Full Pay to Win

Personal skill or team chemistry does not change the fact that you are selling a competitive advantage over a player who its not willing to spend real world money. That is what the definition of pay to win is.  

I agree with you. It gives an advantage. I won't call that competitive because in the hands of someone that is lower skilled, they're going to have a harder time competing. If you have 2 teams of equal skill and one is using the boosted builds while the other is not, they certainly have an advantage.

If boosted attributes have no real purpose to an outcome in a game then why do they exist? Why is EA creating builds with higher then allowed stats if its not to entice the player to spend more money to get an edge over someone else?

Their purpose is to give you an advantage. They don't guarantee wins though. Just like having a faster car doesn't mean you'll always win a race. 

Why not allow all players the chance to have the same level of stats or boosts so that they can grow their skills? Seemingly, that doesn't seem to be the image that EA wants to portray to its playerbase. 

Everyone has the chance to get these builds. You can pay to get them now or complete the season pass to get them for free. Again though, your own skill doesn't increase because the builds are stronger. They just accent the skill you already have.

Sadly, skill and team chemistry doesn't change the fact that EA is pushing/attempting to entice players to spend real money and buy a competitive edge over another player. 

There should be equal chance for all players to have a chance to build the best player they can, grow their skill on a equal level (stats and boost wise). 

Actions like these prove the exact opposite and shows that if you want to spend more we will give you an edge over someone else, hence the meaning of "pay to win". 

This is the main with "selling" builds in a competitive environment. 

Personal skill or team chemistry does not change the fact that you are selling a competitive advantage over a player who its not willing to spend real world money. That is what the definition of pay to win is.  

If boosted attributes have no real purpose to an outcome in a game then why do they exist? Why is EA creating builds with higher then allowed stats if its not to entice the player to spend more money to get an edge over someone else?

Why not allow all players the chance to have the same level of stats or boosts so that they can grow their skills? Seemingly, that doesn't seem to be the image that EA wants to portray to its playerbase. 

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand you can not create some of these builds with the offered stats and boosts in the game (they are only given to the builds that cost "real world money")

This is correct. You can't build the same loadouts since they don't have the available amount of points. Regardless, personal skill and team chemistry is what determines the outcome of games rather than boosted attributes. For example, high speed and shot accuracy aren't really effective when you have defenders not giving them the time and space to use those attributes. 

"Pay to win" is a gaming model where players can gain significant competitive advantages over others by spending real-world money, rather than relying solely on skill or time invested. This frequently involves purchasing exclusive gear, powerful items, or stat-boosting upgrades that make it difficult for non-paying players to compete. 

If you follow the direct definition then yes, this would be pay to win. 

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand you can not create some of these builds with the offered stats and boosts in the game (they are only given to the builds that cost "real world money")

No. Spending money enhances your player's build, but doesn't increase personal skill.

So pay money to enhance your skill at the game got it. 

Enough Aljo. You were proven wrong in my thread. How rude for you to say "if you're a top player you shouldn't have a problem". Do you seriously not see anything wrong with that asinine comment?

I could have worded that better. My point was that pre-made builds only enhance the skill you already have. They aren't going to increase your wins.

Because of this, you and Kid will no doubt come to the conclusion that there must be no issue because it can't be proven.. another fallacy fallacy but I digress. 

I'm not saying there's no issue. I'm saying these builds only amplify someone's skill. They don't guarantee wins.

it's a shame we don't have a community manager willing to speak to the customer base about the game in a more mature way. Saying it's not an issue because you have no issue is a problem. 

Apologies for making you feel this way. It was never the intent. If anything, these builds help out those not at the top more as again, it will make what they already do that much better. A higher skilled team though will still be able to shut them down. These builds don't make someone invincible.

I’m not arguing that premade builds have no advantages. They clearly do. I’m arguing that pointing to stick skills, positioning, and strategy is not a strawman, it’s the mechanism by which we judge whether an advantage actually rises to the level of pay-to-win. If builds don’t override those systems, they matter less than the raw stats suggest. That’s not deflection; that’s evaluating impact.

Where I agree with you is that perspective matters. If we’re designing for all players, then average players matter more than the extremes  and you’re right that most players sit in a relatively narrow skill band. That’s exactly why severity matters more than existence. An advantage that meaningfully separates average players from each other is a bigger problem than one that only magnifies elite play.

The issue is: we don’t currently have evidence that these builds are doing that at scale. That’s not “there’s no issue because it can’t be proven”; it’s acknowledging uncertainty. Absence of data cuts both ways. We can’t prove these builds are harmless, but we also can’t assert they’re decisively warping outcomes without relying on anecdotes and perception. Calling that out isn’t a fallacy; it’s just intellectual honesty.

I’m also not saying “it’s not a problem because I personally don’t have one.” I’ve said repeatedly that selling stat combinations and AP efficiencies that customs can’t replicate is a bad look and worth scrutiny. Where I push back is when that concern is immediately escalated to “this is already pay-to-win and breaking competitive integrity.” That leap requires more than individual experiences — especially in a game with high variance and team based outcomes.

If the discussion shifts to how strong these builds actually are, how much they compress the skill gap, and what guardrails should exist going forward, I’m completely on board. That’s a productive conversation. But that conversation still has to separate potential risk from demonstrated harm, otherwise we’re just arguing feelings versus feelings.

So no this isn’t about dismissing concerns, defending the brand, or hiding behind “top players.” It’s about being precise. Paid optimization can become a real problem if it keeps escalating. I just don’t think we’re at the point where spending is deciding games more than execution is  and that distinction matters if we actually want the system fixed instead of just labeled.