One is FREE TO PLAY. The other is not. I don't care how many times you say it is optional, the fact that heroes are not freely unlocked means that there is an incentive for Riot to try and sell it to you for your money.
This is factually untrue. You do not have to pay to play – or win, at LoL. I haven’t played for years, but like others have already mentioned, some friends and I played casually for a few years without paying anything.
You’re equating the unlocking of champions with “power” or “winning”. This is not accurate. Yes, it is “pay-to-unlock”, but not “pay-to-win”. Having more champions does not make you more powerful. Those champions that you pay to unlock, will be free in other weeks. The champions that people paid for are identical to the ones people are using for free. You are no more powerful when playing Graves that you paid for, than someone else who is playing Graves on a free week.
Yes, unlocking champions obviously gives you more options to choose from, but that does not equal “more power” - and does not equal “more win”. Since paid-for champions are identical to free ones - the only possible “advantage” to more options is being able to choose specific counter-picks. If you’re such an expert that you need to choose one specific character - then you’ve played plenty long enough to have already unlocked everyone you’d need to be able to do that.
“You aren't getting those heroes for free. You pay, either by investing your time or your money.”
So, playing a game that you enjoy, is actually somehow “paying” for it, even if you never give them cash - because you’re investing time in it?
How about other free-to-play games with things you can unlock - TF2, World of Tanks - lots of others? Are they actually not “free-to-play” because you can unlock items with some sort of experience points, like new weapons/classes/tanks etc… ? You are saying any free game that has the “option” to unlock something is a actually a “paid game” - because you have to invest your time to get it?
If you’re changing the definition of “paying” to mean “playing the game” - then by playing Dota, you’re paying them too right? If someone puts as much time into Dota, as they do into LoL, they’re putting in just as much time investment.
As already mentioned - if your goal is to have all characters unlocked, then yes, paying cash does seem like the fastest way to get there. On the other hand, if you actually enjoy playing the game for fun, then unlocking things (earning – not paying) as you go, is just a side benefit of doing something you enjoy.
“I don't care how many times you say it is optional, the fact that heroes are not freely unlocked means that there is an incentive for Riot to try and sell it to you for your money.”
This is irrelevant to anything. The object of the game is not to unlock heroes - and having more heroes does not give you more power or determine your effectiveness in a game. Everyone who ever put a price-tag on something has incentive to sell it. The Dota guys have incentive to sell you skins. At least in LoL, you have the option to unlock skins with ingame experience. In Dota you have to pay real cash for that. Until they freely unlock all skins, Valve has incentive to sell them to you for money.
If your primary purpose is to have all characters unlocked, you may be at the mercy of Riot’s advertising. Unlocking characters sounds like an expensive and tedious game. If that’s your game, then Dota is definitely for you. For many people though, LoL is game involving a MOBA concept – killing a nexus etc… It’s totally free and doesn’t require all characters to be unlocked to play. Riot is welcome to try and sell me characters and skins – but that doesn’t change the fact that someone can play for free and have some fun and be competitive.
Bottom line - LoL is obviously free to play - as demonstrated by thousands of broke gamers
. And the option to unlock champions with real cash does not make it pay-to-win.