It is futile to keep going on an argument weather 1.6 and even 1.5 have brought us P2W. There are not presently accepted definitions and is a derogatory term currently evolving at forums level much like this one.
One can only use simple logic to attempt to analyze the term. I wrote several post now and to me it is pretty clear from a basic argument that 1.6 has brought Pay to win. To me winning on an MMORPG is parallel with progression. Since the items one buys from the Cartel Market (PAY) can be used and enhance your level of progression in the space minigame ( WIN) , one is Paying to Win. This is irrespective and uninfluenced by pragmatisms such as the number of people that do/did space missions, the long term good or potential of the game, etc.
So again, to me SWTOR has brought P2W with 1.6 and even 1.5. But perhaps a more important and interesting topic is to truly open up and discuss about the future of gaming. Potentially, this is good for the gaming industry; and the customer.
I will add also to what our resident BW PR representatives have already mentioned. No one is required to purchase anything. What is more, if you are agains P2W, you eventually benefit from it. Those purchasing the items ( who wont be you) are potentially improving your gaming experience by providing revenue to the game developers. Hopefully some of that revenue comes back as game content and much needed improvements. Compare that to subscription model. This however, is all fine as long as P2W does not spill over the competitive portion of the game or the core progression, then it is a different story/argument.
So to sum up, 1.6 brought P2W. It is an opinion based on fundamental concepts. Yet, it is not productive to continue engaging on definition arguments. I think time is better spent discussing the potential good or bad of this business model spreading through the gaming biosphere because, lets face it, the subscription model is probably dying and, in the age of growth and capitalism, micro-transactions win.
I missed this post before because I was typing about Dulfy's site to another person and how the screen went, I didn't see it until someone else replied to you.
The model itself: I really don't have a problem with it if it's in a true F2P game or even a B2P game ala GW. And GW tried to keep the better gear out of the shop. However, there are workarounds in there shop that can help you get the better stuff. Like how much coins you get for running the Bonus Mission series and then can buy from another player better gear. However, the PvP part of it doesn't really get touched by this. (Which stems to why I can separate the PvP out of the definition FYI)
The sub based game (TOR is still one how the F2P model is set up TBH because it's actually a trial of the game to 50 bumped up from the free to 15 that was here) with being heavy in MT type updates, I don't think can exist for long IMO.
Other games that started as a sub game and converted later have different levels of setup compared to TOR. I will concede that telling Bioware to copy ArenaNet's setup is impossible. ANet did GW and GW2 as B2P (btw, I hate that term on so many levels) from the start. Those that convert have to almost go back to the beginning and think what they can and cannot allow the trial players to do. I just feel that Bioware went too heavy handed. And another thread someone said to follow STO's model which I think was too light handed. I think both should move closer to the other but be in the middle.