Slowly becoming pay to win

Again.. we just disagree on what p2w means.. you have explained what it means to you.. l I can follow your argument. We just define it differently.  I'm just not sure P2W exists in ANY game given your definition, but perhaps you don't believe it does, that's also fine. If it makes you guys feel better, I'm fine calling it "unbalanced" or "advantageous to have a credit card" so that we are talking about the same thing.

Interestingly enough Cambridge defined the term "P2W"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pay-to-win

Google a.i. defines it as...

Pay-to-win" (P2W) describes video games where players spend real money to gain significant gameplay advantages, like stronger items or faster progression, over non-spending players, creating an imbalance where wealth translates directly to power, often in otherwise free-to-play (F2P) games, though what constitutes a P2W advantage is debated, ranging from buying powerful gear to saving massive amounts of time. 

Key characteristics

Real money for power: Players buy virtual goods, currency, or boosts with real cash to get better stats, exclusive content, or faster advancement.

F2P model: Often found in free-to-play games where the core game is accessible, but success is heavily influenced by purchases.

Unfair advantage: Creates a situation where spending money offers a clear edge over skill or time investment, making it harder for non-paying players to compete.

Spectrum of P2W: Games can be slightly P2W (convenience) or heavily P2W (exclusive, overpowered items), with debate often focusing on when paying crosses the line from convenience to true "winning". 

Examples of P2W elements

Exclusive powerful gear: Buying weapons or armor with stats better than anything obtainable through normal gameplay.

Time-saving boosts: Purchasing experience boosts, faster mounts, or instant unlocks to bypass grinding.

Loot boxes/Gacha: Paying for randomized chances at powerful items, though skill and luck still play a role. 

Why it's controversial

Undermines skill: Devalues player skill by allowing wealth to replace mastery.

Financial burden: Can pressure players, especially teens, to spend beyond their means.

Design incentives: Developers are incentivized to design the game to make paying feel necessary, potentially making the base experience worse. 

Notice that neither of these took the term literally. It doesn't mean free wins.. it doesn't mean you CAN'T lose. It's paying for an advantage. P2W simply doesn't exist in ANY game if you define it the way you did.. you've given a disingenuous definition, or your idea of the term is just different from what Cambridge decided it should be. Again, totally fine if EA wants to call it something else or ban talking about it on the forums but to take the expression literally and snake your way around it to argue it isn't p2w is a bad look imo. I get everyone thinks differently and I'll keep an open mind that you may just see the term differently than I do and maybe we somehow see this somewhat the same but are using different words for what we're seeing. Maybe you see this as not a big deal, maybe it isn't.. but where does it stop? How good are these builds gonna be in a few months? Maybe at no point do you think the game can ever be P2W but can this ever become a problem? Is a build with all 99s and 6'9 270lbs at least worth a discussion? Would that even enter the realm of P2W?

I've seen people suck so bad that not even Jean Spectre or McJesus himself could save some players/teams so sure, they don't technically guarantee a win 100% of the time *rolls eyes* but that's not the point and we all know that - Any normal person 2 brain cells to rub together will get a significant boost to their play using these builds and that's a fact. It certainly does fall under the category of "P2W"

Using that definition then these builds do make EASHL P2W.  They simply create an unfair advantage to those using them especially if those players are equally as skilled as you or worse even better.  The majority of the time I will beat lesser players using these builds because of my experience, abilities and knowledge of how certain mechanics of this game work.   That is a fair advantage as it should be.  When playing against players similar to myself if they’re using some of these builds now they have an unfair advantage which shouldn’t be.

Now seeing these NHL player builds especially McDavid is disappointing and discouraging.  I know I’m good enough to beat a team using them (also depending on my teammates) but if they’re equal to myself and my teammates they’re going to win more than not because of the advantage that build has given them.  That’s not how EASHL should be.  If I want to play as McDavid or against him then I’d go play offline or an online versus mode that gives me the ability to match up against him with an actual NHL player of my choice.  Those other character builds should strictly be restricted to certain modes also like the one where players used team mascots etc.  EASHL was great and immersive when we only had the ability to use players we created.  It takes so much of that away when players are now using an alien, moose, pumpkin head and the others.

Back to the McDavid build. I’m boycotting any drop in dressing room or lobby with opponents using it.  I’ve already talked to a lot of others I played with last night and urged them to do the same and most agreed. I was even in a dressing room with a couple of buddies when a Xmas newbie entered with the McDavid build.  We told that player to GTFO and they did.  As a veteran player I do have a lot of influence and if I tell potential teammates that it is either me or some random using the McDavid build they’ll choose me.  I do the same with well known scrubs and trolls.  I always let others know whether it’s in a dressing room or in a lobby against them.  

If you take two teams of equal skill, one with better paid builds and one with lesser natural builds, the team with better builds will win more frequently.  Sure, if you are so skilled that you can overcome lesser skilled players with better builds I can agree with your reasoning. But if you are an average player going against average players with better paid builds it would clearly be pay to win. Same for super skilled with better paid builds vs super skilled with lesser natural builds.

Put it this way. If everyone was aware and had the money and the will to give EA that money, I can't see a game where 90% of the forwards would not opt to choose Jean Spectre. Unless maybe you are a Sudden Death Enforcer Center (another OP build)

As it stands now most lobbies have at least one, and it's becoming more and more common as people learn about it. 

It's like unlocking the ability to use the old NHL 09 glitch goal. 

Thank you to those with a brain responding in here. 

I specifically loved this post:

"It's always interesting that you and Kid experience things that nobody else is experiencing and it trumps anyone else's experience"

I couldn't have put it better myself, well done.

The guy leaves an actual definition of p2w and they still can't concede.

Simplr question: If it is not pay to win, why not release these builds for free?

Amazing. I thought people were referring to the Spectre build as the McDavid build. But there's a whole new one! LoL.

I googled it and the first hit was a youtuber talking about pay to win and using the spectre build as an example. He then goes on to talk about the McDavid one. It's happening right before our eyes and people are defending this? 

This might be good. It may finally get people to support a smaller developer for hockey. Super major league hockey anyone?? It's time to let EA finally dig themselves a hole to deep. 

This community manager is an absolute joke how does this dude have a job? If you’re playing 3s these builds are absolutely broken it’s fully pay to win and it’s disgusting how many people give in