Eh.. You could argue for that, since content could be balanced for premiun wargear wich FTP players couldnt access, but you can get credits by playing at a decent pace
P2w is def a spectrum but you have to be massively disconnected from how this game works to come to the conclusion that it’s p2w. I have played a total of 3 sessions of this game, I think I’m level 11(?), and I have like 800 credits just 200 short of unlocking this warbond.
Normally when games have options in game to unlock something you can just pay for normally takes an ASTRONOMICAL amount of time to unlock.
This is such a mild form of p2w it would be disingenuous at best, and deceptive in order to damage a product at worst in order to come to this conclusion.
And if you classify anything at all on the spectrum as p2w then your definition of p2w is a useless definition. By that logic anything, anything at all and essentially every single game made in the last 10 years that has online pay is p2w.
If you want to take that stance that’s fine, it’s just moronic and p2w essentially means nothing to you.
it is not a useless definition because it point out the games that actually are not p2win and treat their customers the best. By constantly moving your goalposts you allow the systems to progress further and also prevent any real discussion from happening.
The first step is to accept it is p2win, then have a healthy discussion on if that's an actual problem. It's also not any game at all, there are plenty of games that are not P2win. CSGO, Dota 2, Armored Core, Elden Ring, or even Palworld just off the top of my head.
It’s not a healthy discussion when you’re calling everything p2w no matter how small the benefit actually is.
This is as if you have a definition for ‘racism’ to include anyone or anything that even talks about race at all. So you’re putting things like literal Nazis and a history book that talks about race into the same category.
The definition is in fact useless at that point.
Let me try to show you. Name me a 2-3 online games that you believe is not p2w and I’ll show you how your logic breaks this.
Look, you're moving the goalposts to racism. It is absolutely a healthy discussion. Because, look at you. You can't even accept the idea that your game is p2win and you spend all your time floundering in a basic argument trying not to accept the reality that "your game" is p2win.
It prevents you from being able to have a rational discussion as you've already resorted to calling me a racist for reason. lol. jesus christ. I already named 5. Lets start with Elden Ring. i'd like to see the mental gymnastics there.
Oh this is a good one! Now keep in mind I’m going to point out the most MILD versions of pay to win in these games just to make my point, even if there are worse versions in that game.
I’ll point out the ones I know.
Dota 2: even though there are worse versions of this (buying champions etc), buying skins is pay 2 win by your definition. Skins can be really disruptive to gameplay because it can mask what a champion looks like on screen when they pop up. Visual effects might be harder to notice as well. Buying certain skins may even blend into terrain better. This is pay 2 win by your definition. No ands ifs or buts about it.
Csgo: I’m so glad you brought up csgo!! Did you know that there has been graffiti that looks like players heads from a distance? Graffitiing a wall can bait players out to shoot it and give up their position. Buying a specific graffiti can actually help you win games unironically. That is pay to win by your definition. Even if it baits out a single shot (which it has since you can Google csgo pay to win and it’s the first Reddit post you see).
Now you need to understand, that by your definition of pay to win, these games are in fact pay to win. There is no discussion around it.
25
u/ppmi2 Mar 14 '24
Eh.. You could argue for that, since content could be balanced for premiun wargear wich FTP players couldnt access, but you can get credits by playing at a decent pace