Is WoW Pay 2 Win?

[hulkgor]

Realistically, if the poster hadn't said so themselves, how would your feat differentiate from theirs on the Achievement tab?

?

Knowing that -i- beat the challenge? The accomplishment itself? Who cares if others see a random achievement on my tab, all that is going away when the servers go down. Yay for them?

[epigramx]

None of my argument have revolved around ethics.

I'm telling you it's a statement on ethics and philosophy. Yes of course I could agree in a certain framework of discussion that it's not winning if you cheat; but that's closing the topic entirely; I could also accept a framework that paying Blizzard to get benefits is pay to win.

There is no "right" or "wrong" here; it's about understanding in what framework we speak; it's fanatical to say that there is an objective "pay to win" definition since even more clear concepts are clearly subjective (let alone a gaming concept that children created a few years ago).

[rhorle]

it's fanatical to say that there is an objective "pay to win" definition since even more clear concepts are clearly subjective (let alone a gaming concept that children created a few years ago).

There is an objective definition. Paying to win is buying power for real money. The problem that you, and others have, is they can't accept that objective definition so add on subjective things. The level boost from Blizzard confers power for cash. The token from Blizzard does not confer power for cash.

[epigramx]

There is an objective definition. Paying to win is buying power for real money. The problem that you, and others have, is they can't accept that objective definition so add on subjective things. The level boost from Blizzard confers power for cash. The token from Blizzard does not confer power for cash.

That's generally a very bad take on how human discourse happens in general. Definitions of phrases have a low value to begin with; they're only there so we don't confuse ourselves; for example: we may both agree that it's not called P2W but we may both agree that it's still terrible!1

To put it more simply I completely agree with those that say it's P2W and it's terrible but I also say if we say "cheating/paying is not winning" then it's also terrible(!!!1) so it doesn't even register much in the heart of the matter what the definition is if we agree on one temporarily.

[rhorle]

That's generally a very bad take on how human discourse happens in general. Definitions of phrases have a low value to begin with; they're only there so we don't confuse ourselves; for example: we may both agree that it's not called P2W but we may both agree that it's still terrible!

I think you are confused. It can still be terrible and not be pay to win. It can be acceptable and be pay to win. You are confusing concepts for no good reason here. If definitions exist so we don't confuse ourselves then stop confusing yourself and arguing for something that goes against an objective definition. Strange huh?

[epigramx]

I think you are confused. It can still be terrible and not be pay to win. It can be acceptable and be pay to win. You are confusing concepts for no good reason here. If definitions exist so we don't confuse ourselves then stop confusing yourself and arguing for something that goes against an objective definition. Strange huh?

Your position is antithetical to anything scientific or even artistic (of course). Definitions of language phrases are only there to communicate; they don't have a disagreement in themselves especially since dictionaries often have 3 or 4 or more clashing definitions; the disagreement 2 people may have comes after they agree on any definition on a certain subject.

To say in practice why this can be subjective is that I can agree that Blizzard selling gold and then getting an achievement is pay to win; but I can also agree in another discussion framework that paying is not winning because you just cheated and you didn't win; but we've already covered that so I guess you will never change your stance in this topic I bet.

[rhorle]

To say in practice why this can be subjective is that I can agree that Blizzard selling gold and then getting an achievement is pay to win; but I can also agree in another discussion framework that paying is not winning because you just cheated you didn't win; but we've already covered so I guess you will never change your stance in this topic I bet.

So you think it is subjective so the definition must be subjective as well? That is the problem. You keep changing things, and arguing that can't exist otherwise, simply because you need to change it for your arguments to work. The definition of pay to way can be objective and is objective. Paying real money for character power. An achievement, AOTC, is not character power and is not part of the cash transaction when using the token.

I don't need to change my stance here. Why would I have to change my stance when all of your arguments against it won't even pick a stance and half of the time say that I'm correct? Lmao.

[Sansnom]

That has nothing to do with it. There will always be a 'black market' of selling gold/runs that are explicitly against the TOS. The difference comes when the company itself endorses buying gold is when it becomes officially p2w ala the wow token. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" is not the motto a company should take in regards to people selling gold/boosts for irl money and maintaining the integrity of the game.

It was against the TOS to buy gold with real money. It still is. Unless it goes via the token route.

But people have been buying runs with gold from day 1 of the game. That is not against the TOS.

I do not see why using gold obtain via the game over gold obtain via token to buy carries/BoE etc is a major difference. People are still be carried.

There is a grand canyon-type of difference there and I hope you can see it.

Not really. People using money to buy gold. Just because it is no longer breaking the ToS does not mean it never happened.

[epigramx]

So you think it is subjective so the definition must be subjective as well? That is the problem. You keep changing things, and arguing that can't exist otherwise, simply because you need to change it for your arguments to work. The definition of pay to way can be objective and is objective. Paying real money for character power. An achievement, AOTC, is not character power and is not part of the cash transaction when using the token.

I don't need to change my stance here. Why would I have to change my stance when all of your arguments against it won't even pick a stance and half of the time say that I'm correct? Lmao.

No. I said the definition of the phrase itself is very subjective. For me it's very clear that paying Blizzard to get an achievement with the help of a credit card is terrible; I do not care if you call it P2W or "not paying to win because you cheated!" because it's still terrible to my view; hence that's the most objective and important part for me (that it is terrible) and it has very low value if I called it P2W or not because the result (that matters) is exactly the same: I want it gone from the game.

[Raelbo]

I'm telling you it's a statement on ethics and philosophy.

Well you'll need to explain then. I keep trying to tell you guys, you need to learn how to construct an argument. You can't just make random claims without backing or warrants and expect anyone to accept them simply because you say it is so.

Yes of course I could agree in a certain framework of discussion that it's not winning if you cheat; but that's closing the topic entirely;

Again, this isn't something I was talking about. I think may be attributing stuff said by someone else to me.

There is no "right" or "wrong" here; it's about understanding in what framework we speak; it's fanatical to say that there is an objective "pay to win" definition since even more clear concepts are clearly subjective (let alone a gaming concept that children created a few years ago).

I agree that what is important is that we have a common framework of what we're referring to. Absolutely! What I am saying is that p2w is a term that has existed in gaming circles for some time, certainly pre-dating the existence of the WoW token. So if you're genuinely trying to find a common framework within which to work, it makes sense to look at what the pre-existing meaning of the term was.

So, by all means, you're welcome to present your case of why you think your definition is valid, but I am telling you right now that if it doesn't account for the meaning that is broadly accepted in gaming circles, then it's going to be pretty poor.

[rhorle]

No. I said the definition of the phrase itself is very subjective. For me it's very clear that paying Blizzard to get an achievement with the help of a credit card is terrible; I do not care if you call it P2W or "not paying to win because you cheated!" because it's still terrible to my view; hence that's the most objective and important part for me (that it is terrible) and it has very low value if I called it P2W or not because the result (that matters) is exactly the same: I want it gone from the game.

The definition isn't subjective. You are just choosing to create a different one because it doesn't agree with your views. There is nothing subjective about paying Cash for Power. Everyone pays Blizzard, with the help of a credit card, for achievements. It is the box and subscription price. You'll of course respond with an "exception" to your preferred definition for why subscription and box price don't matter here. Which highlights the problems with subjective definitions. They change based on the whims and in the moment arguments by the poster.

Of course you care if it is called pay to win or not because you keep arguing for subjective definitions that fit your view. Rather then accepting that your view might not fit the objective definition of the term. If it matters very little to you if it is called pay to win or not why do you keep arguing about what is and is not pay to win and always aligning the definition exactly with your view? Strange, right?

[panda040]

Not entirely correct. This definition is vague regarding who the player is paying, and what the source of said power is. p2w is unambiguously about transactions between the game and the players concerned.



It's not tricky at all. You're using your credit to conduct a transaction with another player. By the corrected definition above, this is not p2w, but boosting.



Yes. Your argument is not hard to understand at all. But it is flawed in that you're still talking entirely about inter-player transactions (aka boosting) as opposed to game-player transactions (aka p2w).

If the game gave players gold directly, in exchange for cash, without the corresponding transaction on the other end of a player buying that token for that same amount of gold, then yes, I would agree 100% with your argument above.

I hope you're starting to get the picture here?



As I said in an earlier post, being able to buy a level boost is probably the closest thing in the game to p2w. The only reason I would argue that it isn't, is because the status quo in the game is that the average player already has a number of characters that are already well beyond the level that the boost provides. Thus it is a catch-up mechanism rather than a p2w mechanism.

For the level boost to qualify as p2w, it would have to provide players with a way to get to level cap before everyone else. For example, a level 60 boost at the start of Shadowlands would have qualified as p2w.


I'll use an analogy here of a marathon to try and illustrate the concepts:

Boosting services provided by other players would be analogous to other competitors literally picking you up and carrying you over the finish line.
A level boost would be analogous to getting a taxi ride to the start line after the race has already started
P2W would be analogous to paying a fee to be given a head start in the race



The gold is coming from other players, not Blizzard. Blizzard simply facilitate this transaction and take a fee for it.



And I will likewise clarify my position. If the gold in question came from the game directly, and not from other players, I would join you in having a problem with it. The thing you need to understand here is that being able to interact with other players and enlist their help is a core feature of an MMO game. I think that because you're simply looking at the end result for a hypothetical player, which I totally agree looks a lot like p2w, you're failing to see the bigger picture or how all this translates into what actually happens in the game.

The problem with p2w games is that even the players who put in the effort required to do well in the game end up being at a disadvantage to those who swipe their credit card. This is pretty much impossible in WoW with their current features that you guys like to label as "p2w".



While I appreciate the effort, the fact is that you didn't have to break it down for my benefit. Your argument is one I am well familiar with, and I understand it just fine.

But I am glad you broke it down like this, because it allows me to show you exactly where the errors are, while at the same time demonstrating that I am, in fact, paying attention to and understanding where you are coming from.

You can split hairs all you want but your not going to convince me that wow is not pay win until i cannot give blizzard 60 dollars after buying their game and paying their sub to get instant max level. And then paying blizzard MORE money to get a token BLIZZARD created to then get boe items, raid carries, pvp ranks and more. If i farmed gold the old fashion way to pay someone for help thats fine. But being able to drop 1000 dollars on wow tokens and get whatever i want in the game immediately vs someone who had to work a long time to get it is pay to win. Paint however you like and justify it however you want. Its fucking pay to win.


Also the problem with pay to win is not only that it can put hardworking players at a disadvantage, but also these people who buy multiple wow tokens to get carries and achieves devalue those achieves and mounts etc when any chump can just buy 5 million gold and get the same thing.

If everyone buys wow tokens for an aotc carry, then an aotc achievment doesnt mean shit, even for the people who got it legitimately.

again the carries are player to player transactions yes, but they are GATED BY GAME TO PLAYER TRANSACTIONS. I pay blizzard, i get gold from a token that comes from nothing but game time I then use the gold to get player to player interactions.

Its fucking pay to win with an extra step in between.

also reading over this thread, it's clear the vast majority of post see this as pay to win with a few disagreeing, probably because they rely on the wow token.

The only thing that can't be bought off with not merit in this game is rank 1 pvp titles... but who knows maybe you can buy that with enough wow tokens too

- - - Updated - - -

The game becomes more enjoyable with higher gear.

So it’s just a matter of getting to the fun part faster.

Having low gear and struggling is never fun.

yea this is also BS, fun is subjective, part of an rpg is player progression. You say you dont enjoy the game unless you have good gear, i enjoy comming from shit gear, playing well, and getting good gear as a result. I dont know how people feel like they are any good when they just skip to the best gear especially when they know it will become obsolete soon.

[rhorle]

If i farmed gold the old fashion way to pay someone for help thats fine.

So then you should be fine with the token. As every token requires someone to farm gold the old fashion way. Why does it matter that the effort is not your own? Effort is still part of the equation. You also can't drop $1,000 on tokens and get whatever you want immediately. BoE's require them to drop and be listed on the AH. Carries require the content to easy enough for a group to carry dead weight. That is another reason why the token is not pay to win. No power is immediately given by the game. You still contend with RNG loot with a carry and could in theory pay to lose if nothing is an upgrade.

The token would be pay to maybe. But since that term doesn't exist it is simply just a micro transaction for gold.

[Relapses]

So then you should be fine with the token. As every token requires someone to farm gold the old fashion way. Why does it matter that the effort is not your own? Effort is still part of the equation. You also can't drop $1,000 on tokens and get whatever you want immediately. BoE's require them to drop and be listed on the AH. Carries require the content to easy enough for a group to carry dead weight. That is another reason why the token is not pay to win. No power is immediately given by the game. You still contend with RNG loot with a carry and could in theory pay to lose if nothing is an upgrade.

The token would be pay to maybe. But since that term doesn't exist it is simply just a micro transaction for gold.

Just a note: $1,000 in tokens would take roughly 3 weeks to amass because you can only buy one token every ~fourish hours and you can only buy a maximum of 20 tokens per week.

[Garretdejiko]

snip

bold to think that i'm going to read any of your twited logic to defend a game that doesn't care about its playerbase.

wow is pay to win, can't be more obvious

You could also, you know, actually say what you mean. Just a thought.

You could also, you know, read the quote chain. Just a thought.

[Relapses]

You could also, you know, read the quote chain. Just a thought.

Then am I correct to understand that even you don't know what you meant?

[Gourbaak]

Wow isn't pay to win at all

[threads]

i lvled a fresh lvl 60 and already killed heroic sylvanas thanks to my wow token! not pay to win btw lol

[epigramx]

I agree that what is important is that we have a common framework of what we're referring to. Absolutely! What I am saying is that p2w is a term that has existed in gaming circles for some time, certainly pre-dating the existence of the WoW token.

I know (there is a popular definition (even though dictionaries often have 2ndary definitions but whatever))! My point is that I do not care at all how it is called for my goals in a discussion like this. My purpose is to say I find it terrible that someone can use a credit card to get an achievement over other subscribers and I do not care one bit if you call it pay to win or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you care if it is called pay to win or not because you keep arguing for subjective definitions that fit your view.

You are talking to a strawman. My entire point was that I don't give a single crap how I define pay to win in this discussion. I can agree 100% with your definition or not; my goal in what I want to say in this discussion does not change one bit with the definition; I find giving a credit card to accelerate an achievement over other subscribers terrible and I don't care if you call it pay to win or not.

[shadowmatrix]

Holy cope batman, any form of swiping the credit card is pay to win.

This is some next level mental gymnastics

Then every game developer might as well follow EA's model since it doesn't matter anymore.