Free to play vs Pay to play.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Free to play or Pay to play?

  • Free to play

  • Pay to play


Results are only viewable after voting.

EDUSAN

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2012
1,358
0
0
i rather have f2p... i know there are tons of games that i wouldnt even have tried if i had to pay them upfront, like league of legends. I ended up giving them some money for cosmetic stuff but that was like after 1 year of playing it non stop.

of course i played LoL that is probably one of the only games in which paying doesnt make a difference
 

redrider4life4

Senior member
Jan 23, 2009
246
0
0
Depends what type of game, League of Legends works awesome as a F2P.

The only games that should be pay to play are MMO's if you are referring to a monthly subscription and I have no problem paying the fee as long as the devs keep the content and patches coming.
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
The first F2P game I tried was World of Tanks which has become the most expensive game I have ever played. It surpasses Halo 3 which was the ONLY reason I bought an xbox 360 and I thus lump the cost of the console with the game.

I have since played two other F2P games with minimal payment on either.

With subscribed play in P2P games such as most/all MMO's, you pay the subscription and you get the game. The cost is there and you go.

With the single purchase "box" games, again you pay once and you go. There are no hidden micro transaction crap to suck you in.

Really, I wish the OP question was based on micro-transaction or not instead of F2P vs P2P. Micro transactions add up quick and are truly nuts when you compare it to say a $15/mo subscription or a $60 purchase.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,169
1,643
126
I hate gimmicks and scams, and most "free" to play have some sort of gimmick or scam to get you to pay.

I'd rather just pay up front and then play.
 

Pogolauncher

Member
Aug 21, 2013
29
0
0
I wish free to play was around when I was a teenage gamer. I had all the time in the world to offset the additional grinding that you have to do with freemium games, but I would have loved it because free games! Money was tight back then, not time. Today it's my time that is limited, not money, so I prefer the traditional pay to play model.

Perfect argument right there.

Younger people, who maybe don't have much money, or do have money but no way to spend it (E.G: Credit card, online bank etc) would prefer free to play games, whereas adults with less time and more money, or ways to spend it would prefer pay to play games as it doesn't waste time with grinding.

I am one of the younger crowd, but soon to be 16 so i can spend money online soon, if i felt inclined to do so. Most free to play games offer users to spend money via their mobile phone calling credit, this is amazing for people who don't have a credit card as you don't have to be a certain age to go to the shop/store and add calling credit to your phone. But that is also a downfall of free to play games, younger crowds spending loads of money for upgrades that make them powerful compared to people who have to grind.

:)
 

Pogolauncher

Member
Aug 21, 2013
29
0
0
The first F2P game I tried was World of Tanks which has become the most expensive game I have ever played. It surpasses Halo 3 which was the ONLY reason I bought an xbox 360 and I thus lump the cost of the console with the game.

I have since played two other F2P games with minimal payment on either.

With subscribed play in P2P games such as most/all MMO's, you pay the subscription and you get the game. The cost is there and you go.

With the single purchase "box" games, again you pay once and you go. There are no hidden micro transaction crap to suck you in.

Really, I wish the OP question was based on micro-transaction or not instead of F2P vs P2P. Micro transactions add up quick and are truly nuts when you compare it to say a $15/mo subscription or a $60 purchase.

True they do stack up, to the point of you asking yourself, would a subscription be better? but in reality, they don't, depending on which game you are playing, if it is a game that relys heavily on micro-transactions to actually have any play value without being ripped apart by players who do pay, then yeah, it will stack up, but if it doesn't rely on micro-transactions and they are optional extras that maybe give a aesthetic upgrade or maybe give a better weapon, but a better weapon that is not exclusive to people who pay, then micro-transaction's stacking up all rely on the user themselves and whether they are the type of person to just buy things instead of earning them.

Basically, there is two types of Free to play games, one that is 'pay to win' and one that is 'pay if you like'.

^^ That is why i didn't want to base the who thread on micro-transactions :)

thanks for your reply.
 

xeledon20005

Senior member
Feb 5, 2013
300
0
76
playing league of legends because its f2p, but you can buy stuff to help bettre your characters/ what not cosmetic items if you so wish.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
My experience with both is that they are both 'Pay to play'. it is just a matter of if you want to pay up front or if you want to pay (usually a boatload more) during the course of your game experience.

The thread should have been:

Pay to play
or
Pay to win

Nickel and diming your consumers through micro-transactions is just more insidious in my view.
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,300
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
There is no such thing as free, it's economics 101.

"Free" games are pay to win, we all just disagree on what we consider an advantage, it's dressed up in currencies, booster packs, upgrades, sidegrades, limited time effects, DLC, etc etc etc, it's all the same thing abstracted to trick people into thinking people who don't pay don't have an advantage, they do.

I rarely play P2W because only about 5% of the player base actually spend money on F2P games, which means that those 5% are financially supporting the other 95% of the unpaid player base, and so you're charged 95% more than you otherwise would be.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I don't consider it paying to win unless the paid items directly impact the endgame.

RIFT sells "rare" items that can be useful for leveling, but are still on-par with the rare items you get from questing or on the auction house (and have no impact on the endgame except helping you beat the leveling "game" more quickly)

likewise, paying for cosmetic/novelty items is also non-impacting.

(on the other hand, you've got The Old Republic, which charges you for even basic action bar functionality)
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
"Pay to win" is a generic term meant for any content that you need to spend real money to unlock. Usually this content is in some way superior to the baseline content so as to entice players to want to spend money on it. Just because a given sword or set of armor (or whatever) isn't game winning, doesn't mean that it isn't a micro-transaction intent on charging you money to enhance your game experience.
 

Snock514

Golden Member
Jul 20, 2009
1,071
2
81
There is no such thing as free, it's economics 101.

"Free" games are pay to win, we all just disagree on what we consider an advantage, it's dressed up in currencies, booster packs, upgrades, sidegrades, limited time effects, DLC, etc etc etc, it's all the same thing abstracted to trick people into thinking people who don't pay don't have an advantage, they do.

I rarely play P2W because only about 5% of the player base actually spend money on F2P games, which means that those 5% are financially supporting the other 95% of the unpaid player base, and so you're charged 95% more than you otherwise would be.
el oh el
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
"Pay to win" is a generic term meant for any content that you need to spend real money to unlock.

Not at all. P2W is about content/bonuses that can only be bought with real money and give in game benefits. Sometimes its applied to content that gives in game benefit and requires less time/effort to get with real money under the theory that such players will always be ahead in the power curve and/or be able to use that content more frequently.

Things like skins need not apply. The time vs money content really depends on implementation.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
@Midwayman - Um, you basically said what I did. "Pay to unlock content" usually enticed by that content adding some kind of perceived material benefit to the consumer. Basically the same thing.
 

krnmastersgt

Platinum Member
Jan 10, 2008
2,873
0
0
@Midwayman - Um, you basically said what I did. "Pay to unlock content" usually enticed by that content adding some kind of perceived material benefit to the consumer. Basically the same thing.

I think it was a disagreement on your wording, you said pay to unlock ANY content. Cosmetic enhancements, time savers, etc. are cash unlockables but don't necessarily impact the gameplay all that heavily. Whereas something like protected refinement of equipment or special weapons/armors or access to them would fall into the P2W catgeory.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
I think it was a disagreement on your wording, you said pay to unlock ANY content. Cosmetic enhancements, time savers, etc. are cash unlockables but don't necessarily impact the gameplay all that heavily. Whereas something like protected refinement of equipment or special weapons/armors or access to them would fall into the P2W catgeory.

Well the real difference is that my definition of "Pay to win" is "Any micro-transaction that unlocks content that consumers are incentivized to pay for (read 'adds perceived value')". That could include item/ability upgrades, but it could equally include skins and the like that don't increase playability but is still a value add to some players. I don't discount the coolness factor as a way for the company to make money from consumers who have more cash than sense.

Bottom line is these companies aren't in business to make games for the sheer industrial joy of the public. They are in the business of making money. Hence if they aren't getting money up front, they are usually trying everything they can do to get it on the back end. And while I do think there are intelligent consumers out there that understand the trap and avoid it, I don't subscribe to it being 90% of the consumer base. I think percentage of paying consumers the figure is much higher than 10% or the overall model wouldn't be profitable.
 

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
Well the real difference is that my definition of "Pay to win" is "Any micro-transaction that unlocks content that consumers are incentivized to pay for (read 'adds perceived value')". That could include item/ability upgrades, but it could equally include skins and the like that don't increase playability but is still a value add to some players. I don't discount the coolness factor as a way for the company to make money from consumers who have more cash than sense.

What is the point of taking a commonly used term with an already widely understood definition and then changing that definition while trying to discuss it with other people? Pay to win does not include cosmetic items.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Pay to win may include items you cannot get otherwise, getting items easily that would take time to get and thus you have low skill players who are new to the game with the best/better gear, and when a game is paywalled to the point that you cannot continue without paying money for more ammo, more coins, more health etc. In all three of these cases, if you pay money...you win. If you don't pay you are disadvantaged.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I've yet to find a FTP game that doesn't end up being a grind-fest of some variety. I'd much rather spend money on denser, more stimulating games. I'm happy to wait for prices to fall when necessary.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
@Midwayman - Um, you basically said what I did. "Pay to unlock content" usually enticed by that content adding some kind of perceived material benefit to the consumer. Basically the same thing.

Its the opposite of the same thing. If it affects game play or not is the central tennant of the p2w or not argument of any discussion of p2w I've ever heard of.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
I guess I don't understand why people are making a differentiation between some "pay to unlock" content simply because it is cosmetic in nature. At the end of the day, even the cosmetic stuff enhances game play (or is sold as such). I see no difference between a power up that makes your avatar more capable of surviving and a snazzy new costume which makes him/her more popular (and therefore have more friends help them survive, as for example).

If it is enticing enough for someone to pay for it, it nets out to exactly the same thing. The money comes from the same place (the consumer's wallet). Both sets of content are in the game for exactly the same reason (to pay the bills and the salaries of the company that provides the content). In short, I see zero difference.
 
Last edited:

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I guess I don't understand why people are making a differentiation between some "pay to unlock" content simply because it is cosmetic in nature. At the end of the day, even the cosmetic stuff enhances game play (or is sold as such). I see no difference between a power up that makes your avatar more capable of surviving and a snazzy new costume which makes him/her more popular (and therefore have more friends help them survive, as for example).

If it is enticing enough for someone to pay for it, it nets out to exactly the same thing. The money comes from the same place (the consumer's wallet). Both sets of content are in the game for exactly the same reason (to pay the bills and the salaries of the company that provides the content). In short, I see zero difference.

I differentiate it based on the impact to other players.

in World of Warcraft, you can pay $ to buy cool looking pets or mounts, but ultimately, that has no direct impact on players opting to not pay that money.

on the other hand, if they sold a Potion of Uber Power for $$ that buffed a character, suddenly everyone would feel like they had to purchase that as well if they needed to compete in PvP or endgame raiding.

but things of a cosmetic nature are generally not regarded as competitive.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
I guess I don't understand why people are making a differentiation between some "pay to unlock" content simply because it is cosmetic in nature. At the end of the day, even the cosmetic stuff enhances game play (or is sold as such). I see no difference between a power up that makes your avatar more capable of surviving and a snazzy new costume which makes him/her more popular (and therefore have more friends help them survive, as for example).

If it is enticing enough for someone to pay for it, it nets out to exactly the same thing. The money comes from the same place (the consumer's wallet). Both sets of content are in the game for exactly the same reason (to pay the bills and the salaries of the company that provides the content). In short, I see zero difference.

There is a real difference in that scenario, as enhancing survivability is a "pay to win" format. Giving players access to enhanced stats via cash is a very real balancing issue, and imo, should never be an accepted model.

I doubt there is any data that could back up the idea that "cooler threads" will lead to more friends, thus more help in surviving overall, so I just don't see that as a viable comparison.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
I've yet to find a FTP game that doesn't end up being a grind-fest of some variety. I'd much rather spend money on denser, more stimulating games. I'm happy to wait for prices to fall when necessary.

I'm coming to the conclusion that regardless of the pay model, this is inevitable with any MMO.

Either way you do it, the incentive is to keep people playing for as long as possible. Without regular updates in sub models, that end game content tends to become repetitive quite quickly, and you are simply grinding the same stuff over and over for slightly better numbers.

With the GW2 model, where they now have rather large 2 week-long events back to back, you do get tons of new content...but the reality is that the content is pretty much the same RNG event with reskinned models and storylines, and piles of new cosmetic skins that can either be farmed through endless grinding, or quick gem purchases. I think the only way to fix that, if you don't like it, is to stop buying gems during these events. ...that isn't going to happen.
 

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
I guess I don't understand why people are making a differentiation between some "pay to unlock" content simply because it is cosmetic in nature. At the end of the day, even the cosmetic stuff enhances game play (or is sold as such). I see no difference between a power up that makes your avatar more capable of surviving and a snazzy new costume which makes him/her more popular (and therefore have more friends help them survive, as for example).

If it is enticing enough for someone to pay for it, it nets out to exactly the same thing. The money comes from the same place (the consumer's wallet). Both sets of content are in the game for exactly the same reason (to pay the bills and the salaries of the company that provides the content). In short, I see zero difference.

The difference is in the effect it has on the game, and more specifically the effect it has on those who choose not to pay. Lets assume a new game comes out tomorrow, its free to play, but there is a cash shop which contains weapons/armor that are roughly twice as powerful as anything that can be found in game. The end game content is so difficult that it cannot be completed using even the best set of weapons/armor found in game. Additionally, there is a pvp system in the game (battlegrounds, arenas, it doesn't really matter), and these pay items are not restricted there. As someone who does not pay, you simply cannot compete with anyone who chooses to simply buy those items - the pvp areas will be littered with them, and top guilds will not want anyone who isn't using the best of the best gear. Can you still play the game and have fun? Sure. But the best content and every competitive aspect of the game will be dominated by those who pay the most money. Hence the term pay to win.

This is only a very simple example, and not nearly as bad as some of the more nefarious schemes that some developers have put in place.

Now imagine the same game, but the cash shop only has cosmetic items such as costumes, pets, clothing dyes, etc. Everyone is on the same playing field, everyone gets to do the same content with the same ability to compete. There still incentive to spend money, but the guy who doesn't spend any money is not being affected by those who do (unless you consider not looking as cool as the next guy a game breaking issue).