Is the game p2w?


Show me a single player who has hit legend for the last 3 months with 100% win rate.

Same for you. Show me evidence you have maintained a 70% win rate on the 4-L grind for the last 3 months.

Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done consistently? I highly doubt it in such an RPS meta.


I’m doing what you call “well” means the game isn’t p2w, despite p2w players having an advantage?

do I know every player?

why would I keep my stats months later?


Ok, so I take your claim for granted when far better players than you are closer to 65% win rate on the 4-L grind. You claimed consistency, yet it doesnt match the reality in an RPS meta.

And even if you maintain a 70% win rate 4-L, again, it only further disproves your P2W claim. Yes, ladder is all that relevant for the F2P/P2W debate.


You still didn’t go over the winrate debacle, which I don’t think it’s because you understand any of it.

Either way, you’re back from the start. Is any card locked behind paywall, or some ridiculous grind? That’s the question/statement many people have been saying, the one you keep trying to ignore. They also mentioned ‘pay for variety/collection’, which isn’t the same as being p2w.

CCG isn’t really a game for you if you really think this ccg structure is p2w. You’ll always feel unhappy and feel cheated out with that entitled mind.


yes and no, there’s not one particular card which can’t be obtained but there’s a huge % of cards you can’t get without paying

maybe, I love hs not because it’s a ccg but because it’s in the warcraft universe (just like I like hots and used to like wow)
it’s p2w till they give all the content and only sell skins which means, nobody would have an advantage over anyone


Again, pay for variety, nothing more. Anyone can craft a t1 netdeck in their first month. Is it recommended to do so by dusting most of their collection? Not really. Doesn’t change facts though.

I would say I’m on a similar boat. I don’t not enjoy HS, but I feel I’m clearly not a ‘card game’ player like players such as Lykotic or someone. But no, you’re definition of p2w or ideal f2p model (for ccg) is simply off. This is not some old school package game era nor did any T/CCG had that kind of model.


In so many games even at the lowest ranks there are people with rare cards. How is this fair to players who don’t have access to the same cards? Even if you beat them to almost 0 HP they come up with a single legendary card that turns the whole game. How is this supposed to be fair?

I know this game is all about how much money you spend on packs or how many hours you sink in this game but shouldn’t it be at least fair on the lowest ranks? How is this fair to new players who barely have any cards?

Rank 19. Warlock tries the Sea Giant trick and fails. I killed his minions and start to beat him and suddenly he comes up with Arch-Villain Rafaam. Now he has a hand and a deck full of legendary mionions where I stand no chance. This is exactly what I mean. With a single rare card the people just turn the whole game. This is so much pay to win. You only have to spend lots of money on this random cards and you will beat the people who are not willing to do so.


well, it’s a p2w game, if you don’t like it, you can enjoy games like fortnite where 100% of the content can be played without paying, here on hs, if you want all the content, that’s 700-800€ a year


Shameless self-quote:

The fact that you (again) are conflating “can you obtain all content for free” vs. “can you have a decent winrate/ladder progress for free” suggests your argument is not sincere. Which, you know, whatever. But don’t expect people to take you seriously when you do this.


There you go equating winning with having every single card in the game again.

This has been disproven endlessly, why do you continue pushing such a blatantly false narrative?


You do have access to the same cards. Everyone can craft any card at any time as long as they have the dust. The only restriction for new players is the variety of cards they can craft at once, and even that’s something that becomes easier to deal with after playing for a few months. Another point to make is that card rarity doesn’t necessarily equate to card power. There are plenty of high-performing decks that use very few legendaries, and there are many legendaries that are utterly useless.

Swing plays are a part of CCGs in general, and are one of the more appealing aspects. While having too many of them can make a game unenjoyable, having none of them at all would make it bland and monotonous. We’ve already had a so-called “curvestone” period, and few people enjoyed that.

The simple answer is that it isn’t, and there isn’t much that can be done. The Rank system is set in place such that players who stop playing for a long time drop through the ranks, and have to fight their way again. These are the people who are in the lower ranks. An additional 25 ranks were implemented to mitigate this,allowing new players to allocate enough cards to make a competitive deck if they wish to do so.

No, it isn’t. Rafaam, while not a bad card, isn’t as game-winning as you make him out to be. He’s flashy, and fills your deck with a bunch of cards that might or might now be useful to you. While the effect that he has is unique and “legendary” in nature, most new players would simply be better off crafting several consistently good rares or epics. This is one of the most crucial lessons of becoming a better Hearthstone player. Rarity doesn’t necessarily equate to power, and losing to a Legendary minion doesn’t make the game “pay to win”.

We’ve been over this multiple times. A number of players have climbed to Legend within a month of starting a new account, Blizz gives out more than enough free packs for players to build multiple competitive decks with each season, all cards/packs can be purchased using dust and gold, and outside of the first few weeks of play there is no genuine competitive advantage to spending money. By pretty much all definitions of “p2w”, Hearthstone is very much not.


no offense but what do you know of the game?
sure 100% isn’t required but having 90% (for example) of the collection makes it easier to play/climb than having 20% (for example) of it and as it was stated earlier, if you don’t pay, you get 30% of each xpac (62*121=75 out of 250ish packs) which means less deck/tech card choices etc…
even if you don’t want to play at high ranks, watch some streams and tell us how many p2w and f2p players do you see

i don’t know why you and wardrum keep drooling over the legend rank, try to hit it once, you’ll see that it’s not the endgame


Didn’t you brag about being Legend multiple times as a f2p player, Shakou ? If that’s true, then how is it possible for HS to be p2w ? If it was a true p2w game you would never reach Legend, even as a good player. The fact that some players get to Legend without spending money is proof that hs is f2p. Sure, paying for packs WILL help you but it isn’t needed, especially if you’ve been playing for a long time and had time to build a decent collection, like you


No one here is drooling over Legend rank, but the fact that to you, everyone who takes the game with any seriousness whatsoever should be within the top 0.01% of all players is laughably absurd.

You can take your “top 200 legend or you aren’t winning” mentality and stick it somewhere else because honestly, it’s a bunch of crap.


Except the number of cards from a set that see any degree of play (let alone competitive play) is much less than 90 percent. Even if you look at a recent set like RR, out of the cards that were released, only about 50 (I’m highballing after quickly glancing over the set) have seen any appreciable degree of play. It’s pretty safe to say that if you have the best 30-40% of a set that you have basically everything you’ll need. Taking into account that very few people ever want to play EVERY deck/class from an expac as well as free packs/promos/handouts (which you excluded from your calculations), and it’s (again) safe to say that you can grind most playable cards that you’ll want from a given set without spending a dime.

It’s visually appealing for streamers to crack packs and talk/gawk over their results. It doesn’t have as much to do with the “f2p”-ability of the game as you make it seem.

It’s because you keep throwing around the term “p2w” without ever properly defining it. It literally translates to “pay to win”, and for 99.99% of the Hearthstone population, “winning” the game never gets any more difficult or extensive than reaching Legend and high Legend. Multiple people have demonstrated that you don’t need to spend any money (or even grind for very long) in order to “win” the game in this sense. Therefore, since for 99.99% of the Hearthstone population, spending or “paying” money is not a requirement to “win”, the game is not “pay to win”. This is the same definition of “p2w” that is generally used across video games, including other digital CCGs like MtG:A. If you disagree, then please provide your own concrete definition of what it means for a game to be “pay to win”, and we’ll work from there.


While these links were very informative, I will hold to my position that Hearthstone is not p2w. It IS, however, pay to experiment. As it stands the system heavily punishes people for making crafting decisions that don’t pan out, so free-to-play players can’t afford to do their own experimentation with decklists.


Here’s a nice simple definition of p2w that avoids all the debate about what winning means.

p2w = people paying money increases their win rate by some non-zero amount compared to those who do not pay money, all other things (skill, luck, play time, etc) being equal

By that definition, anyone who doesn’t consider this game to be p2w is probably just debating out of an obsessive need to always be correct and have the last word.

If your definition is something arbitrary like “p2w” means you cannot win if you do not pay, then the game obviously is NOT p2w unless your definition of win is so absurd that it would not be recognized by a sensible person.


By that definition, all physical sports are p2w because having better equipment (cleats, etc) can increase your personal performance by a non-zero amount.

It’s easy to avoid all debate when you choose absurd definitions for things.

Ironic, coming from the guy who just tried to end all debate and have the last word.


Semantics aside, this could still apply to Hearthstone. You only need one deck to compete at the highest level of play, and many of the best decks are affordable within a couple months of playing and don’t require investment beyond that. Building any other decks is unnecessary because you already have a winning deck, and sticking with one archetype is typically best for climbing anyways. Spending any more time/money/dust, in many cases, won’t help you win more.


I call it “waving a rhetorical magic wand”.

PTW Whiners basically don’t want to deal with reality. When all the facts, data, logic, and truth crush thier opinions like the fragile little eggs they are, they just re-define reality by making up ridiculous definitions for things. Then they go around pretending that their idiomatic definitions apply to everyone when the reality is that NASA couldn’t see their definitions using deep space telemetry. They fixate on infinitesimally irrelevant 0.0000001% outliers so they can ignore the 99.999999% of common sense reality that basically proves they’re barking at the moon.