What is your definition o 'Pay to Win'?

After the interesting conversations on the other thread, I feel that one of the core themes of the discussion is focused around this single concept.

It also became apparent that very few people agree on what Pay 2 Win is apart from those that outright believe any form of RMT, of any kind constitutes pay to win.

So, instead of a vote, or an obtuse question about game specifics we don't have, i thought it migth be useful for people to define what Pay to Win is. With that in mind I decided to create this thread with the hopes that the variety of opinions is aired and the devs have access to a robust list of the pro's and con's from all the differing view points.

If I can ask that if you wish to post here that you remember the point here and it is to communicate what you believe is Pay to Win. not to debunk or ridicule others who may have different standards. if you disagree with someone's post and definitions then respond by providing your own paradigms.

For me Pay to Win is described by the following

1) Exclusive access through RMT to items, skills or perks of greater power then those available through gameplay..
(Examples include weapon augments in many online shooters with power boosts and games which offer limited bag slots with additional available only through RMT)

2) Access through RMT to items, skills and perks of high power that are only obtainable through game-play that a reasonable person would consider excessive.
(Examples of this would be games with lengthy grinds to acquire required items to gain combat or economic power. Often seen in mobile games that allow build queues to be skipped, or skills to be learnt instantly) [As a side note, under this definition, the selling of houses may meet 'pay to win' depending on the gold price and in game economy, which is unknown]

3) Where the acquisition of power between those who participate in RMT and those who don't becomes an identifiable and measurable gap.

4) Game mechanics have a perceived (Intentional or not as I believe the perception of the customer is what matters) skew to attracting business to the RMT store to participate fully in the game rather then the store focusing on 'those that seek it'. Essentially if it is over-marketed.
(Example of this is Dragon Age which had an NPC offering 'quests' which redirected you to a store to buy the DLC)

This more or less outlines where I draw the line for Pay to Win

 

Anything which gives an advantage in a zero sum game.

Obviously if there's no "win", then you cannot pay to win.

If items have power, power wins at PvP, and RMT can be traded for these items, then I clearly have pay to win. But if items have no power, and are cosmetic then I do not have P2W.

If there's places with zero sum housing, then I'd like some ways for it to be obtainable where it is unaffected by RMT. e.g. whichever guild holds castle x can allocate houses is town y as they see fit.

They cannot really have both "gold buys everything" and RMT and last very long. You can RMT all day in WoW, but nearly anything of value is bind on pickup so that it doesn't matter.

 

Pay To Win to me means someone who simply RMT purchases their way to the end of the game (be it an immense amount of ingame currency or Best In Slot equipment) so that they have achieved what is effectively possible in the game without actually playing the game itself. (See: RMAH buying of all BiS equipment in Diablo 3)

In regard to the 4 descriptions listed:

1. and 2. fit my definition as well.

3. This one I think is borderline to not really useable because this WILL be the case in ANY competitive inline game as RMT WILL exist whether or not it is sanctioned by the game producer, so in that case, just about EVERY GAME is PtW.

4. I see this more as Bad Game Design™ than PtW... more closely identifyinig with "Pay to Proceed" or "Freemium" in regards to "Free to Play" games.

With that in mind, PtW to me is partially the game if designed in such a way and the player (regardless of how the game is designed) if they engage in the behaviour even if it is not necessary.

 

Several levels..

Being able to use real life cash to buy anything in-game.

Being able to use real life cash to buy in-game currency. ( no matter how many steps are involved )

Being able to use real life cash to buy any non-cosmetic/non-appearance item.

Personally, I feel cash shops are abhorrent and have no place in any game. I would pay up to a $50 a month subscription, rather than have a cash shop. Some customers are perfectly happy to pay subscriptions. 10+ years of north american subscription games have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Putting a cash shop in place invariably changes the focus of some development efforts away from fun, challenging, and innovative to funnel more customers to the cash shop. That's a waste of good development effort, imho.

 

What is what I understand under "win"?
It's the moment, in which all I want is accomplished , there is no challenge any more - but this kind of win is also a loss, since this will result in losing motivation to go on.
So paying cash to speed his up is not necessarily a win. Sure you can win the battle, but if there nothing remains after the war what was it for again ... ?

 

Pay to win is an easy defenition for me, its to get an unfair advantage over other players.

World of Tanks is an perfect example of Pay2Win for me.

You cannot P2W in an MMO, because there is usually not a 'Win' aspect in MMO's, and there is yet any MMO that give you specific powerful items to people who pay which isnt availible to other people ingame.

 

Well, to me WoT isn't P2W, I've played it a lot. By paying you can advance in the game faster, but it won't give you an unfair advantage. It used to be P2W when "premium" ammo was available for RM only, but it was later changed. Even then it didn't matter because nobody would use them in random games because it was insane to fire RM in randoms. Advancing in the game faster just put you up against higher level competition, thanks to matchmaking.

 

Anything which gives a player a distinct advantage through real-world money is a "pay-2-win" mechanic. So, if you can buy the best equipment, skills, levels, companions, or in-game money (which will usually allow you get many of these things indirectly), it is a "play-2-win" game. "Win" in this context is of course used very loosely as in... get an advantage, because pay-2-get-an-advantage is not a very catchy term.

That's my definition.

 

A game where spending real money gives you a significant advantage over those who choose not to spend that money.

For example, if real money can buy you the best weapon in the game that'll more or less guarantee that you win every fight, and you can't get that weapon any other way (or if that weapon is so hard to get that it's out of bounds for most players), that would be "pay to win".

If the advantage isn't so great that people without that weapon can still win by conventional means, or if people can gain that weapon by other methods, then I don't class it as "pay to win".

 

I don't really care about the definition of "pay to win", since then people go on pedantic rants about how "there is no winning", or "but you can always buy stuff off the black market, so everything is pay to win". But I will say when I think a cash shop is detrimental to gameplay.

Everything you list is obviously very negative as an aspect of any game. In my opinion, any part of a game that encourages giving money over to receive benefits that are anything other than aesthetic has a negative impact on gameplay. Possible exceptions are 1-time payments to unlock something permanently (though if there are more than a couple of these, it becomes detrimental).

I want to pay to play a game in one lump sum or in predictable monthly payments, with the option to buy cool looking stuff for my character or house if I feel like donating. I do not want to always have the constant specter of the cash shop floating above me, telling me (no matter how much I've already spent) that I could pay a bit more to get a bit further along, or get better equipment, or be a bit more powerful. Any part of the game that encourages this, reminds me of this, or causes this type of thinking to become the norm, is a big detriment to my playing experience. I don't want to have to consider my personal finances while playing a game.

 

To me, "win" in an MMORPG simply means building a stat wise very strong character. If you can achieve that, or come close, with real money transactions, that is pay to win to me. Being able to purchase gold for real money is definitely pay to win since you skip a large part of the game to deck your character with the best of equipment. You win without playing the game.

 

Oh so they removed that.
I am not playing WoT, i tried it in the beginning, but i refused to play it due to the P2W Element of special ammo.
Even if its 'insane' to use them in randoms, it was still possible, therefor P2W

 

Maybe it should be called "Pay to Epeen" for MMOs?

 

True it was a P2W option, but why did they succeed so well?
Even back then with the option for P2W it was a tremendous success, and lately: "As of December 2013, there are 75,000,000 registered players worldwide and a 1.1 million peak concurrent players. This is an increase of 15 million over the 60 million in June 2013, and 30 million over the 45 million in December 2012."

They are doing it smart with the microtransactions, you can't buy success but you can save time by paying. If you advance faster you'll be thrown in with the more experienced players, it has a flipside to it. And you can only unlock the best stuff (highest tier tanks) by playing. That's an essential thing to have.

 

It is a sucess because , as ive stated in other threads on this issue, being able to buy things for IRL money in a game doesnt break the game, no matter how many threads the people who claim that make on these forums.

Fact is, there is a huge group of people who acually want to spend money on a game to save time ( which i think is the most common reason together with ' better look' or 'feeling unique' ) , and there are very few people who stay away from something just because you can buy items.

I did it, i stay away from FPS ( Which is all about KILLING ) when it has p2w elements, but in an MMO, its not that big of a deal, Really.

 

My definition of a pay to win game is as such:

Pay money using some form of widely accepted currency in order to gain access to the endgame and thus attaining any and all features/content in-game gained by doing so in a manner which is near instantaneous.

 

Yeah, I just threw the question in as I was wondering it myself too, why did they succeed so well and lure people into buying stuff. It's not probably a good comparison with a mmo rpg anyway.

 

My definition of "Pay to Win" is as follows:

- When a real-money option exists that provides access to items, skills, resources, characters or other game-related assets that provide an advancement edge, that are otherwise not accessible in game.

My definition of what "Pay to Win" is NOT is as follows:

- When a real-money option exists to purchase in-game currency that can alternatively be acquired by in-game play, without limitation. To expand; if a player can choose to play for 5 hours and gain 100 gold, or they can choose to spend $25 and buy 100 gold, this does not equate to "Pay to Win"; it is "Pay for Convenience", but the act of possessing 100 gold at the cost of real money versus in-game time played does not automatically equate to "winning".

- When items of great power (and ergo, great in-game currency cost) are limited by level, this further moves the needle from "Pay to Win". Example: player 'A' plays for 5 hours and makes 100 gold. He also attains 1 level per hour, and is now level 5. Player 'B' purchases 100 gold for $25. He is level 1. They both hit up the vendor and buy the Sword of Ham Slaying (yum!) - Player 'A' equips it and begins hacking at hams, and player 'B' ... uh oh! "required level 5? oh noes!". In essence, one COULD make the argument that "Pay for Convenience" just about qualifies as "Pay To Lose!"

- When a real-money option exists for purchasing vanity items that do not have a noticeable impact on ADVANCEMENT game play mechanics, where those items are otherwise not available. For instance, color / dye packs, unique wall art, additional hair styles, etc. Customization that does not "provide an edge" is not Pay to Win.

If I can think of more examples that help clarify my stance, I'll add them. Thanks for putting this post together! I've been through this discussion many times now, related to many different games, and it took the collected involvement in all my previous discussions on the topic to arrive at my current belief (which is vastly different than where I started).

PEACE!

 

For me "Pay to Win" is simple:

As soon as you hit a Paywall, it's "Pay to Win": Paywall = You get to a point, where the content is so difficult or restricted, that you need to invest money to proceed

Many browser games do it this way: lure players with a simple first level into the game, then make the second level so hard, that players need to invest, if they want to proceed. Works best with children, that have control over the credit cards of their parents...

I'd differentiate this from "Pay to Unlock Content", which is the much better choice in my opinion, since this doesn't break the difficulty balance of a game and people know exactly, what they are paying for (in "Pay to Win"-games, you often pay for temporary buffs instead, where the possibility exists, that you still don't compete the content and you wasted your money)

 

Vagabond_sam and Sterley both hit on exactly how I feel about pay-to-win and not pay-to-win.