Quote Originally Posted by Shioban View Post
That's like saying "Someone bumped my shoulder, therefore they attacked me violently!!!".
It's a misuse of the general meaning of the term.


The conventional terms used in the video game industry aren't going to apply to the few going;

"BUT I COLLECT MINIONS, THEREFORE IT MUST BE PAY TO WIN!"

Pay to win refers to a paid for advantage/boost/aid using real world currency to progress further in gameplay content.
I would agree that how the term appears to be used is different per groups - one of which has some elusively strict rules, thus unique and almost impartial to its own words in construction. Since winning can be used in many ways, the basic reading of "pay to win" can absolutely refer to any sort of winning (and acquiring mounts can be a sort of winning, since win is based on success and success can be measured from opinion).

It would be fair to say the devs can mean something different, but I would argue that players can use the same term and mean another and be in usage of its construction. Accepted definitions are up for change causes language is so preciously fun... xD but also because the construction of the acronym is set in a way up for variation. Also mounts are a form of content, I'm not so sure about your last sentence on this... I know you are part of at least some game scene so I would be surprised if you come back with game content is purely combat or dev sanctioned things. Regardless of if you agree to that or not you must at least be aware that job lingo does not mean it is the same to the outside world and that language can evolve without permission. If you make in your team purple means black then fine, even some people outside may accept that meaning - it is completely within other peoples rights to not accept it and so long as they aren't stretching the meaning they aren't being dishonest doing it either. It would be dishonest to say violent assault is to shove, it would not be dishonest to explain that winning can be based off opinion thanks to the meaning of success which correlates to winning.

So sure Devs can mean battle content only or only content that they deem "content", but as again I'm sure you are aware devs are not the masters of their game when it comes to its perception - that is to the players.

Above is not really an argument that because it is to win devs can no longer do it, just that p2p is up to interpretation and by the unfortunate yet awesome nature of language will be fighting an avalanche to argue not only can the construction not influence its meaning but that also game content is somehow not content like mounts but only progress approved by the devs. I fully believe that SE has the right to make money and that players have the right to say gtfo, and some special equilibrium will be two sides battling for more for less but still servicing and paying each other. Personally my biggest gripe with the shop, besides the fact that I see the value exacerbated because whales can pay (I can pay.. lol), but that right now, and I know it isnt the most popular issue, is that there is actually a feature locked behind payment. The two seater mount is not available through normal game means, the mounts can be considered skins cosmetic game content not a feature in of itself but the two seater feature is a payment locked.