Per Josh Strife Hays pay-to-win video, Warframe is pay-to-win.

[Cinnamon Toast King]

Let's get some stuff out of the way.

First off, I love Warframe and have been playing since being a founder. But I am not in denial and have always thought Warframe was pay-to-win.

Second, I highly recommend giving the video a watch before replying. Especially I'd you think Strife has always explained his points well.

You can buy consmestics, you can pay to skip time a gates, you can get things done significantly quicker then someone who swipes a card. There is no denying that.

Yes, you can trade for plat, but that involves playing the game for an unknown amount of time investment.

Warframe is pay-to-win. Is it the most worst? No, but it's pay-to-win. Does it inherently make the game bad? No. But just being in denial and having bad faith arguments against it not being pay-to-win is something I never understood from people.

Again, the video I highly recommend watching to completely without skipping around. Also my views were already like this well before the video. It's just, finally I have something to finally point to who explains and breaks it down perfectly!

[lil rat]

ok

[Midas]

Without watching the video or caring who tf that guy is, I'm going to say he's wrong, and if he thinks warframe is p2w, he has no idea what that means.

[Synopse]

It's just an ad to draw clicks using a hilarious statement.

[Bird O' Omens.]

Glad you agree with the dude, maybe write on comment on the video next time. I'm not sure this player base is really going to care about that.

[Azure]

Win what?

[Ash Blossom & Unjoyous Spring]

Warframe is more Pay-to-rush than Pay-to-win

The only difference between a spender and a f2p in WF is how fast they acquire things

[BlackxViper]

While you can spend plat for almost anything, it's more of a "i dont want to do that conent but want access to its rewards" kind of thing.

For example Duviri and Railjack, while i myself find them fun, lots of Tenno dont, but want the weapons/gear/frames from said content.

Its not like you miss out by not buying plat or unable to be "competitive" with your gear in missions cause even the hardmode starchart is possible without spending a dime if you just play the game and naturaly progress it.

Is it really so bad a game offers you the choice to skip content you dont like/care for while still giving you an option to receive its rewards if you desperatly desire? I would argue No

[tv]

the one thing I didn't agree with was josh saying warframe has fun moment to moment gameplay. No that's wrong. There are only about 4 fun game modes and you can't touch them at the beginning of the game, they are super gated.

[Cinnamon Toast King]

He never brought up Warframe, just per what is listed and explained what Pay to win is. Warframe checks a lot of boxes off. AT least 50% of them.

[Silenzeio]

Originally posted by Cinnamon Toast King:

He never brought up Warframe, just per what is listed and explained what Pay to win is. Warframe checks a lot of boxes off. AT least 50% of them.

So it's not even entirely p2w in the list thought out.

[Midas]

Originally posted by Cinnamon Toast King:

He never brought up Warframe, just per what is listed and explained what Pay to win is. Warframe checks a lot of boxes off. AT least 50% of them.

Pay to win means that players can spend real-world currency to have an unfair advantage over other players.

Considering that A) Everything you can buy in warframe with plat that actually has a mechanical impact is something you can get for free, and B) Warframe doesn't pit players against players anyways except in Conclave (which has its own options and mechanics separate from the normal game), warframe fulfills neither of the requirements to be P2W.

People misuse P2W a lot. Someone having something fancier than you because they spent money on it is not P2W. Someone having something stronger than what you have because they spent money on it is also not P2W if you're not actually competing against them. That's just the 'pay' part, not the 'win' part.

The 'win' part is about unfair balancing, poor sportsmanship, and making players feel forced to spend money in order to have a chance. It's almost exclusively a concern for PVP. That can't be a concern in warframe, because one player having way better weapons/warframes/mods than you is not detrimental to your ability to progress and succeed (if anything, it's the opposite).

[Hexo Mia]

pw2? exactly what are you winning at? not playing the game? because by buying weapons and rushing things with pl, all you are doing is skipping the play part of the game, so you are just hindering your own experience by skipping the grind part of the game, which is the whole point of the game to being with, Josh have some good opinions and some totally baffled ones, the dude is too high on his horse to recognize that he is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ wrong.

[Gh0st.exe]

I will just quote myself about P2W from another forum:

Its meaning only never changed because it had multiple meanings from the beginning ("power" refers to anything that improves the player, f.e. weapons, skills, and so on):

1 - You can buy power, but the highest power is only obtainable via gameplay.
2 - You can buy power equal to the highest power obtainable via gameplay.
3 - You can buy power, but the highest power is only obtainable via gameplay, but the ammount of things you need to do is unrealistic / unreasonable.
4 - You can buy power equal to the highest power obtainable via gameplay, but the ammount of things you need to do is unrealistic / unreasonable.
5 - You can buy power greater than whats obtainable via gameplay / you can only obtain the highest power via real life money.

All 5 can be considered a form of "P2W", but you cant deny that their actual impact on the game are vastly different. 1 and 2 are pretty fair, 3 is a bit problematic, while 4 and 5 are unfair / "real P2W". And its not "making things up" or "spinning the narrative" to point out the mistake when people confuse 1 and 2 for being 5 and treat them as equally bad. Hell, in some games people even try to push pure cosmetics as "P2W" with arguments like "well, fashion is the endgame there, so its p2w" or "well, some people dont care about stats but rather about looks, so buying skins is p2w".
Not to mention that F2P games just need to make money somehow, so there needs to be some incentive to buy things. Sure, one could argue that there should just be no F2P games, but that would have several negative sides as well:
- Lower player numbers.
- Once the game dies / numbers drop even lower people will be mad that they paid $60 and more for a game they cant play anymore.
- Paid games still will have DLC / paid expansions, so people will still need to invest money after the initial purchase.

Long story short: Pay2Win doesnt neccesarily mean the same every time.

Also: Not to be rude, but how does "one person on Youtube defines P2W like this" translate to "this is the generally / universally applied and valid definition of P2W"? I could make a list about what i personally consider P2W, but that wouldnt be some mandetory / binding definition for everyone else. So why would this one persons definiton be the "be all - end all" definition for it?

He never brought up Warframe, just per what is listed and explained what Pay to win is. Warframe checks a lot of boxes off. AT least 50% of them.

And how many boxes need to be checked to consider something P2W, and why exactly that ammount? I mean, if we really want to get into detail / boil things down, those definitions apply to virtually every game out there, so by definition pretty much every game is P2W. But that way the term P2W actually loses all meaning, hence why it is - and i am sorry if this sounds rude - just ridiculous to try to apply the term P2W to any game that even remotely involves some form of purchase via real money.

[Nibbie]

First of all, automatically considering any counter argument as being in denial and done in bad faith means you are the one arguing in bad faith. There is hardly a point in even posting something if that is your stance, because anyone who agrees with you is just preaching to the choir, and anyone who doesn't can be ignored because they are just in denial of the truth, which is apparently just whatever you and whoever Josh Strife is says it is.

No it is not P2W, it is far closer to pay for convenience, and I am quite sure you can go look up any number of videos saying I'm right too. IMO if you can't actually make an argument of what you think and can only say "I agree with this guy", your contribution doesn't really mean anything.

There is nothing that money can buy you that playing cannot (that affects gameplay), and considering the process of earning things is most of the reason to play the game in the first place, the thing you are "winning" by paying is less reason to play. It is a PVE game with no competition or win-state, the only thing you can win against is yourself. I think it is simply disingenuous to call Warframe P2W, even if you really do think it technically fits the definition (and by your own admission, you think it only fits about half the definition?), because the negative connotations the term carries simply don't apply in this game.

[Mr. Smiles]

Paying money makes me win in conclave?

Oh man...