Pay to win? (Definition)

[Diazo]

This was spawned by the current conversation in the SimCity thread, but it is different enough that I felt it warranted its own thread.

And that is "pay-to-win" and microtransactions.

First, what exactly is "pay-to-win"?

Something like buying a new hat in TF2 is not, that does not affect your game play at all, it just makes your character look different.

Something like doubling your weapon damage is obviously pay-to-win as you are getting a significant bonus that way.

What about something like leveling faster though? I play World of Tanks and I've just moved into Tier 8, but I'm stuck with my Tier 7 gun until I grind the XP needed for the Tier 8 gun. I'm getting close but I have a ways to go.

However, WoT allows you to buy premium time which gives you an XP bonus after every match. Had I done this, I would have had my tier 8 gun a long time ago and be doing much better in matches. Is this pay-to-win? Had I paid, I would have my tier 8 gun by now, which is effectively a damage bonus.

On microtransactions, there seems to be a feeling that microtransactions should not really affect gameplay to avoid the pay-to-win effect mentioned above.

But then the example was brought up of a mobile game that had microtransactions but took great pains to avoid the pay-to-win effect, and then made practically no money as no one was bothering to make any microtransactions.

Where's that line on acceptable here? And what as players do we think should be spent on microtransactions by players to support the developers?

D.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Pay to win really comes into play when you have to pay to stay in line with other players which is something you could not reasonably do without paying. So, for instance, if it took you until you got to tier 9 to get your tier 8 gun, because it was so costly, then paying for the boost gets closer to pay to win. If it was a case of poor money management, not earning enough bonuses, or being just a bit short of it, then it is more of you not being great at the game. Boosts really are just there to get you somewhere faster, which generally does not count as pay to win unless reaching the goal normally just takes "too long".
Of course, you simply don't have pay to win issues in single player or co-op games with boosts. In those cases, it's more of a problem if there's something in the shop that makes all of the gameplay trivial that you can't get by other means.

So in short, pay to win is when you have to pay for some kind of upgrade that you cannot reasonably attain otherwise.

[TechSY730]

In my mind, a "fair" microtransaction (or even not so micro) is one that does not offer a competitive advantage unless a similar advantage could of been gotten with a reasonable amount of time, effort, and/or skill otherwise. So basically, paying can give a boost, but it must be something you could get otherwise (but maybe take longer or be harder), or be not all that great in competitive impact.

For example, paying to get a boost in experiance? Fine, You could get that experiance anyways through enough play and skill.
Paying for a new costume that does not alter stats (or at least not significantly)? Fine, as that is not a competitive advantage.
Paying to get a sword that has +30 to HP and +5 to attack but you must be level 5 or up to equip, but there is another sword that has around the same boosts but can only be equipped at level 15 or up? Well, I would shake my head at that, but mostly fine, as although that does mess with competitive balance in the earlier stages of the game, in the upper "tiers", both pay-for and not-pay-for can get similar levels of rewards.
Paying to get a sword with great stats, or getting a absurd amount of in game "money" to buy it (or something similar) instead? Again, I would shake my head at that, as it is bordering on violating the "reasonableness" stipulation, I would probably be fine with it, so long as the "conversion rate" isn't absurd as well. Like, a dollar would give you about a weeks worth of grinding amount of in game currancy/items, yea that would be reasonable. A dollar would give you about a years worth of grinding of in game currancy/items, no, not reasonable or fair.

In my mind, a "pay-to-win" game is a game that is dominated by not fair transactions as given above.

[keith.lamothe]

I would apply the label to any game where two players' "willingness to pay money" is substantially more important than those players' "skill at the game" when determining which player wins.

There are other cases where the label might apply, but if it doesn't amount to the above I think of it more as "pay for an advantage", as it isn't a dominating factor.  I don't like those either, fwiw

[TechSY730]

I would apply the label to any game where two players' "willingness to pay money" is substantially more important than those players' "skill at the game" when determining which player wins.

There are other cases where the label might apply, but if it doesn't amount to the above I think of it more as "pay for an advantage", as it isn't a dominating factor.  I don't like those either, fwiw

That's basically what I was saying, except with far less words.

(In the rare case people haven't noticed, I have a tendency to be a bit too verbose to make my points. )

[LaughingThesaurus]

It seems like we all pretty much said the same thing... then keith swoops in and says it eloquently.

[Cyborg]

The latest Tribes shooter, buy equipment!

Zynga, buy coins for every little thing!

Maxis, rent your SimCity copy! Did you want a save button with that?

My definition is any game where transactions allow you to skip ahead of other players who play the game without inserting quarters.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I think Tribes is okay though. You can get to other equipment reasonably quickly, and none of the other equipment is a straight upgrade. Therefore, a new player is not at an inherent disadvantage barring those little upgrades for equipment that you can get which as far as I remember aren't really expensive at all.
An important thing to consider is, is the stuff you're spending money on straight-up better, or just different? If you think 'just different' is enough to make it mandatory, then by your definition TF2 is pay to win.

[Cyborg]

I think Tribes is okay though. You can get to other equipment reasonably quickly, and none of the other equipment is a straight upgrade. Therefore, a new player is not at an inherent disadvantage barring those little upgrades for equipment that you can get which as far as I remember aren't really expensive at all.
An important thing to consider is, is the stuff you're spending money on straight-up better, or just different? If you think 'just different' is enough to make it mandatory, then by your definition TF2 is pay to win.

You insert quarters into these?

[LaughingThesaurus]

Yes, you can pay money to get ahead, but you never get too far ahead. That's my whole point. If you can reasonably get to where you insert quarters without inserting any quarters, then it isn't pay to win-- especially if you're spending your quarters on a weapon that is balanced with the others-- just serves a different purpose.

[keith.lamothe]

There is of course another definition for the label: "any alternate monetization model that ticks me off"

Which, while not always a precise usage, is still an efficient means of communicating the utter disdain felt by the speaker.

[madcow]

I think the big sticking point in pay-to-x mechanics is if they empower the gamer with the choice to buy what would make the game fun for them. Or if you're spending your time to play a free game, only to have the rug pulled out and be told you need to pay to actually function - which feels a bit like a bait and switch.

It's a bit of a fine line, and unfortunately more and more it gets blurred. The success of microtransactions in the iOS front is really causing it to bleed over into traditional games, and it has more of an exploitative feel to it.

[Cyborg]

I'm asking if *you* paid...

[LaughingThesaurus]

Oh, I didn't catch that.
Nope. If I ever play a free to play game, I don't ever pay for it if I possibly can help it.

[Diazo]

Oh, I didn't catch that.
Nope. If I ever play a free to play game, I don't ever pay for it if I possibly can help it.

Now, I find this interesting.

The game is offered as free to play, so you certainly are not required to pay or anything.

However, something like Mass Effect that you pay top dollar for only has a few dozen hours of play time, where-as something like world of tanks, which I have 1000 matches played in (at about 10 mins a match) comes to 166 hours. I finally bought a gift pack for $5 recently, mostly because I'm playing the game so much that it deserves me giving them some money for the work they are doing, not because I felt I needed what the gift pack got me in terms of in-game items.

At what point should we, as players, start supporting a free-to-play game with our money? After all, money is the bottom line on how long, how much content, etc. that 'free' to play game we are playing gets.

Perhaps the name should be changed from "free-to-play" to something else, they are not truly free after all. There's enough players spending money to keep the free-to-play games going after all.

D.