Why SHOULDN'T free to play games be pay to win?

[Patrick Swayze]

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]

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]

A online game has to be well balanced before I even consider playing it. Pay2Win is not that. Is this a joke thread?

[NathanH]

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]

Why shouldn't we punch you in the face repeatedly? Same reason people don't like pay to win. Think about that...

[Winged Nazgul]

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]

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

[Gorzan]

because if you are going to make paying a need, you'd better give the game a pricetag and give everyone a chance.

[Sic]

"Why shouldn't everyone be able to use whatever drug they want in sports?"

[Feldspar]

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]

"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]

Because you alienate new customers who might be inclined to pay for stuff in your game later down the road.

[Nalano]

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]

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]

Pay to win isn't fun for those who haven't paid pretty much, negates the whole free part.

[Kadayi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.