It is arbitrary because it is not a win condition in Ashes.
[...] All of them would be completely arbitrary in Ashes, because they are not stated win conditions in Ashes (not that any have been stated).
I agree with you, but as you say there is no stated win condition so aren't all arbitrary? There is no doubt whatsoever that the overwhelming consensus is that high level, high skills and good gear is the win condition in MMORPG:s but that doesn't mean it is the only one. If we look at WoW we have people who want to collect all the mounts, all the pets, all the achievements and other "alternative win conditions".
It find it a bit disingenuous though for Elder Soul to state that "First you have to understand what P2W is. Contrary to what many tend to say, there is no single definition of what this means.". There is a single definition and if you change the definition of winning it does not change the definition of pay to win, it just changes the end goal.
As expected most equate pay to win with paying to gain an advantage in what most consider winning, so of course the discussion has not been productive because people are arguing about different things.
Ah, saw the change in topic now, so this will be my last reply in this thread. It is an interesting but not constructive debate and more a question of semantics.
Comments
I agree with you, but as you say there is no stated win condition so aren't all arbitrary? There is no doubt whatsoever that the overwhelming consensus is that high level, high skills and good gear is the win condition in MMORPG:s but that doesn't mean it is the only one. If we look at WoW we have people who want to collect all the mounts, all the pets, all the achievements and other "alternative win conditions".
It find it a bit disingenuous though for Elder Soul to state that "First you have to understand what P2W is. Contrary to what many tend to say, there is no single definition of what this means.". There is a single definition and if you change the definition of winning it does not change the definition of pay to win, it just changes the end goal.
As expected most equate pay to win with paying to gain an advantage in what most consider winning, so of course the discussion has not been productive because people are arguing about different things.
Ah, saw the change in topic now, so this will be my last reply in this thread. It is an interesting but not constructive debate and more a question of semantics.
The issue is with people complaining that the arbitrary win conditions that they have created are not possible.