www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Saturday, April 06, 2019
What's the minimum payment for Pay2Win?
Somebody calling himself SynCaine, who might or might not have been the blogger Syncaine, had an interesting argument in a comment on my previous post: It matters how much you can pay to have an advantage in a game when we consider whether it is a Pay2Win game. If you get advantages for paying something reasonable, like a subscription to a MMORPG $10-$20 per month, it is okay for you to have advantages over the free players. Especially if paying more than that isn't giving you any more benefits above those other players who paid some sort of virtual subscription. It is if your advantages are continuing, and you could spend hundreds or thousands on a game and still get more and more advantages, that it becomes a "whale game", and really Pay2Win.
I find the idea interesting, because instead of splitting the population in two groups (payers and free riders), it splits it into three groups (whales, subscribers, and free riders). Many of the arguments and horror stories about in-game purchases are about whales or addicts. The idea that a game could have two levels, one for free, the other for $10-$20 per month, and that the paying customers would enjoy some benefit over the non-paying customers, appears a lot more acceptable.
What do you think?
I find the idea interesting, because instead of splitting the population in two groups (payers and free riders), it splits it into three groups (whales, subscribers, and free riders). Many of the arguments and horror stories about in-game purchases are about whales or addicts. The idea that a game could have two levels, one for free, the other for $10-$20 per month, and that the paying customers would enjoy some benefit over the non-paying customers, appears a lot more acceptable.
What do you think?
- posted by Tobold @ 7:33 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
The idea behind pay to win is to have advantage over other - visible - players, so splitting the playerbase would destroy the game. Noone cares if the next guy have the same stuff as i do.
SynCaine has always spelled his name like that, with the capitalization in the middle. You have always left the capitalization out. Doesn't prove it's him, although since you, as the blog owner, can see the email address he used presumably you can check.
Also, SynCaine has long been something of a P2W advocate, provided it's in games that are designed for it and it's well thought out. So it probably is him :)
Also, SynCaine has long been something of a P2W advocate, provided it's in games that are designed for it and it's well thought out. So it probably is him :)
I think it's a reasonable approach. Elder Scrolls Online seems to have evolved into something like that, for example. For a few dollars monthly you get increased inventory and some stuff. In Marvel Puzzle Quest you can invest $2 and get increased rewards for a month. These are at non-whale levels.
P2W, from my point of view, is when someone gains an advantage by virtue of spending money in a game, and gets an otherwise unfair advantage over a player who doesn't spend money.
If a subscription provides the same access to the same content, then anyone paying the subscription has access to the same, level playing field, and the game cannot be considered P2W. If a game offers a subscription -and- offers players the ability to "outspend" another player by virtue of item shops and whatnot, where higher powered items can be bought, then that game should definitely be considered P2W.
I've never heard of a game where "whales" weren't mentioned without a negative connotation attached to how much they spend versus what other players spend in the game. Don't let the implementation of multiple monetization techniques in a game change the definition of terms like P2W, especially when it's because someone "feels better" about spending less than someone who is considered a whale.
If a game is free-to-play, but also has a subscription that provides any advantage over the F2P players, then that game is still P2W. If that same game also has an item shop or micro-transactions that provides an advantage over the F2P -and- the subscription players, the game is still P2W...and will most likely have whales.
Being "Reasonable" has nothing to do with determining the severity of advantage that is bought, no matter how little or how much is spent. The ability to gain any advantage with money is at the heart of the definition of P2W.
If a subscription provides the same access to the same content, then anyone paying the subscription has access to the same, level playing field, and the game cannot be considered P2W. If a game offers a subscription -and- offers players the ability to "outspend" another player by virtue of item shops and whatnot, where higher powered items can be bought, then that game should definitely be considered P2W.
I've never heard of a game where "whales" weren't mentioned without a negative connotation attached to how much they spend versus what other players spend in the game. Don't let the implementation of multiple monetization techniques in a game change the definition of terms like P2W, especially when it's because someone "feels better" about spending less than someone who is considered a whale.
If a game is free-to-play, but also has a subscription that provides any advantage over the F2P players, then that game is still P2W. If that same game also has an item shop or micro-transactions that provides an advantage over the F2P -and- the subscription players, the game is still P2W...and will most likely have whales.
Being "Reasonable" has nothing to do with determining the severity of advantage that is bought, no matter how little or how much is spent. The ability to gain any advantage with money is at the heart of the definition of P2W.
If a subscription provides the same access to the same content, then anyone paying the subscription has access to the same, level playing field, and the game cannot be considered P2W.
Why would anybody pay for a subscription which gives him absolutely nothing different than a free player?
Why would anybody pay for a subscription which gives him absolutely nothing different than a free player?
I was talking about a game like WoW, where everyone(at one time) paid a subscription and had access to the same level playing field as anyone else paying the same subscription.
A subscription funded F2P game could just as easily provide cosmetic items instead of providing a P2W advantage/situation.
I could have sworn this whole debate started(back in the day) because people wanted to whip out their wallet and bypass the kind of grind elements that were in a subscription based game like WoW. But we now realize that whipping out one's wallet is driven by the urge to buy a power advantage instead of any thoughts about saving time.
Weird, That.
A subscription funded F2P game could just as easily provide cosmetic items instead of providing a P2W advantage/situation.
I could have sworn this whole debate started(back in the day) because people wanted to whip out their wallet and bypass the kind of grind elements that were in a subscription based game like WoW. But we now realize that whipping out one's wallet is driven by the urge to buy a power advantage instead of any thoughts about saving time.
Weird, That.
Well, if you take a subscription, aka Premium Account, in World of Tanks you get exactly that "less grind" you were talking about. No advantage in battle, but more credits and xp for the same result in battle. Would that model be okay with you?
My answer is "as soon as you get something free players can't get". If it's something a free player can get after spending time to do so, then its fine - even if it would take a free player years to obtain. But if whatever it is you paid for is not available to free guys ever, then it is pay to win.
I wouldn't consider a game whose only RMT is a subscription with advantages to be P2W, but i also wouldn't allow it to be called free to play either. It's not. It's a subscription game with a free demo.
> If it's something a free player can get after
> spending time to do so, then its fine - even
> if it would take a free player years to obtain.
That wouldn't make much sense, would it? Let's say yo ucan spend $10 to get a shiny piece of gear now... OR pay nothing and get the same piece in 5 years. Let's be honest, who would think this is "fair"?
> spending time to do so, then its fine - even
> if it would take a free player years to obtain.
That wouldn't make much sense, would it? Let's say yo ucan spend $10 to get a shiny piece of gear now... OR pay nothing and get the same piece in 5 years. Let's be honest, who would think this is "fair"?
@Tobold
"Well, if you take a subscription, aka Premium Account, in World of Tanks you get exactly that "less grind" you were talking about. No advantage in battle, but more credits and xp for the same result in battle. Would that model be okay with you?"
No. Because free players will still be pitted against paying players.
But here's a solution that I could stand behind and support: Match free players only against other free players, and match Premium Account players against other Premium Account players - as the default matchmaker setting. But give both groups a toggle/choice that they could select to where they could "opt-in" to being matched alongside other equally tiered players in the matchmaker. Let the Premium Account players continue to earn the same XP and Credits at the same rate they do with the Premium Account bonuses they are paying for, but introduce an equitable reward for the free players if they "opt-in" and perform equally or better than the paying players. The Premium Accounts are still earning the XP and Credit incentives they are paying for, but the free players can also earn the same rewards.
The free players are still grinding their way up the tiers, just against other free players. The Premium players are still earning the same incentives they are paying for, just against other Premiums. If both groups make the active choice to opt-in and battle against each other, then the rewards should be equitable based on performance.
"Well, if you take a subscription, aka Premium Account, in World of Tanks you get exactly that "less grind" you were talking about. No advantage in battle, but more credits and xp for the same result in battle. Would that model be okay with you?"
No. Because free players will still be pitted against paying players.
But here's a solution that I could stand behind and support: Match free players only against other free players, and match Premium Account players against other Premium Account players - as the default matchmaker setting. But give both groups a toggle/choice that they could select to where they could "opt-in" to being matched alongside other equally tiered players in the matchmaker. Let the Premium Account players continue to earn the same XP and Credits at the same rate they do with the Premium Account bonuses they are paying for, but introduce an equitable reward for the free players if they "opt-in" and perform equally or better than the paying players. The Premium Accounts are still earning the XP and Credit incentives they are paying for, but the free players can also earn the same rewards.
The free players are still grinding their way up the tiers, just against other free players. The Premium players are still earning the same incentives they are paying for, just against other Premiums. If both groups make the active choice to opt-in and battle against each other, then the rewards should be equitable based on performance.
Blog author, google seemed to have changed commenting here so it actually works now without eating it 90% of the time.
On topic, I like the term Pay-4-Power (P4P) better than P2W, since in very very few games can you legit buy wins, or enough power to outright win without the skill levels being somewhat even (You can't P2W in MTG for instance, because if you are terrible, a free deck player can still beat someone with top-tier paid cards).
That side, P4P is anytime you can spend money on a cash-exclusive that gives you power. Gold ammo in WoT was a good example until they let free players earn it as well. That's why I say games like League of Legends aren't P4P games; buying a new champ with cash doesn't get you something a free play can also get. Only thing buying champs gets you is more champs faster, which is options, not power.
Additionally, not all whale games are P4P. MTG is a massive whale game, but isn't P4P (eventually you can earn/trade for any card). A good example of a P4P whale MMO is any game with a crafting system where there is a chance to blow the item up, and that chance gets higher the more powerful the enchant. If you can buy the item or chance to enchant in the store, its P4P, and whale city. Original Lineage had this way back in the day, as did Atlantic Online (no idea about now).
On topic, I like the term Pay-4-Power (P4P) better than P2W, since in very very few games can you legit buy wins, or enough power to outright win without the skill levels being somewhat even (You can't P2W in MTG for instance, because if you are terrible, a free deck player can still beat someone with top-tier paid cards).
That side, P4P is anytime you can spend money on a cash-exclusive that gives you power. Gold ammo in WoT was a good example until they let free players earn it as well. That's why I say games like League of Legends aren't P4P games; buying a new champ with cash doesn't get you something a free play can also get. Only thing buying champs gets you is more champs faster, which is options, not power.
Additionally, not all whale games are P4P. MTG is a massive whale game, but isn't P4P (eventually you can earn/trade for any card). A good example of a P4P whale MMO is any game with a crafting system where there is a chance to blow the item up, and that chance gets higher the more powerful the enchant. If you can buy the item or chance to enchant in the store, its P4P, and whale city. Original Lineage had this way back in the day, as did Atlantic Online (no idea about now).
>> If it's something a free player can get after
>> spending time to do so, then its fine - even
>> if it would take a free player years to obtain.
> That wouldn't make much sense, would it? Let's say yo ucan spend $10 to get a shiny > piece of gear now... OR pay nothing and get the same piece in 5 years. Let's be
> honest, who would think this is "fair"?
As someone who never pays for games / game content, I do (I live off free to plays and games gifted to me). Regardless, you'll often find paying players always have a whole section of goods that "free to players" never have access to, which is much less "fair" than my original answer.
>> spending time to do so, then its fine - even
>> if it would take a free player years to obtain.
> That wouldn't make much sense, would it? Let's say yo ucan spend $10 to get a shiny > piece of gear now... OR pay nothing and get the same piece in 5 years. Let's be
> honest, who would think this is "fair"?
As someone who never pays for games / game content, I do (I live off free to plays and games gifted to me). Regardless, you'll often find paying players always have a whole section of goods that "free to players" never have access to, which is much less "fair" than my original answer.
It's not the payment itself that defines P2W, but rather what's on offer. Gold ammo packs for 0.01$ are a lot more egregious than a 15$ sub that offers simple convenience.
I am, and always have been, a supporter of the "Subscription format."
"Free to play" is an oxymoron. If you're not paying, then you're in DEMO MODE and not getting the actual game experience as intended.
"Pay2Win" is when crooked people run games and allow even those who subscribe to pay even more to get an unfair advantage over the other players who have subscribed.
The subscription should be the max you can pay. Period. No extras! Not even "cosmetic items" because those then just become fodder for the RMT market, and an excuse to have some retarded "currency" you can use to pay your sub with.
Post a Comment
"Free to play" is an oxymoron. If you're not paying, then you're in DEMO MODE and not getting the actual game experience as intended.
"Pay2Win" is when crooked people run games and allow even those who subscribe to pay even more to get an unfair advantage over the other players who have subscribed.
The subscription should be the max you can pay. Period. No extras! Not even "cosmetic items" because those then just become fodder for the RMT market, and an excuse to have some retarded "currency" you can use to pay your sub with.
<< Home
