dallas buyers club piracy scandal hits close to home
The term is pay to win. If Illiterate chooses to ignore half the phrase (ie the win part) then I see no reason why Gehco shouldn't ignore the other half (pay).
- - - Updated - - -
Buying Shop item X = Paying for some definition of "winning" = a bad thing.
To elaborate: It's easy to make a strong argument that paying to get something that helps you win at certain things (eg Arena) would be a bad thing. It's easy to assert that buying something from the shop could be seen as paying to "win" something else which is arbitrary.
But it is a logical fallacy to claim that because buying X to win at Y is bad, then buying A to win B must also be bad.
Paying to get an advantage to help someone "win" at PvP or a raid first race sets up an unfair advantage to the party choosing to pay, thus forcing the other party to either also pay, or lose. This is clearly something that would be bad. Thus we have the association that "Pay to Win" is bad. But many people tend to forget that the assertion "Pay to Win = Bad" depends very heavily what is being won.
This becomes an issue when someone else comes along and tries to come up with imaginative definition of the term "win" and then simply relies on proving that achieving X in the game = winning by some definition, in order to prove that being able to buy something that helps with that goal is a bad thing.
What they tend to forget is that unless they can prove that buying an advantage to "win" whatever it is they are "winning" is actually a bad thing, you can't just use "Pay-to-Win = bad". In some cases, depending on how you choose to define "winning", pay-to-win can actually be perfectly benign.
That is not pay to win. Pay to win would be if these mounts were FASTER than the in-game obtainable mounts.
Stop inventing reasons to whine.
There is a thin line between not knowing and not caring, and I like to think that I walk that line every day.