gaming Pay to Win in Gaming

[Mez 244]

 

I made an error in my title and statement, so I will correct myself. I don't like it if I must pay to win a game, that's really unfair to low income gamers, a true game doesn't need to do this if they say F2P. I'm sorry if I made that error in saying p2p, I just lost my words.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Mezcass

[Codelyy 1,289]

Though i do dislike having to pay to play... for example is how i really want to play wow but since i can't pay £10 a month, it's a problem.

 

But i must say that having to pay to play hasn't really bothered me or made me annoyed. Yea i guess most people would love to just pay once and then play the full game forever but for games like wow... They have to charge a subscription to be able to keep everything working such as their servers. It don't come cheap sadly.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,803]

While I don't think MMO's are worth the money at all, them having these continual fees is understandable. Having servers to accommodate such huge player amounts and things within this world, that costs quite a bit. 

 

The sad part now is that companies are finding other greedy tactics to make us keep paying more for non-MMO games. Season passes, micro-transactions (which don't bother me if done right) and cutting content for DLC, these things are nearly just as bad as a constant subscription fee. 

[Rainblow H. Ash 5,091]

No one's forcing you to play these games, pay subscriptions, or buy DLC. They can charge whatever they want. They'll stop charging money for subscriptions and mini-DLCs when consumers stop buying them. At that point, they won't turn a profit from those tactics and have to find some other way to make money.

[KirbyFluttershy 2,523]

Well That can be a problem because obviously MMORPGs like Final Fantasy XI and XIV are pay 2 play and square-enix needs the money to keep what they have including online services.

 

Some Games like Maple Story is just made for free-2-play although most people find the game to be pay-2-win, but I believe that nexon is cutting that off to make things fair for others although i'm not 100% sure on that.

 

Pay-2-play games and MMORPGs doesn't give players advantage. It's all about fun and experiencing the game, having the players to teach you well, be strategic at certain battles, and get along with players. Like me, Final Fantasy XI has taught me well than what maple story taught me although what Maple story Taught me was nothing compared to What final fantasy XI taught me.

 

Final Fantasy XI has fairness in drops, but whenever we kill a mob or NM (notorious monsters), the items that the mobs drop will go to the treasure pool and then you can lot on that reserved item and gear.

 

As of Maple Story, well What i do find in that game is unfair and frustrating. Economy is pretty much bad since most items are expensive and there are no ways to make money and of course whenever you go with people for bossing, well some people keep the drops for themselves for greedy reasons and Some may be nice and fair to others with the items drops as long as you loot 1 item when you're going bossing like hard magnus and chaos root abyss.

 

Each and Every MMORPGs has their own pros and cons so you may wanna go through some gameplay videos or read some of the players reviews and check them out and see if they're worth playing.

 

What I do Know is that final fantasy XI and XIV are pay-2-play, and comes with the monthly fees, and Maple Story, well it may be free-2-play although it's still pay-2-win.

 

I don't dislike pay-2-play games even if it means to try it them out once and see if I liked the game or not.

[Jon the VGNerd 887]

Microtransactions. They're everywhere.

 

From MMOs to F2P games because devs want your money, literally.

 

Except some good F2P games like Team Fortress 2. You get free items depending on how well you perform.

[1111 1,284]

MMO's need to a subscription $60 for the game isn't enough to keep it running.

[SFyr 1,982]

Here's the thing about people wanting your money: they'll make games or provide you with a service to get it. No money means virtually no games; while some companies handle transactions and costs better than others, it still generally serves the purpose of keeping the company alive and willing to do more, take a chance with a new idea, or support games that were successful/profitable.

 

It's already been mentioned, but running servers and paying staff assigned to mmos already out costs a good bit of money. Subscriptions are sometimes just the most sensible course of action. Other times, microtransactions allow your audience to choose how much they want to invest in the game instead of giving a specific amount. DLC is also better viewed as stuff that either would never exist, or does exist solely because the creators thought enough people would be interested enough in adding to their experience to pay a little more to financially justify the effort. Businesses are not evil. they're practical, and motivated by money.

[Mez 244]

  On 2015-10-27 at 5:16 AM, SFyr said:

Here's the thing about people wanting your money: they'll make games or provide you with a service to get it. No money means virtually no games; while some companies handle transactions and costs better than others, it still generally serves the purpose of keeping the company alive and willing to do more, take a chance with a new idea, or support games that were successful/profitable.

 

It's already been mentioned, but running servers and paying staff assigned to mmos already out costs a good bit of money. Subscriptions are sometimes just the most sensible course of action. Other times, microtransactions allow your audience to choose how much they want to invest in the game instead of giving a specific amount. DLC is also better viewed as stuff that either would never exist, or does exist solely because the creators thought enough people would be interested enough in adding to their experience to pay a little more to financially justify the effort. Businesses are not evil. they're practical, and motivated by money.

Not entirely true, content doesn't make them that much money, the games themselves are more than enough. But me having a low income, this problem really affects me and others. I know they need the money, but charging too much for something that isn't worth it is too risky.

[Guest]

I have no problem with pay to play. Games where there is a subscription fee that is going to the continual growth of content for the game are acceptable. It also weeds out shit players because a paywall will discourage cheaters. People are less likely to cheat if they have to pay to start over again. So long as the subscription fee is reasonable, I am okay with that. Pay to play is not really the issue here...

 

It's pay to WIN that is the issue. Games that advertise themselves as free to play but have pay options that give you unfair advantages are my problem. If everyone pays and is on a level playing field, that's all fine. However when people have the option to pay and put themselves in an unfair advantage is where I draw the line.

[Mez 244]

  On 2015-10-27 at 1:39 PM, Key Sharkz said:

I have no problem with pay to play. Games where there is a subscription fee that is going to the continual growth of content for the game are acceptable. It also weeds out shit players because a paywall will discourage cheaters. People are less likely to cheat if they have to pay to start over again. So long as the subscription fee is reasonable, I am okay with that. Pay to play is not really the issue here...

 

It's pay to WIN that is the issue. Games that advertise themselves as free to play but have pay options that give you unfair advantages are my problem. If everyone pays and is on a level playing field, that's all fine. However when people have the option to pay and put themselves in an unfair advantage is where I draw the line.

I did mean pay to win, just didn't have the right words for it.

[SFyr 1,982]

@, by content, do you mean DLC specifically, or...?

Either way, that "more than enough" tends to go to the salary for the large number of people making games/content, and support the company through their development of other games months/years before they're marketable. If they did just enough to get by, one wrong move could crash the company, but honestly if that was the case a lot of people would be less willing to get into game creation. They need sizable overall profits. 

 

Also, DLC is pretty big in earning power sometimes, and keeps people interested in a game.
Also there's this bit from another source.

  Quote

 

Rockstar has a history of making pretty captivating story mode DLCs for the GTA game. Therefore, if this new update comes out soon, GTA gamers should be on cloud nine since it will mean big enhancements with regards to the game mode.

GTA 5 is one of the most important installments of the entire GTA series; it has sold more than 54 million copies of the game. Impressive, right? Just two months ago, GTA 5 had 52 million orders of the game, which is a pretty significant increase in a fairly short amount of time. Take-Two Interactive made this information public: GameSpot quotes the following: “Overall, Take-Two revenue rose by 142 percent to $366.4 million, compared to $151.6 million during the same period last year. The company posted an overall profit of $34.2 million for the quarter, which was much better than the $11.2 million net loss that Take-Two last recorded last year.” GTA 5, along with the GTA Online version of the game, generated this profit.

The orders of GTA 5 have increased significantly because fans heard about the changes that occurred in the game – we are referring here to the additional new automobiles, a nice selection of practical tools, and cool weapons. As you can see, there are some pretty exciting things to look forward to.

I wish I had clearer sources for this, but yeah. DLC makes a difference, and sometimes it makes good business sense to create it.

[Mez 244]

  On 2015-10-27 at 1:44 PM, SFyr said:

@, by content, do you mean DLC specifically, or...?

Either way, that "more than enough" tends to go to the salary for the large number of people making games/content, and support the company through their development of other games months/years before they're marketable. If they did just enough to get by, one wrong move could crash the company, but honestly if that was the case a lot of people would be less willing to get into game creation. They need sizable overall profits. 

 

Also, DLC is pretty big in earning power sometimes, and keeps people interested in a game.

Also there's this bit from another source.

I wish I had clearer sources for this, but yeah. DLC makes a difference, and sometimes it makes good business sense to create it.

I was corrected, and changed my topic to the correct one, sorry for the confusion. But as for the content keeping us interested? That only works half the time, cause once people play it for a few hours, it loses its appeal and falls flat, but I do enjoy them sometimes, but not if they push the p2w on us.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Mezcass

[SFyr 1,982]

@, alright, haha. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.   "Pay to play" is hugely different than "pay to win;" which I agree is just a terrible/immoral strategy for making money. 

[Mez 244]

  On 2015-10-27 at 1:50 PM, SFyr said:

@, alright, haha. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.   "Pay to play" is hugely different than "pay to win;" which I agree is just a terrible/immoral strategy for making money. 

I'm a ditz when it comes to making topics, but I do learn.

The worst offender in my opinion is Wartune, those that pay have the huge advantage, too much actually. Options such as more stat bonuses, getting higher equipment early, things of that nature. If you have any other games that cross the line, let me know so I can avoid them.

[SFyr 1,982]

@, no shame.  Like I said, if we're talking pay to win, I'm definitely on your side there of it just being a bad/unfair strategy overall.

[Sectus 246]

I'm very, very conservative when it comes to my gaming budget despite being a very involved competitive gamer. I don't bother with games that require a monthly subscription fee or recurring payments of any kind. I can still enjoy pay to win games if they are done right, though. Boom Beach, for instance, (bad example, I know) has a system that allows you to purchase upgrades if you feel like it, but doesn't jam them down your throat as a required element for victory.

[Mez 244]

  On 2015-10-27 at 1:56 PM, Sectus said:

I'm very, very conservative when it comes to my gaming budget despite being a very involved competitive gamer. I don't bother with games that require a monthly subscription fee or recurring payments of any kind. I can still enjoy pay to win games if they are done right, though. Boom Beach, for instance, (bad example, I know) has a system that allows you to purchase upgrades if you feel like it, but doesn't jam them down your throat as a required element for victory.

A question if I may? Which game was the worst offender to you?

[Sectus 246]

  On 2015-10-27 at 2:01 PM, Mezcass said:

A question if I may? Which game was the worst offender to you?

 

To be honest, most of the games (at least in the mobile / app market) that I would consider the 'worst offenders' are also the ones that do the worst playerbase wise. They usually aren't unique games, most of the ones I would consider really bad are obvious ripoffs of already existing and more successful games (Clash of Lords, War of Clans, and Star Wars: Commander, for instance). 

 

Perhaps I'm just really good at distancing myself from actually terrible Pay 2 Winz, but most of the worst offenders have just never caught my interest or I've never tried them.

[Xeltor23 704]

I, like, really hate this concept of "pay to win"; I mean, if you make a free game, don't force the players to pay so they always win. I'm not against some privileges for those who pay for bonuses, but to the point of being indispensable, no.

[Mez 244]

I like this game:

 

 

because you only need to pay once and you keep that status for life.

[Speed 33]

This topic piqued my interest since the current gaming industry is saturated with what is loosely described as "P2W" games. The primary reason why pay-to-win games are so prevalent today is because it's a formula that actually works effectively.

 

I dislike such games as well, but unfortunately they exist in copious amounts. I am perfectly fine with paying for subscription-based MMOs or paying a fee upfront to enjoy all the content that the game has to offer. Microtransactions are also acceptable in my book too, as long as they are for cosmetic purposes and do not affect the gameplay. However, in reality, most microtransactions do affect the gameplay, granting paying players with extra benefits/perks or access to exclusive cards/items.

 

These pay-to-win games often come across as a free-to-play game initially, to hook gamers in and entice players to try out the game themselves. After investing a bit of time into these games, you then realise that it's actually pay-to-win, These games capitalise on our inner spirit of competitiveness and this is further boosted by the fact these games are predominantly multiplayer games.

 

It is human nature to strive towards being a better player than others, but if it involves spending obscene amounts of money, then I do not support it. However, as mentioned at the start of this post, it is a business model that works and I have spoken to a few players of some games who have spent thousands and thousands trying to outdo one another. You would think that these people have a large amount of disposable income, however more often that not, this is not the case. Many gave in to temptation as there is an alternative method present which allows you to avoid all the grinding.

 

From experience, I've learnt that it is not worth spending a single cent on these games. They are typically designed to maximise short-term profits and most of the time, the environment becomes too unbalanced and players will eventually leave. I do miss the days when microtransactions were mainly for cosmetic items or speed upgrades. 

 

In conclusion, I am more than willing to pay for a game upfront than play through another pay-to-win game that manipulates their players to spend money in a competitive environment. 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Trigonia

[Sectus 246]

 

 

  On 2015-10-27 at 2:22 PM, Trigonia said:

From experience, I've learnt that it is not worth spending a single cent on these games. They are typically designed to maximise short-term profits and most of the time, the environment becomes too unbalanced and players will eventually leave. I do miss the days when microtransactions were mainly for cosmetic items or speed upgrades. 

 

This is a good reason why people getting angry with Team Fortress 2 confuses me. Sure, they charge for tickets to certain events and make a small profit by charging for items, but 90% of the time those items are purely cosmetic. The few weapons they do charge for don't have any inherent advantage over others - the play style is simply different. With that game, win or lose ratio all depends on how good the individual player is, and how well the team in question cooperates. 

[SilyGeny 369]

Personally I can totally understand the need of having to pay for content, characters or even stuff. But I'm really against that "come here we're free to plaaaaay ! But if you wanna get a good level you'll need to subscribe buy in game money buy in game stuff and even give us your soul because that's the only thing we didn't ask yet :)" (ok that's a bit over the top)

 

The thing I'd like every game (well atleast MMORPGS) to have just a "subscribe for a X time and you'll have full access of the game"

[Mez 244]

  On 2015-10-27 at 4:41 PM, SilyGeny said:

Personally I can totally understand the need of having to pay for content, characters or even stuff. But I'm really against that "come here we're free to plaaaaay ! But if you wanna get a good level you'll need to subscribe buy in game money buy in game stuff and even give us your soul because that's the only thing we didn't ask yet :)" (ok that's a bit over the top)

 

The thing I'd like every game (well atleast MMORPGS) to have just a "subscribe for a X time and you'll have full access of the game"

Adventure Quest is a good example of how to run a game. They only charge once per upgrade, and you get full access to areas you couldn't get to as a free player. I'm a Guardian Status member, but i'm not going for X-Guardian. Sir Torik, Level 70 Dracopyre in the flesh!

Edited October 27, 2015 by Mezcass