Pay to Win - Any end in sight?

[Weebull]

Nothing wrong with unlocks/perks in games if they're done correctly. It gives people a reason to play which is fun especially when playing in public servers where a lot of people are just retarded beyond measure.

The odd gun wouldn't be a big deal, it's mainly the stuff that's gimped until you unlock things that bothers me. Things like the jets not having any weapons beyond the cannon (which is impossible to use when you're new to it), or some guns having frankly awful iron sights. BF3 shouldn't be a game where people are better than you just because they're a higher rank and have better stuff. If I wanted to play an RPG I would.

But mainly:

If it wasn't enough that playing the game should be the reason you play, people now need unlocks and perks? Something I've noticed in the newer generation of gamers really find attracting and I just see it as useless fluff that's distracting from the main purpose, to play a competitive online game where everyone is equal the moment you hit play.

This. If every unlock had been available in BF3 from the start, I'd have probably preferred being able to test out all the different weapons, than having to wait to be drip-fed them. I don't blame anyone for paying for the unlocks tbh, because they're getting the full game, frankly.

 

[ThomBassmonkey]

I think LoL has it right. They have a micro transaction system but if you decide to pay, you just get access to champions early or can boost your XP/IP (note, not get free XP or IP, just double your earnings).

You can unlock those same things by just playing the game and paying nothing.

I don't get the problem with early access. You learn the game by levelling up, obtaining new weapons etc. If you have everything right away, you have nothing to aim for and you'll still suck just as badly as if you had the lowbie stuff.

 

[edscdk]

Seems fair to me,

It means someone who works hard for a living can compete with unemployed people or kids at school / uni...

 

[ChrisJSY]

'Everything you want' varies from person to person. Personally for me, £20 + a few hours of play did it. I got what I wanted with gold, I've not spent my XP as much, meaning I have 150,000 stacked up to buy whatever takes my fancy.

Are you able to answer the question instead of skirting around what I'm asking and changing the meaning?

How much does it cost to play anything?

 

[JimAroo]

Are you able to answer the question instead of skirting around what I'm asking and changing the meaning?

How much does it cost to play anything?

First you said 'Everything you want'.

for absolutely 'EVERYTHING' your probably talking £50 or £60? I don't know, I'm only guessing. But that still wouldn't actually get you everything, it would only get you weapons, perks. The actual weapon and perk upgrades can only be purchased with XP.

I don't really understand the message you are trying to get across. If someone is enjoying the game enough to pay for each and every unlock in the game, you'd assume they would have already invested many hours of play in the game, which would probably already get them most of the unlocks.

 

[Xiler]

I dont agree with MMO games letting you buy items that are extremely rare, not attainable through normal means or give you an advantage over other players. I dont play MMO games anymore but would never play one that allows those things to happen.

As for BF3 paying to unlock kits,etc I have no problem with that. Having the final weapon for each class doesnt make you any better than someone playing with the first weapon, they all have weaknesses/strengths that make them pretty balanced. If anything I would say its a waste of money as having unlocks wont make you that much better as a player.

 

[ChrisJSY]

First you said 'Everything you want'.

for absolutely 'EVERYTHING' your probably talking £50 or £60? I don't know, I'm only guessing. But that still wouldn't actually get you everything, it would only get you weapons, perks. The actual weapon and perk upgrades can only be purchased with XP.

I don't really understand the message you are trying to get across. If someone is enjoying the game enough to pay for each and every unlock in the game, you'd assume they would have already invested many hours of play in the game, which would probably already get them most of the unlocks.

Actually, I said anything you want; you didn't have to take it so literally to it being exclusive to you.

The message I'm trying to get across is that, you're getting less of a game for what you'd pay for a full game in the past. In fact, to be able to play everything you end up spending more.

I'm happy to be told wrong, because that's why I asked you how much it costs since the store is ingame afaik and I haven't patched for months.

 

[Jongo]

Are you able to answer the question instead of skirting around what I'm asking and changing the meaning?

How much does it cost to play anything?

To be able to play all the roles in tribes it wouldn't take you long at all, probably around £10 and a few games. But to get some of the side grade weapons it puts it up to around £30. Its easy enough to unlock a class in Tribes though without resorting to gold, so long as you get a win a day you easily rack up a few thousand xp and classes now hardly cost anything.

 

[Fenris]

This is a discussion about the wonderful world of Pay to Win games, as they are commonly known. For those who arent familiar with them, its games that you either buy first or get for free, and with putting down some more money get access to all the best stuff straight away.

That isn't pay to win.

If anything it's paying for convenience. Pay to win is where you are buying power that is otherwise unattainable by the regular player, ergo paying to be better than them.

Personally I have next to no issue with the convenience thing, as long as it's not over the top and an ordinary player can get the same stuff in a reasonable amount of time then who cares.

 

[Jaffar]

I think the problem with this model is that it is likely to change the goal of the developers from "let's make this as fun as possible" to "how can we squeeze as much cash out of the customers as possible". While still interested in making money, a business model where you pay up front is less likely to have this problem (although the increase in DLC is leading things that way). An example would be instead of a game's levelling system being balanced in a way that makes it most fun / rewarding, making it a painfully slow grind without paying for some extra. Or having important parts of a game's plot or NPCs only accessible by buying DLC (*cough* ME3 *cough*).

 

[Evilsod]

I think the problem with this model is that it is likely to change the goal of the developers from "let's make this as fun as possible" to "how can we squeeze as much cash out of the customers as possible". While still interested in making money, a business model where you pay up front is less likely to have this problem (although the increase in DLC is leading things that way). An example would be instead of a game's levelling system being balanced in a way that makes it most fun / rewarding, making it a painfully slow grind without paying for some extra. Or having important parts of a game's plot or NPCs only accessible by buying DLC (*cough* ME3 *cough*).

Some companies changed to that goal a long time ago. Micro transactions just give them even more opportunities. Its painfully obvious when its been done though but that doesn't seem to stop people throwing money at obvious cash-ins like they want to support such a business model.

World of Tanks is a pretty bad example. Firstly it has premium which increases credit/exp gain to reduce the grind, most of which they enforce themselves by making the tanks truly awful at stock and the path to the next tank very long, but thats bearable and isn't pay-to-win. Then it has premium tanks which aren't as powerful as equivalent tanks (so the say...) but generate lots of credits. Then it has premium consumables and ammo which offer considerable benefits in battle over regular consumables/ammo which should be a complete no-no and is clearly a pay-to-win scenario.

 

[McDan]

I don't like the model but it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue. Most of the games that follow the model have either failed on the monthly subscription model or would never be good enough for people to pay monthly for anyway.

There is a way to defeat the model for anyone that cares and its simple enough - just stop playing the game and make it known why you did so. CCP dropped years of work because of subscriber protest against the micro transaction scheme in Eve-Online.

All these companies ever care about is money and that is the only way you can persuade them to take one course of action over another.