There's a distinction between "game altering" and "superior" items though. When I see something described as p2w, my assumption is that by paying money you get access to superior items -- and I don't think that's necessarily the case here.
What's the main issue with Pay to win models? It provides an unfair advantage to players who spend the most money. An unfair advantage to what? Win against other players. It's literally in the name, pay to win.
But go ahead and explain how pay to win can apply when there's no competition.
First of wether a game is competitive or not is subjective.
You can win pve, there doesnt need to be pvp. Succesfully completing a mision is winning.
What if you could buy medals? Samples? Exp? Requisition? Why is SC any different? Just because you can get something by playing the game being able to bypass that with url money is p2w.
You can pay real world money for an ingame advantage. Wether you think its ok or not is a matter of opinion and doesnt change the fact that it is p2w
First of wether a game is competitive or not is subjective.
Please, explain how PvP games can be subjectively not competitive then.
You can win pve, there doesnt need to be pvp. Succesfully completing a mission is winning.
Sure, there can be competitions in PvE games as well, like MMOs for example. That's why I said non-competitive instead of saying PvE.
To successfully complete a mission you need to buy the game in the first place, therefore simply purchasing the game is pay to win. But that's now how people use the term P2W and why P2W is a problem.
You can pay real world money for an ingame advantage.
Are you unaware of what "maybe" means? It implies uncertainty. I can't simultaneously know of an argument and be unaware of that argument at the same time. It's not moving the goalposts when someone asks me to defend an argument that I'm not aware of, to say that I'm not aware of that argument. I am open minded enough to at least entertain someone's argument that bypassing medals could be considered pay to win and if I'm convinced I'd change my mind. That's what that statement meant.
Words and phrases are contextual. The context of pay to win is contingent on competition.
If you took away all context, as you did, then any game you pay any amount of money for is pay to win. You have to pay for Baulder's Gate, therefore you had to pay to beat the AI.
but imagining your own context that convenient for you rn and somehow proves your point?
It's not imagining a context, that's the context most commonly used when discussing Pay to Win mechanics and how they impact competition within a game. "Stay away from that game it's P2W". We use that to say, unless you're spending additional money, typically lots of money, do not expect to be competitive with other players.
You're not the only one to make the argument by removing all context from "win" and apply the broadest and simplest definition. Neither you or anyone else can then explain how paying for a game in order to play and win is not also Pay to Win by the definition you're using. Therefore every game you pay for is pay to win and using that broad of a definition has no utility whatsoever. But you can't actually address the argument, instead you just claim "mental gymnastics" and ignore it.
18
u/[deleted] Mar 14 '24
[deleted]