Quote Originally Posted by Shougun View Post
snip
Fair enough. But I still take the idea that game creators define winning. Players would never have a unified position as we can see. All that ambiguity is why I use the developers definition. People don't go around demanding the NBA and NFL change the rules to match their personal 'house rules' when they play in the their backyard. Why are we doing that now when the game developer litterally has God power to reshape the world, and even stuff like physics to their whim. Their game their rules.

in a sand box game, like minecraft, the point of the game is that there is no point. There is no structure. The developers basically made a game with NO win condition. They could sell anything they want and, regardless if you liked it or not, you couldn't fight it with 'it's p2w' agument. (You can fight it for other reasons of course). ARR however, is quite rigidly structured in almost every way and only very small sand boxes for sandbox open play (housing etc). In a structured game there are very clear developer created paths that can be defined as winning. If it's not on that path, p2w argument has no power there. I'm just tired of all these threads beating the same dead horse which is basically boiling down to a semantic fight on what p2w 'means'.