Free to play vs Pay to play.

Page 4 - 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.

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
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.

Then you don't understand the concept of p2w. Pretty simple. Perhaps you've never played the genre?
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I prefer pay to play for selfish reasons. One of the biggest benefits to F2P is that anyone can play, but one of the biggest problems with F2P is that anyone can play. If a fee or time card is required, it tells me that there is a better chance the player will take the game seriously or that they aren't very young, which happens quite often. It helps keep out the ultra casuals who basically play to grief people and since there is no gate of entry they get away with it. On a more superficial concern, allowing everyone to play means common character names become more scarce than usual.

Anyways, I'm not saying that pay to play games don't have their share of griefers or that F2P characters aren't polite in general...just that I've had better experience with P2P games.

The other thing is cash shops and unlockable content. I hate them, and that goes for everything whether its a XP boost or a BOA collector's edition mount. In my opinion companies like Blizzard have ruined the fun of collecting pets and mounts, etc. because there are so many that are only acquired via collector's editions, special promotions, or cash shop. Why bother collecting if there is no way you can acquire them all?

And thats stuff that adds no immediate benefit to the player (well maybe XP boost). I'll at least humor those games though. Any game that sells gameplay items to the detrement of other players will NEVER get any business from. I don't care how fun the game is or whether it is completely free otherwise.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Then you don't understand the concept of p2w. Pretty simple. Perhaps you've never played the genre?

In fact I have. But I rather suspect that the differentiation comes in that people want to justify paying for upgrades while still turning their noses up on skins and the like. Therefore they create an artificial differentiation so that they can still spend the money, all the while pointing and laughing at those who spend money on skins because "they are trivial and useless".

I say again, the money comes from the same place. It goes to the same place. It is in the game for the same reason. It creates a perceived enhanced gaming experience to the consumer. It's a game, so having fun is at least as important as winning to most consumers. If what makes it fun for me is having a wacky costume, that is no less a valid reason for spending money than you wanting to gain access to special guns.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
In fact I have. But I rather suspect that the differentiation comes in that people want to justify paying for upgrades while still turning their noses up on skins and the like. Therefore they create an artificial differentiation so that they can still spend the money, all the while pointing and laughing at those who spend money on skins because "they are trivial and useless".

I say again, the money comes from the same place. It goes to the same place. It is in the game for the same reason. It creates a perceived enhanced gaming experience to the consumer. It's a game, so having fun is at least as important as winning to most consumers. If what makes it fun for me is having a wacky costume, that is no less a valid reason for spending money than you wanting to gain access to special guns.

That's great and all, and from the dev side I doubt they care what you spend money on as long as you spend. However it still has nothing to do with p2w. Pay to have fun maybe? The win in p2w is really the operative word here. I couldn't care less if people make fun of me for buying a hello kitty skin for my tank or a my little pony skin for my mech. However if I get killed repeatedly by people using pay only items, mainly by virtue of those pay only items, I'm going to be pissed.

So whatever I guess. Define p2w however you want, but you should be aware that's not how the vast vast majority of people use it.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
I can take it that is your perspective. And you are absolutely entitled to that perspective.

I am just trying to take the broader look at things by saying that YOU pay for (or get killed by and therefore pissed off by) stuff that adds a tangible game play advantage. Others may pay for that Hello Kitty Tee-shirt for their tank which may in turn piss others off in precisely the same manner. In the end it makes no real difference. We are all paying for additional content which adds a fun (or frustration in your example) level to the game. Winning becomes subjective.

There are several games in my collection that I have never "Won" (as defined by getting to the final cut scene with any variation of "You won") but I still had fun and enjoyed them. That, to me, is a win.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
I can take it that is your perspective. And you are absolutely entitled to that perspective.

I am just trying to take the broader look at things by saying that YOU pay for (or get killed by and therefore pissed off by) stuff that adds a tangible game play advantage. Others may pay for that Hello Kitty Tee-shirt for their tank which may in turn piss others off in precisely the same manner. In the end it makes no real difference. We are all paying for additional content which adds a fun (or frustration in your example) level to the game. Winning becomes subjective.

There are several games in my collection that I have never "Won" (as defined by getting to the final cut scene with any variation of "You won") but I still had fun and enjoyed them. That, to me, is a win.

Yes, but it does make a difference and it's very simple math--if the highest stat gear is locked behind a money door, that is very different than a purely cosmetic item being the only difference in money transactions.

that is a very real difference in quality whether you want to accept that or not.

Raging over being killed by someone that effectively paid to be better vs being killed by someone with a silly costume, and you being jealous of those looks, are different issues altogether. One of these situations is something personal, for one person to deal with. The other issue relates to the game balance that effects everyone that plays, whether they realize that or not.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Yes, but it does make a difference and it's very simple math--if the highest stat gear is locked behind a money door, that is very different than a purely cosmetic item being the only difference in money transactions.

that is a very real difference in quality whether you want to accept that or not.

Raging over being killed by someone that effectively paid to be better vs being killed by someone with a silly costume, and you being jealous of those looks, are different issues altogether. One of these situations is something personal, for one person to deal with. The other issue relates to the game balance that effects everyone that plays, whether they realize that or not.

I wholly disagree. At the end of the day it is a game. If you are complaining about someone else's conduct as a result of content they paid for, it is zero difference if that happens to be a +500 sword or an "I like Ike" tee shirt. Just because your in game avatar died in game, who cares? It's A GAME. If you are (or aren't) having fun, makes no difference what drives it, looks and appearance or the highest DPS. If it costs money to get, that is the defining factor, at least in my book. All personal opinion.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
I wholly disagree. At the end of the day it is a game. If you are complaining about someone else's conduct as a result of content they paid for, it is zero difference if that happens to be a +500 sword or an "I like Ike" tee shirt. Just because your in game avatar died in game, who cares? It's A GAME. If you are (or aren't) having fun, makes no difference what drives it, looks and appearance or the highest DPS. If it costs money to get, that is the defining factor, at least in my book. All personal opinion.


you are trying to define the meaning of "win" to you versus what it means to someone else, for some reason.

This discussion is about the very quantifiable differences between an economic incentive to affect your access to content vs cosmetic issues that do not do anything to your ability to access content.

I see that you are playing semantics more or less, but that is not the issue.

whether or not finishing the game or just running around and having fun is "a win" to you--that is fine and dandy, and I actually agree with you. And if for others it is to min/max and be uber, blahblahblah, that is fine for them, too. Sure.

But that is not, at all, the point.
 

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
In fact I have. But I rather suspect that the differentiation comes in that people want to justify paying for upgrades while still turning their noses up on skins and the like. Therefore they create an artificial differentiation so that they can still spend the money, all the while pointing and laughing at those who spend money on skins because "they are trivial and useless".

You are so confusing. Nobody here is trying to justify paying money for in game upgrades. Pay to win is pretty much universally despised, while cosmetic shops are generally considered harmless value adds. The differentiation is made because pay to win games are almost always disguised as free to play games, and so re-labeling a game as pay to win allows everyone to quickly identify the true nature of the game. This has become more important over the last few years as the number of pay to win games has been skyrocketing, and slimy developers have been coming up with more creative ways to disguise the fact that their free to play game is actually designed from the ground up to extract as much money from you as humanly possible.

Seriously though, what game have you been playing where the community thinks its completely normal and cool to pay money for in game power boosts, but then turn around and make fun of people who buy cosmetic items.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Currently playing a MMO thats pay2play, but if it was f2p that would just make it more epic.

I honestly rather not have to pay a monthly sub if I could get the same gameing experiance.
 

pandemonium

Golden Member
Mar 17, 2011
1,777
76
91
Of the several dozens of MMOs I've played, F2P never works out to the advantage over P2P. Sure, a lot of it has to do with the community attracted by the type of MMO, however, I've simply had better experiences with P2P.

I'm really not that worried about paying an extra $120-180/year extra for a game that I enjoy playing. (The bonus to that is the fact that I'll get everything included in the game if it's P2P. If it's F2P, I'll have to figure out what I really want, and it could end up costing me more in the long run anyways!) That's what, 2-3 titles on a console that I guarantee I would've set down a long time ago and not had nearly as much time enjoyed on? Or 3-4 nights out? Or...my new pedal set for my car that I just bought? Lol. Developers deserve to be paid for the continual effort they're putting forth. What's the difference between that and buying a new game from the same developer? No difference in my eyes. If I feel they're not up-to-par on their output, I'll stop subscribing and resume at a later date if necessary. It's as simple as that.

I never understood how MMO gaming got to be so incredibly frugal. F2P just seems to breed more of a headache in the long term for the community (that's serious about playing the game) and the developers (to restrict virtual miners, hackers, spammers, etc.). >.<
 
Last edited:

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
You are so confusing. Nobody here is trying to justify paying money for in game upgrades. Pay to win is pretty much universally despised, while cosmetic shops are generally considered harmless value adds. The differentiation is made because pay to win games are almost always disguised as free to play games, and so re-labeling a game as pay to win allows everyone to quickly identify the true nature of the game. This has become more important over the last few years as the number of pay to win games has been skyrocketing, and slimy developers have been coming up with more creative ways to disguise the fact that their free to play game is actually designed from the ground up to extract as much money from you as humanly possible.

Seriously though, what game have you been playing where the community thinks its completely normal and cool to pay money for in game power boosts, but then turn around and make fun of people who buy cosmetic items.

A better question might be to ask you what Free to play games do you play that aren't reliant on micro-transactions paying for additional content in game to support the business model?

My point before it got muddled was that every free to play game I have gotten involved in relies on either excessive adds cluttering up my gaming experience or the model of micro-transactions to unlock additional content. This latter strategy to me is the same thing as pay to win. Not because the added content always allows you to "win" but because the business model is such that they are planning on consumers to pay what ends up in the long run to be more than the $60 up front price of similar games that are Pay to play.

If you don't want me to call it pay to win, that's fine. I still don't see the difference between paying for content that adds aesthetics and paying for content that adds in game mechanical benefit. I don't think there is a difference other than perception. But that is merely my opinion.

So, to rephrase. on the Pay to play versus Free to play, I vote Pay to play as being (on the whole) a more honest way of gaming. Because most of the Free to play games I have ever encountered encounter ... ahem... micro-transactions to unlock additional content.... ahem.... and is thus not 'Free' to play. Not really.
 

greenhawk

Platinum Member
Feb 23, 2011
2,007
0
71
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.

While I can agree, it is why waiting to see before trying out a f2p game can work. f2p games that are all gimmicky or scam like generally do not live very long.

dota2 is a good example of free and keeping the people happy.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
If you don't want me to call it pay to win, that's fine. I still don't see the difference between paying for content that adds aesthetics and paying for content that adds in game mechanical benefit. I don't think there is a difference other than perception. But that is merely my opinion.

It's math--if you can't see the difference between items that directly increase your competitiveness (an effective stat wall between players) and items that merely affect your appearance, then there probably is nothing more to say on that topic.

You remind me, in a way, of Bill Clinton trying to change the discussion to the meaning of the word "is." :D

Yes, it's fine for you to call it what you will and play games as you want, consider a "win" however you want to consider a win--but realize that "Pay to Win" is a phrase adopted by the community, with one overwhelmingly acceptable definition.

Telling us that our interpretation of this phrase is "our opinion" is inaccurate.
 

Feneant2

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,418
30
91
Gimmie pay to play any day over free to play. In F2P they whore out the micro transactions constantly and the people playing are never as good as in a game where you pay to play. It only serves to add a LOT of undesirables.

In fact, I would pay MORE than 15$ a month for a game I enjoy. I wish EqNext would go with a model where the game is free but you have to pay ~25$ a month and that covers everything, expansions are free, content is free, etc. So you don't need to pay for anything extra, everything is included at that price. And because the fee is higher than most games, the people who play are the ones who are serious about it and enjoy it.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
@zinfanous - as a side note and totally off topic, there are loads of games in my library that I have never "Won", yet I still have enjoyed them enough to claim a victory of sorts.

And there are games like Evercrack and WOW that I have played that you can't 'win'. I mean you can defeat other players, but there is no screen that says "you won WoW!" and then cuts to credits.

And there are still other games like GalCiv 2 where winning a scenario doesn't mean that you 'Won the game'. Certainly I never lack the desire to go back and play another round of the game.

So I do feel that 'Win' has to become a very subjective term particularly in the gaming world. but then that is merely my opinion.

And I don't 'compete' either. I don't care if someone is better at a game or has achieved more things in a game than I have. Most true gamers (and quite a few casual gamers) I am sure have. I am not a particularly great player (up until about a month ago, I had never actually been able to defeat Saravok in Baldur's gate 1 despite playing the game dozens of times over the last 12 or so years) so I really don't have an ego about such things. maybe that simply makes me unique (or at least weird).

And I guess I don't get that last bit. Your interpretation is just that. An interpretation. Unless there is a definition in Websters somewhere that defines 'Pay to win' as something specific and having to only relate to unlockable content that has a direct game mechanic (which even that is highly subjective). Is there such a thing? I don't know. I'd be appreciative of direction to that so that I can be more informed.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
Gimmie pay to play any day over free to play. In F2P they whore out the micro transactions constantly and the people playing are never as good as in a game where you pay to play. It only serves to add a LOT of undesirables.

I don't know about skill level, but f2p makes having an account banned for griefing a zero cost affair. Its a real problem if the game doesn't have so mechanism to keep griefers away from the normal player base.
 

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
A better question might be to ask you what Free to play games do you play that aren't reliant on micro-transactions paying for additional content in game to support the business model?

Very few. I can't even name one off the top of my head. But that really isn't the point. I think everyone understands that almost every 'free to play' game comes along with a cash shop of some kind. The content of the cash shop is critically important though, especially in the discussion of whether a particular game is pay to win or not.

My point before it got muddled was that every free to play game I have gotten involved in relies on either excessive adds cluttering up my gaming experience or the model of micro-transactions to unlock additional content. This latter strategy to me is the same thing as pay to win. Not because the added content always allows you to "win" but because the business model is such that they are planning on consumers to pay what ends up in the long run to be more than the $60 up front price of similar games that are Pay to play.

You are trying to lump every game with a micro-transaction together and apply a term to them that does not accurately describe them all. The term 'pay to win' literally requires that you be allowed to pay real money for an in game advantage over people who do not pay. It is in the wording of the term itself. You cannot call something 'pay to win' if it does not actually further your ability to win the game - it is not logically consistent. A micro-transaction does not inherently improve your ability to win a game, you said so yourself in the bolded part above. So only those micro-transactions which improve your ability to win the game can be defined as 'pay to win', else the term is not accurately describing the situation that it is being applied to.

If you don't want me to call it pay to win, that's fine. I still don't see the difference between paying for content that adds aesthetics and paying for content that adds in game mechanical benefit. I don't think there is a difference other than perception. But that is merely my opinion.

You can do whatever you want when you are having a conversation with yourself. What I don't want is different people using the same term with different definitions. Imagine trying to have a conversation about the merits of regularly eating vegetables where one person is actually talking about vegetables, but the other person thinks 'vegetables' means 'anything that isn't meat'. Its an exercise in futility, likely to be maddening for both parties as well as anyone trying to follow the conversation.

As for the difference between paying for cosmetic items versus paying for direct in game advantages, I don't really know how to be more clear. You've been given multiple examples by multiple people already. If you don't actually understand the difference between them at this point, I'm afraid you probably never will. I suspect what you are actually trying to say though is that to you it does not matter how the game is trying to extract money from you, the micro-transactions model is bad no matter how its implemented. And thats a valid stance, but it does not change the fact that 'pay to win' can not logically be applied to a game in which you can not actually pay to win.

So, to rephrase. on the Pay to play versus Free to play, I vote Pay to play as being (on the whole) a more honest way of gaming. Because most of the Free to play games I have ever encountered encounter ... ahem... micro-transactions to unlock additional content.... ahem.... and is thus not 'Free' to play. Not really.

I agree mostly. I cringe when I learn that a game I'm looking in to is free to play, because most of them do it poorly. They lock most of the content behind pay walls, and severely gut the play experience for anyone who doesn't pay money. I've seen numerous games that seem to literally be designed from the ground up to encourage you to constantly keep paying money to continue playing the game - like a REALLY expensive arcade game.

However, there are some who do it right. Path of Exile has a cash shop that is almost purely cosmetic - alternate graphics for skills effects, special graphical effects for weapons/armor and other things. The one thing that isn't purely cosmetic is that you can purchase extra stash tabs for you to store loot in, but you start with a fairly large amount of stash space to begin with, more than enough for 95% of players I would guess. Anyways, the game is free to play otherwise, and its a great game. Supporting game development solely off cosmetic purchases is a great thing and I'd like to see more games try to do it. There is no harm in not ever buying anything so the game really is free to play for those who want it to be, but for those people with cash burning a hole in their pocket, they can help support the developer and get some cool graphical effects in game to show for it. Its a win-win. Unfortunately very few developers have ever tried this or successfully pulled it off.
 

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
@zinfanous - as a side note and totally off topic, there are loads of games in my library that I have never "Won", yet I still have enjoyed them enough to claim a victory of sorts.

And there are games like Evercrack and WOW that I have played that you can't 'win'. I mean you can defeat other players, but there is no screen that says "you won WoW!" and then cuts to credits.

And there are still other games like GalCiv 2 where winning a scenario doesn't mean that you 'Won the game'. Certainly I never lack the desire to go back and play another round of the game.

Winning does not in itself imply an ending.

So I do feel that 'Win' has to become a very subjective term particularly in the gaming world. but then that is merely my opinion.

I think you are confusing 'win' with 'fun'. They often go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Very few. I can't even name one off the top of my head. But that really isn't the point. I think everyone understands that almost every 'free to play' game comes along with a cash shop of some kind. The content of the cash shop is critically important though, especially in the discussion of whether a particular game is pay to win or not.
It is exactly the point. The difference is that you are assuming that I am lumping &#8216;GAMES&#8217; all together. I am not. I am lumping Micro-transactions all together. If there is such a game that truly has no &#8216;pay for additional content&#8217; I would say that is fine. Just because you wouldn&#8217;t pay for the &#8216;upgrade&#8217; because it is cosmetic only, doesn&#8217;t mean that it isn&#8217;t paid for by some. Nor is it any less insidious in its intent than paying for that +500 sword that no one else can get unless they pay for it.
You are trying to lump every game with a micro-transaction together and apply a term to them that does not accurately describe them all. The term 'pay to win' literally requires that you be allowed to pay real money for an in game advantage over people who do not pay. It is in the wording of the term itself. You cannot call something 'pay to win' if it does not actually further your ability to win the game - it is not logically consistent. A micro-transaction does not inherently improve your ability to win a game, you said so yourself in the bolded part above. So only those micro-transactions which improve your ability to win the game can be defined as 'pay to win', else the term is not accurately describing the situation that it is being applied to.
Cosmetic touches ARE in game advantages over people who do not pay. They are cosmetic advantages, but that fundamentally changes the game play experience. Without some &#8216;material benefit&#8217; no one would pay for them. The advantage may not be something that you would pay for, but that is no less an advantage.

As for the rest, you can&#8217;t call it logically inconsistent unless you can prove that (a) &#8216;ability&#8217; only ever means mechanical advantage and that (b) no cosmetic advantage has ever lead to a &#8216;winning&#8217; combination, and (c) that &#8216;winning&#8217; only ever means &#8216;completing the game to its conclusion&#8217;. Not to mention the fact that you can&#8217;t &#8216;Win&#8217; an MMO. Therefore, by your definition, no MMO ever can have &#8220;Pay to win&#8221;. Now who&#8217;s argument isn&#8217;t logically consistent?

Additionally a cosmetic add on might cause an increase in popularity while adding no mechanical benefit but allowing a player to &#8216;Win&#8217; the game through directly influencing others in the game to help or hinder them. Therefore, from that perspective a &#8220;Hello Kitty&#8221; tee shirt might qualify under your definition.
You can do whatever you want when you are having a conversation with yourself. What I don't want is different people using the same term with different definitions. Imagine trying to have a conversation about the merits of regularly eating vegetables where one person is actually talking about vegetables, but the other person thinks 'vegetables' means 'anything that isn't meat'. Its an exercise in futility, likely to be maddening for both parties as well as anyone trying to follow the conversation.
So as long as people agree with your definition, they are OK. If they differ from what you think, they are automatically wrong? And dumbing down the example to something where the definition is not in question doesn&#8217;t make it a reasonable comparison.

As for the difference between paying for cosmetic items versus paying for direct in game advantages, I don't really know how to be more clear. You've been given multiple examples by multiple people already. If you don't actually understand the difference between them at this point, I'm afraid you probably never will. I suspect what you are actually trying to say though is that to you it does not matter how the game is trying to extract money from you, the micro-transactions model is bad no matter how its implemented. And thats a valid stance, but it does not change the fact that 'pay to win' can not logically be applied to a game in which you can not actually pay to win.
Again I say, by this logic, any MMO ever created can never be a &#8216;pay to win&#8217; because you can&#8217;t WIN the game. Alternately, cosmetic benefits can tangibly add to a winning combination. Here are two logical examples that directly contradict your definition of &#8216;pay to win&#8217;.
I agree mostly. I cringe when I learn that a game I'm looking in to is free to play, because most of them do it poorly. They lock most of the content behind pay walls, and severely gut the play experience for anyone who doesn't pay money. I've seen numerous games that seem to literally be designed from the ground up to encourage you to constantly keep paying money to continue playing the game - like a REALLY expensive arcade game.

However, there are some who do it right. Path of Exile has a cash shop that is almost purely cosmetic - alternate graphics for skills effects, special graphical effects for weapons/armor and other things. The one thing that isn't purely cosmetic is that you can purchase extra stash tabs for you to store loot in, but you start with a fairly large amount of stash space to begin with, more than enough for 95% of players I would guess. Anyways, the game is free to play otherwise, and its a great game. Supporting game development solely off cosmetic purchases is a great thing and I'd like to see more games try to do it. There is no harm in not ever buying anything so the game really is free to play for those who want it to be, but for those people with cash burning a hole in their pocket, they can help support the developer and get some cool graphical effects in game to show for it. Its a win-win. Unfortunately very few developers have ever tried this or successfully pulled it off.
I haven&#8217;t played Path of Exile. I might have to look into it.
Winning does not in itself imply an ending.

Per Websters.com:

"win &#8194;
verb (used without object)
1. to finish first in a race, contest, or the like.
2. to succeed by striving or effort: He applied for a scholarship and won.
3. to gain the victory; overcome an adversary: The home team won.
4. Slang. to be successful or competent and be acknowledged for it: My sister wins at getting the biggest bargains. Compare fail ( def 9 ) .

I don't know but it looks like winning means finishing. At least it looks that way to me.

I think you are confusing 'win' with 'fun'. They often go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing.

If you can't win a game, such as an MMO, how else do you define 'winning' other than having fun? Equally is it possible to pay the extra and not win? Is it still 'pay to win' if you lose?
 
Last edited:

Wardawg1001

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
653
1
81
It is exactly the point. The difference is that you are assuming that I am lumping &#8216;GAMES&#8217; all together. I am not. I am lumping Micro-transactions all together. If there is such a game that truly has no &#8216;pay for additional content&#8217; I would say that is fine. Just because you wouldn&#8217;t pay for the &#8216;upgrade&#8217; because it is cosmetic only, doesn&#8217;t mean that it isn&#8217;t paid for by some. Nor is it any less insidious in its intent than paying for that +500 sword that no one else can get unless they pay for it.

If the micro-transaction system consists of pay to win items, then the game is pay to win. The micro-transactions are a part of the game, what is your purpose in trying to separate the two?

I'm not sure I understand the rest of this paragraph. Why does it matter that some people will pay for cosmetic upgrades even if I won't? Are you trying to compare buying a unicorn mount to buying a game breaking weapon, saying that there is absolutely no difference? I get that they are both micro-transactions, but are you really trying to claim that they have the same effect on the game? And who is being insidious in this situation - the person who buys the mount/weapon or the developer for selling the mount/weapon?

Cosmetic touches ARE in game advantages over people who do not pay. They are cosmetic advantages, but that fundamentally changes the game play experience. Without some &#8216;material benefit&#8217; no one would pay for them. The advantage may not be something that you would pay for, but that is no less an advantage.

For something to be an advantage over another person it has to affect them. Please provide a convincing example of how you buying a unicorn mount affects another players ability to play the game or affects their access to specific content available in the base game.

If you want to define cosmetic items as 'advantages' in the sense that they alter your game play experience and enrich your enjoyment of the game, thats fine. That is what they are meant to do. But it is not an advantage over another person unless it affects them negatively in some way.

As for the rest, you can&#8217;t call it logically inconsistent unless you can prove that (a) &#8216;ability&#8217; only ever means mechanical advantage and that (b) no cosmetic advantage has ever lead to a &#8216;winning&#8217; combination, and (c) that &#8216;winning&#8217; only ever means &#8216;completing the game to its conclusion&#8217;. Not to mention the fact that you can&#8217;t &#8216;Win&#8217; an MMO. Therefore, by your definition, no MMO ever can have &#8220;Pay to win&#8221;. Now who&#8217;s argument isn&#8217;t logically consistent?

Let me re-quote my own statement:

You cannot call something 'pay to win' if it does not actually further your ability to win the game - it is not logically consistent.

Please explain to me how (a), (b), and (c) above are required for this statement to be true? I don't see the link at all. Do you believe this statement is false? Can you provide an example of an item that does not further your ability to win a game, but would fall under your definition of a pay to win item anyways?

Additionally a cosmetic add on might cause an increase in popularity while adding no mechanical benefit but allowing a player to &#8216;Win&#8217; the game through directly influencing others in the game to help or hinder them. Therefore, from that perspective a &#8220;Hello Kitty&#8221; tee shirt might qualify under your definition.

Ignoring for a minute that there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that cosmetic items increase a persons popularity (in fact, you tried to make the claim earlier in this thread that the term 'pay to win' was coined simply for the purpose of allowing people to 'point and laugh' at people who spend money on cosmetic items), this is not in any way a unique advantage that cannot be obtained in other ways, or even the most effective, fastest, or easiest way to increase your popularity. If you can get the same effect by simply walking up to someone and starting a friendly conversation as you can by buying an item from the cash shop, that is not pay to win. Pay to win provides an advantage over others that cannot otherwise be obtained by other players unless they also pay. Would you like to try to claim that buying cosmetic items creates a level of popularity that is not possible to achieve otherwise?

So as long as people agree with your definition, they are OK. If they differ from what you think, they are automatically wrong? And dumbing down the example to something where the definition is not in question doesn&#8217;t make it a reasonable comparison.

My definition is one that is widely accepted to be accurate. There is some dissension over whether certain things are really pay to win or not. Temporary EXP boosters in an MMO, or allowing people to buy the same items with real money as the ones that can be obtained in game. Some say pay to win, some don't. What I've never heard described as pay to win are superficial cosmetic items. Nobody but you is trying to include every single micro-transaction in the world under the pay to win umbrella. You try to make me look like the unreasonable one here by claiming that I am ignorantly dismissing your position for no reason other than that it differs from mine, when that clearly isn't the case. That is both disrespectful and makes your own position look weaker.

Again I say, by this logic, any MMO ever created can never be a &#8216;pay to win&#8217; because you can&#8217;t WIN the game. Alternately, cosmetic benefits can tangibly add to a winning combination. Here are two logical examples that directly contradict your definition of &#8216;pay to win&#8217;.

Win does not mean 'get to the game over screen', nobody has claimed that in this thread, nobody has even implied it. You can win a battle against a monster in an MMO. You can conquer a dungeon. You can win a 1v1 match against another player. You can win a clan war. You can finish a quest. These are examples of 'winning' that don't require that the MMO display a 'The End' screen. What was the point of this?

You never provided the examples.


Per Websters.com:

"win &#8194;
verb (used without object)
1. to finish first in a race, contest, or the like.
2. to succeed by striving or effort: He applied for a scholarship and won.
3. to gain the victory; overcome an adversary: The home team won.
4. Slang. to be successful or competent and be acknowledged for it: My sister wins at getting the biggest bargains. Compare fail ( def 9 ) .

I don't know but it looks like winning means finishing. At least it looks that way to me.

Let me re-state my position, since you seem to want to hinge your argument on semantics. Winning does not imply an ending to the entire game. Winning a certain aspect of a game does not necessitate an end to the entire game. Games can include more than one thing for you to win, or accomplish, without actually ending the game. Can we stop fooling around with this nonsense?

If you can't win a game, such as an MMO, how else do you define 'winning' other than having fun? Equally is it possible to pay the extra and not win? Is it still 'pay to win' if you lose?

I already gave some examples of how you can 'win' in an MMO. Even though MMO's don't have your typical defined win conditions that produce the game over screen, there are generally goals in the game - there is a main quest line, there are side quests, there are achievements to be earned, there are end game dungeons to be conquered, there are specific 'best of class' items to be obtained, there are pvp systems, etc. These are the things that consume the majority of people time while playing MMO's, these are activities the developers created for you to do. These are what you win at.

Having fun is always a goal of any game. Like I said before, it often comes along with winning. But they are not synonymous, for the simple fact that you can have fun while losing too. If your only goal in a game is to have fun and you want to call that a win, well go for it. Just don't expect anyone else to understand you. I don't see 'having fun' anywhere in that dictionary definition you posted.

It is possible to pay money for 'pay to win' items and still lose. The fact that you even ask this means you aren't actually reading and understanding what people are telling you, or you are intentionally being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. I'll not continue this any further if you continue to show no attempt to actually process and understand what I've said.
 
Last edited:

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,131
21
81
Meh. The stigma against "pay to win" is nothing more then the biases of the most vocal gamers coming though. They tend to have lots of spare time and very limited earning power, so pay to win is stacked against them.

However, it's clearly not actually about having a fair match, as they'll happily accept "grind to win". Unsurprising, since it favors people with lots of time, which means it's tilted in their favor.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
If the micro-transaction system consists of pay to win items, then the game is pay to win. The micro-transactions are a part of the game, what is your purpose in trying to separate the two?
I am not trying to separate Games that are pay to win from transactions that are pay to win. I am saying, have been saying all along that micro-transactions are micro-transactions. Period. I am not sure why YOU are trying to separate one type of micro-transaction from another.
I'm not sure I understand the rest of this paragraph. Why does it matter that some people will pay for cosmetic upgrades even if I won't? Are you trying to compare buying a unicorn mount to buying a game breaking weapon, saying that there is absolutely no difference? I get that they are both micro-transactions, but are you really trying to claim that they have the same effect on the game? And who is being insidious in this situation - the person who buys the mount/weapon or the developer for selling the mount/weapon?
In game there &#8220;May&#8221; be a difference. From a banking perspective, from a game design perspective, from a consumer perspective and from a practical perspective, there is no difference. None.
For something to be an advantage over another person it has to affect them. Please provide a convincing example of how you buying a unicorn mount affects another players ability to play the game or affects their access to specific content available in the base game.
If I were to get a cosmetic enhancement to my avatar in X-game wherein my Avatar becomes 10X as large as the average avatar, this might indeed cause other players to assume that part of the enhancement means 10X the damage, 10X the range and 10X the hit points even if the actuality is something other than that. In that it might very well cause someone to back down from a fight, thus making it a win for my Avatar.

In another scenario, if a skin made a character look like Iron Man (as for example) and a group of Iron Man fans were to see that enhancement and think it cool, they may very well decide to group with that Avatar where they may not otherwise have done so. The added group might make the character more effective in game for the simple reason that they have more party members, which wouldn&#8217;t be there if the Avatar didn&#8217;t look so cool.

If you want to define cosmetic items as 'advantages' in the sense that they alter your game play experience and enrich your enjoyment of the game, thats fine. That is what they are meant to do. But it is not an advantage over another person unless it affects them negatively in some way.
That&#8217;s an extremely narrow view point. After all, it is a game. Therefore everything in the game is superficial and has absolutely zero impact on the outside world. However, even in game, prove to me that any enhancement, cosmetic or otherwise is definitionally and universally superior to any another enhancement. You can&#8217;t, because different people play the game to achieve different things. A win for one type of player may mean nothing to another type of player. But the real thing at the end of the day is that every player that takes part in either purchasing a skin or purchasing an in game mechanical enhancement, they all have participated in Micro-transactions. They are all the same on that level. You can&#8217;t change that fact.
Please explain to me how (a), (b), and (c) above are required for this statement to be true? I don't see the link at all. Do you believe this statement is false? Can you provide an example of an item that does not further your ability to win a game, but would fall under your definition of a pay to win item anyways?
Ok, so let&#8217;s take a step back on this one. You claimed that my argument was illogical because cosmetic enhancements don&#8217;t make you win. Let&#8217;s examine this fully. The statement is &#8220;Pay to win&#8221;, which literally means that regardless of your circumstances, if you pay money you are guaranteed to win. Hence the Logical statement &#8220;Pay to Win&#8221; or Payment equals winning. Only what YOU mean by &#8220;Pay to win&#8221; is actually &#8220;Pay to advantage&#8221;. I was attempting to explain that cosmetic enhancements are advantages of a kind. Therefore my statement was a whole lot more logical than yours. And since they are both Micro-transactions, they are more similar than different.

Ignoring for a minute that there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that cosmetic items increase a persons popularity
Nor is there evidence to the contrary.
(in fact, you tried to make the claim earlier in this thread that the term 'pay to win' was coined simply for the purpose of allowing people to 'point and laugh' at people who spend money on cosmetic items),
I made no such claim. I claimed that people were making a DIFFERENTIATION between cosmetic micro-transactions and those which give mechanical advantage were different because they wanted to use one while making fun of the other. A justification of sorts on their part so that they could do what they wanted and still feel good about laughing at others. When in fact they are both Micro-transactions.
this is not in any way a unique advantage that cannot be obtained in other ways, or even the most effective, fastest, or easiest way to increase your popularity. If you can get the same effect by simply walking up to someone and starting a friendly conversation as you can by buying an item from the cash shop, that is not pay to win.
Wait, what? Who said that gaining popularity was only achieved through skins? I certainly never said anything of the like. I said that it is A way to gain a certain amount of popularity, but the two are in no way similar or equivalent.
Pay to win provides an advantage over others that cannot otherwise be obtained by other players unless they also pay.
Starting off with &#8216;advantage&#8217; meaning &#8220;any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means speciallyfavorable to success, interest, or any desired end: theadvantage of a good education. (according to Websters.com), looking cool is an advantage and, by your own admission above it can cause popularity increase. Hence cosmetic enhancements easily meet your criteria.
Would you like to try to claim that buying cosmetic items creates a level of popularity that is not possible to achieve otherwise?
I never claimed that. You wanted to turn what I said into that. I only ever said that cosmetic enhancements can engender some level of popularity. There is a HUGE difference.
My definition is one that is widely accepted to be accurate. There is some dissension over whether certain things are really pay to win or not. Temporary EXP boosters in an MMO, or allowing people to buy the same items with real money as the ones that can be obtained in game. Some say pay to win, some don't. What I've never heard described as pay to win are superficial cosmetic items. Nobody but you is trying to include every single micro-transaction in the world under the pay to win umbrella. You try to make me look like the unreasonable one here by claiming that I am ignorantly dismissing your position for no reason other than that it differs from mine, when that clearly isn't the case. That is both disrespectful and makes your own position look weaker.
Your definition is widely accepted by people whom you know and are not willing to point out the flaw to you. That in no way means that it is &#8220;Widely accepted&#8221; in the conventional meaning. Even your paragraph above has qualifications and exceptions. I did above restate my position that my main complaint was with Micro-transactions rather than just Pay to win, but now that we are into it, there are HUGE flaws in your logic on the definition of Pay to win. In short even if you do pay, you don&#8217;t win every time even using your loose and spurious definition of &#8216;win&#8217;. Therefore, NO. your definition is in no way definitive.
Win does not mean 'get to the game over screen', nobody has claimed that in this thread, nobody has even implied it. You can win a battle against a monster in an MMO. You can conquer a dungeon. You can win a 1v1 match against another player. You can win a clan war. You can finish a quest. These are examples of 'winning' that don't require that the MMO display a 'The End' screen. What was the point of this?
You can win a popularity contest?
Let me re-state my position, since you seem to want to hinge your argument on semantics. Winning does not imply an ending to the entire game. Winning a certain aspect of a game does not necessitate an end to the entire game. Games can include more than one thing for you to win, or accomplish, without actually ending the game.

I already gave some examples of how you can 'win' in an MMO. Even though MMO's don't have your typical defined win conditions that produce the game over screen, there are generally goals in the game - there is a main quest line, there are side quests, there are achievements to be earned, there are end game dungeons to be conquered, there are specific 'best of class' items to be obtained, there are pvp systems, etc. These are the things that consume the majority of people time while playing MMO's, these are activities the developers created for you to do. These are what you win at.
Fair enough. Up until this post, you hadn&#8217;t made that clear. Yet still I will point out that merely paying money won&#8217;t guarantee you a &#8216;win&#8217; in any of the scenarios you indicate. Therefore &#8216;Pay to win&#8217; is at minimum a misnomer.
Having fun is always a goal of any game. Like I said before, it often comes along with winning. But they are not synonymous, for the simple fact that you can have fun while losing too. If your only goal in a game is to have fun and you want to call that a win, well go for it. Just don't expect anyone else to understand you. I don't see 'having fun' anywhere in that dictionary definition you posted.
It&#8217;s a game. If you don&#8217;t call having fun a win, you really REALLY need to get a life.
It is possible to pay money for 'pay to win' items and still lose. The fact that you even ask this means you aren't actually reading and understanding what people are telling you, or you are intentionally being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. I'll not continue this any further if you continue to show no attempt to actually process and understand what I've said.
So in other words, it isn&#8217;t &#8220;Pay to win&#8221; it is &#8220;Pay to advantage&#8221; and any &#8220;Logical&#8221; arguments that you say refute my claims are not based on logic because the statement itself is inaccurate? Got it.

Sorry folks for the wall of text.

Edit: removed some of the snarkiness. This isn't intended to be a flame. Sorry I got carried away folks.
 
Last edited:

Mushkins

Golden Member
Feb 11, 2013
1,631
0
0
I have zero problems with pay to play, in fact I prefer it. It gives all players an even playing field, and acts as a filter of sorts to keep out a considerable amount of RMT bots, griefers, and people who don't invest themselves in the game. It also gives the players a little more leverage in how the game is handled by the developers and a higher expectation of support and quality customer service.

Free to play often does become Pay to Win, as you've already won the players over on the idea of a cash shop being integral to the game. Free to play's also very frequently have sub par support from the developers. I have no problem with paying for things like XP boosters and the like, because once you get to the level cap you're once again on the same playing field as everyone else, and I'm the first person to say "take my money" when it comes to purely cosmetic cash shop items. It's situations where you can (or need to) buy your way into the competitive top-end of the game where it all goes downhill. Imagine the shitstorm that would follow if Blizzard decided to make top tier gear purchasable from the microtx store? At that point why are you playing the game at all anymore, just buy the best stuff you can and you're more or less done.
 

Mandres

Senior member
Jun 8, 2011
944
58
91
That's my point $100-180 per year is far too expensive. $60 12 months is the model I want to see.

do the math $40-60 for the game then another $60 for the year. That's $100 and a tidy sum of money if you get 1/2 a million doing it.

Seriously? I spend $100-$180 in a night if I go out for dinner/drinks/to the movies.

For the amount of hours of entertainment a good MMO provides $15/mo. is an absolute steal...

I am not trying to separate Games that are pay to win from transactions that are pay to win. I am saying, have been saying all along that micro-transactions are micro-transactions. Period. I am not sure why YOU are trying to separate one type of micro-transaction from another.

Everyone who plays these games understands that there is a fundamental difference between pay-2-win microtransactions and non pay-2-win microtransactions. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse/trolling or if you really don't understand the difference?

All MMOs are competitive games at heart, even PvE ones. If the game sells items/stat upgrades/other content that gives paying players an advantage in that competition then that game is a pay-to-win game utilizing pay-2-win microtransactions.

Costumes, pets, cosmetic crap that does not offer a power advantage (and no, your "I look cooler so I'm more likely to get help" example doesn't hold water) are not pay-2-win microtransactions.

It's an objective term, and not subject to your own person interpretation. You sound like a troll when you try to change the definition of objective terms to argue your points.
 
Last edited: