PDA

View Full Version : Why SHOULDN'T free to play games be pay to win?



Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 12:40 PM
A f2p game costs money to run online.

Said game provides advantages that cost real life cash monies so game can continue and be supported by those who like it most.

People who pay, win a little more often.

People who don't pay but who put time in to be good at game, win also.

People who spend more time complaining in forums it takes too long to unlock x-item or level up or whatever and waste their time and don't get good at game, cry online and are never willing to pay for or support game to gain advantage.

So, I ask again why shouldn't a F2P game, be P2W also?

It's not fair players cry? IMO I think it's pretty fair they get to join in, for free.

/semi-troll-topic-but-also-serious

(also, I'm predicting a correlation between those who justify piracy on these forums and cry about pay 2 win games)

Alex Bakke
11-09-2012, 12:43 PM
Ooooh. Contentious!

'Morals' aside, I'd imagine that it would be bad for business. If you made it clearly pay to win, you'd just alienate everyone who's not willing to pay, who might otherwise want to pay for cool hats, banners, camouflage etc.

Skull
11-09-2012, 12:49 PM
A online game has to be well balanced before I even consider playing it. Pay2Win is not that. Is this a joke thread?

NathanH
11-09-2012, 12:52 PM
In a competitive game, I'd want the winner to usually be the one who is better at the game rather than the one who has more money lying around. It's this undermining of the competitive integrity of the game that makes me suspicious of pay to win.

TechnicalBen
11-09-2012, 12:53 PM
Why shouldn't we punch you in the face repeatedly? Same reason people don't like pay to win. Think about that...

Winged Nazgul
11-09-2012, 01:01 PM
Because as inveterate nerds, we respect those who can waste the most time playing a game, not those who can spend the most money on it.

pakoito
11-09-2012, 01:03 PM
Chess F2P: pay $10 to make any pawn into a queen, or get a 8-pack for $60

Gorzan
11-09-2012, 01:05 PM
because if you are going to make paying a need, you'd better give the game a pricetag and give everyone a chance.

Sic
11-09-2012, 01:06 PM
"Why shouldn't everyone be able to use whatever drug they want in sports?"

Feldspar
11-09-2012, 01:08 PM
Depends on how 'pay-to-win' it is. If a game is 'pay-to-advance' quicker, then that is the decision of the players, but if you are completing directly against other players and by paying they gain such an advantage that makes it pointless to try and compete you'll just lose players.

Why not have just have a free 'introduction' part of the game and then a small charge for people who want to play more, it's much more honest about payments.

Winged Nazgul
11-09-2012, 01:09 PM
"Why shouldn't everyone be able to use whatever drug they wanted in sports?"

Only if they made the drugs themselves. Buying the drugs means they are losers.

Tikey
11-09-2012, 01:17 PM
Because you alienate new customers who might be inclined to pay for stuff in your game later down the road.

Nalano
11-09-2012, 01:22 PM
Because it's a terrible product.

A multiplayer game's selling point is the other players. Except there's no incentive for non-paying players to stick around, as game balance has been thrown out the window. They're quite literally used as marketing fodder for paying players. And who the fuck wants that? The heart of a game should be to have fun. If I wanted only the top 1% to have fun, I have real life for that.

Mohorovicic
11-09-2012, 01:23 PM
So, I ask again why shouldn't a F2P game, be P2W also?

Because as it's been proven time and time again people are lazy, stupid, vain and/or gullible enough to pay for elements of a free game that don't give them any advantages whatsoever.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Wrongshui
11-09-2012, 01:23 PM
Pay to win isn't fun for those who haven't paid pretty much, negates the whole free part.

Kadayi
11-09-2012, 01:44 PM
snip

Cost of living varies across countries, but costs in game don't. People who live in countries with high cost of living therefore have an economic advantage over players from countries lower on the pecking order.

When I was a nipper I used to play a PBM game called 'It's a crime' and invariably it was a case that the end game winners would always turn out to be Scandinavian players because they could afford to run multiple accounts within the same game (which wasn't against the rules) because the overheads for them were marginal Vs people like myself who could only afford to run one account. Once it became clear that the game was essentially rigged for the wealthy the incentive to play rapidly diminished.

Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 02:13 PM
Would you guys be interested in a game that set paying customers against non paying customers?

Where paying bourgeoisie customers are less in number but capable of, ummm, soloing more and none paying proletariat customers have to work together to take down their wealthier opponents?

Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 02:13 PM
Why shouldn't we punch you in the face repeatedly? Same reason people don't like pay to win. Think about that...

You can do that as long as you call me mommy and suck my dick

Nalano
11-09-2012, 02:16 PM
Would you guys be interested in a game that set paying customers against non paying customers?

Where paying bourgeoisie customers are less in number but capable of, ummm, soloing more and none paying proletariat customers have to work together to take down their wealthier opponents?

No.

10characters

squirrel
11-09-2012, 02:17 PM
Pay-to-Win feels like Bribe-to-Win. Kids here playing Counter-Strike: Online seem to be educated to perceive that money can buy power (I said "perceive" because sadly, they are not wrong).

Game should always serve its very first purpose: education and training. If you want to win, train-up yourself for better knowledge and skills. This is how our society progress. If you want to win in multiplayer shooter, study the maps to understand which locations give you vantage points. What combination of weapons best suits you, and so on.

Plus, such model acts as disincentive for developing new contents.

Sakkura
11-09-2012, 02:20 PM
Would you guys be interested in a game that set paying customers against non paying customers?

Where paying bourgeoisie customers are less in number but capable of, ummm, soloing more and none paying proletariat customers have to work together to take down their wealthier opponents?
Sounds like something out of a dystopian movie from the 80s.

Berzee
11-09-2012, 02:28 PM
I suggest a game where paying customers get horses and hounds and hunt the free players for sport.
I suggest this game be made by Big Robot.

But rly: if (for the sake of argument) you're going to make a game where monies can make you more powerful, it should at least be a setting where that makes some sense. It gets doubly silly if you have a game where paying to win means paying to boost your strength or dexterity or whatnot. It might seem a little less silly on the surface if each player controls an Evil Industrialist Empire or something, and paying real money is another way to build that empire. It would still be terrible game design, but on an atmospheric level, not quite so ridiculous as the games where wealth buys you "character perks".

pakoito
11-09-2012, 02:47 PM
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/217509588_ZSzik-L-2.jpg

Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 03:00 PM
Well I was thinking of something along the lines of Necromunda (old GamesWorkshop game) where gangs were pitted against each other in the 40k universe, but there were also rich 'spire kiddies' whose mommies and daddies bought them space marine power armour to go around killing the underclasses.

Still my secret white observation from the OP proved valid...

gundato
11-09-2012, 03:10 PM
Quite.

Right now, I think that any "pay to win" will be treated as pure evil. Just like people used to think Steam was pure evil.

That being said, something similar to (or, really, including) the Blacklight model should be perfect. You can theoretically unlock almost everything through a LOT of playing. But you can also pay a few bucks to get a X-hour boost or better equipment (the aforementioned power armour).

Tweak it to allow in-game credits to be converted into money-dollars (or whatever) at a certain rate, and I think such a system would work perfectly. Don't make it TOO powerful though. I never played Necromunda, but usually you have point limits on armies in "real" 40k. So still apply an overall point limit for a match. It would definitely open new tactical options for clans. Is it better to spend a few bucks to trick out a team member, or should they all go in with low point gear:

Alright Wildcats, we are going up against a tough team. We could field 5 guys with medium armor, or 2 guys with medium, 1 guy with light, and 1 with heavy and a gatling gun. Or we can go with 3 medium and a light with a cloak if Jimmy doesn't mind spending a few bucks. Hey Fred, what do we know about The Ducks? How do they usually roll?


People will argue that is a sidegrade, but if the heavy is sufficiently heavy, it definitely can be viewed as an advantage. And cloak is pretty overpowered in any game, so that is definitely an upgrade.

But I don't think something like Penny Arcade's hellgate exaggeration will ever fly.

applecup
11-09-2012, 04:30 PM
Would you guys be interested in a game that set paying customers against non paying customers?

Where paying bourgeoisie customers are less in number but capable of, ummm, soloing more and none paying proletariat customers have to work together to take down their wealthier opponents?

"The Revolution: The Game"?

Dominic Tarason
11-09-2012, 04:32 PM
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/217509588_ZSzik-L-2.jpg

The irony here is that when the game finally came out, subscribers basically got fuck-all. Some extra convenience stuff, but that's about it. Those who bought the lifetime subscription got screwed twice as hard. It was the free players who got the best deal in the end. Even moreso now, as the game is fully F2P and even got the full Stonehenge, Abyss and Tokyo expansions.

Nalano
11-09-2012, 05:30 PM
The irony here is that when the game finally came out, subscribers basically got fuck-all. Some extra convenience stuff, but that's about it. Those who bought the lifetime subscription got screwed twice as hard. It was the free players who got the best deal in the end. Even moreso now, as the game is fully F2P and even got the full Stonehenge, Abyss and Tokyo expansions.

Only further proving that F2P is the deathknell of the game.

Bobtree
11-09-2012, 06:09 PM
Simplest answer to OP: because I won't play it.

deano2099
11-09-2012, 06:17 PM
The faulty assumption in the original post is that winning the game is the fun bit.

If you let people pay for advantages, they're also spoiling it for themselves by making it easy to win (and they'll never know if they won through skill or money).

Yes, some people enjoy 'pwning noobs' but... they generally grow out of it. Make a game that's fun to play, win or lose, and pay-to-win makes zero sense.

Nalano
11-09-2012, 06:26 PM
The faulty assumption in the original post is that winning the game is the fun bit.

I remember APB, which was a P2W game from the get-go with the RMT system, and the imbalances were completely aggravating and ultimately game-breaking that mere losing or winning could not fully encompass.

It wasn't that you lost to the guy. It's that you never had a chance, no matter how long you played or how much better you were than the other guy. It's that the game logged this and kept record to show you what you could have accomplished if you had only spent that extra hundred bucks to shortcut three months' progress.

Likewise, it cheapened if you did grind out that progress, because your gear won your matches for you, not your skill. It was WoW's "PST gearscore for invite" on hyperdrive.

r3dknight
11-09-2012, 06:36 PM
cause when the losers quit, the winners will too.
and then there is no game.

Shooop
11-09-2012, 07:19 PM
It's not really a game then. A game is something you win at by being either good at it, or lucky. Pay to win defenestrates that and makes everything into Capitalism: The Game. And that game really sucks unless your parents are rich.

Nalano
11-09-2012, 07:25 PM
And that game really sucks unless your parents are rich.

You just need to gain the support of a prominent local businessman (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bff_1346436925).

TechnicalBen
11-09-2012, 07:55 PM
Chess F2P: pay $10 to make any pawn into a queen, or get a 8-pack for $60

This... THIS!

Koobazaur
11-09-2012, 08:43 PM
In a competitive game, I'd want the winner to usually be the one who is better at the game rather than the one who has more money lying around. It's this undermining of the competitive integrity of the game that makes me suspicious of pay to win.

I was just going to post this. But then I stopped to think of a counter point... what if having money is part of the game? Why can't the rules state that those who have more money are more likely to win? I mean if you think as rules as arbitrary, then it's no different than MMO's "those who have more time will have more loot" (cause they can grind more) or real life sports' "those who were born with better genes will have better chances." Granted, I am not saying P2W games would be successful OR even fun, but I'm just saying you can very well design a game based on finances.

oh wait, we already have a game like that, it's called life :|



Would you guys be interested in a game that set paying customers against non paying customers?

Where paying bourgeoisie customers are less in number but capable of, ummm, soloing more and none paying proletariat customers have to work together to take down their wealthier opponents?


Didn't the Russians play that sometime around 1917? I don't think they won yet...


Chess F2P: pay $10 to make any pawn into a queen, or get a 8-pack for $60

pre-purchase before October 1st and receive day-1 Teleporting-Knight DLC*!

* only available at your local GameStop

Frenetic Pony
11-09-2012, 08:52 PM
I wrote an entire blog post about this, it was decently popular: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JohnathonSwift/20120822/176376/Paying_for_Fun_or_Paying_to_Win.php

Or to summarize: You can win without having fun. But given a choice between "winning and having fun" and "winning faster" you'll tend to choose the "winning faster" option anyway, even if it isn't fun, because that's the way people are wired. "Paying to Win" is the "Winning Faster" option, always. Because the entire point of any game is that it's fun to play and "winning" is always the goal at the end to drive you onwards through the "fun" part. By paying you skip the entire point of the game.

It's why Diablo 3's auction house is a hilarious scam, but also why people use it anyway. It's the reason why people payed others to "play" Farmville for them. It's the equal of buying a few gold medals from Michael Phelps and then claiming you won them.

gundato
11-09-2012, 09:02 PM
I was just going to post this. But then I stopped to think of a counter point... what if having money is part of the game? Why can't the rules state that those who have more money are more likely to win? I mean if you think as rules as arbitrary, then it's no different than MMO's "those who have more time will have more loot" (cause they can grind more) or real life sports' "those who were born with better genes will have better chances." Granted, I am not saying P2W games would be successful OR even fun, but I'm just saying you can very well design a game based on finances.
That's one reason I have been rather disgusted by the Olympics over the past few. On the one hand, I like Phelps as a person (from what little I have seen) and I am sure Usain Bolt is a stand-up guy. On the other hand, they have obscene advantages over their competitors. I don't know what Bolt's deal is, but Phelps is a genetic freak with awkward proportions and improved lung capacity. It still takes a lot of effort, but the equation is

X + Y = Z, where X is amount of time put in, Y is natural ability, and Z is performance. Phelps has a huge Y.

But at the same time, it is true that pretty much all competitive games are Pay To Win as it is. Pretty much all the best players tend to be late teens, early twenties (excluding a few freaks :p) because that is when you have TIME to play. Kids don't have to work, and young adults tend to have free time in the sense that they still have few responsibilities (and most of us are man-children anyway :p).
So by that argument, pay to win makes perfect sense. If someone is willing to pump some money in, why shouldn't they get the same advantages that the kid who can sleep in study hall has?

Because both are about putting your life into a game. If you are willing to grind for hundreds of hours to get a special weapon, fine. If you are willing to spend some of your hard-earned money (clearly I am assuming you aren't a grad student :p) then that should be fine too.

If someone takes joy out of spending some cash to unlock stuff, let them. It is common for people to point out that MMOs don't really start until you reach the level cap anyway, so why not let people skip to that (I think the original Guild Wars did that, but for free)? Most unlock heavy FPSs give an unfair advantage to people who have unlocked the higher damage weapons anyway, so take the EA model and let people buy the unlocks.

Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 09:54 PM
Perhaps the inherent knee jerk reaction to pay to win free to play games, is that they actually mirror the patterns of real life too closely?

deano2099
11-09-2012, 10:01 PM
I was just going to post this. But then I stopped to think of a counter point... what if having money is part of the game? Why can't the rules state that those who have more money are more likely to win?

I honestly think whoever comes up with something like that will make a fortune. Let players spend ridiculous amounts on crazy upgrades, but always leave a small chance for a really, really good player to win regardless. It wouldn't be fun but it'd sell.



Or to summarize: You can win without having fun. But given a choice between "winning and having fun" and "winning faster" you'll tend to choose the "winning faster" option anyway, even if it isn't fun, because that's the way people are wired. "Paying to Win" is the "Winning Faster" option, always. Because the entire point of any game is that it's fun to play and "winning" is always the goal at the end to drive you onwards through the "fun" part. By paying you skip the entire point of the game.
Though most people don't automatically chose the easiest difficulty level in single-player games, so there's more going on there.

Dominic Tarason
11-09-2012, 10:13 PM
Only further proving that F2P is the deathknell of the game.

Getting major new content expansions after going F2P is proof of... what, exactly?

NathanH
11-09-2012, 10:14 PM
Because both are about putting your life into a game. If you are willing to grind for hundreds of hours to get a special weapon, fine. If you are willing to spend some of your hard-earned money (clearly I am assuming you aren't a grad student :p) then that should be fine too.

To me, grind-to-win games are not much different from pay-to-win games.

Luperza
11-09-2012, 10:28 PM
Honestly, no one has mastered the free to play realm yet. There are many problems that developers are still trying to figure out - what is the best way to allow players to spend money, how can you guarantee they'll make at least one purchase and how can you keep retention percentages up are just a few things.

With a young industry and an even younger model type, we still have a ton of room for growth. Trying new things should definitely be something that companies do. There has to be that sweet spot that works for gamers and developers. As stated by the OP. Developers need to make money too, but not everyone can afford X amount or Y amount. Should the amount of money you make really depend on the player population??

I think a really well made game can flop because their model doesn't fit their game. The foundation of your game needs to revolve around that model, catering to the purchases, but in a way that is pleasing to the player and non-intrusive.

Play to win can work. Have we seen a perfect model that works? Not necessarily, but let's use League of Legends for example. They have a P2W model, but they just don't advertise it that way and players feel "better" about their purchases and other players don't give them shii for purchasing things. Not only that, but there's no way to tell if someone purchased a champion or if they used their in-game currency - on the player to player level. It's a cohesive net that really works for that game. Not all games can work that way, but that's one example of how a game can revolve around a model and really work well. No matter what people try to say, some champions are obviously more powerful than others and whenever they first put in new champs, there's always that time of imbalance where they are a bit better than others. This drives sales.

To rap it up. I agree OP. Why shouldn't P2W be okay? It should be! Paying for a game that you fully enjoy can be gratifying for the player and the developer if done correctly. Again, we are a young industry and the F2P model still has a long way to go and grow for every genre of game. I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of new things in the future, allowing more players to access games and pay for them in a way that works financial for them.

Hypernetic
11-09-2012, 10:37 PM
Why should people who use aimbots get VAC banned? I mean, they are just supporting the aimbot makers!

Nalano
11-09-2012, 10:48 PM
In this thread, hardcore gamers become their own worst enemies.

gundato
11-09-2012, 10:55 PM
Why should people who use aimbots get VAC banned? I mean, they are just supporting the aimbot makers!

Which is why, if there would be an aimbot, it would be provided by the developers. And they wouldn't do one of those for obvious reasons.

But feel free to try and change the subject :p

Finicky
11-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Stupid avatar fits the post.

Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 11:26 PM
Stupid avatar fits the post.

Finicky plz

It got some conversation going didn't it?

Hypernetic
11-09-2012, 11:37 PM
Which is why, if there would be an aimbot, it would be provided by the developers. And they wouldn't do one of those for obvious reasons.

But feel free to try and change the subject :p

Change what subject? The only people who like P2W are the people who don't have the skill to make the cut in normal games (i.e. the same people who use aimbots).

gundato
11-09-2012, 11:44 PM
Change what subject? The only people who like P2W are the people who don't have the skill to make the cut in normal games (i.e. the same people who use aimbots).
I love the concept of "Pay to win" in Battlefield 3 to unlock the vehicles and starting gear. Because I rarely play in vehicles and would prefer to have a reason to use them. Especially considering you basically have to camp vehicle to use them, and I hate camping. I also hate having to snipe from across the map or run around with a shotgun, but I can't get the starting Recon gear without doing that.
I am glad to know I suck at video games and need aimbots though :p

The last wrassling game I got for the PS3 had a DLC that unlocked all the moves and costumes for create-a-wrestler mode. I got mine in the season pass (I wanted the other wrasslers), but I would have plopped own a buck or two to unlock those. I guess I must suck at wrassling video games (okay, I do. But I made a guy in a gimp suit who teams up with a large transvestite hooker)

People buy unlocks for gear in Blacklight. Hell, Total Biscuit made an entire video about his time with the cloak and hammer (and I think he paid for both) and it was great. I don't think all Blacklight players "don't have skill" and need aimbots. And TB tends to do pretty well in his FPS videos, but I guess he could be a skill-less loser who needs aimbots all the time.

Seriously, grow up.

Patrick Swayze
11-09-2012, 11:45 PM
Change what subject? The only people who like P2W are the people who don't have the skill to make the cut in normal games (i.e. the same people who use aimbots).

Time = money? Money = time?

Hypernetic
11-09-2012, 11:49 PM
I love the concept of "Pay to win" in Battlefield 3 to unlock the vehicles and starting gear. Because I rarely play in vehicles and would prefer to have a reason to use them. Especially considering you basically have to camp vehicle to use them, and I hate camping. I also hate having to snipe from across the map or run around with a shotgun, but I can't get the starting Recon gear without doing that.
I am glad to know I suck at video games and need aimbots though :p

People buy unlocks for gear in Blacklight. Hell, Total Biscuit made an entire video about his time with the cloak and hammer (and I think he paid for both) and it was great. I don't think all Blacklight players "don't have skill" and need aimbots. And TB tends to do pretty well in his FPS videos, but I guess he could be a skill-less loser who needs aimbots all the time.

Seriously, grow up.

That is NOT P2W. Paying for something a non-paying player can obtain with time is NOT pay to win. NOT PAY TO WIN.

P2W is placing huge advantages behind a pay wall and ONLY a pay wall. For example, lets say it's an FPS game and the standard free assault rifle has a 20 round magazine, fires 200 rounds per minute, and does 10 damage per shot. For $10 you can unlock a SUPER assault rifle that has a 100 round magazine, fires 1000 rounds per minute, and does 20 damage per shot. There is no way to obtain this weapon other than paying $10. THAT is pay to win and yes these games exist.

gundato
11-09-2012, 11:51 PM
That is NOT P2W. Paying for something a non-paying player can obtain with time is NOT pay to win. NOT PAY TO WIN.

P2W is placing huge advantages behind a pay wall and ONLY a pay wall. For example, lets say it's an FPS game and the standard free assault rifle has a 20 round magazine, fires 200 rounds per minute, and does 10 damage per shot. For $10 you can unlock a SUPER assault rifle that has a 100 round magazine, fires 1000 rounds per minute, and does 20 damage per shot. There is no way to obtain this weapon other than paying $10. THAT is pay to win and yes these games exist.

If memory serves, most of the unlockable perks and what not in Blacklight cost money. A quick glance at PS2 looks to be the same.

Here is the thing, you are assuming massive upgrades. They don't have to be. They can be slight upgrades. Or they can be different play styles that will give a distinct advantage, but within limits (see the example I gave about clans deciding if they wanted to spend cash to unlock a cloak for a match). Tribes Ascend basically did that (at least, before the economy update) in that you COULD unlock stuff with XP, but you would be playing for a LONG ass time.

And also, the Blacklight cloak is REALLY powerful and unlocking most of the fancy stuff in Blacklight without spending cash is a HUGE time investment to the point that I argue it isn't feasible.

Hypernetic
11-09-2012, 11:59 PM
If memory serves, most of the unlockable perks and what not in Blacklight cost money. A quick glance at PS2 looks to be the same.

Here is the thing, you are assuming massive upgrades. They don't have to be. They can be slight upgrades. Or they can be different play styles that will give a distinct advantage, but within limits (see the example I gave about clans deciding if they wanted to spend cash to unlock a cloak for a match).

And also, the Blacklight cloak is REALLY powerful and unlocking most of the fancy stuff in Blacklight without spending cash is a HUGE time investment to the point that I argue it isn't feasible.

Everything in PS2 and BL:R can be obtained through grinding/time.

True P2W games are a dying breed because there are much better payment models out there now. There did have to be a huge advantage in true P2W games because otherwise why would anyone spend money. They are called pay to win for a reason, they are literally PAY TO WIN.

I don't have much experience with BL:R so I'm not going to delve to deep into it, but any game where spending real cash can get you a competitive advantage in a clan match is a joke and nobody will take it seriously. You won't see esports of that game if that is the case.

Personally I am immediately turned off by any game with even a slight pay to win model. It's not because I don't have money and in fact I'd gladly pay for most of the games if they were retail games. The problem I have is that I like to play on a even playing field. I don't have fun being more powerful than everyone else. It's stupid. This is why games like CS are still the top competitive games.

gundato
12-09-2012, 12:09 AM
Everything in PS2 and BL:R can be obtained through grinding/time.

True P2W games are a dying breed because there are much better payment models out there now. There did have to be a huge advantage in true P2W games because otherwise why would anyone spend money. They are called pay to win for a reason, they are literally PAY TO WIN.

I don't have much experience with BL:R so I'm not going to delve to deep into it, but any game where spending real cash can get you a competitive advantage in a clan match is a joke and nobody will take it seriously. You won't see esports of that game if that is the case.

Personally I am immediately turned off by any game with even a slight pay to win model. It's not because I don't have money and in fact I'd gladly pay for most of the games if they were retail games. The problem I have is that I like to play on a even playing field. I don't have fun being more powerful than everyone else. It's stupid. This is why games like CS are still the top competitive games.

I think you are defining "pay to win" as being completely literal and are only referring to the strongest version.
These days, "pay to win" basically means "spend money for an advantage over people who don't spend money". Very weak models are one like BF3 where you can pay to unlock stuff. Stronger models are games like Tribes Ascend and Blacklight where unlocking without paying is REALLY REALLY grindy. And then there are the games that are about paying to unlock alternatives that may be sidegrades or may be upgrades (I think TF2 is starting to fall into this category"

What would be more accurate to say is that you are against paying for a significant advantage.

r3dknight
12-09-2012, 12:10 AM
Perhaps the inherent knee jerk reaction to pay to win free to play games, is that they actually mirror the patterns of real life too closely?

I think it's a messed up game when one player can simply open his wallet (that is really, outside the realm of the game) to improves his chances of winning.

Imagine playing Street Fighter arcade and if you insert two tokens, you get more character HP and damage. That's my clearest definition of pay2win. People who didn't pay are disadvantaged and is usually forced to compensate by playing more skilfully or in grindy MMO, play much longer to match their Pay2Win opponent's power level.

gundato
12-09-2012, 12:12 AM
Red, what about the narrative concept of "Taking down the rich kid" as it were. Pretty much EVERY "underdog story" involves taking down the rich complacent guy by finding The Eye of the Tiger (its the thrill of the fight! Rising up, to the challenge of our rivals...").

Why not extend that to multiplayer? Why should Rocky have all the fun?

NathanH
12-09-2012, 12:20 AM
Because in reality the guy with the money wins. And that's a crap story.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 12:43 AM
I think you are defining "pay to win" as being completely literal and are only referring to the strongest version.
These days, "pay to win" basically means "spend money for an advantage over people who don't spend money". Very weak models are one like BF3 where you can pay to unlock stuff. Stronger models are games like Tribes Ascend and Blacklight where unlocking without paying is REALLY REALLY grindy. And then there are the games that are about paying to unlock alternatives that may be sidegrades or may be upgrades (I think TF2 is starting to fall into this category"

What would be more accurate to say is that you are against paying for a significant advantage.

No what would be accurate is that I'm against pay to win and that the definition I laid out earlier is what pay to win is. You are simply describing f2p games with an unlock system.

gundato
12-09-2012, 12:51 AM
No what would be accurate is that I'm against pay to win and that the definition I laid out earlier is what pay to win is. You are simply describing f2p games with an unlock system.
And yet people call them "pay to win" even when they are just "f2p games with an unlock system"...

I think there was a recent space flight sim shootery game (TB did a video on it) that was CLEARLY P2W. Every purchased ship was definitively better than the non-pay ships, but it was not an advantage to the point that they were unstoppable. By the definitions you set forward before, that isn't pay to win.

Or, better yet, we can just make it so that it costs "5 dollars a week" to use the aforementioned infinite ammo super-powerful gun. But you can also unlock it if you get ninety billion win-points. But you only get one win-point per tournament you win.

CLEARLY this is a more complicated subject than what you "defined' earlier. Which is why it is better to consider multiple levels rather than just arbitrarily drawing a line.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 12:54 AM
And yet people call them "pay to win" even when they are just "f2p games with an unlock system"...

I think there was a recent space flight sim shootery game (TB did a video on it) that was CLEARLY P2W. Every purchased ship was definitively better than the non-pay ships, but it was not an advantage to the point that they were unstoppable. By the definitions you set forward before, that isn't pay to win.

Or, better yet, we can just make it so that it costs "5 dollars a week" to use the aforementioned infinite ammo super-powerful gun. But you can also unlock it if you get ninety billion win-points. But you only get one win-point per tournament you win.

CLEARLY this is a more complicated subject than what you "defined' earlier. Which is why it is better to consider multiple levels rather than just arbitrarily drawing a line.

You are describing games with poor f2p models.

People can call them p2w that doesn't mean they are. People call tomatoes vegetables too.

gundato
12-09-2012, 12:58 AM
You are describing games with poor f2p models.

People can call them p2w that doesn't mean they are. People call tomatoes vegetables too.

So everyone else is wrong, got it :p.

And I actually had a discussion with a friend and his girlfriend about tomatoes the other day. Botanically they are fruits. But in terms of how they are used in cooking and their nutritional value (and what chemicals/nutrients they have), they are basically vegetables. So by the context of "what is a vegetable in terms of how it is grown and cultivated", then it is a fruit. In terms of "What vegetable should I serve with dish X?", they are a veggie.

Idiots say "decimated" when they mean "devastated". Yes, they are wrong. Yes, it makes my soul hurt. But I know what they are saying and the most I'll do (if we are having a conversation on something) is say "Learn English. Anyway, yes, the X army was devastated by Y because they didn't lube up..."

... And the US Supreme Court said they are veggies, but the government also said ketchup is a vegetable so let's ignore that :p

OrangyTang
12-09-2012, 01:01 AM
Would you guys be interested in a game that set paying customers against non paying customers?

Where paying bourgeoisie customers are less in number but capable of, ummm, soloing more and none paying proletariat customers have to work together to take down their wealthier opponents?

I could imagine that working in an asymmetric multiplayer game. Something like L4D where paying players get to play as the survivors, and free players play as the infected. Both sides are playing together to win, but the free players are also playing against each other to be the 'best' zombie.

r3dknight
12-09-2012, 01:06 AM
Why should Rocky have all the fun?

http://s5.tinypic.com/1z65iu.jpg

Because Rocky fights to win in the ring and advance his career. It's his way to make a living as a boxer.
People play Games/MMOs to have fun. If you cannot see the difference between a sports career and online gaming as form of entertainment I just can't see how I can convince you that Pay2Win is bad for the game.

Winged Nazgul
12-09-2012, 01:11 AM
There's no such thing as Pay2Win (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/11/the-soapbox-theres-no-such-thing-as-pay-to-win/)

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 01:17 AM
So everyone else is wrong, got it :p.

And I actually had a discussion with a friend and his girlfriend about tomatoes the other day. Botanically they are fruits. But in terms of how they are used in cooking and their nutritional value (and what chemicals/nutrients they have), they are basically vegetables. So by the context of "what is a vegetable in terms of how it is grown and cultivated", then it is a fruit. In terms of "What vegetable should I serve with dish X?", they are a veggie.

Idiots say "decimated" when they mean "devastated". Yes, they are wrong. Yes, it makes my soul hurt. But I know what they are saying and the most I'll do (if we are having a conversation on something) is say "Learn English. Anyway, yes, the X army was devastated by Y because they didn't lube up..."

... And the US Supreme Court said they are veggies, but the government also said ketchup is a vegetable so let's ignore that :p

How you prepare or serve something doesn't change what it is. A tomato is a fruit. F2P is not the same as P2W.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 01:18 AM
There's no such thing as Pay2Win (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/11/the-soapbox-theres-no-such-thing-as-pay-to-win/)

That guy is an idiot.

gundato
12-09-2012, 02:07 AM
http://s5.tinypic.com/1z65iu.jpg

Because Rocky fights to win in the ring and advance his career. It's his way to make a living as a boxer.
People play Games/MMOs to have fun. If you cannot see the difference between a sports career and online gaming as form of entertainment I just can't see how I can convince you that Pay2Win is bad for the game.

Actually, I think the point was more he fought because he loved the sport and to better his life... by punching people. And knocking up the pet store girl. And punching more people. I dunno, Rocky was weird. I think the point of the first movie was that it gave him a way to get out of being a thug for life... by hitting people. The later ones got weird and had robots. Fun fact: Dolph Lundgren is actually SUPER smart (he is a chemical engineer and was accepted to pursue a PhD at MIT...). And also super strong (he allegedly hurt Sylvester Stallone's heart when he punched him).

But could you clarify what difference you are going for in this context? Because I can think of a LOT of differences, but I am not sure how most of them are relevant in the context of this.


How you prepare or serve something doesn't change what it is. A tomato is a fruit. F2P is not the same as P2W.

Way to miss the point there.

But fine, who wrote your definition of "Pay to win"? Is there an entry in Webster's Dictionary on this? I would be okay with either the african american kid from the TV show or the encyclopedia company.

deano2099
12-09-2012, 02:15 AM
How you prepare or serve something doesn't change what it is. A tomato is a fruit. F2P is not the same as P2W.

I think P2W is a subset of F2P though.

I'd be interested to know what games you think are P2W based on your definition?

Nalano
12-09-2012, 02:17 AM
Actually, I think the point was more he fought because he loved the sport and to better his life... by punching people

His life was shit. Boxing didn't much change that. That was a pretty important theme.

Heliocentric
12-09-2012, 02:18 AM
There's no such thing as Pay2Win (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/11/the-soapbox-theres-no-such-thing-as-pay-to-win/)

At Uni we had a round table where I suggested an MMO feature, that you could donate $10 and everyone would get a text marquee at the top of the screen telling them that person is the winner for a set period of time.

Literally "you pay, you win" no actual impact on the gameworld.

r3dknight
12-09-2012, 02:48 AM
@Gundato
The point i'm making here is: Rocky is a sports example. Where it takes effort to get better. It's a movie, but in real life, better gym facilities does not equate to a guaranteed win.

For some Pay2win games, it's either a shortcut through the grind or a weapon that does more damage. Those two things are really hard to overcome, it's a clear advantage and hurts the game in the long run for non-paying customers.

Do I want to see underdogs win more? Yes I do. I like seeing that in Bloodbowl matches where the lower team gets the difference in team value translate to more gold to spend on extra during matchday to 'even out the game'.

But in pay2win FPS, it's not about balance. It's more like. This guy will take 2x the bullets to kill and 50% less bullets to kill you with his shiny gun.

In MMO, this guy will hit 60 within a weekand you can't match his dps when all you had are lvl 30 skill set. You're shit out of luck unless you do the same and buy a power level card.

Both cases leads to the losers quitting the game cause they don't see the value in competing when it's all about money.
And the devs wondered where they went wrong. Before long, the winners have no competition and see no reason to spend more either. Game is dead. You win. Move on to the next game then.

gundato
12-09-2012, 03:00 AM
@Gundato
The point i'm making here is: Rocky is a sports example. Where it takes effort to get better. It's a movie, but in real life, better gym facilities does not equate to a guaranteed win.

For some Pay2win games, it's either a shortcut through the grind or a weapon that does more damage. Those two things are really hard to overcome, it's a clear advantage and hurts the game in the long run for non-paying customers.

Do I want to see underdogs win more? Yes I do. I like seeing that in Bloodbowl matches where the lower team gets the difference in team value translate to more gold to spend on extra during matchday to 'even out the game'.

But in pay2win FPS, it's not about balance. It's more like. This guy will take 2x the bullets to kill and 50% less bullets to kill you with his shiny gun.

In MMO, this guy will hit 60 within a weekand you can't match his dps when all you had are lvl 30 skill set. You're shit out of luck unless you do the same and buy a power level card.

Both cases leads to the losers quitting the game cause they don't see the value in competing when it's all about money.
And the devs wondered where they went wrong. Before long, the winners have no competition and see no reason to spend more either. Game is dead. You win. Move on to the next game then.

Again, I think the problem is people are assuming only the extremes.

Blacklight is pay to win. But nobody really minds because the advantages you get are nowhere near overpowering. Target X takes a few more bullets to kill. That only makes a huge difference in very competitive gaming where both sides are tricked out. In fact, I think TB even mentioned that one of the pay-to-unlock classes/loadouts was distinctively overpowered compared to everyone else (P2W!!!!) but it isn't a game-breaking thing.

Battlefield 3 is arguably pay to win with the unlock packs. But here's the thing: I can still kill the crap out of people with magnum rounds easy, regardless of my level. It gets easier later on, but I am still more than capable of dropping them at Private with an M4 with no scope (Believe me, I did :p).

Tribes Ascend made almost all the fun classes pay to unlock (yes, you can grind for XP. No, nobody is going to do that. At least, not the last time I checked the economy). And if you think your team can win without infiltrators or engineers, I have a bridge to sell you :p

Pay to win works so long as skill is the primary factor. And in all the games I have cited (BF3, Blacklight, Tribes Ascend, potentially PS2) that is the case. Paying to unlock stuff you can unlock "normally" (my ass. Excluding BF3, all the mentioned games assume you are going to grind endlessly) gives you a distinct advantage, but not an overpowering one. Hyper argues those aren't P2W because you aren't guaranteed to win, but I think it is more a matter of scale.

Nobody wants "Pay 20 bucks to be called a winner". Unless you are calling a phone sex line. But I don't think the average gamer will argue too much if you can spend a few bucks for a small advantage. And considering the push to F2P with microtransactions, most of the major publishers agree.

r3dknight
12-09-2012, 04:02 AM
As long it stays in FPS where player skill actually matters, I have no issue with it being so. As long you don't have to buy bullets constantly. BF3 is okay I felt, it didn't launch with this purchase the unlocks in mind. By the time purchase option is available almost everyone has unlocked most of their stuff.

As for the rest of examples I never experienced those games at all. My understanding of pay2win is mostly restricted to MMO grind model and not FPS.

qwurp
12-09-2012, 05:05 AM
F2P MMO games are quite different than F2P FPS games. There should be some clarification on that fact, its comparing apples and oranges.

Mohorovicic
12-09-2012, 06:25 AM
But fine, who wrote your definition of "Pay to win"? Is there an entry in Webster's Dictionary on this? I would be okay with either the african american kid from the TV show or the encyclopedia company.

A little known fact is that I am in fact Emmanuel Lewis. So I'll be happy to inform you that "pay to win" refers to videogames in which there are certain elements giving the player advantage that are available only through purchase.

gundato
12-09-2012, 01:18 PM
A little known fact is that I am in fact Emmanuel Lewis. So I'll be happy to inform you that "pay to win" refers to videogames in which there are certain elements giving the player advantage that are available only through purchase.
Drat! Foiled :p

But actually, I agree with that definition. Because those advantages could be as simple as "+1.5 VS +1" or they could be as wild as "+10 VS rusty"

gundato
12-09-2012, 01:26 PM
As long it stays in FPS where player skill actually matters, I have no issue with it being so. As long you don't have to buy bullets constantly. BF3 is okay I felt, it didn't launch with this purchase the unlocks in mind. By the time purchase option is available almost everyone has unlocked most of their stuff.

As for the rest of examples I never experienced those games at all. My understanding of pay2win is mostly restricted to MMO grind model and not FPS.
Yeah, my experience is mostly in the FPS side of things.

But even in an MMO, we just get to the question of "Should someone devoting 100 hours of their time be any different than someone devoting k*100 units of their money?". Both are about an investment of their life. And as it stands, the grind tends to support the stereotypical gamer (kid with no job, adult in his mom's basement, etc) while alienating the "average" gamer.

I spend pretty much all day in front of a computer (hence procrastination involving message boards and tvtropes :p) and a lot of times, I go home and I just don't have the willpower for video games. Because of that, I know I'll never be a "competitive" MMO player. That's one reason Guild Wars appeals to me, because it tries to do away with a lot of the grind (even though it just amplifies the need to grind for gear, like all level-scaling games do).
If I really wanted to get into the competitive scene, I would be okay with spending a nominal fee (not the 25 or so dollars to upgrade to the digitial deluxe edition... Jesus Christ ANet...) to get some high tier gear. Maybe said gear would be a sidegrade to the "best" loot, maybe it would be better, or maybe it would just BE the "best" loot. I am dedicating my life to the game in the form of cash (rather than hundreds of hours of free time), and I still have to know how to USE the gear. But if it lets me be competitive with the people who play 80 hours a week, I am all for it.

deano2099
12-09-2012, 01:38 PM
Yeah, my experience is mostly in the FPS side of things.

But even in an MMO, we just get to the question of "Should someone devoting 100 hours of their time be any different than someone devoting k*100 units of their money?". Both are about an investment of their life. And as it stands, the grind tends to support the stereotypical gamer (kid with no job, adult in his mom's basement, etc)

I agree entirely. The key is to make the grind fun. It's fine for someone with less time to spend money to get similar gear to someone playing 80 hours a week. As long as it's still fun for the guy playing 80 hours a week.

Alas I think we get too many games where the grind is made purposefully dull after a while in order to push people towards spending cash. There's a huge difference between being able to spend 80 hours on a game, and feeling like you have to.

NathanH
12-09-2012, 01:45 PM
But even in an MMO, we just get to the question of "Should someone devoting 100 hours of their time be any different than someone devoting k*100 units of their money?". Both are about an investment of their life. And as it stands, the grind tends to support the stereotypical gamer (kid with no job, adult in his mom's basement, etc) while alienating the "average" gamer.

To me, it depends on what the 100 hours does. If it makes you better by making you a better player of the game, then you shouldn't be able to pay to make up for that, because that undermines the competitive integrity of the game. If playing the 100 hours just gives you better stuff through grinding, then being able to pay for the better stuff is fine by me, because grinding is not a good competitive mechanic, so skipping it does not damage the competitive integrity of the game, because it doesn't have any to begin with.

If the 100 hours gives you better stuff, but not through grinding but rather through overcoming difficult challenges that require 100 hours of play to be a skilled enough player to win, then you probably shouldn't be able to skip it through paying. But I will accept that there are basically two competitions here, being good enough to get the good stuff and being good enough at PvP, so maybe in this case paying to get through one of them to be competitive in the other is not bad.

Winged Nazgul
12-09-2012, 01:47 PM
So how exactly do you "win" in your typical P2Win MMO?

I just find the close-minded bigotry laughable when players label something P2Win just so they can then ignore it. If you don't like something about a game, fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there's plenty of other games to choose from. But to dismiss out-of-hand games, because someone has slapped the P2Win label on them, is pretty stupid IMO. Considering that they're also F2P and all you'd be wasting is your time to check them out for yourself.

gundato
12-09-2012, 02:18 PM
To me, it depends on what the 100 hours does. If it makes you better by making you a better player of the game, then you shouldn't be able to pay to make up for that, because that undermines the competitive integrity of the game. If playing the 100 hours just gives you better stuff through grinding, then being able to pay for the better stuff is fine by me, because grinding is not a good competitive mechanic, so skipping it does not damage the competitive integrity of the game, because it doesn't have any to begin with.

If the 100 hours gives you better stuff, but not through grinding but rather through overcoming difficult challenges that require 100 hours of play to be a skilled enough player to win, then you probably shouldn't be able to skip it through paying. But I will accept that there are basically two competitions here, being good enough to get the good stuff and being good enough at PvP, so maybe in this case paying to get through one of them to be competitive in the other is not bad.
Well, a lot of guilds give gear to their new players (especially games with crafting systems). So buying loot is no different than that.

And, to be fair, most MMOs (hell, most games in general) don't prepare you for PvP via the PvE. PvE is about managing large mobs and doing area of effect damage to slowly whittle them down (unless you like to spike). PvP is about surging and quickly changing from target to target. So those 100 hours of PvE to get the loot is really just to teach you "1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 4 3" and what not.

NathanH
12-09-2012, 02:52 PM
I should point out that I don't play any MMOs because they're obviously all awful games with no competitive integrity and I hate people, so my opinion is not really relevant.

Jesus_Phish
12-09-2012, 03:21 PM
@Gundato

Blacklight is not a P2W game. As others have said, P2W means there is a gun/skill/item/loadout that both several magnitudes greater than any other and is impossible to get through any other means than paying for it with real world money. Blacklight gives you the option to rent guns/earn trials of guns/win guns (iirc) and buy them with real world money or credits (which can both be earned and won).

Many of the buyables/unlockables in blacklight are not several magnitudes better than the other weapons. Blacklight works off you can pay instantly to get a gun, which perhaps you do because you only have one hour a day to play your game and you don't want to wait to get it, or you unlock it over time because you have no money but all the time in the world.

Simple way to look at it.
Item can be gotten through money/time is not pay to win
Item can be gotten only through money is pay to win
Item can be gotten only through time is definitely not pay to win.

deano2099
12-09-2012, 03:33 PM
@Gundato

Blacklight is not a P2W game. As others have said, P2W means there is a gun/skill/item/loadout that both several magnitudes greater than any other and is impossible to get through any other means than paying for it with real world money. Blacklight gives you the option to rent guns/earn trials of guns/win guns (iirc) and buy them with real world money or credits (which can both be earned and won).

Many of the buyables/unlockables in blacklight are not several magnitudes better than the other weapons. Blacklight works off you can pay instantly to get a gun, which perhaps you do because you only have one hour a day to play your game and you don't want to wait to get it, or you unlock it over time because you have no money but all the time in the world.

Simple way to look at it.
Item can be gotten through money/time is not pay to win
Item can be gotten only through money is pay to win
Item can be gotten only through time is definitely not pay to win.

The problem with this, oft cited definition, is I genuinely don't know any games like this? I'm sure there are some, but what are they?

gundato
12-09-2012, 03:38 PM
@Gundato

Blacklight is not a P2W game. As others have said, P2W means there is a gun/skill/item/loadout that both several magnitudes greater than any other and is impossible to get through any other means than paying for it with real world money. Blacklight gives you the option to rent guns/earn trials of guns/win guns (iirc) and buy them with real world money or credits (which can both be earned and won).

Many of the buyables/unlockables in blacklight are not several magnitudes better than the other weapons. Blacklight works off you can pay instantly to get a gun, which perhaps you do because you only have one hour a day to play your game and you don't want to wait to get it, or you unlock it over time because you have no money but all the time in the world.

Simple way to look at it.
Item can be gotten through money/time is not pay to win
Item can be gotten only through money is pay to win
Item can be gotten only through time is definitely not pay to win.

I'll admit, I haven't played Blacklight in a while, but I definitely recall the credit cost for some of the high-end stuff being quite high. And I forget if the "class loadouts" or whatever they were called (the rentable characters) even had a credit option. I also recall TB making a point of that since one of those DID have a distinct advantage in terms of damage reduction. If that damage reduction had a significant impact on gameplay is arguable (as it should be, in my eyes), but that was definitely a case where spending money gave you a distinct advantage over non-payers.

And I once more cite Tribes Ascend. Prior to the recent economy update (maybe still. Haven't logged in for a while) unlocking the extra classes and a lot of the weapons either didn't have an XP option or required VERY large amounts of XP. I'll admit I suck, but before I just plopped down some cash to unlock the engineer (I love repairing bases), I think I managed to grind enough XP to maybe get an upgrade for my spinfusor.

Again, the problem is that people are going for the extremes. Can you define "several magnitudes greater"? Paying to unlock a gun with 5 more bullets than anyone else's isn't that bad if everyone is using belt-fed machine guns. If they are using muskets, it starts to get questionable. But where is the line drawn?

Would you say the following is a "Pay To Win" game?
Everyone plays as a child with a pea shooter. You can pay 5 dollars to unlock an Atlas mech. But you can also unlock it with 500 "win tokens". Unfortunately, to get a "win token" you have to win 10 matches in a row without dying, and each match lasts for an hour.

By the definition you provided, it is not "pay to win" because there are means to unlock that without spending money. By just about ANY standard, that is "pay to win" because the Atlas makes you unstoppable, and the only people who have a chance at getting those "win tokens" is a person in an Atlas.

I am not saying Blacklight or Tribes are bad because of their very weak "pay to win" models. I think they both have some of the BEST microtransaction models out there (I especially love Blacklight's because you don't HAVE to spend money to be competitive. One or two losses or one good game is enough to unlock a few guns for a few days). But they definitely can easily fall into that category.

Jesus_Phish
12-09-2012, 03:41 PM
The problem with this, oft cited definition, is I genuinely don't know any games like this? I'm sure there are some, but what are they?

It's big for games in China that don't make it outside of China and it's getting pretty big on iOS. Most games aren't like this though, but get labelled as P2W by someone whose feelings have been hurt because he might have been killed by some guy who has unlocked a gun faster than him. And here's a point to remember:
That guy who dominated someone online in a f2p game
-could have won the gun in an unlock/booster pack reward
-could be mega skilled
-could have grinded day and night for the gun.

It mostly comes down to bitterness of "I lost, therefor the other play paid more money so he would win or is a no lifer who plays this game all the time" and in F2P games, people will usually cry the first one.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 06:17 PM
I'll admit, I haven't played Blacklight in a while, but I definitely recall the credit cost for some of the high-end stuff being quite high. And I forget if the "class loadouts" or whatever they were called (the rentable characters) even had a credit option. I also recall TB making a point of that since one of those DID have a distinct advantage in terms of damage reduction. If that damage reduction had a significant impact on gameplay is arguable (as it should be, in my eyes), but that was definitely a case where spending money gave you a distinct advantage over non-payers.

And I once more cite Tribes Ascend. Prior to the recent economy update (maybe still. Haven't logged in for a while) unlocking the extra classes and a lot of the weapons either didn't have an XP option or required VERY large amounts of XP. I'll admit I suck, but before I just plopped down some cash to unlock the engineer (I love repairing bases), I think I managed to grind enough XP to maybe get an upgrade for my spinfusor.

Again, the problem is that people are going for the extremes. Can you define "several magnitudes greater"? Paying to unlock a gun with 5 more bullets than anyone else's isn't that bad if everyone is using belt-fed machine guns. If they are using muskets, it starts to get questionable. But where is the line drawn?

Would you say the following is a "Pay To Win" game?
Everyone plays as a child with a pea shooter. You can pay 5 dollars to unlock an Atlas mech. But you can also unlock it with 500 "win tokens". Unfortunately, to get a "win token" you have to win 10 matches in a row without dying, and each match lasts for an hour.

By the definition you provided, it is not "pay to win" because there are means to unlock that without spending money. By just about ANY standard, that is "pay to win" because the Atlas makes you unstoppable, and the only people who have a chance at getting those "win tokens" is a person in an Atlas.

I am not saying Blacklight or Tribes are bad because of their very weak "pay to win" models. I think they both have some of the BEST microtransaction models out there (I especially love Blacklight's because you don't HAVE to spend money to be competitive. One or two losses or one good game is enough to unlock a few guns for a few days). But they definitely can easily fall into that category.

Everything in Tribes has an XP option and has had one since closed beta. The classes are actually the cheapest thing you can unlock with XP as well. The weapons aren't cheap XP wise (or money wise, they are actually pretty expensive in comparison to other f2p games), but they don't take THAT long to unlock. The thing with Tribes is that, for the most part, the stock loadouts are the best anyway. Most of the weapon unlocks are just different, not straight up better.

As for your hypothetical situation? It doesn't fit any of the definitions we've given you. Winning 10 matches in a row without dying isn't "unlocking through time".

gundato
12-09-2012, 06:32 PM
Everything in Tribes has an XP option and has had one since closed beta. The classes are actually the cheapest thing you can unlock with XP as well. The weapons aren't cheap XP wise (or money wise, they are actually pretty expensive in comparison to other f2p games), but they don't take THAT long to unlock. The thing with Tribes is that, for the most part, the stock loadouts are the best anyway. Most of the weapon unlocks are just different, not straight up better.

As for your hypothetical situation? It doesn't fit any of the definitions we've given you. Winning 10 matches in a row without dying isn't "unlocking through time".
Why not?

Are you now saying that credits/XP have to be given out over time regardless of performance? While that is technically true of just about every game (is it even POSSIBLE to get 0 xp in a match in any recent game?), it adds an even more specific caveat. And it is just as crappy.

The point I am trying to make is that this is more complex than "If you don't have to pay for it, it isn't Pay to win" and "it is only pay to win if it is several magnitudes better" are not representative of gaming as a whole. And there are PLENTY of ways to do loopholes.

Ubi, for a time, was pretending that UbiDRM wasn't DRM because it was tied to the UPlay service.
Wardell the molester repeatedly said that GalCiv2 was DRM free because it didn't need Impulse... unless you ever wanted to patch the game.

Rather than pick a very vague and very arbitrary definition that has MASSIVE loopholes, it is better to view it as a sliding scale. It makes a lot more sense and it actually applies to gaming that isn't in China...

Because honestly, I think we are all on the same page: Blacklight has a GREAT model and is pretty much what all F2P/P2W games should aspire to. The difference is that the people who are "anti Pay To Win" claim it isn't and restrict that definition to obscure chinese MMOs that aren't even available in the rest of the world.

What can I say, that annoying brat from the TV show was right and had a really good definition. Good job mohor :p

A little known fact is that I am in fact Emmanuel Lewis. So I'll be happy to inform you that "pay to win" refers to videogames in which there are certain elements giving the player advantage that are available only through purchase.
That gets into a grey area regarding shortcuts, but it is a good metric. And one can easily argue that the shortcuts themselves are "only through purchase", even if the destination isn't.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 06:36 PM
Why not?

Are you now saying that credits/XP have to be given out over time regardless of performance? While that is technically true of just about every game (is it even POSSIBLE to get 0 xp in a match in any recent game?).

The point I am trying to make is that this is more complex than "If you don't have to pay for it, it isn't Pay to win" and "it is only pay to win if it is several magnitudes better" are not representative of gaming as a whole. And there are PLENTY of ways to do loopholes.

Ubi, for a time, was pretending that UbiDRM wasn't DRM because it was tied to the UPlay service.
Wardell the molester repeatedly said that GalCiv2 was DRM free because it didn't need Impulse... unless you ever wanted to patch the game.

Rather than pick a very vague and very arbitrary definition that has MASSIVE loopholes, it is better to view it as a sliding scale. It makes a lot more sense and it actually applies to gaming that isn't in China...

Because honestly, I think we are all on the same page: Blacklight has a GREAT model and is pretty much what all F2P/P2W games should aspire to. The difference is that the people who are "anti Pay To Win" claim it isn't and restrict that definition to obscure chinese MMOs that aren't even available in the rest of the world.

You have no point, you made up a hypothetical situation that doesn't (and wouldn't) exist in reality to try to prove your point.

But honestly, all current f2p models are shit from a truly competitive standpoint, which is why all of those games have "tournament modes" and clients for competitive play where everything is already unlocked. Alternatively, if the game maker doesn't provide such a thing, all unlocks are usually blacklisted from competitive play.

Winged Nazgul
12-09-2012, 06:37 PM
Someone should start up a hot or not type site for P2Win.

WoT - P2Win or Not?
M:TG - P2Win or Not?

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 06:42 PM
Someone should start up a hot or not type site for P2Win.

WoT - P2Win or Not?
M:TG - P2Win or Not?


WoT kind of hovers in a gray area I think. It's f2p model is horse shit though, everything is put behind such a huge grind pay or not, it's just not fun. Even with a premium account XP boost it takes FOREVER to research new tiers.

M:TG is basically a scam.

Winged Nazgul
12-09-2012, 06:48 PM
WoT kind of hovers in a gray area I think. It's f2p model is horse shit though, everything is put behind such a huge grind pay or not, it's just not fun. Even with a premium account XP boost it takes FOREVER to research new tiers.

You're forgetting about the gold ammo.

gundato
12-09-2012, 06:53 PM
You have no point, you made up a hypothetical situation that doesn't (and wouldn't) exist in reality to try to prove your point.

But honestly, all current f2p models are shit from a truly competitive standpoint, which is why all of those games have "tournament modes" and clients for competitive play where everything is already unlocked. Alternatively, if the game maker doesn't provide such a thing, all unlocks are usually blacklisted from competitive play.
And as has been pointed out by deano and confirmed by phish, all the models that you two would apparently consider "pay to win" only exist in China and are not even stuff that the rest of the world knows about.

Thus, maybe it would be best if the arbitrary definition you pulled out of your arse (yet vehemently defend...) actually covered gaming as a whole :p

As for M:TG (assuming it means Magic The Gathering). It, like all CCGs, is definitely a scam. But by the definitions put forward, it might actually not be Pay to Win. Since you can win cards in tournaments and you can be one of those hipsters who "plays for pink slips" or whatever the hell. And I know Pokemons gave out cards to people who went to events.

So, theoretically, a CCG isn't Pay to Win since you can actually avoid spending a single penny on a card (not counting gas money).

In practice: It is a horrifying tumor on society :p

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 07:09 PM
And as has been pointed out by deano and confirmed by phish, all the models that you two would apparently consider "pay to win" only exist in China and are not even stuff that the rest of the world knows about.

Thus, maybe it would be best if the arbitrary definition you pulled out of your arse (yet vehemently defend...) actually covered gaming as a whole :p

As for M:TG (assuming it means Magic The Gathering). It, like all CCGs, is definitely a scam. But by the definitions put forward, it might actually not be Pay to Win. Since you can win cards in tournaments and you can be one of those hipsters who "plays for pink slips" or whatever the hell. And I know Pokemons gave out cards to people who went to events.

So, theoretically, a CCG isn't Pay to Win since you can actually avoid spending a single penny on a card (not counting gas money).

In practice: It is a horrifying tumor on society :p

There are non-Chinese games like Combat Arms or the f2p battlefields or as Winged pointed out World of Tanks. Also facebook games and crap like that.

There are a lot of pay 2 win games out there, I just don't play them and I don't make a habit of reading about shitty games to know their names.

gundato
12-09-2012, 07:14 PM
There are non-Chinese games like Combat Arms or the f2p battlefields or as Winged pointed out World of Tanks. Also facebook games and crap like that.

There are a lot of pay 2 win games out there, I just don't play them and I don't make a habit of reading about shitty games to know their names.
So World of Tanks is P2W, even though you can unlock most stuff with a LOT of grinding.

Facebook games, to my understanding, also give you points for spamming your "friends".

I think maybe we can come to a compromise (that is still an INSANELY vague definition that isn't particularly meaningful...): To count as "pay to win", it has to be obvious that the developers expect you to pay for a large percentage of your upgrades. Even if you can theoretically get them otherwise.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 07:21 PM
So World of Tanks is P2W, even though you can unlock most stuff with a LOT of grinding.

Facebook games, to my understanding, also give you points for spamming your "friends".

I think maybe we can come to a compromise (that is still an INSANELY vague definition that isn't particularly meaningful...): To count as "pay to win", it has to be obvious that the developers expect you to pay for a large percentage of your upgrades. Even if you can theoretically get them otherwise.

Gold rounds and consumables are not unlockable with time.

gundato
12-09-2012, 07:25 PM
Gold rounds and consumables are not unlockable with time.

But do they provide a "substantial improvement"?

And you still haven't really commented: What about the REALLY grindy stuff where it takes a lot of time to earn the equivalent XP to the money costs. Is it okay for a dev to just say "Oh, it isn't Pay to Win. You can theoretically unlock this stuff without paying. So shut up"?

Winged Nazgul
12-09-2012, 07:38 PM
Battlefield Heroes - P2Win or Not?

also

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 07:39 PM
But do they provide a "substantial improvement"?

And you still haven't really commented: What about the REALLY grindy stuff where it takes a lot of time to earn the equivalent XP to the money costs. Is it okay for a dev to just say "Oh, it isn't Pay to Win. You can theoretically unlock this stuff without paying. So shut up"?

Yes they do.

I have addressed your second point multiple times. That isn't p2w, it's just a shitty f2p model. You seem to have this idea in your head that I think all p2w is bad and all f2p is good. I do think all p2w is bad, but not all f2p models that AREN'T p2w are good either.

That said, encouraging people to exchange money for convenience in the form of ridiculously long grinds for free players doesn't make the game p2w by any definition of the word. It's just a shitty game.

gundato
12-09-2012, 07:42 PM
Battlefield Heroes - P2Win or Not?

also

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win
Where is that presentation from? It looks like it is just someone ranting, but some stuff actually DOES look like it might be a real EA (internal) presentation





Yes they do.

I have addressed your second point multiple times. That isn't p2w, it's just a shitty f2p model. You seem to have this idea in your head that I think all p2w is bad and all f2p is good. I do think all p2w is bad, but not all f2p models that AREN'T p2w are good either.

That said, encouraging people to exchange money for convenience in the form of ridiculously long grinds for free players doesn't make the game p2w by any definition of the word. It's just a shitty game.

Then in that case, I point out that there is no difference between a P2W model and a "shitty f2p model". Because they both have the end goal of "Make the customer spend money for convenience/an advantage". And I really don't understand your distinction between the two (unless you are one of those people who believed Wardell and Ubi when they did paper-thin spins :p).

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 07:45 PM
Where is that presentation from? It looks like it is just someone ranting, but some stuff actually DOES look like it might be a real EA (internal) presentation






Then in that case, I point out that there is no difference between a P2W model and a "shitty f2p model". Because they both have the end goal of "Make the customer spend money for convenience/an advantage". And I really don't understand your distinction between the two (unless you are one of those people who believed Wardell and Ubi when they did paper-thin spins :p).

I've outlined the distinction between the two a half dozen times already, stop with the circular arguments. Paying for convenience is not the same as paying for an advantage.

You argument is like saying a casino and an ice cream shop have the same business model because they both want their customer's money.

gundato
12-09-2012, 07:51 PM
I've outlined the distinction between the two a half dozen times already, stop with the circular arguments. Paying for convenience is not the same as paying for an advantage.

You argument is like saying a casino and an ice cream shop have the same business model because they both want their customer's money.

I am playing a multiplayer space trading game. I can pay a nominal fee to get a faster FTL drive.
That is paying for convenience, it cuts down on my travel time.
That is paying for an advantage, that greatly increases my potential earnings per hour.

I am playing an FPS. I pay to unlock all the gear in the first week. That lets me stomp the crap out of everyone who is unlocking it fairly, which means by the time they are a challenge, I have a huge lead on the leaderboards (thus "winning" the online game).
Convenience that is an advantage.

I am playing a Dark Souls like game. I pay for the ability to log-out instantly at any time, whereas everyone else needs to do it at a bonfire. Congratulations, my convenience means I never have to lose souls or humanity AGAIN.

I am playing TF2 and pay for a premium sidegrade. But this unlock just happens to be a LOT more useful than just about everything else (sort of like the backburner before it got nerfed).

It really isn't as clear cut as you say. And all it takes is a crafty PR person (or someone who THINKS they are crafty, as in the aforementioned examples :p) and you can spin something as a "convenience".

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 07:59 PM
I am playing a multiplayer space trading game. I can pay a nominal fee to get a faster FTL drive.
That is paying for convenience, it cuts down on my travel time.
That is paying for an advantage, that greatly increases my potential earnings per hour.

I am playing an FPS. I pay to unlock all the gear in the first week. That lets me stomp the crap out of everyone who is unlocking it fairly, which means by the time they are a challenge, I have a huge lead on the leaderboards (thus "winning" the online game).
Convenience that is an advantage.

I am playing a Dark Souls like game. I pay for the ability to log-out instantly at any time, whereas everyone else needs to do it at a bonfire. Congratulations, my convenience means I never have to lose souls or humanity AGAIN.

I am playing TF2 and pay for a premium sidegrade. But this unlock just happens to be a LOT more useful than just about everything else (sort of like the backburner before it got nerfed).

It really isn't as clear cut as you say. And all it takes is a crafty PR person (or someone who THINKS they are crafty, as in the aforementioned examples :p) and you can spin something as a "convenience".

We've been over all of this already.

Clear advantages behind only a pay wall = p2w

Advantages that non-paying players can earn through time =/= p2w

gundato
12-09-2012, 08:03 PM
We've been over all of this already.

Clear advantages behind only a pay wall = p2w

Advantages that non-paying players can earn through time =/= p2w
And you still have yet to define "clear advantages" which is something I have mentioned repeatedly and been ignored on every turn. A clip that is one bullet larger for a machine gun is nothing. For a musket, it is a game changer.

Are you arguing that ANYTHING that can only be gotten through money makes it p2w? Thus making TF2 p2w, even though just about everything (or everything, I am not sure) is cosmetic. Otherwise, you have the sidegrade == upgrade? problem.

And even some cosmetic stuff is arguable. I remember that me and my sister would have strict rules on what player models could be used on what maps in Perfect Dark, since some blended in WAY too well.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 09:25 PM
And you still have yet to define "clear advantages" which is something I have mentioned repeatedly and been ignored on every turn. A clip that is one bullet larger for a machine gun is nothing. For a musket, it is a game changer.

Are you arguing that ANYTHING that can only be gotten through money makes it p2w? Thus making TF2 p2w, even though just about everything (or everything, I am not sure) is cosmetic. Otherwise, you have the sidegrade == upgrade? problem.

And even some cosmetic stuff is arguable. I remember that me and my sister would have strict rules on what player models could be used on what maps in Perfect Dark, since some blended in WAY too well.

The ONLY thing you can't get in TF2 without paying money is an unusual hat. You can get one through trading without spending money, however.

I don't think having a hat with bright green flames or sunbeams shooting out of it gives anyone an advantage in gameplay.

Jesus_Phish
12-09-2012, 09:29 PM
I don't think having a hat with bright green flames or sunbeams shooting out of it gives anyone an advantage in gameplay.

What about the opponents it will stun in all it's magnificent glory!

gundato
12-09-2012, 09:33 PM
The ONLY thing you can't get in TF2 without paying money is an unusual hat. You can get one through trading without spending money, however.

I don't think having a hat with bright green flames or sunbeams shooting out of it gives anyone an advantage in gameplay.

If it is a hat commonly associated with Heavies and it is on your Scout, maybe.

I don't think that one sounds all too plausible, but I am always surprised at what "real" gamers think actually matters and makes a difference.

But fine. I think it was one of the BF games that had, as a pre-order bonus, a different gun model. And people HATED that model because it took up too much of the screen. But what about the opposite. A cosmetic purchase not otherwise available for free that is actually "better" because it is smaller.

As I have said repeatedly "clear advantages" means nothing.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 09:57 PM
If it is a hat commonly associated with Heavies and it is on your Scout, maybe.

I don't think that one sounds all too plausible, but I am always surprised at what "real" gamers think actually matters and makes a difference.

But fine. I think it was one of the BF games that had, as a pre-order bonus, a different gun model. And people HATED that model because it took up too much of the screen. But what about the opposite. A cosmetic purchase not otherwise available for free that is actually "better" because it is smaller.

As I have said repeatedly "clear advantages" means nothing.

That is what editing FoV and viewmodels is for...

Also hats don't work like that in TF2

unruly
12-09-2012, 10:01 PM
As I have said repeatedly "clear advantages" means nothing.

I would argue that "clear advantages" means something along the lines of "improves your chances of winning without requiring equal or greater skill levels." As an example, the game has a weapon that does X damage which everyone can get through playing the game. However, in the cash shop and available on a cash-only basis, is another weapon that is identical in how it performs but does X+10 damage instead. That means that the weapon takes less hits to kill someone while still having the same attack speed/clip size/accuracy/what-have-you, thus giving the person who owns said item a distinct advantage in play. If said weapon was available to everyone, but could just be acquired quicker using cash, it wouldn't be a distinct advantage for paying customers because everyone has equal chance to use that weapon despite the fact that cash players can get it instantly while others have to farm/grind for a week or two to get it.

Now, of course, there are exceptions to this. Such as games where yes, everything on the cash shop is available to non-paying customers, but it takes an inordinate amount of time to get them. Lets use Tribes: Ascend as an example, since it has a cash shop that I fully agree with. Say they release a new version of the Spinfusor with bigger splash damage and a faster fire rate while keeping everything else the same as the regular Spinfusor(thus making it a clear and powerful upgrade), and it costs 800 gold(approx $10 US). Now, since it's T:A, they also slap an XP price on the weapon as well. Usually for new weapons that XP cost is about 88,000. It would take me maybe two weeks of normal play(between one and two hours each night) to get 88,000 XP if I was playing CTF, so I'd be averaging about 44,000 XP a week. But for this new Spinfusor, they decide to up the XP cost from 88,000 to 8,800,000. That means I would have to play the game for over 4 years to unlock it using XP, and that for those entire 4 years I wouldn't be able to unlock anything else either. It becomes, effectively, a cash-only weapon due to its extreme requirements for non-paying players in that it locks them out of any other new items that may come along for such an inordinate amount of time if they wanted to get it without spending $10 on it.

In my personal opinion, if I can't get an item that is an upgrade, rather than a sidegrade or cosmetic change, using the in-game means of acquiring an item in less than 6 months of playing the game with the sole intent of working towards that item(saving XP, playing a certain class, using certain weapons, etc), then it's a pay-to-win item.

tomeoftom
13-09-2012, 03:16 PM
It's probably been said before but to the people that don't have a problem with "pay to accelerate rate of XP gain", that's also a major kneecap to the elegance of the game as a system. I know balance systems are more complex than this, and you can usually work the game so that rock-paper-scissors advantages are nullified - but: if I always go rock, and you haven't unlocked paper, you can't ever beat me even though you know exactly what to do, and have the skills to. I find that to be very seedy game design. There's not really any such thing as a "sidegrade" if it's ever withheld as an available strategy. Singleplayer - fine, you can charge for bits of content quite easily without distorting the original game. Multiplayer - there's not many options beside cosmetic upgrades. Withhold content and you split the playerbase, weakening the community (and usually meaning you have to ban or compete with mods which usually add value to your game - sometimes in a huge and unpredictable way a la Arma II). Make it pay-to-win and you degrade the quality and composition of the game system that's purportedly justified in having monetary value.

Arma II, again, had a good idea - the free version of their content packs are available, but all the textures are in low resolution and the models are lower poly. That seems smart to me, as maybe an alternative to TF2's hat frenzy (which has fouled the game a tiny bit with some server population being lost to trade servers or just haggling in-game).

gundato
13-09-2012, 03:39 PM
I would argue that "clear advantages" means something along the lines of "improves your chances of winning without requiring equal or greater skill levels." As an example, the game has a weapon that does X damage which everyone can get through playing the game. However, in the cash shop and available on a cash-only basis, is another weapon that is identical in how it performs but does X+10 damage instead. That means that the weapon takes less hits to kill someone while still having the same attack speed/clip size/accuracy/what-have-you, thus giving the person who owns said item a distinct advantage in play. If said weapon was available to everyone, but could just be acquired quicker using cash, it wouldn't be a distinct advantage for paying customers because everyone has equal chance to use that weapon despite the fact that cash players can get it instantly while others have to farm/grind for a week or two to get it.

Now, of course, there are exceptions to this. Such as games where yes, everything on the cash shop is available to non-paying customers, but it takes an inordinate amount of time to get them. Lets use Tribes: Ascend as an example, since it has a cash shop that I fully agree with. Say they release a new version of the Spinfusor with bigger splash damage and a faster fire rate while keeping everything else the same as the regular Spinfusor(thus making it a clear and powerful upgrade), and it costs 800 gold(approx $10 US). Now, since it's T:A, they also slap an XP price on the weapon as well. Usually for new weapons that XP cost is about 88,000. It would take me maybe two weeks of normal play(between one and two hours each night) to get 88,000 XP if I was playing CTF, so I'd be averaging about 44,000 XP a week. But for this new Spinfusor, they decide to up the XP cost from 88,000 to 8,800,000. That means I would have to play the game for over 4 years to unlock it using XP, and that for those entire 4 years I wouldn't be able to unlock anything else either. It becomes, effectively, a cash-only weapon due to its extreme requirements for non-paying players in that it locks them out of any other new items that may come along for such an inordinate amount of time if they wanted to get it without spending $10 on it.

In my personal opinion, if I can't get an item that is an upgrade, rather than a sidegrade or cosmetic change, using the in-game means of acquiring an item in less than 6 months of playing the game with the sole intent of working towards that item(saving XP, playing a certain class, using certain weapons, etc), then it's a pay-to-win item.

Good definition, but I am not sure if 6 months is the best timespan. For super-high tier stuff, maybe. But for a class or just something that makes the player "viable", I think a much smaller period of time would be expected.

BF3 if a perfect example. Theoretically, if I got a hold of a vehicle on a vehicle-friendly map, I could probably get a rank every two or three matches (like with guns). But to do that, I need to camp by vehicles (not fun) and play in vehicles (not my preferred approach, especially since you are stinger-fodder until you unlock flares). Same with Recon to get those initial unlocks that make Recon worth using (in my eyes).
Or take the TF2 medic gear, back before we had the random drop system. To unlock the first item it was trivial. Just play as a medic for a few rounds. To get the later gear though, you basically had to run into melee and fight as a frontline soldier, which isn't medicy and isn't really fun.

Both of those are reasonable grind times, but are (arguably) unreasonable grinding.

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 03:58 PM
Good definition, but I am not sure if 6 months is the best timespan. For super-high tier stuff, maybe. But for a class or just something that makes the player "viable", I think a much smaller period of time would be expected.

BF3 if a perfect example. Theoretically, if I got a hold of a vehicle on a vehicle-friendly map, I could probably get a rank every two or three matches (like with guns). But to do that, I need to camp by vehicles (not fun) and play in vehicles (not my preferred approach, especially since you are stinger-fodder until you unlock flares). Same with Recon to get those initial unlocks that make Recon worth using (in my eyes).
Or take the TF2 medic gear, back before we had the random drop system. To unlock the first item it was trivial. Just play as a medic for a few rounds. To get the later gear though, you basically had to run into melee and fight as a frontline soldier, which isn't medicy and isn't really fun.

Both of those are reasonable grind times, but are (arguably) unreasonable grinding.

That's why they created achievement servers in TF2 where you could just go get all your achievements in a few minutes to unlock everything.

The achievement>item system was stupid though and that's why valve changed it.

Shooop
13-09-2012, 05:23 PM
Blacklight's rental system is actually decent though. You make more than enough per match to more than pay for renting an item for 24 hours.

The real problem with that game is its astonishingly terrible hit detection and cramped maps.