"Pay to win"

[kail]

Attunement is part of the TBC experience. Leveling to 58 is not part of that experience; that's the vanilla experience.

If I want to experience just the TBC content, then purchasing a boost to that content is not "pay to win". If I could buy a level 58 boost in Vanilla it would be.

There's a layer of nuance here that lots of folks don't get because they just want to say "lol blizz p2w smol indie compani" or whatever. I mean Blizzard has 99 problems, but pay to win is not one of them.

Strange, I didn't recall my character creation starting the toon as a lv 58 ready to walk through the portal. There was no option to pay for it back then either, how peculiar. At the end of the day, both leveling, rep grinds and attunements were very much the "tbc experience". The current boost will net you hours not having to level. If they offered attunements for $10, it would practically be of little difference in the result. Both are there to save a time gate.

It honestly blows my mind how many people here insist that the game is not pay to win, when I can pull out my credit card, buy 10 million gold in game. I can then take that gold and use it to buy tons of BoE item drops from raids at the beginning of a patch to increase my characters power.

Can't buy gold (yet) in Classic with irl money.

[arkanon]

I stated my opinion on this subject a few times but here it is again in its purest, most undiluted form:

• The tenuous relationship players have with cash shops in this game means the topic of P2W will always be a topic of discussion for this community
• Personally, I'm of the staunch opinion that as long as direct player power (ie, gear) is not obtainable through the store it is not, by definition, Pay2Win
• All arguments that try to say that level boosts are an indirect form of P2W are inherently flawed because of aforementioned point; it's Pay2BeLazy far more than it's Pay2Win
• Because the weight one puts on the "leveling experience" in WoW is a largely personal one, the inevitable semantic argument of what constitutes "winning" in WoW is essentially all these threads boil down to

I'm not a tremendously huge fan of semantic arguments on internet forums so I do my best to steer clear when I can. It is entertaining to see the level of mental gymnastics people will put themselves through to prove they're on the "right" side of this discussion but ultimately isn't a very constructive use of time.

And what would you say if i told you that P2W has absolutely nothing to do with winning? And how would you respond if I told you that your definition including entirely fabricated terms doesn't match up with any of the commonly accepted definitions?

I only see mental gymnastics from the people tunneling in on the term "winning" even though it isnt a requirement at all, and having to fabricate new terms to try and cover the gaping wholes in their argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Strange, I didn't recall my character creation starting the toon as a lv 58 ready to walk through the portal. There was no option to pay for it back then either, how peculiar. At the end of the day, both leveling, rep grinds and attunements were very much the "tbc experience". The current boost will net you hours not having to level. If they offered attunements for $10, it would practically be of little difference in the result. Both are there to save a time gate.

Ironically the boost saves around 150 hours, while the attune would save MAYBE 10% of that, depending how you went about things while leveling from 58-70, if you play with a guild, if you play a tank/healer etc etc etc.

[Relapses]

And what would you say if i told you that P2W has absolutely nothing to do with winning? And how would you respond if I told you that your definition including entirely fabricated terms doesn't match up with any of the commonly accepted definitions?

I only see mental gymnastics from the people tunneling in on the term "winning" even though it isnt a requirement at all, and having to fabricate new terms to try and cover the gaping wholes in their argument.

I'd say that arguing that the term Pay2Win has nothing to do with "winning" is the ultimate semantic diversion.

[arkanon]

I'd say that arguing that the term Pay2Win has nothing to do with "winning" is the ultimate semantic diversion.

Nah, its not, its just a complete failure on your part to understand what the term actually means. Which is strange, because the definitions are readily available online.

[Daymanmb]

I'd say that arguing that the term Pay2Win has nothing to do with "winning" is the ultimate semantic diversion.

Its a colloquial term meant to represent a wide range of financial practices in which a game company will charge for progress. Dont get hung up on the literal definition of "win" because by that metric, next to nothing is P2W.

[Relapses]

Nah, its not, its just a complete failure on your part to understand what the term actually means. Which is strange, because the definitions are readily available online.

Once again (for the third time now), if you've become so obsessed with the concept of being technically correct about the definition of a fucking word that you're unwilling to accept anybody using it in a manner that doesn't implicitly align with your beliefs then there's no point in engaging in an argument. You're simply proving why semantic arguments on the internet are dumb as fuck. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

- - - Updated - - -

Its a colloquial term meant to represent a wide range of financial practices in which a game company will charge for progress. Dont get hung up on the literal definition of "win" because by that metric, next to nothing is P2W.

...which is precisely why I said that it'd be more accurate to call what Blizzard does with WoW "Pay 2 Be Lazy" instead of "Pay 2 Win."

[Daymanmb]

...which is precisely why I said that it'd be more accurate to call what Blizzard does with WoW "Pay 2 Be Lazy" instead of "Pay 2 Win."

Theyre synonymous... call it w.e the fuck you want, its still P2W.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again (for the third time now), if you've become so obsessed with the concept of being technically correct about the definition of a fucking word that you're unwilling to accept anybody using it in a manner that doesn't implicitly align with your beliefs

Brother, thats exactly what youre doing lmao... projection is strong with you.

[Relapses]

Brother, thats exactly what youre doing lmao... projection is strong with you.

What the fuck? Not only did I say from the beginning that it was a semantic argument (and one that I didn't want to engage in for that exact reason) but now four fucking posts later I'm the one projecting? Get real.

[arkanon]

What the fuck? Not only did I say from the beginning that it was a semantic argument (and one that I didn't want to engage in for that exact reason) but now four fucking posts later I'm the one projecting? Get real.

For someone who doesn't want to engage in a discussion about the definition of P2W, you are HEAVILY engaged, don't you think? You are currently unsuccessfully arguing with multiple people, while saying "I don't want to have this discussion..........................HOWEVER, here is my essay about P2W, including all the made up head canon terms I use to desperately try to avoid admitting it is very clearly a P2W feature".

The terms we are using are well defined and commonly accepted - do you not think that the fact you are having to literally make up your own weird term is a hint that MAYBE you are a bit off base here?

[Relapses]

For someone who doesn't want to engage in a discussion about the definition of P2W, you are HEAVILY engaged, don't you think? You are currently unsuccessfully arguing with multiple people, while saying "I don't want to have this discussion..........................HOWEVER, here is my essay about P2W, including all the made up head canon terms I use to desperately try to avoid admitting it is very clearly a P2W feature".

The terms we are using are well defined and commonly accepted - do you not think that the fact you are having to literally make up your own weird term is a hint that MAYBE you are a bit off base here?

Brother you asked me for my fucking opinion on the matter. I gave it to you. Me responding to you attacking my opinion because I refuse to capitulate to your preferred definition of P2W isn't anything more than me exercising my God given right to disagree with people.

[themaster24]

Its a colloquial term meant to represent a wide range of financial practices in which a game company will charge for progress. Dont get hung up on the literal definition of "win" because by that metric, next to nothing is P2W.

To be clear, the colloquial term has most frequently been used to reference the practice wherein you can pay the company directly for huge endgame power advantages that other players either literally can't access without also paying, or will take months of controlled, timegated content for those who don't pay. That's why for some, it's very difficult to call what Blizz does, either with classic or retail, P2W.

For those people, like me, there's a world of difference between a company forcefully locking power away behind a paywall or a calculated timegated grind (i.e. games with character shards), and what blizz offers. Yes, leveling in the Vanilla/TBC era of wow was far more of a time investment, but the game doesn't literally prevent you from leveling/playing. There's no leveling energy that prevents you from dinging, no quest lockout that only lets you complete so many quests per hour/day.

As a side note, I saw plenty of raid geared blood elves the first weekend of the TBCC prepatch to know for a fact that leveling is easily bypassed without the need of a blizzard boost. While leveling can be a hassle, it's clearly not a strict "150 hours".

[Daymanmb]

To be clear, the colloquial term has most frequently been used to reference the practice wherein you can pay the company directly for huge endgame power advantages that other players either literally can't access without also paying, or will take months of controlled, timegated content for those who don't pay. That's why for some, it's very difficult to call what Blizz does, either with classic or retail, P2W.

That's literally the lvl 58 boost lmao

- - - Updated - - -

For those people, like me, there's a world of difference between a company forcefully locking power away behind a paywall or a calculated timegated grind (i.e. games with character shards), and what blizz offers.

There's also a world of difference between 5V and 120V but theyre still volts.

[arkanon]

To be clear, the colloquial term has most frequently been used to reference the practice wherein you can pay the company directly for huge endgame power advantages that other players either literally can't access without also paying, or will take months of controlled, timegated content for those who don't pay. That's why for some, it's very difficult to call what Blizz does, either with classic or retail, P2W.

When? Where? What did you use to come to this warped and entirely false conclusion? Just google "Pay to Win Definition" and dont go sifting through to page 3 to find some obscure post on a fan site, just read the commonly accepted definitions of P2W. This is just all wrong - all of it.

[themaster24]

Nope, none of the is true.

Not only is it true, it's also the origin of the term (hence it's most frequent use). It's only been relatively recently (last 5-6 years) that people have used to it to describe a larger array of MTX.

- - - Updated - - -

When? Where? What did you use to come to this warped and entirely false conclusion? Just google "Pay to Win Definition" and dont go sifting through to page 3 to find some obscure post on a fan site, just read the commonly accepted definitions of P2W.

It comes from being alive and gaming when the term was born and used for a very long time before people started to use it to describe a larger array of MTX. If you read my post, the whole point is, this new usage of the phrase is not what some people associate with P2W, and explaining why those who see P2W in this way feel differently.

[Daymanmb]

Not only is it true, it's also the origin of the term (hence it's most frequent use). It's only been relatively recently (last 5-6 years) that people have used to it to describe a larger array of MTX.

- - - Updated - - -



It comes from being alive and gaming when the term was born and used for a very long time before people started to use it to describe a larger array of MTX

Are you trying to say that words are static and incapable of evolving into broader definitions? And can you provide an example from 5-6 years ago that fits your narrow definition of P2W?

[arkanon]

Brother you asked me for my fucking opinion on the matter. I gave it to you. Me responding to you attacking my opinion because I refuse to capitulate to your preferred definition of P2W isn't anything more than me exercising my God given right to disagree with people.

The commonly accepted definition - literally the one you will find if you google the definition. Do it, just google "pay to win" and you wont even have to click the links if you dont want to - its all right there in the google preview.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only is it true, it's also the origin of the term (hence it's most frequent use). It's only been relatively recently (last 5-6 years) that people have used to it to describe a larger array of MTX.

- - - Updated - - -



It comes from being alive and gaming when the term was born and used for a very long time before people started to use it to describe a larger array of MTX. If you read my post, the whole point is, this new usage of the phrase is not what some people associate with P2W, and explaining why those who see P2W in this way feel differently.

All wrong - you are relying on a "fact" that coincidentally cannot be proven, to support your argument, and you are literally just making this up as you go along. But for arguments sake, lets (wrongly) assume you are correct - why on EARTH would you use a massively outdated and incorrect definition when a current, and correct different is available right now?

[themaster24]

Are you trying to say that words are static and incapable of evolving into broader definitions? And can you provide an example from 5-6 years ago that fit your narrow defintion?

No, and you aren't reading what I'm saying. What my whole post was about, is that this the way you are referring to P2W is a newer way of using the term. It has, been more frequently used in the way I described, since it was used that way for far longer than it has been used in this new manner. Hence why there are people who hold such adamantly different views of what P2W means.

The commonly accepted definition - literally the one you will find if you google the definition. Do it, just google "pay to win" and you wont even have to click the links if you dont want to - its all right there in the google preview.

You are so focused on the current usage of the word, that you're willfully ignoring what the phrase used to mean. Some people are used to the old usage of the term, where it referred to games damn near making it impossible for you to have the best XYZ without paying up (i.e. mobile games). I'm not arguing that the way you use P2W is wrong, I'm explaining that there are those who see P2W differently because of how we used the term in the past.

[Daymanmb]

I'm explaining that there are those who see P2W differently because of how we used the term in the past.

Okay, thats fair, though I dont think youre necessarily right.

[themaster24]

All wrong - you are relying on a "fact" that coincidentally cannot be proven, to support your argument, and you are literally just making this up as you go along. But for arguments sake, lets (wrongly) assume you are correct - why on EARTH would you use a massively outdated and incorrect definition when a current, and correct different is available right now?

It's not wrong. Go looking through gaming forums in the past, and you will see how the phrase was used in the past. This also isn't like people trying to use a harmful word "because back in my day". P2W isn't an actual word, it's a sentiment that people ascribe to the actions of companies. Different people feel differently about P2W, and part of that can be because of the way they were introduced to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, thats fair, though I dont think youre necessarily right.

If you go reading through gaming forums/reddit, you will find discussions on P2W over the years. There's even some around 5-6 yrs ago that shine a light on the evolution of the phrase, where people started to use it more like you do. This was when AAA games were pushing the boundaries on what they could get you to pay for. The way you see P2W is wrong, just different than how those like me do.

[Daymanmb]

If you go reading through gaming forums/reddit, you will find discussions on P2W over the years. There's even some around 5-6 yrs ago that shine a light on the evolution of the phrase, where people started to use it more like you do. This was when AAA games were pushing the boundaries on what they could get you to pay for. The way you see P2W is wrong, just different than how those like me do.

Clash of clans came out in 2012 and fits your time frame. You could buy gems to speed up progress that would otherwise take up to 2 weeks to advance. You could level up without them, but it becomes quite the chore. How is that different that a level boost? Is Clash of Clans not P2W?

Should I even mention FIFA Ultimate Team that came out in 2010?