I’m disappointed by level-boost donations up to 58 level pn the Anniversary servers.
I was hoping there wouldn’t be any level-boost donation (basically pay-to-win element) on the Anniversary servers… well - foolish and naive hope on my part.
Souch corporate decisions really upset me and take away my desire to keep playing.
The level boost was there in the last TBC Classic. What made you think that this time there won’t be any? Genuine question, no sarcasm.
You’re not required to purchase it.
And, the boost isn’t even pay to win, what do you win here? Realistically, everyone will reach that level. The only thing you’d save here is some time and that’s it.
are you trolling ? how is this not pay to win ?
if 1 player start at lvl 1, and one at lvl 58. who will reach max level first, and get better gear first etc.
basicly means if you dont pay you are behind .
You’re not comparing a lvl1 with a 58 you’re comparing a lvl58 with an entire playerbase of lvl60’s. It doesn’t give you a competitive advantage, because it does not get you ahead of the crowd, it allows you to catchup and be slightly less behind the crowd.
The boost was here last time. Should it exist, in a perfect world? Maybe not, but Classic is only there to make Microsoft money, and the boost allows a lot of players who otherwise would not play TBC, to play TBC for a fee.
It’s mostly a player generated issue.
The entire FOMO, essentially requiring to be ahead of the curve to play raids or even some dungeons, plus the usual advantages of being early (access to the newest materials, selling high, profiting, reinvesting).
Blizzard merely fuels it by 1) accelerating the cadence and 2) providing the P2Skip, essentially acting as P2Access and P4Gold.
But players fuel those by 1) commenting it’s boring, demanding next phase in mere days if not hours and 2) buying it too much and trying to compete on top of it.
I think the most elegant solution is the Tome of Knowledge, which is an account bound item that grants a small amount of XP if applicable or a small goodie bag. Tomes were generally rewarded for completing content (low levels included) such as finishing a dungeon or a set of daily quests. It allows skipping nasty levels but also accelerating progress of a low level character.
On the extreme end, you can also earn level boosts.
I never used them but I’d really love to start my BC paladin at 50.
Instead I’m coping and plan to level it over a year… ignorance is bliss.
Lul, in which way buying boost gonna make you ahead, if most ppl already had lvl 60 toons with decent gear, which will help them to easily smash two starting zones, meanwhile boosted toons will start with 58lvl full of green garbage gear, and will struggle until they won’t get something from quests.
Guys… we’re talking about buying in-game progression in an MMORPG.
And even though you won’t reach max level faster than absolutely everyone else, you still gain an advantage over people who create a new character without paying. And yes, I do see that it has limitations — it’s not available for the new TBC races.
In the original World of Warcraft this was impossible, just like in the original The Burning Crusade.
No — I’m not trolling. I don’t play “actual” World of Warcraft where buying progression is considered normal, and honestly, I only recently heard about the anniversary servers — I expected an experience close to the original, one that wouldn’t involve purchasing in-game progression.
I remember the community’s negative reaction when this was introduced for the first time (I think in 2014) — I just wanted to share how it feels to me now and see how others are reacting.
You should compare it to a fresh level 1 character not to level 60s, if you want to reroll and play another class but dont want to play Belf or Dranie then a fresh level 1 is what you should compare it to. If you want to swap class to a class you dont have a level 60 of allready then it is a advantage to get a level 58 as you can easily hit level 60 during prepatch and get a fair amount of gear. Not to mention that the only way to buy the boost as of now is in a bundle where you get a scaling ground mount and most likely a scaling flying mount for all your characters (yes the training is the expensive part in tbc but that’s beside the point).
On this you are correct, but I would suggest that looking at the boost as a catch up is the wrong way to look at it. But we are in reality on the same side here. All though I think that if you dont want to put in the time to level you shouldnt play as leveling is a part of the game.
How are you disappointed by the level boost instead of getting post nerf raids?
Nerfing raids is a matter of in-game balance.
But donations — gaining advantages for money — are, in my view, a real problem that breaks the concept of the game
I’m disappointed that I can’t boost a draenei shaman. I just hope the pre patch lasts long enough, so I can catch up with my friends before the portal open. Boosts are completely fine. It’s stupid that new races are excluded.
It’s not pay to win. It’s pay to accelerate/catch up. In an ideal world it wouldn’t be there perhaps, but unfortunatelly, pay to speed up is de facto industry standard these days in any multiplayer game. It is what it is.
Pay to win in the strictest sense would be buying gear that is better than what is available from raids, buying a world buff nobody has or something along those lines.
Edit: what an actual pay to win would look like is if the HW/GM gear was available from launch and for 80 eur donation, and not from months of BG grinding.
I agree with this, however this logic has to be used carefully.
Just an example (a very edgy case), in case the store mount (you know, the armored spectral netherdrake) is at 310% speed at max riding, by the logic this would be pay to win until phase 2. 310% mounts will become available from normal in-game means (e.g. boss drop), turning this case into pay to accelerate by the logic. And this is simply not true, vast majority would find that pay to win if the mount is 310% regardless of Alar and Gladiator mounts being available elsewhere.
lmao I flagged Saneko’s post for trolling just to read your response “are you trolling?”. Glad I’m not the only one who was instantly abashed by this stupidity in Saneko’s post.
Yeah, I agree with your example, 310% mount would definitely be (a mild form of) P2W even if you have a tiny chance to get it for free. However, buying lvl 58 and crappy green gear when most everyone around you is 60 with at least some epics clearly is not.
Because everyone who wanted to play classic or even tbc already r 60 lv idk how is pay to win 
U have literally 50 days even if u did not played classic to lv char to 60. Pay2win would be if was boost till 70lv xDD
What better gear some greens yes
Btw whoever wants to quit classic because token boost pls give me your gold I need for fly mount in tbc ty <3
There was a really long discussion about “win” years ago.
On one extreme you have those who define P2W to be impossible at all. Unlike in real life, where you could win the best life ever (spouse, money, occupation, all that), a game is about achievements. If you get boosted, you get the checkmark but you don’t have a sense of achievement. If you get BiS, you still have to beat the boss (PvE or PvP). I mean, you win the best life but you lack a fulfilling life where you earned it. Right? You can’t win.
On the other hand, people define games exactly like life, a large table of little wins. If having gold is your win condition, then buying gold is P2W, otherwise it’s just P2A or even free time, you buy consumables but raid in legit ways. If you need an achievement or GearScore, getting those in a boost is your win. Every person has different wins. Arguably, a busy person may not be able to play BC with a draenei or blood elf. For them, a boost is a win.
A funny example… in GW2 there are some really difficult jumping puzzles. My favourite approach is to take a port to the end, reduce pressure to zero, and then go and do it myself for fun. My win is the removal of the pressure, it’s a pay-to-enable-fun.
I would prefer some compromise over the boost, such as retailesque level pacing. I didn’t enjoy my fresh 58 in 2022 right away, but I do have issues with the whole process taking months (fewer or more depends on number of characters played). Not only do we have responsibilities limiting our game time to a few hours a week, those few hours are competed by so many other games and activities. It’s really easy to just go realistic and not even try. My Anniversary main is level 59.14.
An alt that starts at 58, makes it easier to level professions, so lets say you make a tailor alchemist out of it, you can transmute gems and create special cloth faster than someone who needs to level from scratch.
I asked my favourite AI after all, and I think there are some interesting points in it, so here it is. You may enjoy it more than my ramblings 
and I’m not going to claim it’s mine. Especially with the formatting 
Pay-to-win (P2W) refers to systems—primarily in gaming but applicable elsewhere—where spending real money provides competitive advantages or bypasses effort-based progression. The term carries negative connotations, though its boundaries are hotly contested.
In multiplayer games, P2W typically means:
The classic concern is fairness: does money trump skill? Games are traditionally seen as meritocratic spaces where effort and ability determine outcomes, so monetization that undermines this feels like a violation of the social contract.
Your post captures the central tension well. There’s no consensus because “winning” itself is subjective:
The Narrow View: P2W requires actually purchasing victory outcomes—the final boss kill, the PvP rank, the trophy. Buying gear or boosts doesn’t count because you still need to execute. This view treats games as achievement systems where the journey is the product.
The Broad View: Any monetary advantage is P2W because games contain countless micro-objectives. Buying gold, skipping grinds, purchasing cosmetics that signal status—if it advances anyone’s goals, it’s pay-to-win for them.
Your observation about “winning but not achieving” highlights something fundamental: extrinsic success can hollow out intrinsic satisfaction. You might buy best-in-slot gear and clear content, but the dopamine hit of genuine accomplishment vanishes. You’ve won the outcome but lost the experience—a pyrrhic victory.
This suggests P2W might be self-defeating. If games exist to provide flow states and earned satisfaction, purchasing those outcomes is like buying a birthday cake for yourself and being surprised it doesn’t feel special.
The framework extends to other domains:
Education: Buying tutors or degrees without learning—you have the credential but not the knowledge Dating apps: Premium features might get you more matches (paying to access the game) but can’t make genuine connection happen Social media: Buying followers creates the appearance of influence without actual engagement
The pattern: money can purchase proxies for success but struggles to deliver the underlying substance people actually want.
Your Guild Wars 2 example is illuminating. Sometimes payment isn’t about winning but about removing barriers to enjoyment. A working parent with limited gaming time might pay to skip tedious grinds not to “win” but to access the parts they find fun. Here, money buys access rather than advantage—though critics would argue that’s a distinction without a difference if the result is progression.
This introduces market segmentation: games increasingly serve both traditional players (who want challenge) and convenience-seekers (who want results). The tension arises when these groups compete in shared spaces.
At its heart, P2W debates ask: What should be purchasable? Society accepts buying time-savers (dishwashers, ride-shares) but balks at buying achievements (degrees, military honors). Games sit awkwardly in between—they’re leisure products you pay for, but their value comes from creating non-monetary challenges.
Your post’s insight about the paradox of achievement is the key: true “winning” in games might be fundamentally non-transactional. You can pay for outcomes, but not for the feeling of having earned them.