That's not exactly right, it isn't that simple. Pay to Win is one of the worst ways to go about a game, not only does it make the game matches unfair, it also damages their reputation too. Games should be fair, not give a huge gap of an advantage to paying players. This only creates unbalance. I only had to pay once for a lifetime account upgrade, not constantly pay for items from a cash shop, that's the difference between a P2W and a F2P game. Some items are for guardians and X-guardians, and are not expensive like other games, I only paid $25 to be a guardian status. There are no time hastening items, or huge advantages, only locations, exclusive guardian-only items. A free player can rival a guardian with most free items, there's no real gap between them. But In AQW(Adventure Quest Worlds), it seems to be drifting toward P2W, Adventure quest is the only one of their games that doesn't involve that issue. Most of the game is just PvM, player vs Monster, nothing more.[/QUOTE] That's not exactly right, it isn't that simple. Pay to Win is one of the worst ways to go about a game, not only does it make the game matches unfair, it also damages their reputation too. Games should be fair, not give a huge gap of an advantage to paying players. This only creates unbalance. I only had to pay once for a lifetime account upgrade, not constantly pay for items from a cash shop, that's the difference between a P2W and a F2P game. Some items are for guardians and X-guardians, and are not expensive like other games, I only paid $25 to be a guardian status. There are no time hastening items, or huge advantages, only locations, exclusive guardian-only items. A free player can rival a guardian with most free items, there's no real gap between them. But In AQW(Adventure Quest Worlds), it seems to be drifting toward P2W, Adventure quest is the only one of their games that doesn't involve that issue. Most of the game is just PvM, player vs Monster, nothing more.[/QUOTE] Could you just, be like, "find somebody that's your own size?".Find a player that doesn't pay also?and let the rich people play with each other? While I dislike P2W games very much, I'm actually quite okay with spending a little patience to grind.The Sims FreePlay is a quite good example. BUT DEVS ARENT GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING I COULD TELL YOU THAT!
@Diamond Just because you have access to items through cash that you don't otherwise have access to with in-game currency doesn't make a game Pay to Win. Notably, cosmetic variants of items sold for cash are really not pay to win. ie. NS-7 PDW (Common pool weapon available for currency and cash). NS-7B PDW (Cosmetic variant available only through cash). NS-7G PDW (Cosmetic variant available only through cash, costs more than black variant). Outside of visual appearance, these weapons are identical. Also, I disagree that something like an EXP boost is Pay to Win. It's Pay to go Faster. Beyond achieving level cap faster, it doesn't really provide tangible benefit. Realistically, it doesn't provide any means of achieving things that would not otherwise be doable, outside of accelerating how quickly it can be done. (This is of course within bounds of reason, things like Dungeon Keeper mobile are an obvious exception to this rule. EXP/whatever boosts of 5-15% are reasonable. Rate boosts of some 5000% are not.)
My feelings on paying for extra content are plastic to how it's executed. If it's merely a "pay to unlock aesthetic changes" kind of deal, such as costumes and cooler looking weapons etc. then I don't have a problem with that, especially if the game's free-to-play to begin with. After all, it's very common for freeware developers to offer a paid alternative that includes a bunch of bells and whistles that aren't strictly necessary, but that some folks may be perfectly willing to pay for. Now, when it comes to hiding the best equipment in the game behind a pay wall, I'm very much against that. Sure, you can make the unpaid version of the best equipment very hard to obtain and/or dorky looking, but IMO it shouldn't be made totally inaccessible without forking over some cash. As for players being given the choice of XP boosts to bypass grinding...well, I don't have a problem with such a feature existing so much as I have a problem with the mentality behind those who would utilize it. Why even play an RPG-style game in the first place if you don't enjoy working up to the next level? That's kind of the whole appeal of a level system - watching that XP count build, eagerly waiting for it to pass the next threshold so that you can allocate points to building stats, perhaps even learn a new technique, all that good stuff. If grinding isn't for you, then RPGs probably aren't for you. Imagine how that sort of thing would work in platformers. For only $2.99, you can: -Remove all pitfalls and instant-death spikes from each stage! -Reduce the number of enemies in each stage! -Access alternative routes through each stage to bypass obstacles! -Unlock weapons that can one-shot any enemy, even bosses! -Unlock armor that makes you nigh invincible! -BECOME UNTO A GOD! Kinda defeats the purpose of playing a platformer, doesn't it?
@Diamond Never said they should do what we say, I meant that they should make games be fair to everyone who plays them. While some items may be useful, other will not. One example being this: paying player gets equipment that completely makes them surpass or makes them OP compared to others players. Paying for items not only makes the player lazy, but they don't actually earn their level and experience the proper way through hard work.
Back in the day, Spiral Knights (one of my personal favorite games to play on my toaster of a laptop) was notorious for this, as many people spent a lot of money getting 4 - 5* gear just so they could be overpowered from the get-go and breeze through it like it's nothing, even though they just began the game itself. Nowadays, the developers of the game cracked down on that, with many people breathing a sigh of relief, as it was ridiculous seeing Apprentices (next-to-last lowest rank) running around with the gear many Vanguards (highest rank currently) should be donning. The point of the game itself is to work your way up, not only in strength and power, but in rank, as well. I've only bought into the game's promotions here and there, because I run a guild hall and it is paramount I maintain the upkeep by selling many cosmetics and whatnot from the prize boxes in the promotions. I have no quarrals with people who do that, but I'm just saying it kind of ruins the point of the game (and even other games), as if you're already in end-game gear... what's the point of even continuing onward if you can mow through everything, or prove 'unbeatable' to other players? - - Regarding the topic itself, I've had my share of experiences of games like that, and even heard what others had experienced with it. The one thing I hate about pay-to-win, in general, is that other players who are "free-to-play" are always held at a disadvantage due to it, because the other party has gear that makes them far superior to them in every way. While some developers have tried their best to ensure their game isn't P2W, it sometimes just isn't enough, and it brings about more issues, such as toxicity and even discrimination. I've seen people who are strictly-P2W that literally harass or make fun of other players who are F2P, because "they'll never be as good as they are", or "never get to their level anytime soon". It's why some players just forgo the game entirely, as they're not only getting bullied, but it also forces them into thinking the game praises "pay-to-win" individuals. I've played Spiral Knights for 3.5 years now, but managed to work my way up to the top, over time. Sure, you can spend money and try to eliminate the grinding/farming problem, but in the end... it would make me feel like I didn't do anything to make what I wanted, whether it's a weapon, shield, armor, or trinket. I'm used to grinding on games, to be honest, which is why it never bothers me. Back in the day, it used to rely on you doing non-stop runs to build up a large amount of the in-game currency (crowns) to purchase Crystal Energy, which would allow you to advance one your items to another level if you had enough of it. While the grinding aspect is still around, it has been heavily-reduced, as the items needed to forge on can be dropped from treasure boxes and whatnot now, instead of having to buy them.
Yeah, I think so too. But there are games that still exploit players for money cause they know the players won't think twice about buying them. That itself is a poor mindset to have.
Yeah, cosmetic optional upgrades that don't affect player-to-player interactions in any mechanical way that would alter the outcome of a gameplay interaction are pretty much safe. I tend to be on the fence about them for other reasons, but they certainly aren't pay-to-win.
For a game that has no other source of revenue, propose an alternative that still satisfies the free-to-play model.
I don't understand. I agreed with you. I thought what you said was right. But it sounds like you're disagreeing with me. Please clarify.
Making the game actually free. It's not exactly a sound business practice, but not everyone who makes games is in it for the money.
The point is to make sure every player has equal chance at winning, but also it's not the game's fault it's like that, it's the developers or person who came up with that system that needs a wake up call. Making a game isn't about profit, it's also about your customers, any person who does not consider that should not be a game maker. Taking feedback and taking notes is important too, that way you can fix the game and any future problems that may arise. Free games enable people to make better games, same as the P2P. Different people have different opinions, but nobody is wrong or right.
This is simply not an option for MMOs, or hosted multiplayer games as a whole. Hosting game servers on a large scale is massively expensive. It was more in reference to the 'on the fence' bit. There's really not that much alternative that still is free to play.
True; however, my feelings about which action is best to take are not the same as my overall feelings about the content of those actions. I may simultaneously acknowledge the effectiveness of a preferable business model while still not enjoying the fact that it is the best working alternative.
