Shadow Era

[Minotaar]

I was personally a big fan of the old "pay $30, get full access to the game" approach but apparently that doesn't work anymore.

See, I feel that too. F2P games too often feel like trial versions, but with a trial version at least you could, you know, purchase the full version. Doesn't work that way now. Pay or don't pay, you still can't have everything and every screen will be shouting at you about it. I spent 10$ on Tribes, don't intend to spend any more, but I sure wish I could just buy it for 40$ to begin with.
With a full up-front payment model, more time can be devoted to perfecting the actual gameplay, instead of coming up with progression systems and new ways to make people spend money every other week. (Tribes is pretty much guilty of all that) I'm completely sick of this whole idea of persistent progression (and now they try to shove it into RTS, too.. good god), but I guess I'll have to wait until the general public gets sick of it too.

[keith.lamothe]

The f2p model does have one very important positive from the developer perspective: it doesn't put a cap on how much a player can contribute (monetarily) to the game.  I kind of go back and forth on the ethics of that, but as one of the developers who occasionally gets the "shut up and take my money!" response from customers I can see the logic.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want the AIW regulars to pay according to the value they've gotten out of the game, some of them would go broke!

More seriously, some games thrive much better (from the player perspective too, because the game gets way more dev-time due to not needing to put as much time into other projects) on a model where only a few 1,000s or 10,000s of players play the game with any regularity, and they each wind up paying a fair chunk of money over time (voluntarily, not subscription) and in return get lots of new stuff and ongoing improvements, etc.

But the whole idea doesn't... sit well, really.  The games industry is still pretty young (at least, I hope that 100 years from now people will have figured out how to make big games without such an atrocious rate of "and the studio was closed and everyone laid off right after release"), and these non-retail business models are even younger.  Hopefully better approaches will be found as people learn from the experience.

[zespri]

but as one of the developers who occasionally gets the "shut up and take my money!" response from customers I can see the logic.

That's why the kickstarter thingie for avww is so awesome =)

[Mánagarmr]

Anything where you can pay money to gain gameplay advantage over others who don't pay is pay to win.

To me, BF3 premium is the borderline case. It can not really be pay to win because even if you are premium you will not win against a good normal player, you just have access to 4 maps and there, everyone is premium, so it's balanced too.

That said, they sell booster packs to get the unlocks which is actually kinda of a shortcut, but an advantage? Mhhh, not to me.

All f2p games are p2w though. And the new pest boil of the industry, founder bonus. Now THAT is really pay to win if done wrongly *hint* Mechwarrior Online.

I love how you are defending games you like as not p2w, but bashing everything else. Consistent much? "All f2p games are p2w. LoL is great though. Oh and BF3 too, although close. But it's fine. Tribes sucks. and this here cardgame too. p2w lol".

:/

Fine, I get your point. You don't like f2p games, but now you're just being antagonistic.

[Mánagarmr]

I was personally a big fan of the old "pay $30, get full access to the game" approach but apparently that doesn't work anymore. I feel like the new "F2P/P2W" system operates on stupidity, because people who may have not even paid the $30 entry fee before often end up paying hundreds of dollars or more for the F2P model in the end.

*Sigh* Casual gamers.

Yeah, I liked that too. The problem was that AAA publishers realized that parents would shell out $60-$90 for games for their kids, while real (usually older) gamers went "WTF!?!" and didn't buy the games. Eventually, parents started feeling the burn too. Now, few will buy the "Expensatron 2000" and publishers go "Balls, how can we profit from this?"

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I was personally a big fan of the old "pay $30, get full access to the game" approach but apparently that doesn't work anymore. I feel like the new "F2P/P2W" system operates on stupidity, because people who may have not even paid the $30 entry fee before often end up paying hundreds of dollars or more for the F2P model in the end.

*Sigh* Casual gamers.

Yeah, I liked that too. The problem was that AAA publishers realized that parents would shell out $60-$90 for games for their kids, while real (usually older) gamers went "WTF!?!" and didn't buy the games. Eventually, parents started feeling the burn too. Now, few will buy the "Expensatron 2000" and publishers go "Balls, how can we profit from this?"

Don't forget, you can scam kids by letting stupid parents leave them alone with a F2P game and they rack up a bill of thousands of dollars and the companies are like: "tough luck, you paid for it, no returns".

[keith.lamothe]

but now you're just being antagonistic.

It's better than being antagonized by explosive barrels, right?

[eRe4s3r]

Hehe, but someone has to be antagonist. A topic where everyone agrees is pointless.

BF3 is not free 2 play, so it can't be pay 2 win You have to pay to play. And this to me where the line is drawn. It isn't random or erratic. Pay to get a game = fine. pay to get DLC = fine. Pay to get all unlocks in a pay to play game = borderline. Why? Because it gets you a marginal advantage (in BF3 you can win on RANK 1 in (nearly) all situations) because you never play alone, what perk and weapon and attachment is pure taste, and 1 player has nearly no impact on a game, unless he is EXCEPTIONALLY good (and then it doesn't matter what weapons he uses). But in Tribes a single good player has a huge impact, he can do flag cap runs ad absurdum or defend by being properly equipped with near 99% success. A single player decides the game in Tribes, and if that player is already good, and he has bought the weapons he needs to be good, then that is pay to win in a semi-mild form. Because if you are not paying, you'd have to grind over 3 months to even unlock a single class and the optimal stuff for each situation.

But pre-order and get a super-pwn weapon of doom that pwns everyone for X months? That is imo pretty clear p2w in the purest form there is. Particularly Kickstarter promotes such idiocy. Because actual customers are punished. (Kickstart funders are not customers)

And I do not dislike free to play games, I simply dislike when paying gets you such an absurd clear advantage that no matter your skill you can not compete on the same level, even if that advantage could be leveled by grinding 2 months.

And yeah, in BF3 there are situations pre-patch where a good heli pilot was god-like against pure rank 1's.. but given that you'd have to have some absurd luck not to have anyone in your team with a stinger or some RPG skill....

So to put it simply.

If you pay money for a gameplay advantage of any kind it is pay to win. There is no arguing there. That is what pay to win means on the web. So yes, the buying all unlocks in BF3.. that is pay to win. And I'd never do that.

By the way, I am often taking an opinion to keep the topic alive ;P If you'd really press me on an answer I'd have to say that the only reason I am not bashing BF3 for this unlock bxxxxxt is that there are legitimate reasons to have unlocks for sale, and that given how much experience I have in BF3, I can safely say that the unlock stuff is the prime drive of motivation to play this game at first. Paying to remove it is paying to destroy your own fun! ;p

[Mánagarmr]

And I do not dislike free to play games, I simply dislike when paying gets you such an absurd clear advantage that no matter your skill you can not compete on the same level, even if that advantage could be leveled by grinding 2 months.

In that case you should be fine with both Tribes and Shadow Era, where you can compete out of the box. If you are absurdly good at Shadow Era you might outpace your in game progression (card gains) by ranking up too fast (facing extremely competitive players/decks).

[Cyborg]

And I do not dislike free to play games, I simply dislike when paying gets you such an absurd clear advantage that no matter your skill you can not compete on the same level, even if that advantage could be leveled by grinding 2 months.

In that case you should be fine with both Tribes and Shadow Era, where you can compete out of the box. If you are absurdly good at Shadow Era you might outpace your in game progression (card gains) by ranking up too fast (facing extremely competitive players/decks).

Unless someone else bought the speed boost right out of the gate, in which case you won't be as competitive.

[Mánagarmr]

More gameplay here and here.

[RCIX]

Since you bumped it...

The way I look at it in league is this: I can get champions (and skins but those don't count because you can't buy them with both) with RP and IP. IP takes me about 30ish hours of grinding to get enough for one champion, or I can spend ~7.50 (not exactly, closest is 3 5-dollar bundles of RP which gets you 2 champions at the standard price), which takes something to the effect of 50 minutes on an average 8 dollar an hour job. Since time is the more constraining factor here, it's better for me to spend the 7.50 then use the other 29 hours to enjoy what I wanted instead of grinding all that time.

Runes can't be bought (directly) with RP, and IP boosts are so comically money-inefficient you pretty much may as well just grind for whatever on your own if you possibly can, or just use the money directly on what you want.

It's as simple as that. (and yes, you can win and have no significant disadvantage by just unlocking 450 IP champions and maybe some 1350 ones. Nunu is a good jungler/solotop, Anivia is arguably the best AP in the game if you can play her properly, Kayle is a great top laner, etc. All your money is buying you is different ways to play)

It comes down to this: Do I enjoy League of Legends? Yes? Then I don't mind tossing some money Riot's way when I can and getting some cool skins or more champions out of the deal. I'd have never played League if it had costed a flat entrance fee. FWIW, I just don't like that model all that much anymore, forking over a somewhat large sum of cash with no idea how long my interest in the game I'm buying will last. We've established I'm a semi-casual gamer though so

Yay for long acronyms?

I think p2rap may get the point across more concisely

Pay to rap?

[Aklyon]

Yay for long acronyms?

I think p2rap may get the point across more concisely

Pay to rap?

P2rapwhp2w.

[Mánagarmr]

Unless someone else bought the speed boost right out of the gate, in which case you won't be as competitive.

Speed boost? If you're referring to Shadow Era, the only things you can buy is cards and more cards, just like any collectible card game.

So if a new player buys a shitton of cards, and dumps them all into his deck, he's going to lose hilariously due to having abysmal draw. Shadow Era is not about the amount of cards you have, but which cards you have and how the synergize. Something the starter decks aren't actually bad at. I got to 200 rating with my starting rogue deck before I started facing really difficult decks, and by that time I had enough grasp of the game to start setting my own deck together and stop relying on the starter deck, buying a card here and there as needed with the gold I had amassed.

And then physical cards happened.

[Aklyon]

We already knew that.