[lackbeard]

No, it's just a really expensive game with a subscription model. What's the price to pay to get four copies of each card in every standard set? That's your quarterly subscription fee.

It would be pay-to-win if you could do stuff like, pay a fee to take a second card at once during a draft, or tutor a card from your collection during a game, etc...

[dietr1ch]

Right, it's technically just expensive and that's the thing that may leave some players behind, but I bet that at competitive level, players are not missing any card they need.

Similarly with F1 after the cost caps. If you had 135M you could compete with no monetary disadvantage.

[setr]

That would be a true description of any pay-to-win game — if you just buy everything available to be purchased, then you’re playing on a level-playing field.

But using this description, then the only truly pay-to-win game would be one where the win condition is literally an auction selling a “you win!” token.

[dietr1ch]

I'd go around money advantage being way too significant and the money cap way too high or non-existent. Otherwise every game is kind of pay to win as getting your hands on one more chess book, or getting a better tennis racket gets you an advantage.

While mtg is not cheap, I would say that only older cards get crazy expensive and sometimes are straight out overpowered.

[tedunangst]

I think it's pay to win in the sense that there are multiple subscription tiers, and if you only pay for basic, you're not winning against the players paying for gold++.

[lackbeard]

I would say, in that sense, there aren't really tiers; it's a continuum, and you can attempt to compete at whatever price point you're willing.

[humanistbot]

That is exactly what "pay to win" means in the parlance of our times: the more you pay, the better chance you have to win. Tiers vs continuum doesn't matter here. The important part is that players with the same skill must decide how much money to pay the manufacturer to gain advantages over other players. If everyone had to buy the full set every quarter, then it would not be pay to win, it would just be a very expensive subscription game. There are things like sealed deck drafts where everyone agrees to buy in at the same price so that everyone can compete on skill. But there is a reason WotC doesn't allow proxy cards (just printing an unofficial copy of a card or a piece of paper with the name of the card), because they make a ton of money from the pay to win dynamic.

[lackbeard]

I agree that "tiers vs. continuum" has no bearing on the question of whether or not Magic: The Gathering is pay-to-win. I was merely pointing out that what tedunangst was describing was a continuum, not tiers.

Obviously, I'm not articulating my perspective very persuasively. Here's some additional flavor that might help (probably won't:)

1. In Magic: The Gathering, the most expensive deck is not always (or even ever, really) the best.

2. Is Golf pay-to-win? I can spend more on a set of clubs that have bigger sweet spots & will give me more distance with the same swing than my opponent's set.

3. The term "pay-to-win" comes from free-to-play MMOs.

I think most people that claim MTG is pay-to-win are just frustrated by how expensive it is. I agree. Don't play it!

[thenameipicked]

1. I'd expect that in most pay-to-win video games, the top players are not also the top spenders. Depends on the amount of strategy and skill required.

2. No, because the people writing the rules of Golf aren't the ones that sell you clubs (as far as I know. Maybe there's some devious stuff going on behind the scenes).

3. Correct.

While I don't think "money is the only thing that determines the winner", Magic is absolutely is pay-to-win. It would not be pay-to-win if people could print their own cards (following a set of standards, of course), even though printing costs money.