Yesterday I wrote a post speaking about how Blizzard could prolong World of Warcraft’s dominance of the MMO genre by switching to a Free2Play model, a suggestion that (unsurprisingly) some readers (and, no doubt, World of Warcraft players) didn’t appreciate. After reading through the comment sections on the various sites I post my articles on I realised something: people seem to think that the term “Free2Play” is synonymous with the term “Pay2Win”. Needless to say that perspective is a fallacy and one I will happily waste a small portion of my Sunday (supposed day of rest, people) trying to clear up.
Free2Play games are not synonymous with Pay2Win games. It is entirely possible to have a Free2Play game where “winning” isn’t purchased and, in fact, this is more common than not. Many people make the mistake of believing that Free2Play games have to charge for impacting content and bonuses in order to make ends meet but there have been a number of titles that have demonstrated that this isn’t true. That is not to say that a lot of Free2Play games aren’t Pay2Win because they quite clearly are, but to lump all Free2Play games into the same category as every Pay2Win game is doing a mighty injustice to the Free2Play market.
When I talk about “Pay2Win” games, I’m talking about games that bar access to certain bonuses and items that have meaningful and long-lasting effects on a players ability to “win” (or, more accurately, overcome obstacles that the game presents) unless you pay for them. Charging for gear, for example, that has a stat advantage on standard in-game items or charging for crafting materials that allow construction of the best gear and items in the game is, in my honest opinion, abhorrently exploitative. It divides the player base along clear lines: those that do pay and those that don’t. Those that do pay excel beyond those that don’t pay, and those that don’t pay suffer unjustly simply because they’ve chosen to take advantage of the free nature of the game.
Charging for access to content isn’t a “Pay2Win” mechanic, regardless of whether or not paying for it bars free players from gaining access to certain items and advantages within that content offering. If, for example, a developer choses to charge for instances and thus bar access to certain “Bind on Equip” items within those instances then that’s fair enough. The reality is that the developer still has to pander to the same-old-same-old MMO mechanics, most crucially gear progression. Offering new encounters isn’t enough; players need to feel like they are getting something noticeable for their money, so binding new items to new content offerings is not a surprising or unreasonable thing for developers to do.
Another type of micro-transaction that isn’t actually “Pay2Win” is potions, kits or other items that offer incremental and time restricted bonuses to things like mount speed, experience gain, reputation gain, etc. Just because one player gets to X point faster than another player by buying such buffs does not ensure an overall victory for the player that paid. A bad player is still a bad player regardless of whether they level up faster than you through use of such items. MMOs aren’t, despite the common misconception, a race to max level and winning that non-existent race is not, despite another common misconception, a victory. Lots of people level faster than me in the various MMOs I have played, but very few of them can claim world first kills at the end of that speed rush; I can. Does that mean they’ve beat me in any way? Not in any meaningful or significant way that anyone outside of themselves if going to care about.
Many western Free2Play games are choosing to offer time restricted buffs, vanity items, content unlocks and account services as their “bread and butter” micro-transactions. These games, games such as Lord of the Rings and Age of Conan, aren’t allowing players to Pay2Win. I currently play both and have spent very little on either of them. In Age of Conan I very rarely suffer a loss in PvP and in Lord of the Rings Online I accept that the scope of content on offer to me is limited not because the developers are exploiting me but because I don’t want to or can’t afford to pay. Other people that have paid haven’t paid to win at all. They’ve paid to play a game and they’ve paid for the content they feel is worth their money.
The truth is that there are a lot of misguided people out there who just don’t understand or consider the Free2Play market as a viable payment model. They don’t understand it and as such blindly hate it. The reality is that the term “Pay2Win” can apply to any game that offers services that have a noticeable and meaningful impact on a players stats over players that do not take advantage of such services. Even subscription games are guilty of this, Champions Online and Star Trek Online being two prime examples.
In conclusion: Free2Play games can most certainly be Pay2Win games, but so can Pay2Play games. The Free2Play market isn’t cut and dry; you can’t apply your impressions of a Free2Play payment model in one game to a totally different model in another game. There are vast difference from title-to-title. Instead look at the games themselves and treat them as individual and unique payment models. You’ll start to discover that there are many and numerous fairly priced and itemised Free2Play games on the market that you might enjoy… if you overcome your established prejudices.
http://dotdotdashblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/free2play-does-not-mean-pay2win.html
Would love it if you could compile a list of these f2p games where you CAN'T buy xp boost elixers, item defense/upgrade consumables, 'upgraded' gear, mounts, instant ressurections, and any other protection or defense against item wear, player stat loss, or ANY other 'enhancment' that makes 'play quicker' or 'play easier'
Truth is, the only things that can be put in a store that don't 'contrubute' to the 'pay to win' scenerio, are cosmetic changes, but EVEN THESE can translate to easier play, in multiple ways(Just less so than the 'get xp faster' or 'upgrade item with less risk' or even more glaring 'p2w' things such as stat boosters)
I do think there are a few games out there where the item shop choices aren't too bad, but if the items in the store don't entice enough buyers, the game isn't worth the launch(it won't make money)
I would love to see at least one game with the old subscription method back, where you, like every other person in the 'world', pays his one flat monthly fee, and has the same Opportunities as each other, and advancment is solely based on gameplay.
Unfourtantly u get the 'oh he has 7 days, 24hrs a day gameplay so is better than the other' problems, but that can be fixed with the 'scaling xp' thing based on time played(Play too much, get no xp, but can continue to play, just with less benifit - Worked great in some games)
Mon Oct 17 2011 9:19AM Report@AtmaDarkwolf: Items that make gameplay quicker don't contribute to Play2Win mechanics. As I said: bad player still bad regardless of how fast he's going.
People consider F2P games in too broad a terms. They think that any item that gives a benefit is exploitative and at the detriment of the free player. And yes, in some ways I would agree. In reality however it doesn't matter if X player is gettng more xp than you or has more bag space than you. At the end of the day you're playing for free.
It's just entitlement. It's the same problem that has ruined World of Warcraft. Every MMO player feels like all of the content is theirs to see without challenge or barrier to entry. It's just not true. If, in a F2P game, you DON'T want to spend a single penny you should really expect to have a slow levelling process, and should also expect to be limited in what you can do. You ARE a second class citizen regardless of whether the game makes that apparent or not. Of course you are. Basic economics. The problem isn't paying customers having certain advantages over free customers (and anyone who says that is a problem is a blithering idiot). The problem is paying customers having long lasting and serious advantages based on HOW MUCH they pay. It shouldn't be possible for a person to spend $250 on a set of gear that will make sure they own everyone at all times, for example.
Furthermore go take a look at Lord of the Rings Online, Age of Conan, Runes of Magic, Allods, Global Agenda or any host of other "big name" F2P games and you'll find that the items being charged for don't instill any benefits outside of being faster, having more bagspac, havng a vanity items or two, having an exclusive mount, or being able to access certan content above free players. And NONE of that is Pay2Win itemisation, regardless of how entitled everyone thinks they are.
And the amusing thing about subscriptions is that they are far less value for money than the above mentioned F2P games, force you to pay for content that you've already paid for under the guise of "service and access" charges, and translate into an average $5-%6 profit margin for the operator. It costs Blizzard $2 per player for ALL costs assosiated with World of Warcraft, including server maintenance, customer services, content development etc etc. The other $6.99 is large profit. How it that less exploitative than saying "pay for what you WANT to pay for"?
Mon Oct 17 2011 11:16AM ReportWhat I like about the sub model is that it puts everyone on a level playing field, letting them advance and acquire things based on how much effort they're willing to put in. If someone can just open a wallet and shell out some real cash without lifting a finger to accomplish the same thing I do with weeks or months of actually playing the game, that cheapens it severely for me. That's why I hated the introduction of things like cash shop mounts in subscription games. Even appearance items are questionable because then less time ends up being devoted to making good-looking stuff that can be acquired in-game. I don't want a wardrobe that says 'hey, look how much I'm willing to spend', but I still want to look good. I suppose I'm okay with things like accelerated experience (as long as it's not TOO accelerated), but my standards don't leave much more room for a cash shop.
That said, it's so unavoidable in games these days that the question seems to be moot.
Mon Oct 17 2011 3:10PM ReportIn any but one 'f2p' game run with the cash shop, If I wanted to, lets say, spend about as much as I would on a sub game(example: 20ish bucks a month) you find your FAR behind the one who either grinds HEAVY and/or spends heavy.
And the 'a bad player earning more xp is still a bad player' is utter bullshit, sorry. The SAME argument goes the other way. A GOOD player earling 2.5x as much as the 'next' just-as-good player is 2.5x as effective as him. Your point dies with that.
And about the 'i wanna play 4 fwee and have as much as thee' shit isn't what i said, learn to read. I said that the games out there now, EVERY SINGLE ONE, has 'SOME' ability to 'pay to win' however large or small that ability may be.
An item to increase gained xp: U get xp faster, U level faster, dont need explaining, you 'win' faster(Depending what your idea of 'winning' a mmo might be)
Something to defend your gear from breaking when you upgrade: Winning by simply NOT risking good gear making it better.
Items to res on the spot/res with no loss/etc - Again, does this need to be explained?
The one and only example of a 'non pay to win' thing would be cosmetics.
No, I'm NOT saying the model is broken, or that its 'bad', if its a good game, they damned well deserve to make cash for it. The point is your 'blog' post is a steaming lump of.... well sorry thats too far, but its definatly from the rear side of a bull.
Both models are good and work in thier own way, the problem is theres many less sub games and many more p2w games nowdays. I'm an old fart when it comes to the history of mmo/mmorpg's and I can say that I strongly prefer the sub market of days gone past, even when I wasn't able to play as often. Free games are great when u want to save some money, but can easily COST you 10x as much as a sub game.
Mon Oct 17 2011 9:33PM ReportEr.. Forgot to say, that having more bagspace IS another VERY strong example of paying to win. Many of the games out there that 'sell' bagspace also make sure to cause your inventory to fill very fast with needed items for quests, crafting, etc. (Meaning u either make many many more trips to unload, or u sacrafice gain, or u pony up the cash to get the increased bag space.)
Funny thing is your reply to my post only defended exactly what I said in my first statement: Every 2p game on the market, bar 2 i can think of, are clear-cut p2w models. Not ONE isn't that way,
I ask again, please list some 'f2p don't mean p2w' games.
Maybe just one thats not one of the 2 I know of(which are still p2w and getting worse with each update)
Mon Oct 17 2011 9:40PM Report@Atma:
You want a list of F2P games that aren't pay to win? Lets get started.
LoTRO ,DDO, Eden Eternal, Uncharted Waters Online, S.U.N, Battlefield Heroes, Cloud Nine, Cabal Online, S4 Leauge,Drift City, Cross fire, Rusty Hearts, Metin 2, City of Heroes/Villains, Prius, Vindictus, Spiral Knights, Forsaken World, Jade Dynasty,,...
I can keep going, but it would be pointless because your an ignorant fool who will just continue to argue because you have a heavly biased opinion.
Tue Oct 18 2011 4:24PM ReportPs. You can level up as fast as you want.... Shitty player is still shit.
Tue Oct 18 2011 4:25PM ReportPardon, but Free2PLay "does" mean Pay2Win. Sorry to break the news to you. Good to know someone is lining your pocket.
Tue Oct 18 2011 5:59PM ReportIts sad how many players claiming f2p=p2w are too closed minded to follow the logic in this blog. You can explain it to them any way you can imagine, but they already have their minds made up and only see what supports their point of view.
Fortunately, my enjoyment of many f2p games isn't hindered by their blindness and an increasing number of game companies are seeing the light and offering a f2p option. Few are as generous as LOTRO, but even a restrictive f2p option is better than no option.
Fri Oct 21 2011 12:33PM ReportNo your wrong, and the one who is closed minded is you.
The fact that you can 'prevent' or reduce the chances of an item being destroyed is paying to win (by not 'losing')
Its so simple anyone can see. Yes U CAN play for free, but doing so means you must take much more risk, much more time, etc, to achive those who DO pay.
Not once did I say you CAN'T play the game for free, that was NOT what your blog said. What I am saying is that your blog is 'false' on many levels, since ANYTHING u can buy in the store in-game that 'helps' you gain or 'protects' from loss, is 'paying to win' simple as that.
Theres nothing wrong with the model,and its how they make money, as I've said, but I'm point out that your essay is faulty on every level. Your opinion is that 'you do not need to pay to enjoy' which I agree, but THAT isn't the message you were trying to get across with the blog. If it was titled 'you can still enjoy a free game without paying to win' then sure, thats great, but the fact is you are trying(and failing) to tell us that 'free games with cash shop 'easy-gain' items are not pay to win. This. Is. Not. True.
Fri Oct 21 2011 1:46PM Report@AtmaDarkwolf: The reason why I haven't responded to you for quite a while is simple; you're abstracting my points and branding them according to your own personal philosophy.
I will make one point however before I disregard your posts entirely (I really can't be bothered to read them now; everytime someone else comments, you come back with a flawed rant that wastes a small but not insignificant portion of my time and it's becoming tedious as you constantly repeat yourself): At the start of the blog post I begin to outline in quite clear terms what I consider "Pay2Win" (quote: "When I talk about “Pay2Win” games I mean...") That's a very import part of the posts because it acknowledges the loose and free definition of the term. I never said, and in fact you should have never inferred, that my definition as given wasn't dfferent to yours. And you can't, I'm afraid, successfully argue in definitives here, especially when it comes to the definition of the phrase "Pay2Win". The blog post outlines why I don't think some F2P games are Pay2Win, and states why. At the end I make a suggestion. What I didn't do is what you are doing now because, unlike you (apparently), I know that argument cannot be made from either side of the fence.
TL;DR: give it up, bro.
Fri Oct 21 2011 6:27PM ReportThe fact that your blog only has replies from me, who am trying to point out your errors in logic, and your 'one' follower + one other, shows that your blog don't have much intrest. IE your speakin out of your ass, and nobody cares.
You also seem to think that your opinion matters so much so that 'anyone' disagreeing isn't worth the dirt under your feet.
The whole blog, title and all, is the error, and that 'one' little line about 'what i mean' isn't the same thing as 'This is my opinion and only my opinion. Your blog write up is trying at its best, to shove this down the throats as facts.
I'm glad your giving it up, and maybe your 'next' blog will make sense. Or maybe u can do yourself(and all of us) a break and don't bother.
Sun Oct 23 2011 3:45AM Report@AtmaDarkwolf umad bro? I think umad. P2p games are just as Pay2Win as any F2P game out there. You are forced to pay 2 win instead of choosing to pay 2 win.
I'm right your wrong, end of story... utoomadbroyouneedtoliedownorsomething.
Sun Oct 23 2011 11:50AM Report@ Recklan: Even morons and idiots got the right to learn so...
No, its pay to pay. Nothing more, nothing less. you, along with each other person who wants to pay, pays the set value over the set given time, for access to the game. It don't matter if they sit around chatting, pvping, hardcore grind, none of it matters, because each and every person pays the same value to gain ANY access to aspect of the game.
And if it was just an attempt to be a troll, well good job, but I think u only proved my point :P
Sun Oct 23 2011 12:24PM Reportwow oops a few things got jumbled up on my last post
Who wants to play, and gains access to any aspect ,.
(Needs edit button here)
Sun Oct 23 2011 12:26PM ReportAtmaDarkwolf has been forcfully disapparated, as I can't be bothered to even read his comments anymore.
If, Mr. Darkwolf, you have such a clear and truthful opinion on this matter, please feel free to make a blog post of your own instead of turning the comment section into a pointless war of conflicting ideals ;)
We don't agree. That is all that is going to come of this discussion. That is all that WILL come of this discussion.
Good bye.
Sun Oct 23 2011 1:40PM ReportFree2Play only means one thing.. Those who have money have to now pay 10 times as much to play the same game they have been paying a monthly subscription fee, as they suppose those who will never spend a dime. Its a concept guarunteed to fail over time... Right now companies are exploiting it.. and basically the ones making money have actually turned theyre game into nothing more than a lottery to get items that don't exist.. See Shot Online and how they have paypal gift boxes for clubs you will never get even after spending $500 worth of money... but a mysterious person who sits all day and All night for 5 years has everything to trae for an exuber amount of cash once your fed up feeding the scam.... Nothing short of an illegal lottery perfectly acceptable and Paypal looks the other way as they are cashing in big just like the owners of a very fixed game.
In other scenarios, I have beta tested NFS Online and watched a great driving game turn into COMPLETE CRAP as they in the last month turned into monetizing it.. by basically saying.. you want fun.. you need to spend 25 cents everytime you want to get past the tough part and use a power up....
I watched RPG games turn into nothing but a potion popping fest, as a potion equals dimes and if you dont want to boringly sit in the same spot after each 1 on 1 encounter, pop a potion as its completed scripted how your game is going to play....
There is nothing good whatsoever about F2P execpt expanding a very bad game's lifetime... If noone wants to spend $10-15 a month to play it.. Then its already proven.. NOT WORTH IT....
Supporting F2P is simply a fools dream
Sun Oct 23 2011 11:08PM ReportDont beleive him? look up League of Legends!
Wed Mar 07 2012 10:43AM ReportMMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment