"Pay to Win"

[Fabinas]

No, i do not assume that. Because if this is done outside of the developer then there is a crime committed. And it would be deemed cheating, i have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions, stop bringing this up.
And it is not about "certain" advantages, it is about all advantages.
Only if these other people would consider committing a crime has anything to do with p2w.

It still stands paying cash to get an advantage in game.

It might happen that English is not your native language (it isn't mine either), but you keep referring to "crime", where none is involved when 3rd parties offer rl money paid services. Crime is when you break certain laws defined by the state and usually refer to (as example) protection of life, well being, property (theft, robbery etc), punished by incarceration, fines and community service.
3rd parties selling in-game services are not breaking the law, but the players who buy them break the agreement, the contract they signed up with the game company when they started playing. This breach of agreement is not a crime, but concerns civil law.
TL;DR : not trying to shame you, but your obvious lack of knowledge about meaning of certain important words (referring to someone as criminal when nor IS a crime in some states) allows the assumption that you're the least qualified person to stand behind an argument about a definition.
Not that I claim to be an expert, but at least I tried to give you a definition of crime. With more than 10 words. Now, prove me wrong, spend some brainpower and time to define p2w, so we can discuss.

[Deleted]

It might happen that English is not your native language (it isn't mine either), but you keep referring to "crime", where none is involved when 3rd parties offer rl money paid services. Crime is when you break certain laws defined by the state and usually refer to (as example) protection of life, well being, property (theft, robbery etc), punished by incarceration, fines and community service.
3rd parties selling in-game services are not breaking the law, but the players who buy them break the agreement, the contract they signed up with the game company when they started playing. This breach of agreement is not a crime, but concerns civil law.
TL;DR : not trying to shame you, but your obvious lack of knowledge about meaning of certain important words (referring to someone as criminal when nor IS a crime in some states) allows the assumption that you're the least qualified person to stand behind an argument about a definition.
Not that I claim to be an expert, but at least I tried to give you a definition of crime. With more than 10 words. Now, prove me wrong, spend some brainpower and time to define p2w, so we can discuss.

When a third party sells gold on wow then that is not sanctioned by blizzard, this is a (cyber) crime that is punishable by law. It infringes on the property of blizzard (wow). It can also fall under the "trading in stolen goods" section as most of the gold sold there is stolen from other accounts. In any case it is a bannable offense in game anyways.

[Teri]

All that just makes you the top bottom-feeder. Not much of a win. You are not better than those who sold you the gear and mythic runs, not even close. You just catching up to them in terms of gear. They win all the time. Now they've also won your gold. And Blizzard won your money. What have you won? Nothing but a flicker of a feeling of adequacy in current content. Come next update, expansion - and you are back to the bottom. But your benefactors are there at the top all of the time. And you've just lost $500. Great win.

Yes this isn't Pay to Win at all, as your still limited to 925 gear, and itemlevel alone isn't winning, still when 7.2.5 hits, that gear will be outdated while 955 will drop in about 5-8 weeks.

Now if you could buy a itemlevel 1000 relic with that $500, yes, direct pay to win...

[Fabinas]

When a third party sells gold on wow then that is not sanctioned by blizzard, this is a (cyber) crime that is punishable by law. It infringes on the property of blizzard (wow). It can also fall under the "trading in stolen goods" section as most of the gold sold there is stolen from other accounts. In any case it is a bannable offense in game anyways.

We are talking about the PLAYER here. Gold buyers do not commit a crime when they buy it from a third party. It is also debatable if selling a game currency as a 3rd party is a crime. I call bullshit on your claim and challenge you to prove me wrong, since I obviously cannot find some law that mentions "selling game currency is not a crime", while you can find what you claim if it exists.
Also, don't ignore my first challenge. It only proves you're unfit for it.

[Deleted]

Define advantage. Also define how that advantage makes you "win". And define "win" with relevance to the other players. Who wins what over who.

Advantage means favorable impact on game mechanics. Paid cosmetic items or name changes do not impact game mechanics, hence they are not pay2win. Gold does impact game mechanics, hence pay2win. Given all other things being equal, the one who has an advantage has a higher probability of winning, regardless of how you define winning (which is one of the nice things about the definition, you don't need to define winning, just advantage).

[ComputerNerd]

Sigh, i never said it was. I said it was a short description.



Yet you have failed to do so, it still stands pay cash to get an advantage in game.



Then explain why it does not stand, because thus far you have not shown that it doesn't stand.
And we are back to cheating, again, the 3rd party here is doing something illegal, this has no baring on p2w.
No its not the same as paying blizzard as it is blizzards game.

Repeating the same poor statement in bold is not defining it any better.
Do it properly or not at all.

It does not stand because that is what you keep planning to give someone else, instead of the full definition I ask for.
Examples even if tacked on are game specific, and therefore not universally describing the problem.
Someone not knowing those games will then not know, and if someone asks you about a game you don't know you can't give them a proper answer.
A full description is necessary.
You just can''t properly define it, therefore you cant tell me you are right, and you cant tell me I am wrong.

Advantage means favorable impact on game mechanics. Paid cosmetic items or name changes do not impact game mechanics, hence they are not pay2win. Gold does impact game mechanics, hence pay2win. Given all other things being equal, the one who has an advantage has a higher probability of winning, regardless of how you define winning (which is one of the nice things about the definition, you don't need to define winning, just advantage).

At least trying to define part of it is a good step, but that simply has to be included as part of a full definition.
As I have said many times, the word advantage means a lot of things.
Unless you specify it will mean different things to different people.

If you can't define ALL of it that legitimately can have a different meaning from your intent, you can't tell me or anyone else we are wrong if we disagree with it.

[Deleted]

We are talking about the PLAYER here. Gold buyers do not commit a crime when they buy it from a third party. It is also debatable if selling a game currency as a 3rd party is a crime. I call bullshit on your claim and challenge you to prove me wrong, since I obviously cannot find some law that mentions "selling game currency is not a crime", while you can find what you claim if it exists.
Also, don't ignore my first challenge. It only proves you're unfit for it.

The player doesn't commit the crime, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a crime committed and that the player will go out scot free.
The player will still be banned as they did something that is against tos.
Yes, the only thing you can do is bullshit on the claim as it is very clear that there isn't anything other then bullshit to put against it.

And what first challenge!? And how does it "prove" that im "unfit".

[Deleted]

At least trying to define part of it is a good step, but that simply has to be included as part of a full definition.

I don't think it does, a reasonable person of average intellect is going to understand what an "advantage" means. But if it helps you out, feel free to write your own version that includes that and any other clarifications necessary for your understanding.

- - - Updated - - -

We are talking about the PLAYER here. Gold buyers do not commit a crime when they buy it from a third party.

Most gold sellers are selling gold from hacked accounts (the days of the Chinese gold farmer are long gone). Buying stolen goods is a crime in most jurisdictions.

[Deleted]

Repeating the same poor statement in bold is not defining it any better.
Do it properly or not at all.

It does not stand because that is what you keep planning to give someone else, instead of the full definition I ask for.
Examples even if tacked on are game specific, and therefore not universally describing the problem.
Someone not knowing those games will then not know, and if someone asks you about a game you don't know you can't give them a proper answer.
A full description is necessary.
You just can''t properly define it, therefore you cant tell me you are right, and you cant tell me I am wrong.



At least trying to define part of it is a good step, but that simply has to be included as part of a full definition.
As I have said many times, the word advantage means a lot of things.
Unless you specify it will mean different things to different people.

If you can't define ALL of it that legitimately can have a different meaning from your intent, you can't tell me or anyone else we are wrong if we disagree with it.

There isn't anything wrong with it, all you keep doing is talking much but without saying anything to disprove me. It is not game specific, you are the one that keeps dragging blizzard into this. I could add "when a company decides that it is fine to pay cash for an in game advantage, but that would be redundant, as the company is the only one who can legally do this.

There is no need for any of this, and i have explained this to you on seperate occasions just for you to ignore it and act as if i have not addressed it at all.

It still stands, pay cash to get an in game advantage, and from now you will need to come up with new stuff or all you will get is the definition again. So please do come up with something that i have not addressed and already explained to you.

[ComputerNerd]

I don't think it does, a reasonable person of average intellect is going to understand what an "advantage" means. But if it helps you out, feel free to write your own version that includes that and any other clarifications necessary for your understanding.

- - - Updated - - -



Most gold sellers are selling gold from hacked accounts (the days of the Chinese gold farmer are long gone). Buying stolen goods is a crime in most jurisdictions.

It does.
You cant give someone a statement and tell they they are wrong in the way they interpret it, if they only can do so because it is incomplete.
That is changing the rules because you did not like the outcome.

The definition is a set of rules telling someone what pay to win is or isn't.
Changing them later shows the rules were not good enough.

[Deleted]

You cant give someone a statement and tell they they are wrong in the way they interpret it

Of course I can. As they say, "If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot." I believe my definition is concise, clear and has real world applicability to a reasonable person of average intelligence.

[Deleted]

Of course I can. As they say, "If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot." I believe my definition is concise, clear and has real world applicability to a reasonable person of average intelligence.

Agreed, if you want to find fault you can, but it describes the situation perfectly.

[ComputerNerd]

Of course I can. As they say, "If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot." I believe my definition is concise, clear and has real world applicability to a reasonable person of average intelligence.

So you are now saying someone disagreeing with your statement is an idiot, despite perfectly legitimate interpretations and questions.

Agreed, if you want to find fault you can, but it describes the situation perfectly.

There are huge faults very easy to find.

The results are simply not what you want.
But correct by your definition.
There is a difference.

Every time you don't get the answer you want, there is another rule.
Therefore your rules suck.

[cqwrteur]

Reading comments from these P2W kids makes me constantly laugh.

[Deleted]

So you are now saying someone disagreeing with your statement is an idiot, despite perfectly legitimate interpretations and questions.



There are huge faults very easy to find.

The results are simply not what you want.
But correct by your definition.
There is a difference.

Yea no, you are not an idiot for disagreeing, it is just that you keep bringing up platitudes and that is not our fault.

[Deleted]

So you are now saying someone disagreeing with your statement is an idiot, despite perfectly legitimate interpretations and questions.

Not at all. Disagreement is how you can learn and improve the definition. But question like "who gets paid?" in a situation where there is only one party that can be legitimately paid are not useful or interesting.

[ComputerNerd]

Yea no, you are not an idiot for disagreeing, it is just that you keep bringing up platitudes and that is not our fault.

If is the fault of the definition if there are valid alternatives.

Not at all. Disagreement is how you can learn and improve the definition. But question like "who gets paid?" in a situation where there is only one party that can be legitimately paid are not useful or interesting.

You simply state pay.
I can pay a 3rd party.
I can pay blizzard.
The word is the same, hence why you need to do better than that.

You decide the legitimacy by the game rules or terms is an additional requirement only because it suits you.
State that to begin with.

[cqwrteur]

You simply state pay.
I can pay a 3rd party.
I can pay blizzard.
The word is the same, hence why you need to do better than that.

They are different. You pay a 3rd party = possibility for getting banned = preventing you from buying gold.

Your argument is like

You simply state pay.
I can murder other people from paying a 3rd party terroists organization.
I can pay government in order to murder people.
The word is the same, hence why you need to do better than that.

[ComputerNerd]

They are different. You pay a 3rd party = possibility for getting banned = preventing you from buying gold.

Your argument is like

My argument is the words given to me.
I am not the one adding extra rules or lines as soon as I don't like the result.

If you can define it properly, do so.

The unwillingness to do so speaks volumes.

[cqwrteur]

My argument is the words given to me.
I am not the one adding extra rules or lines as soon as I don't like the result.

You mean if a government provides payment services to murder people because of the reason "people will always murder other people" is not evil? That is legalized corruption which will always make corruption even worse.