The problem with "pay to win" as a term is that it got into use with "win" meaning" "get an advantage" - but nowadays it gets defended by taking the "win" literally, i.e. as long as you do not outright buy your win, it's seen as okay by more and more people. <br><br>So, a system like AC: Odyssey is absolutely "pay to win" in the original sense of the word - it has <b>exactly</b> the problem that people tried to put into words back then: You do not progress within the game's system, and instead circumvent game mechanics by spending actual money. <br><br>Now, the problem with having no problem with this is: It incentivizes developers to <b>create</b> game mechanics that make this circumvention desirable, i.e. they're designing the game in a way that encourages, or maybe even forces players to circumvent its mechanics. Take mobile games as example - they nickel and dime players at every opportunity: Pay a dime here to skip this timer, pay a dollar there for a power-up, because the level isn't designed to be beatable without it.<br><br>That's why I will never-ever budge from my position of: I pay an upfront price for a game, and I expect to get the whole experience from that. If a game has stuff like DLC that actually is part of the main game, or if it has mechanics like AC: Odyssey, I will not ever pay full price for it. I'll <b>maybe</b> grab at at bargain bin prices, or the discounted GOTY edition, but if you expect me to pay for a game after I've paid full price for it already, you got another thing coming.