It is exactly the point. The difference is that you are assuming that I am lumping ‘GAMES’ all together. I am not. I am lumping Micro-transactions all together. If there is such a game that truly has no ‘pay for additional content’ I would say that is fine. Just because you wouldn’t pay for the ‘upgrade’ because it is cosmetic only, doesn’t mean that it isn’t paid for by some. Nor is it any less insidious in its intent than paying for that +500 sword that no one else can get unless they pay for it.
If the micro-transaction system consists of pay to win items, then the game is pay to win. The micro-transactions are a part of the game, what is your purpose in trying to separate the two?
I'm not sure I understand the rest of this paragraph. Why does it matter that some people will pay for cosmetic upgrades even if I won't? Are you trying to compare buying a unicorn mount to buying a game breaking weapon, saying that there is absolutely no difference? I get that they are both micro-transactions, but are you really trying to claim that they have the same effect on the game? And who is being insidious in this situation - the person who buys the mount/weapon or the developer for selling the mount/weapon?
Cosmetic touches ARE in game advantages over people who do not pay. They are cosmetic advantages, but that fundamentally changes the game play experience. Without some ‘material benefit’ no one would pay for them. The advantage may not be something that you would pay for, but that is no less an advantage.
For something to be an advantage
over another person it has to affect
them. Please provide a convincing example of how you buying a unicorn mount affects another players ability to play the game or affects their access to specific content available in the base game.
If you want to define cosmetic items as 'advantages' in the sense that they alter your game play experience and enrich your enjoyment of the game, thats fine. That is what they are meant to do. But it is not an advantage over another person unless it affects them negatively in some way.
As for the rest, you can’t call it logically inconsistent unless you can prove that (a) ‘ability’ only ever means mechanical advantage and that (b) no cosmetic advantage has ever lead to a ‘winning’ combination, and (c) that ‘winning’ only ever means ‘completing the game to its conclusion’. Not to mention the fact that you can’t ‘Win’ an MMO. Therefore, by your definition, no MMO ever can have “Pay to win”. Now who’s argument isn’t logically consistent?
Let me re-quote my own statement:
You cannot call something 'pay to win' if it does not actually further your ability to win the game - it is not logically consistent.
Please explain to me how (a), (b), and (c) above are required for this statement to be true? I don't see the link at all. Do you believe this statement is false? Can you provide an example of an item that does not further your ability to win a game, but would fall under your definition of a pay to win item anyways?
Additionally a cosmetic add on might cause an increase in popularity while adding no mechanical benefit but allowing a player to ‘Win’ the game through directly influencing others in the game to help or hinder them. Therefore, from that perspective a “Hello Kitty” tee shirt might qualify under your definition.
Ignoring for a minute that there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that cosmetic items increase a persons popularity (in fact, you tried to make the claim earlier in this thread that the term 'pay to win' was coined simply for the purpose of allowing people to 'point and laugh' at people who spend money on cosmetic items), this is not in any way a unique advantage that cannot be obtained in other ways, or even the most effective, fastest, or easiest way to increase your popularity. If you can get the same effect by simply walking up to someone and starting a friendly conversation as you can by buying an item from the cash shop, that is not pay to win. Pay to win provides an advantage over others that
cannot otherwise be obtained by other players unless they also pay. Would you like to try to claim that buying cosmetic items creates a level of popularity that is not possible to achieve otherwise?
So as long as people agree with your definition, they are OK. If they differ from what you think, they are automatically wrong? And dumbing down the example to something where the definition is not in question doesn’t make it a reasonable comparison.
My definition is one that is widely accepted to be accurate. There is some dissension over whether certain things are really pay to win or not. Temporary EXP boosters in an MMO, or allowing people to buy the same items with real money as the ones that can be obtained in game. Some say pay to win, some don't. What I've never heard described as pay to win are superficial cosmetic items. Nobody but you is trying to include every single micro-transaction in the world under the pay to win umbrella. You try to make me look like the unreasonable one here by claiming that I am ignorantly dismissing your position for no reason other than that it differs from mine, when that clearly isn't the case. That is both disrespectful and makes your own position look weaker.
Again I say, by this logic, any MMO ever created can never be a ‘pay to win’ because you can’t WIN the game. Alternately, cosmetic benefits can tangibly add to a winning combination. Here are two logical examples that directly contradict your definition of ‘pay to win’.
Win does not mean 'get to the game over screen', nobody has claimed that in this thread, nobody has even implied it. You can win a battle against a monster in an MMO. You can conquer a dungeon. You can win a 1v1 match against another player. You can win a clan war. You can finish a quest. These are examples of 'winning' that don't require that the MMO display a 'The End' screen. What was the point of this?
You never provided the examples.
Per Websters.com:
"win  
verb (used without object)
1. to finish first in a race, contest, or the like.
2. to succeed by striving or effort: He applied for a scholarship and won.
3. to gain the victory; overcome an adversary: The home team won.
4. Slang. to be successful or competent and be acknowledged for it: My sister wins at getting the biggest bargains. Compare fail ( def 9 ) .
I don't know but it looks like winning means finishing. At least it looks that way to me.
Let me re-state my position, since you seem to want to hinge your argument on semantics. Winning does not imply an ending
to the entire game. Winning a certain aspect of a game does not necessitate an end to the entire game. Games can include more than one thing for you to win, or accomplish, without actually ending the game. Can we stop fooling around with this nonsense?
If you can't win a game, such as an MMO, how else do you define 'winning' other than having fun? Equally is it possible to pay the extra and not win? Is it still 'pay to win' if you lose?
I already gave some examples of how you can 'win' in an MMO. Even though MMO's don't have your typical defined win conditions that produce the game over screen, there are generally goals in the game - there is a main quest line, there are side quests, there are achievements to be earned, there are end game dungeons to be conquered, there are specific 'best of class' items to be obtained, there are pvp systems, etc. These are the things that consume the majority of people time while playing MMO's, these are activities the developers created for you to do. These are what you win at.
Having fun is always a goal of any game. Like I said before, it often comes along with winning. But they are not synonymous, for the simple fact that you can have fun while losing too. If your only goal in a game is to have fun and you want to call that a win, well go for it. Just don't expect anyone else to understand you. I don't see 'having fun' anywhere in that dictionary definition you posted.
It is possible to pay money for 'pay to win' items and still lose. The fact that you even ask this means you aren't actually reading and understanding what people are telling you, or you are intentionally being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. I'll not continue this any further if you continue to show no attempt to actually process and understand what I've said.