Is WoW Pay 2 Win?

[rhorle]

So we are back to ignoring world first guilds buying gold again... do you ever get tired of copium? Look people have accepted its pay to win. We are at the point we would just like the ads removed from group finder and trade.

Can you actually point out where I said they do not? Seriously, can you? It is all in your head so it is impossible to address. The only one with the compium here is yourself who keeps attacking over things you've created even after you've been told you've created them. Buying gold is not pay to win, it is a micro transaction. Using that gold, as a normal part of the game economy, to aid your group (world first or server last) is still not pay to win. You paid for gold. The win is irrelevant to the main transaction.

[M1r4g3]

"a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position."

If some one is behind they are not in a favorable or superior position. Using myself as a stand in for some hypothetical player doesn't matter. I understand my point from the perspective of anyone in the system and still agree with it. My definition does not use 'me' or 'I', soo to imply my definition is only about me seems odd counting i didn't even make the definition... google gave it to me.

Its odd that you are telling me to come up with my own word when you are the one avoiding the use of existing definitions to fit your own version. Your version of P2W including power at any level of the game just doesn't transfer well. If you could pay 1 dollar but any level 1 char you make from then on starts with gear with +1 stam instead of plain white gear would you consider wow P2W? Cause I mean you are stronger and have an 'advantage' over all the other level 1 chars, but for some reason I doubt anyone would care. I have a very clear line about what pushes a game from pay to catch up to pay to win. Yours seems more like a blurry space which is great for molding your own definitions to fit your argument but terrible for general discussions with people who disagree.

Person A is lvl 60 with 200ilvl and 50k gold on their account.
Person B is lvl 60 with 200ilvl and 50k gold on their account.
Those are equals, correct?
Person B decides to buy a 20 tokens and gets full boe gear and a million gold on top.
Person B is now in a favorable position compared to person A due to irl money.

Using your own definition you still lose the argument, simply because you just keep focusing on yourself and the ''superior'' part.

And yes in fact, paying for +1 stam gear at lvl 1 would be p2w, funny enough, you couldn't full get +1 stam gear on a lvl 1 without paying making it both favorable AND superior compared to people who didn't pay lmao.

''Yours seems more like a blurry space which is great for molding your own definitions to fit your argument but terrible for general discussions with people who disagree.''
The irony.
Mine isn't blurry at all, as i said, ANY kind of advantage no matter how big or small gained by using irl money is p2w, that's it, there is no blurry line its pure black and white, yours on the other hand relies on what YOU personally feel would hurt YOU and YOU alone making it very blurry.

[Elbob]

Person A is lvl 60 with 200ilvl and 50k gold on their account.
Person B is lvl 60 with 200ilvl and 50k gold on their account.
Those are equals, correct?
Person B decides to buy a 20 tokens and gets full boe gear and a million gold on top.
Person B is now in a favorable position compared to person A due to irl money.

Using your own definition you still lose the argument, simply because you just keep focusing on yourself and the ''superior'' part.

And yes in fact, paying for +1 stam gear at lvl 1 would be p2w, funny enough, you couldn't full get +1 stam gear on a lvl 1 without paying making it both favorable AND superior compared to people who didn't pay lmao.

''Yours seems more like a blurry space which is great for molding your own definitions to fit your argument but terrible for general discussions with people who disagree.''
The irony.
Mine isn't blurry at all, as i said, ANY kind of advantage no matter how big or small gained by using irl money is p2w, that's it, there is no blurry line its pure black and white, yours on the other hand relies on what YOU personally feel would hurt YOU and YOU alone making it very blurry.

None of my definitions need to include me. You make this sound selfish when none of it is. I gain nothing by the game being p2w or not. I really don't care if it is, I just don't think that what we have qualifies.

As per the google definition of p2w, paying players needs to gain an advantage*(a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position) over non paying players. This doesn't specify anything besides non paying, so that means ALL non paying players. Access to gold or to level 1 gear with +1 stam is not a superior position. You are trying to force a scenario between 2 specific players while I'm encompassing the playerbase as a whole. You need to address WHY googles top result is wrong here, how the definition of advantage is incorrect, or how my interpretation of these definitions is wrong. Some one who buys wow right now and boosts to level 50 has no advantage over any level 60 player.

As I interpret the google definitions of p2w and advantage, you need to explain how people who partake in purchasing wow tokens have some aspect of superiority to all those who do not.

[rhorle]

You need to address WHY googles top result is wrong here, how the definition of advantage is incorrect, or how my interpretation of these definitions is wrong. Some one who buys wow right now and boosts to level 50 has no advantage over any level 60 player.

It is wrong simply because according to your interpretation of advantage nothing can ever be pay to win if you can also get it with out paying. Which is silly if you actually think about that. You can literally pay to win, and get an advantage over non paying players, yet according to you it is not pay to win because the non paying player can get that same advantage eventually.

This has already been addressed as well and is the pitfall of using subjective wording like advantage. Which is why power is the the better option. Something either is or is not power. A little bit of power? Pay to win. Power not relevant to end-game? Pay to win. Buying a cosmetic look? Not power so it is simply a micro transaction. Your definition, using advantage, can include things like mounts, transmog, and other cosmetics. Because having a "cool" thing can be seen as an advantage right?

[Elbob]

It is wrong simply because according to your interpretation of advantage nothing can ever be pay to win if you can also get it with out paying. Which is silly if you actually think about that. You can literally pay to win, and get an advantage over non paying players, yet according to you it is not pay to win because the non paying player can get that same advantage eventually.

This has already been addressed as well and is the pitfall of using subjective wording like advantage. Which is why power is the the better option. Something either is or is not power. A little bit of power? Pay to win. Power not relevant to end-game? Pay to win. Buying a cosmetic look? Not power so it is simply a micro transaction. Your definition, using advantage, can include things like mounts, transmog, and other cosmetics. Because having a "cool" thing can be seen as an advantage right?

A player who buys 0 wow tokens can clear the content at the same speed as some one who does, with access to all the same in game tools. If not using the store actually bypassed time gates I would agree do being in a favorable position. Power is not used in the definition.

Its not 'my' definition its google's. I'm just agreeing with it. Cosmetics don't provide power or superiority or place in a favorable position so no my definition would not put cosmetics as p2w.

Here an example of p2w with items acquirable by non paying players.
Purchasing Mythic raid pieces from the store
-This is p2w because access to mythic raid gear(BoP pieces) is finite. You can kill the bosses once per week and are limited to trading those pieces amongst the 20 players within your raid. If you could buy the pieces regardless of lockout you essentially gain access to more loot then a non paying player.
-A non paying player has every ability and right to buy as many funnels as they can without access to the wow token in a boost but they can not surpass those 4 pieces of loot per boss(assuming everyone else int he raid in going to funnel them)

"Couldn't a non paying player just flip wow tokens with enough gold to have access to the mythic store items?"
-Yes but now you have crossed the p2w line because you have forced irl currency into the transaction. The wow token which has to be purchased with real money is needed to make the flip, you are just bribing(with gold) another player to pay that $$ for you. You are 'paying' by using the wow token to generate $$$ balance which now puts you on the paying player side.

Another example thats less on the nose would be gaining increased Stygian Embers drops(im assuming you know what this is, but you may not being playing atm which if thats the case im sry this example might not work). Non paying players will get enough embers to upgrade all their shards but if you could gain them at a faster rate(upgrading your shards sooner) you would be in a favorable position by having early access to dps gains non paying players would not. Embers are a finite currency limited by the bosses you kill each week and the difficulty you play on, if you could bypass that limit, you have an advantage.

Edit: incase this has been lost over these 100 or so pages, I'm not some big fan of the wow token. I don't really think its done great things for the game(even though the number of sold boosts has made me personally a ton of gold). I just don't think it puts wow into the P2W box. Its a pretty obviously $$$ system set up to favor blizzard and yeah some players find ways to gain from it as well but its really for the big ole blizzard bois on top.

I really do understand the arguments about how that access to gold gets convoluted into granting power, and how that its seen as p2w. I just don't agree. My view on p2w may be pretty old school but you see a lot of other people in this thread with the same pov.

[rhorle]

A player who buys 0 wow tokens can clear the content at the same speed as some one who does, with access to all the same in game tools. If not using the store actually bypassed time gates I would agree do being in a favorable position. Power is not used in the definition.

Yes. The token is not pay to win because it only provides gold. That doesn't change your definition from being rubbish. You are pushing the definition you found on google so for all intents and purposes it is your definition. It also shows that you are picking and choosing what to take since the top definition from google for me is, "PTW is used in gaming with the meaning "Pay to Win" to refer to games that allow players to purchase items or abilities (e.g., more powerful weapons, additional health points) that give them an advantage in the game, either over other players or NPCs (Non-Player Characters).".

You droppped the "item and abilities" to focus only on advantage. You are being dishonest here. If your definition differs it just shows how silly it is to rely on the definition provide by a search engine.

Here an example of p2w with items acquirable by non paying players.

That conflicts with your definition though. As buying Mythic Gear is not an advantage that another player can not get for free. You get it quicker but the non-paying player still has the ability to get the same advantage of that gear. You also contradict your earlier claim that buying a level boost is not pay to win yet buying gold with a token to buy gear is pay to win.

Either it is pay to win to use the token for advantages, or it isn't. You keep including subjective definitions that change based on what you personally see as an advantage. +1 stamina, or +1 level, is still an advantage yet you said that isn't pay to win to "buy" those things. That is how poor definitions work. Good definitions won't change based on the person reading, and interpreting it.

[M1r4g3]

None of my definitions need to include me. You make this sound selfish when none of it is. I gain nothing by the game being p2w or not. I really don't care if it is, I just don't think that what we have qualifies.

As per the google definition of p2w, paying players needs to gain an advantage*(a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position) over non paying players. This doesn't specify anything besides non paying, so that means ALL non paying players. Access to gold or to level 1 gear with +1 stam is not a superior position. You are trying to force a scenario between 2 specific players while I'm encompassing the playerbase as a whole. You need to address WHY googles top result is wrong here, how the definition of advantage is incorrect, or how my interpretation of these definitions is wrong. Some one who buys wow right now and boosts to level 50 has no advantage over any level 60 player.

As I interpret the google definitions of p2w and advantage, you need to explain how people who partake in purchasing wow tokens have some aspect of superiority to all those who do not.

Its not wrong tho? Its defined exactly as i explained it ''a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position over non paying players''.
''Doesn't specify anything besides non paying" > proceeds to specify to fit his argument(which is still wrong cause even if you specify ''all non paying'' it still affects every single person, no matter how negative or positive/big or small the impact may be, since its a mmo where people interact with each other...)

How exactly is access to gear(that provides power) only by paying not a superior position? lmao(obviously because YOU are a big strong lvl 60 and it doesn't affect you, but then we go back to the *insert p2w game with 1shot pvp spell* argument, where me as a non pvper would never interact with them and thus them having or not having a 1shot pvp spell does not matter, so the game isn't p2w then? You still don't get that using your own logic and following it you're always going to come to the conclusion that p2w doesn't exist in any game, because not every single person is affected?)

In the end your interpretation is wrong because you keep using only your own metrics to judge whether or not it affects you enough to be called p2w, that's a blurry line, and undefinable, and thus pointless.

[Elbob]

Yes. The token is not pay to win because it only provides gold. That doesn't change your definition from being rubbish. You are pushing the definition you found on google so for all intents and purposes it is your definition. It also shows that you are picking and choosing what to take since the top definition from google for me is, "PTW is used in gaming with the meaning "Pay to Win" to refer to games that allow players to purchase items or abilities (e.g., more powerful weapons, additional health points) that give them an advantage in the game, either over other players or NPCs (Non-Player Characters).".

You droppped the "item and abilities" to focus only on advantage. You are being dishonest here. If your definition differs it just shows how silly it is to rely on the definition provide by a search engine.



That conflicts with your definition though. As buying Mythic Gear is not an advantage that another player can not get for free. You get it quicker but the non-paying player still has the ability to get the same advantage of that gear. You also contradict your earlier claim that buying a level boost is not pay to win yet buying gold with a token to buy gear is pay to win.

Either it is pay to win to use the token for advantages, or it isn't. You keep including subjective definitions that change based on what you personally see as an advantage. +1 stamina, or +1 level, is still an advantage yet you said that isn't pay to win to "buy" those things. That is how poor definitions work. Good definitions won't change based on the person reading, and interpreting it.

https://i.imgur.com/Fs0RhZp.png legit ss of my google page and its top result. Its the same top result from the first I made that same search. I dropped nothing from the provided definition of the TOP result on google.

You are granting me a position I've never had. I have never said "that another player can not get for free". You are jumping around screaming contradiction when there isn't one. 2 qualities must be met.
1) out of game currency must be spent (this is what makes a paying vs non paying player)
2) an advantage(position of superiority or favor) must be gained by the paying player over non paying players

My example with the mythic gear grants a favorable position by granting increased acquisition rates of a normally fixed rate. You can't equate this to gold though because gold acquisition is not limited by any rules of the game. My definition of advantage is not varying or swaying in any post I make.

The level boost uses the shop but grants no favorable position.

If you could buy 1% more dmg dealt only through that shop BOOM P2W but it doesn't. If boosts could go to max level day 1 of an expac, BOOM P2W because you are actually favored by having access to max level before its POSSIBLE to get there normally.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not wrong tho? Its defined exactly as i explained it ''a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position over non paying players''.
''Doesn't specify anything besides non paying" > proceeds to specify to fit his argument(which is still wrong cause even if you specify ''all non paying'' it still affects every single person, no matter how negative or positive/big or small the impact may be, since its a mmo where people interact with each other...)

How exactly is access to gear(that provides power) only by paying not a superior position? lmao(obviously because YOU are a big strong lvl 60 and it doesn't affect you, but then we go back to the *insert p2w game with 1shot pvp spell* argument, where me as a non pvper would never interact with them and thus them having or not having a 1shot pvp spell does not matter, so the game isn't p2w then? You still don't get that using your own logic and following it you're always going to come to the conclusion that p2w doesn't exist in any game, because not every single person is affected?)

In the end your interpretation is wrong because you keep using only your own metrics to judge whether or not it affects you enough to be called p2w, that's a blurry line, and undefinable, and thus pointless.

If I said hunters will never do more damage on a fight then warlocks, you could easily provide a billion and one logs of hunters doing more damage then warlocks. Would you say a good counter argument to you is "I never said 'all' hunters". No because it was implied in my wording of the original statement. When you don't specify to limit the pool the selection is broad. In my listed example you would CLEARLY be in the right. Just like the broad encompassing definition of pay to win is designed to fit all kinds of both paying and non paying players.

"How exactly is access to gear(that provides power) only by paying not a superior position? lmao(obviously because YOU are a big strong lvl 60" pretty much yes, if the advantage doesn't translate to an advantage over what a free player has access to.... yeah. You have no favorable position. And back to your pvp mumbo jumbo, as I replied earlier interaction is irrelevant. You can have an advantage over some one who you never speak to, see or even know about.

What self metrics are required in my definition. I can remove myself completely from all examples. My line is very definable, give any example you want and I will label it p2w or not and give a reason why with previously provided definitions on google.

[rhorle]

The level boost uses the shop but grants no favorable position.

You don't see what is favorable about being instantly a higher level? Lmao. This is the problem when you use subjective definitions. You contradict the "Paying for an advantage" whenever it suits you. Boosts do go to max level day 0 of an expansion since during pre-patch (or before that) they get bumped up to the max level of the current expansion. The keyword missing though is relevant. Paying for an advantage means paying for an advantage. You are adding "relevant" to the simple definition.

The amusing part is your directly contradict "2) an advantage(position of superiority or favor) must be gained by the paying player over non paying players" by saying that a level boost is not an advantage. Are you superior to a person that has to grind out 50 levels? Yes. If we take your definition at face value then a level boost must be included as it uses out of game currency and offers an advantage to a person that doesn't pay. But yet again you ignore your own definition to add your own personal interpretation.

My definition does not change on the situation. Its very simple either players paying additional money gain an advantage on players that don't or not. If I can't spend money to gain an leg up on my equivalent that spent none, I can't call the game P2W.

Your mythic gear example directly contradicts that earlier definition. Buying gear from the shop only gets you gear quicker but the same advantage of that gear is available for free. So if a short cut in a level boost is not pay to win then a short cut in mythic gear can not be pay to win. You can't have it both ways with out changing your definition based on the situation. But hey you never made that argument and I'm the one running around yelling about non-existent claims.

[Argorwal]

I guess a different question is should the WoW token be removed?

Do you think it would hurt or help the game?

I imagine carries would carry on like always.

I also expect quite a few would be upset they couldn’t play WoW for “free” anymore from token.

[DechCJC]

I keep seeing people state that it’s only pay to win if the prize is something that you can’t otherwise achieve in game, but if that definition were true then surely buying gear isn’t P2W?

Paying for gear would constitute as pay to win by most individuals I reckon, but it goes against the definition that many here share.

I consider it P2W, but then, what isn’t? If you know where to put the money you can buy nearly anything on this earth; Though it’s often not as straight forward as an e-store.

WoW is a sandbox game and each persons definition of winning is different than the next; to some, getting high rating is the goal, to others it’s to clear mythic or get BiS, then there’s those that just want to collect mounts and farm achievements or want all of the above. Depending on your goal(s), you may or may not be able to pay Blizzard directly to achieve it.

[Tyris Flare]

I guess a different question is should the WoW token be removed?

It's not even a question, though? The token is insanely profitable, and this game, like all consumer products, is about making money.

People's ideas about the "integrity of the game" or whatever are no match for capitalism.

[M1r4g3]

If I said hunters will never do more damage on a fight then warlocks, you could easily provide a billion and one logs of hunters doing more damage then warlocks. Would you say a good counter argument to you is "I never said 'all' hunters". No because it was implied in my wording of the original statement. When you don't specify to limit the pool the selection is broad. In my listed example you would CLEARLY be in the right. Just like the broad encompassing definition of pay to win is designed to fit all kinds of both paying and non paying players.

"How exactly is access to gear(that provides power) only by paying not a superior position? lmao(obviously because YOU are a big strong lvl 60" pretty much yes, if the advantage doesn't translate to an advantage over what a free player has access to.... yeah. You have no favorable position. And back to your pvp mumbo jumbo, as I replied earlier interaction is irrelevant. You can have an advantage over some one who you never speak to, see or even know about.

What self metrics are required in my definition. I can remove myself completely from all examples. My line is very definable, give any example you want and I will label it p2w or not and give a reason why with previously provided definitions on google.

But... that would mean that even if a single hunter does more damage than a warlock the entire argument falls apart? right?
Damn now if only you could apply the EXACT SAME(your own) logic to the p2w argument.
So which one is it:
1. payer needs to have an advantage over every single non paying person.
2. payer needs to have an advantage over any amount of people.
You tried both and neither worked, because it always boils down to your own subjective opinion on what you consider acceptable or not, which makes it undefinable and again, pointless, because everyone will have a different opinion then and the word p2w would have no meaning, almost like how the word ''casual'' is used.

Like even saying something as basic as ''does a non-payer have access to instant gold/instant levels the same as a paying player does?" your argument falls flat.

You even used a ''buying raid gear from the store would be p2w'' argument in a previous reply but then you go on to say the +1 stam gear wouldn't be p2w because what? Its not relevant to you? Because raid gear is somehow more special? Its hilarious how much you keep contradicting yourself and still not realising it.(also the fixed drop rates, whats stopping you from farming the raid forever? is it maybe that after the tier its suddenly irrelevant to you? huh so again you bring yourself into the argument)
Right back at you with your own words "interaction is irrelevant. You can have an advantage over some one who you never speak to, see or even know about.'' #1stamgang

"My line is very definable, give any example you want and I will label it p2w or not" But that by definition is subjective,
since you can't apply it to every game, and instead have to look at them individually, which then makes it undefinable, and literally breaks the word ''definition''. xD

I guess a different question is should the WoW token be removed?

Do you think it would hurt or help the game?

I imagine carries would carry on like always.

I also expect quite a few would be upset they couldn’t play WoW for “free” anymore from token.

I think bringing any kind of outside unfairness into the game is bad (aka using irl status to get money within the game), but that applies to the cash shop as well, in the long run it would be better for everyone if the game companies revenue was directly tied to player happiness instead of manipulation. But yea the token > gametime thing would hurt some.

[Elbob]

You don't see what is favorable about being instantly a higher level? Lmao. This is the problem when you use subjective definitions. You contradict the "Paying for an advantage" whenever it suits you. Boosts do go to max level day 0 of an expansion since during pre-patch (or before that) they get bumped up to the max level of the current expansion. The keyword missing though is relevant. Paying for an advantage means paying for an advantage. You are adding "relevant" to the simple definition.

The amusing part is your directly contradict "2) an advantage(position of superiority or favor) must be gained by the paying player over non paying players" by saying that a level boost is not an advantage. Are you superior to a person that has to grind out 50 levels? Yes. If we take your definition at face value then a level boost must be included as it uses out of game currency and offers an advantage to a person that doesn't pay. But yet again you ignore your own definition to add your own personal interpretation.



Your mythic gear example directly contradicts that earlier definition. Buying gear from the shop only gets you gear quicker but the same advantage of that gear is available for free. So if a short cut in a level boost is not pay to win then a short cut in mythic gear can not be pay to win. You can't have it both ways with out changing your definition based on the situation. But hey you never made that argument and I'm the one running around yelling about non-existent claims.

Correct I don't see it as an advantage, just like I don't see a government aiding poor people in society being a "advantage". A person who makes less money isnt advantaged over a wealthier person paying more taxes. Helping the bottom keep up with the top doesn't make them superior to the top. The "in the prepatch" thing is some serious stretching and we both know it. Because the current expacs max level is not available yet doesn't mean its not the max for the expac. I could easily argue the prepatch is the previous expansion still since you can partake in it without purchasing the newest expac. Again not favor or superiority is gained, I can still point back to my original conditions.

It doesn't contradict it STILL. The advantage is the extra acquisition. Your raid can kill the boss and collect its 4 drops, you can then go to the store and buy a 5th, 6th... w/e amount and essentially gained more loot from a particular boss then is otherwise possible without paying. You have generated loot that other would not have existed... you now have a favorable position(advantaged) because you got more drops then possible. NEXT. Leveling is not the same as max level gear post expac launch it's effectively old content and don't allow boosting to max level until the expac is so old it leaves you hundreds of ilvl behind. (not advantaged)

[Itori]

You don't see what is favorable about being instantly a higher level? Lmao. This is the problem when you use subjective definitions. You contradict the "Paying for an advantage" whenever it suits you. Boosts do go to max level day 0 of an expansion since during pre-patch (or before that) they get bumped up to the max level of the current expansion. The keyword missing though is relevant. Paying for an advantage means paying for an advantage. You are adding "relevant" to the simple definition.

The amusing part is your directly contradict "2) an advantage(position of superiority or favor) must be gained by the paying player over non paying players" by saying that a level boost is not an advantage. Are you superior to a person that has to grind out 50 levels? Yes. If we take your definition at face value then a level boost must be included as it uses out of game currency and offers an advantage to a person that doesn't pay. But yet again you ignore your own definition to add your own personal interpretation.



Your mythic gear example directly contradicts that earlier definition. Buying gear from the shop only gets you gear quicker but the same advantage of that gear is available for free. So if a short cut in a level boost is not pay to win then a short cut in mythic gear can not be pay to win. You can't have it both ways with out changing your definition based on the situation. But hey you never made that argument and I'm the one running around yelling about non-existent claims.

Who is the person who bought a boost actually competing against though? They just skipped what a 12hr grind? They gained meh gear and now have to slog through the gear grind now, but wait he bought gold tokens and now can buy meh raid gear to get into mythics, but has no r.io score and is just some no name pug with no guild, boe gear and no skill whatsoever and probably gets all his builds from icyveins, meanwhile by the time the guy grinding 12 hrs has made it to max lvl they have a better understanding of playstyle and will be valuable in raids/mythic from skills alone.

Now lets change it up, what if the guy who bought the boost got told by his guild “change mains or gtfo” so instead of lvling up the 40th alt he says fuck it buys a boost and gets some starter shit gear off the AH to satisfy his guild. Its an mmo theres no loss like there would be in EVE or runescape once you die and lose all the stuff you bought with real money. Everything can be obtained with time, there is no pay walls limiting free players from whales in WoW.

[Lochton]

I guess a different question is should the WoW token be removed?

Do you think it would hurt or help the game?

I imagine carries would carry on like always.

I also expect quite a few would be upset they couldn’t play WoW for “free” anymore from token.

I don't think it should be removed.

Honestly, I'd rather see it as a vendor item for a fixed price of 250k gold, trade gold for Battle.net credit, or game-time but that would also open doors for abuse. The main reason I do not mind the token is because I'm not a paranoid person, and I see a more direct thing for it. Person A needs game-time, person B has money for game-time, person A buys game-time on the auction from person B, person B gets paid gold from person A. A gets to play the game, or get credit for something on the story, and B gets rewarded for helping out person A. Win/Win.

Better than person A not being able to play at all, sits on a ton of gold, and person B goes to a 3rd party website to buy gold, enriching the 3rd party RMTs, inviting more RMT sales, increasing the chance of being hacked (or another playing being hacked to get easier gold), scammed, a victim of fraud, banned, or more gold farmer bottiing. The bots are much fewer than they used to be.

- - - Updated - - -

I think bringing any kind of outside unfairness into the game is bad (aka using irl status to get money within the game), but that applies to the cash shop as well, in the long run it would be better for everyone if the game companies revenue was directly tied to player happiness instead of manipulation. But yea the token > gametime thing would hurt some.

Then again, outside unfairness could also be a streamer showered in gold by just appearing on a server, that is using IRL status after all?

[Elbob]

But... that would mean that even if a single hunter does more damage than a warlock the entire argument falls apart? right?
Damn now if only you could apply the EXACT SAME(your own) logic to the p2w argument.
So which one is it:
1. payer needs to have an advantage over every single non paying person.
2. payer needs to have an advantage over any amount of people.
You tried both and neither worked, because it always boils down to your own subjective opinion on what you consider acceptable or not, which makes it undefinable and again, pointless, because everyone will have a different opinion then and the word p2w would have no meaning, almost like how the word ''casual'' is used.

Like even saying something as basic as ''does a non-payer have access to instant gold/instant levels the same as a paying player does?" your argument falls flat.

You even used a ''buying raid gear from the store would be p2w'' argument in a previous reply but then you go on to say the +1 stam gear wouldn't be p2w because what? Its not relevant to you? Because raid gear is somehow more special? Its hilarious how much you keep contradicting yourself and still not realising it.(also the fixed drop rates, whats stopping you from farming the raid forever? is it maybe that after the tier its suddenly irrelevant to you? huh so again you bring yourself into the argument)
Right back at you with your own words "interaction is irrelevant. You can have an advantage over some one who you never speak to, see or even know about.'' #1stamgang

"My line is very definable, give any example you want and I will label it p2w or not" But that by definition is subjective,
since you can't apply it to every game, and instead have to look at them individually, which then makes it undefinable, and literally breaks the word ''definition''. xD

I don't think you understood the example with the classes well at all. It was used a descriptor of language not a 1 to 1 with p2w. Its about how choosing not to specify a more select grp(like level 10 hunters will never do more damage then level 60 warlocks), its safe to assume I mean all. Just like the google definition I linked didn't specify some non payers, its safe to assume it means ALL non payers. Using the definition that "$$ buys gold which buys power = p2w" doesn't work when there are people who can't buy power.(BiS slotted players can't pay for advantages on one another). So your description of wow would be "Its P2W for some people.... but not everyone"?

So yes the payer needs to have an advantage over EVERY non payer. Use of the word 'any' was part of the 'all' implying any selection from the all that voids or breaks the definition makes it not a good definition. Ex) Wow is p2w except for people that have gold already. Now to get ahead of the next logical leap - Yes a player can get gear but still not be more powerful or superior to some one who didn't use the store, but that acquisition(if its a normally finite source) is potentially favorable to anyone. If you are able acquire more gear then another player from a normally finite source you are in a favorable position regardless if you know how to use that gear. Gold doesn't have any in game acquisition limits so don't repeat that circle please.

Correct buying the raid gear is very different then stats on gear that has already been replaced by non paying players. The raid gear is finite in acquisition, green gear with +1 stam is not. Its about acquisition rates limited by the store/bosses that drop them. If it helps clear anything up if the gear was on vendors for a gold value it wouldn't be p2w either. It would be scummy and i'd hate it but not p2w.

Calling definition subjective when it can clearly plant things as a binary of p2w y/n is kinda xd yeah you have to look at each game to see if favor is gained just like you have to look at each game to see if power is gained.. I offered to let you come up with any example wow based or not and you passed, not sure if you couldn't or wouldn't. I also don't know if you can't or won't address my points but the circles are kinda getting silly. I will even grant you the last word to say whatever repeated points you want and I won't reply. (something you said you would do pages ago)

[rhorle]

You have generated loot that other would not have existed... you now have a favorable position(advantaged) because you got more drops then possible. NEXT. Leveling is not the same as max level gear post expac launch it's effectively old content and don't allow boosting to max level until the expac is so old it leaves you hundreds of ilvl behind. (not advantaged)

So you get loot quicker. That 5th, 6th, whatever item could have dropped next week. So the advantage you pay for is something someone else can get over time. Just like with leveling. The one ones with your definition that would be "pay to win" are world first guilds. Anyone that gets loot after the first clear in the world would no longer be getting an advantage over others. Because someone already got "the best" drops.

And yet paying to skip the grind is pay to win in one case and not pay to win in another. Despite you not having a subjective definition, strange.

[Twdft]

To answer the thread: WoW is indisputably pay to win. It incentivizes shortcuts to the the most competitive aspects of the game by spending money instead of time.

Do you think buying flasks and enchantments is pay to win too (expensive at the start of expansion, one might throw some $$ at the shop to buy the gold for it)?

[rhorle]

Who is the person who bought a boost actually competing against though?

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. PvE is always competing against the computer. That is the "everyone" part. Leveling, or group play, is always against the computer. You seem to be implying that nothing can be pay to win unless it is PvP.

A level boost is paying to win. Buying gear would be paying to win. Buying gold is not paying to win. You never actually made commentary on those things.