[lackbeard]

I would say, in that sense, there aren't really tiers; it's a continuum, and you can attempt to compete at whatever price point you're willing.

[humanistbot]

That is exactly what "pay to win" means in the parlance of our times: the more you pay, the better chance you have to win. Tiers vs continuum doesn't matter here. The important part is that players with the same skill must decide how much money to pay the manufacturer to gain advantages over other players. If everyone had to buy the full set every quarter, then it would not be pay to win, it would just be a very expensive subscription game. There are things like sealed deck drafts where everyone agrees to buy in at the same price so that everyone can compete on skill. But there is a reason WotC doesn't allow proxy cards (just printing an unofficial copy of a card or a piece of paper with the name of the card), because they make a ton of money from the pay to win dynamic.

[lackbeard]

I agree that "tiers vs. continuum" has no bearing on the question of whether or not Magic: The Gathering is pay-to-win. I was merely pointing out that what tedunangst was describing was a continuum, not tiers.

Obviously, I'm not articulating my perspective very persuasively. Here's some additional flavor that might help (probably won't:)

1. In Magic: The Gathering, the most expensive deck is not always (or even ever, really) the best.

2. Is Golf pay-to-win? I can spend more on a set of clubs that have bigger sweet spots & will give me more distance with the same swing than my opponent's set.

3. The term "pay-to-win" comes from free-to-play MMOs.

I think most people that claim MTG is pay-to-win are just frustrated by how expensive it is. I agree. Don't play it!