Firefall and Lord of the Rings Online,GW2 is pay to win because end game rewards(the win) are skins and legendaries and these can be bought with real money given to Anet or to gold sellers so the game it's pay to get the end game rewards or maybe you can farm till death if you want.
Firefall and Lord of the Rings Online,GW2 is pay to win because end game rewards(the win) are skins and legendaries and these can be bought with real money given to Anet or to gold sellers so the game it's pay to get the end game rewards or maybe you can farm till death if you want.
"you can farm til death if you want" makes a good point about perspective and what a "reasonable" alternative is. Most of the time, what is available in the store is also available in game, but the pay-to-win perception shifts based on each person's view of the effort required to obtain the equivalent item or milestone through in-game means.
This goes back to geezergamer's point where playstyle and gameplay preference also comes in. If the path to the in-game equivalent is reasonable but it is gameplay that is undesirable, the store variant is perceived as pay-to-win by that particular player. If aplayer enjoys the in-game path or sees the reward as little consequence to his game experience (in their hands or the hands of others) then the perception of pay-to-win is not there.
The term is subjective on so many levels.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
Having worked in the industry 15 years, ~6 of those alongside "numbers people", I've never known a single numbers person to fight so strongly for a definition they readily admit means nothing, and against a definition which clearly has superior meaning and actionability. Normally Analysts and PMs are the first to recognize the value in useful (actionable) definitions, and the first to dismiss useless ones.
And yet you've repeatedly denied that you worked in the industry for several years, in threads just like this one.
Threads where you and a couple of other well known names (one of whom has also admitted he worked in the industry) use the same tactics, creating straw man arguments centered around the meanings of terms just to derail any threat to your industry status quo that so many gamers are unhappy with.
What are you going on about? Axe has always said he works in the industry. I would suggest you look up "straw man argument" to better familiarize yourself with the term, but you have made it clear you feel dictionary definitions are for people with an agenda... or something.
On P2W, you have certainly beenan ever fixed mark:
"Any RMT at all is Pay-To-Win. ... No matter how you look at it, cash buys something (items, advantages, or time rquirements to get). And that is Pay-To-Win." - Amaranthar
And if anyone tries to logically lay it out for you, you pshaw it away as straw men just as you have done here when someone tries summoning that Tome of Dark Voodoo and Cryptic Symbols. What was it called? Oh yeah... the dictionary.
And now you've taken the extra step of crawling into Fractal and Artifice's cozy conspiracy theory hut, contending that anyone that tries to present any level of fact or data contrary to what you want to believe is someone with an insidious corporate agenda, telling lies to brainwash the masses.
If nothing else, it's amusing at this point.
He's denied it repeatedly when I and others have directly confronted him with it over his actions. I have never seen him admit it before, although I haven't been around as much lately so it's possible he's recently admitted it other than this instance.
But the point stands that he, and you, both have admitted you work in the industry and are ALWAYS around any thread where gamers are talking about the problems they see in your industry and your products. Problems that won't go away and you won't let be discussed openly without constant assaults against the discussions just like we see here.
Amaranthar said: you won't let be discussed openly without constant assaults against the discussions just like we see here.
Dude, listen to yourself.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
And yet you've repeatedly denied that you worked in the industry for several years, in threads just like this one.
Threads where you and a couple of other well known names (one of whom has also admitted he worked in the industry) use the same tactics, creating straw man arguments centered around the meanings of terms just to derail any threat to your industry status quo that so many gamers are unhappy with.
What are you talking about? I've always stated I worked in the industry. The only thing I've said I didn't work on was MMORPGs (which remains the case.)
As for maintaining a "status quo", you have it completely reversed:
If someone was interested in maintaining a status quo, they would advocate useless words. This prevents meaningful communication, since the word will fail to have a consistent meaning, and even after that meaning is clarified it won't automatically indicate which elements are disliked.
Conversely, my own definition is very clear (since it's based on the objective definition of win) and also happens to clearly delineate purchases which players near-unanimously believe are harmful (pay to win) from those which most players don't believe are harmful (cosmetics, conveniences.)
Look if you have something useful to say, then say it. Otherwise leave the vague accusations out of the discussion, especially when I'm doing exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of doing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an
individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
Character advantages (in-game)
Player advantages (out of game)
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
...
No, that is your personal definition. Which is fine, but then you go on as if it was a fact and that is what most people mean. I have never heard anyone with your viewpoint until you. The only definition I have heard until recently was that P2W means that you had to pay in order to have a chance of winning. If you could buy and item or earn it through reasonable game play then it was not P2W.
I will go out an a limb and be insulting. Only the no life time whores started calling everything P2W when they no longer had the huge advantage and others could pay to partly catch up.
I am no industry insider, only knew one person who worked as a supervisor in the MMORPG industry. Got my first computer in 1982 and have been an avid game player and forum reader since then, so I am not young and I have no agenda. On a side note I remember upgrading my tape drive for a $600 single sided floppy drive, man have times changed.
I like accepted defined terms and for people to speak for themselves unless they have some evidence to prove they speak for anyone else yet alone "most". Does any of this make me right, no, but unless you can prove your definition or that most people use it, it does make you wrong.
Many Anti-P2W vs Denial of P2W debates have gone on in these as well as other forums. The question always comes up from team Denial of P2W, "What game are you playing? And is that the exception or the norm?" Let us reverse this question...
What Cash Shop MMO-MMORPG title are you playing that is not P2W?
Are there any mmos without a cash shop?
If no mmo had a cash shop, P2W would still hold the same meaning.
If every mmo had a cash shop, P2W would still hold the same meaning.
Ryzom. It is the only mmorpg that I am aware of that does not have a cash shop. There are likely a few more.
Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an
individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
Character advantages (in-game)
Player advantages (out of game)
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
...
No, that is your personal definition. Which is fine, but then you go on as if it was a fact and that is what most people mean. I have never heard anyone with your viewpoint until you. The only definition I have heard until recently was that P2W means that you had to pay in order to have a chance of winning. If you could buy and item or earn it through reasonable game play then it was not P2W.
I will go out an a limb and be insulting. Only the no life time whores started calling everything P2W when they no longer had the huge advantage and others could pay to partly catch up.
I am no industry insider, only knew one person who worked as a supervisor in the MMORPG industry. Got my first computer in 1982 and have been an avid game player and forum reader since then, so I am not young and I have no agenda. On a side note I remember upgrading my tape drive for a $600 single sided floppy drive, man have times changed.
I like accepted defined terms and for people to speak for themselves unless they have some evidence to prove they speak for anyone else yet alone "most". Does any of this make me right, no, but unless you can prove your definition or that most people use it, it does make you wrong.
You have not attended shows, events and interviewed people in open conversation and listen to them at length. I have attended every SOE LIVE/Fain Fair there has every been. Not to mention my share of Comic Con, CES, etc.
Because I am an enthusiasts, but also a great opportunity to meet you, the public.
A sample engagement: So, when you outright ask someone to define a "pay to win" mechanics inside a game, they almost always reference or refer to an item, that gives them +10 dmg, or + something to their character.
At some point, I will mention: what about a kewl looking sword, that has no stats, or a sweet looking Tunic.
These same people do not refute the kewlness factor & advantage of being seen in game, or possibly well known. But most of them would not classify that, as what they were previously mentioning to me with + 10dmg sword.
So it is not my definition, it is essentially yours.
Over the years I had heard all the arguments, ad nauseam. Not mine, mind you, theirs. People telling me what they thought, or having people argue right in front of me with each other. But early on, I
saw two distinctive sub-sets, or groups of people. Those who referenced others character advantage, while other where focused on Player advantages.
So I started asking, as a parting question if they would consider pay to win, to mean one or the other, or both. As either giving another Character in game, an advantage, Or feeding the emotional aspect of the game & person behind the character (Player), but without any impact on his character.
Interestingly, I was told that "as long as the item has no advantage to the character, you are not paying to win the game, but beat another Player". His response resonated with many there. I liked what this fella said, it locked in the definition.
So that^ is why I have said when most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean to someone's Character inside the game.
Most people here, do not see cosmetics as pay to win and often times call it "fluff".
This is a MMORPG game forum. I offered some personal information, because some had lost sight of where I am coming from. I hope if you find my words insightful you can engage in an honest conversation and share and learn. Maybe some of these obtuse types should look up the word "definition". Some of these people will loose credibility soon. I can handle the arguments and defend the definition of something.
Subsequently, watch & listen to the people who get angry because they have a personal problem with the term "pay to win". It is laughable. When they do not have the same problem with Cash Shop or Item Mall. But the P2W term easily spoken, enrages certain people who see it is derogatory... because the term utterly dismisses their entire lifestyle, or game play, or worth. As others might look upon them or their in-game achievements as insignificant.
That is because paying for an advantage, no matter how big or small, as a whole means none of the Characters within that type of game can have validation, because nobody knows who spent $10,000, or $10. So from the outside looking in, none within that game, can be legit.
That is why certain youth are upset at the term, & find "pay to win" too defining and thus derogatory. Because they do not have enough self-reflection, or understand who they are, & what makes themselves tick. Their attacks & reaction is a known human defense response. These same disruptive types who are angered at "pay to win" are upset with themselves. Instead of actually coming to an understanding of why they play such games, and then come to terms with themselves.
And yet you've repeatedly denied that you worked in the industry for several years, in threads just like this one.
Threads where you and a couple of other well known names (one of whom has also admitted he worked in the industry) use the same tactics, creating straw man arguments centered around the meanings of terms just to derail any threat to your industry status quo that so many gamers are unhappy with.
What are you talking about? I've always stated I worked in the industry. The only thing I've said I didn't work on was MMORPGs (which remains the case.)
Conversely, my own definition is very clear (since it's based on the objective definition of win) and also happens to clearly delineate purchases which players near-unanimously believe are harmful (pay to win) from those which most players don't believe are harmful (cosmetics, conveniences.)
Look if you have something useful to say, then say it. Otherwise leave the vague accusations out of the discussion, especially when I'm doing exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of doing.
Interesting, as your definition is nearly the exactly the same as mine. hv u bn shln uz?
But please do define "conveniences", as a function. What type of purchasable conveniences are you talking about?
Interesting, as your definition is nearly the exactly the same as mine. hv u bn shln uz?
But please do define "conveniences", as a function. What type of purchasable conveniences are you talking about?
Are you changing your definition? Previously yours centered around paying for any subjective advantage, while mine was based on the objective criteria of win's definition.
No game exists to my knowledge where conveniences like +1 character slot or +10 bank slots will provide an advantage to any objective skill challenge within a game, so those purchases aren't pay to win. The same is true of buying a nice looking cosmetic.
A clear definition of pay to win actually makes things extremely well defined, as the "negative space" to my pay to win definition is where conveniences/cosmetics exist:
Any advantage which contributes to winning is pay to win. (Meaning the skill-related dictionary definition of "win")
Everything else isn't -- and is considered a convenience or cosmetic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Interesting, as your definition is nearly the exactly the same as mine. hv u bn shln uz?
But please do define "conveniences", as a function. What type of purchasable conveniences are you talking about?
Are you changing your definition? Previously yours centered around paying for any subjective advantage, while mine was based on the objective criteria of win's definition.
No game exists to my knowledge where conveniences like +1 character slot or +10 bank slots will provide an advantage to any objective skill challenge within a game, so those purchases aren't pay to win. The same is true of buying a nice looking cosmetic.
A clear definition of pay to win actually makes things extremely well defined, as the "negative space" to my pay to win definition is where conveniences/cosmetics exist:
Any advantage which contributes to winning is pay to win. (Meaning the skill-related dictionary definition of "win")
Everything else isn't -- and is considered a convenience or cosmetic.
Does your definition of conveniences also include XP Potions?
Most people here, do not see cosmetics as pay to win and often times call it "fluff".
Once you operate a game the gets a large portion of its revenue from cosmetics, you will find that a large portion of the playerbase (of that game) considers it P2W. The reality is that if people want something, and others can pay money to get it.... they get upset/frustrated. It doesn't matter what the 'it' is. Any direct monetization is P2W to someone... and they will always find your product and complain about it.
Does your definition of conveniences also include XP Potions?
Mostly, yes.
Beating a monster once is a win when it requires skill.
Repeating that fight can prove it was skill (and not just a fluke) but as you repeat the fight it progressively becomes less about skill and more about repetition. So eliminating excessive repetition isn't a win.
Keep in mind "pay to win" doesn't hold a monopoly on stuff players dislike. If a game makes itself dramatically more grindy just to sell XP potions to skip that grind, players will hate that. It just won't be paying to win is all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I love this thread, how about P2W is a game where you can purchase 'Anything Someone Might Object To.' EVERYTHING can be turned into a competition therefor making EVERYTHING that is exclusive to a cashshop P2W. Look at the Guinness Book of Records and the ridiculous records people actually try to break, everything can be competed over no matter how retarded. i guess subscription games are P2W too for a lot of people in, say, Africa or India, they can not even enter those games....
This thread however isn't about that. It is about people that do not want to budge when it comes to their views because this is about ' morals' and 'ethics' and 'we as consumers taking a stand.' It is also, unindented, a human studies on how anal humans can be and the whole special snowflake culture. Like I said, I love this thread, please carry on.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Most people here, do not see cosmetics as pay to win and often times call it "fluff".
Once you operate a game the gets a large portion of its revenue from cosmetics, you will find that a large portion of the playerbase (of that game) considers it P2W. The reality is that if people want something, and others can pay money to get it.... they get upset/frustrated. It doesn't matter what the 'it' is. Any direct monetization is P2W to someone... and they will always find your product and complain about it.
I'm sure that AV would argue that the real issue with cosmetic-only items are when the item is purchased by one character and sold in-game for in-game assets (money). I don't entirely disagree with him on that, but I don't know that it is solely limited to transferable items. At best, transferable items are a simply way to convert RL money into game currency. And a transferable-only restriction seems to ignore the jealousy factor entirely. That where I fall in line with Supes' more comprehensive approach, vis a vis cosmetic items.
The cosmetic items alone divides the player base into two groups, that that call it 'fluff', and those that don't. Neither side is right or wrong, it is all subjective.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Once you operate a game the gets a large portion of its revenue from cosmetics, you will find that a large portion of the playerbase (of that game) considers it P2W. The reality is that if people want something, and others can pay money to get it.... they get upset/frustrated. It doesn't matter what the 'it' is. Any direct monetization is P2W to someone... and they will always find your product and complain about it.
Getting jealous or frustrated doesn't make cosmetics winning. Cosmetics are looking nice, and winning is winning.
I'm not going to say nobody complains about those things being P2W, because this very thread is evidence that many players have a false impression of what P2W is. But we can certainly say it isn't P2W because unless a game has a fashion contest there's no winning involved in looking nice.
There are some exceptions (basically the obvious: "does it impact winning? then it's an exception") in the form of camouflage (in games where it's good enough to actually work) and weird edge cases like performance-impacting cosmetics (high-polycount stuff that actually makes your opponent lag). Neither is particularly common or impactful, but even a little pay to win is a little pay to win.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
This goes back to geezergamer's point where playstyle and gameplay preference also comes in. If the path to the in-game equivalent is reasonable but it is gameplay that is undesirable, the store variant is perceived as pay-to-win by that particular player. If aplayer enjoys the in-game path or sees the reward as little consequence to his game experience (in their hands or the hands of others) then the perception of pay-to-win is not there.
The term is subjective on so many levels.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
But the point stands that he, and you, both have admitted you work in the industry and are ALWAYS around any thread where gamers are talking about the problems they see in your industry and your products. Problems that won't go away and you won't let be discussed openly without constant assaults against the discussions just like we see here.
Once upon a time....
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
And I mean that in a nice way, of course.
Once upon a time....
As for maintaining a "status quo", you have it completely reversed:
- If someone was interested in maintaining a status quo, they would advocate useless words. This prevents meaningful communication, since the word will fail to have a consistent meaning, and even after that meaning is clarified it won't automatically indicate which elements are disliked.
- Conversely, my own definition is very clear (since it's based on the objective definition of win) and also happens to clearly delineate purchases which players near-unanimously believe are harmful (pay to win) from those which most players don't believe are harmful (cosmetics, conveniences.)
Look if you have something useful to say, then say it. Otherwise leave the vague accusations out of the discussion, especially when I'm doing exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of doing."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I will go out an a limb and be insulting. Only the no life time whores started calling everything P2W when they no longer had the huge advantage and others could pay to partly catch up.
I am no industry insider, only knew one person who worked as a supervisor in the MMORPG industry. Got my first computer in 1982 and have been an avid game player and forum reader since then, so I am not young and I have no agenda. On a side note I remember upgrading my tape drive for a $600 single sided floppy drive, man have times changed.
I like accepted defined terms and for people to speak for themselves unless they have some evidence to prove they speak for anyone else yet alone "most". Does any of this make me right, no, but unless you can prove your definition or that most people use it, it does make you wrong.
If every mmo had a cash shop, P2W would still hold the same meaning.
Ryzom. It is the only mmorpg that I am aware of that does not have a cash shop. There are likely a few more.
You have not attended shows, events and interviewed people in open conversation and listen to them at length. I have attended every SOE LIVE/Fain Fair there has every been. Not to mention my share of Comic Con, CES, etc.
Because I am an enthusiasts, but also a great opportunity to meet you, the public.
A sample engagement:
So, when you outright ask someone to define a "pay to win" mechanics inside a game, they almost always reference or refer to an item, that gives them +10 dmg, or + something to their character.
At some point, I will mention: what about a kewl looking sword, that has no stats, or a sweet looking Tunic.
These same people do not refute the kewlness factor & advantage of being seen in game, or possibly well known. But most of them would not classify that, as what they were previously mentioning to me with + 10dmg sword.
So it is not my definition, it is essentially yours.
Over the years I had heard all the arguments, ad nauseam. Not mine, mind you, theirs. People telling me what they thought, or having people argue right in front of me with each other. But early on, I saw two distinctive sub-sets, or groups of people. Those who referenced others character advantage, while other where focused on Player advantages.
So I started asking, as a parting question if they would consider pay to win, to mean one or the other, or both. As either giving another Character in game, an advantage, Or feeding the emotional aspect of the game & person behind the character (Player), but without any impact on his character.
Interestingly, I was told that "as long as the item has no advantage to the character, you are not paying to win the game, but beat another Player". His response resonated with many there. I liked what this fella said, it locked in the definition.
So that^ is why I have said when most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean to someone's Character inside the game.
Most people here, do not see cosmetics as pay to win and often times call it "fluff".
This is a MMORPG game forum. I offered some personal information, because some had lost sight of where I am coming from. I hope if you find my words insightful you can engage in an honest conversation and share and learn. Maybe some of these obtuse types should look up the word "definition". Some of these people will loose credibility soon. I can handle the arguments and defend the definition of something.
Subsequently, watch & listen to the people who get angry because they have a personal problem with the term "pay to win". It is laughable. When they do not have the same problem with Cash Shop or Item Mall. But the P2W term easily spoken, enrages certain people who see it is derogatory... because the term utterly dismisses their entire lifestyle, or game play, or worth. As others might look upon them or their in-game achievements as insignificant.
That is because paying for an advantage, no matter how big or small, as a whole means none of the Characters within that type of game can have validation, because nobody knows who spent $10,000, or $10. So from the outside looking in, none within that game, can be legit.
That is why certain youth are upset at the term, & find "pay to win" too defining and thus derogatory. Because they do not have enough self-reflection, or understand who they are, & what makes themselves tick. Their attacks & reaction is a known human defense response. These same disruptive types who are angered at "pay to win" are upset with themselves. Instead of actually coming to an understanding of why they play such games, and then come to terms with themselves.
The Baby Bells are coming, have you taken a look?
Interesting, as your definition is nearly the exactly the same as mine. hv u bn shln uz?
But please do define "conveniences", as a function. What type of purchasable conveniences are you talking about?
Wurm Online has no cash shop.
No game exists to my knowledge where conveniences like +1 character slot or +10 bank slots will provide an advantage to any objective skill challenge within a game, so those purchases aren't pay to win. The same is true of buying a nice looking cosmetic.
A clear definition of pay to win actually makes things extremely well defined, as the "negative space" to my pay to win definition is where conveniences/cosmetics exist:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Beating a monster once is a win when it requires skill.
Repeating that fight can prove it was skill (and not just a fluke) but as you repeat the fight it progressively becomes less about skill and more about repetition. So eliminating excessive repetition isn't a win.
Keep in mind "pay to win" doesn't hold a monopoly on stuff players dislike. If a game makes itself dramatically more grindy just to sell XP potions to skip that grind, players will hate that. It just won't be paying to win is all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This thread however isn't about that. It is about people that do not want to budge when it comes to their views because this is about ' morals' and 'ethics' and 'we as consumers taking a stand.' It is also, unindented, a human studies on how anal humans can be and the whole special snowflake culture. Like I said, I love this thread, please carry on.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The cosmetic items alone divides the player base into two groups, that that call it 'fluff', and those that don't. Neither side is right or wrong, it is all subjective.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Getting jealous or frustrated doesn't make cosmetics winning. Cosmetics are looking nice, and winning is winning.
I'm not going to say nobody complains about those things being P2W, because this very thread is evidence that many players have a false impression of what P2W is. But we can certainly say it isn't P2W because unless a game has a fashion contest there's no winning involved in looking nice.
There are some exceptions (basically the obvious: "does it impact winning? then it's an exception") in the form of camouflage (in games where it's good enough to actually work) and weird edge cases like performance-impacting cosmetics (high-polycount stuff that actually makes your opponent lag). Neither is particularly common or impactful, but even a little pay to win is a little pay to win.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver