Forums Kongregate

Kongregate players need to learn what Pay-To-Win means page 3 (locked)

107 posts

Flag Post

Oh? Then what type of games were you talking about here?

Yeah. That was my definition of pay-to-win – being able to buy an advantage in those fights, that means you win against others with similar skill to yourself.

Because if I’m going head to head with an equally skilled player, whichever one of us has the paid advantage is the one that’s going to win.

You talk about winning against other players in the context of a micropurchase game that’s online and multiplayer…

Kinda like… an MMO?!?!?! But you can’t win in MMOs! You can only progress!

Are you starting to understand your hilarious chain of illogic yet?

 
Flag Post

Okay? I said you can’t win an MMO in its entirely. It’s pretty obvious that that’s not the same as winning PVP duels within the game O.o

 
Flag Post

Oh, so you admit you were being an obtuse shitheel with no actual argument who was putting words in my mouth and contradicting yourself when you posted this?:

Your definition has a problem, though. You see, in MMOs you don’t win the entire game. There is no win condition for an MMO, only progression and advancement. So according to that logic, pay to win doesn’t exist at all, in which case Kong has invented the term and can invent the definition as well.

So glad we’re finally on the same page. Nighty night.

 
Flag Post

I believe you’ll want to refer again to the post you made stating that pay to win meant paying to win the game, which was what I disagreed with.

As to the rest of what you said, I’m afraid I don’t even use language like that.

 
Flag Post

 
Flag Post

If I might enter this debate to make a point of my own, or perhaps to just try to settle this bickering once and for all…

Usually players set their own goals when they play a game. Doesn’t matter what kind of game — single or multiplayer, platformer, RPG, shooter, whatever. Point is, there is some ultimate achievement we strive to attain.


For a single-player game, usually this is to complete all of the content (finish every level, basically). Some people prefer to do this content in a certain style, such as speedrunning, highscoring, lowscoring, or whatever strikes their fancy.

I’ve noticed a few single-player games start offering premium paid content, such as Gemcraft Labyrinth among others. This extra content might make such content easier, might add additional content to explore, or some combination of those two. Regardless, it affects the goal of completing content, and thus most players’ win conditions that they set for themselves.

My own personal opinion on this premium content in single-player games is that the “powerful premium perks” that make the game easier can be pay-to-win. You might disagree with it, but there tends to be quite a fluid audience with games on Kongregate — and the faster we can finish our goals in one game and move on to the next, the sooner we can start finishing our goals in that game also, and so on and so forth. Paying players will inevitably finish more goals, and thus “win” at more games.

As for my opinion on additional premium content in single-player games, it does keep players around in one game a bit longer (if the game is enjoyable of course), but such content is still pay-to-win in my eyes as a player cannot experience this content without paying, and thus cannot complete it. Perhaps a player may alter his/her goals so that they “win” when all the free content has been finished.

Yes, this entire section so far has been on single-player games. I haven’t touched on multiplayer/MMO games yet, but will do so now.


Multiplayer games are notably different from single-player games. Generally they are designed to have no clear end goal for a player — it’s best left open-ended to allow the developers to add additional content in updates to the game and retain their player base.

But of course, players will make their own goals anyway. Many of these games will have some hard cap on level, such as Dream World (level cap 100). Other games tend to be more softcapped by what content is available, and the game won’t allow a character to grow too much stronger than the toughest content currently in the game. Still other games don’t seem to have any real caps at all; progress in the game is based more around what you can achieve, such as Transformice where you can get as much cheese as you want, and in whatever style you want (random normal maps, classic vanilla maps, asinine bootcamp maps, racing minigame maps, expert shamaning maps, the list goes on and on).

Point is, people make their own goals in multiplayer games too. Sometimes these goals are in direct conflict with each other (there can only be one victor in a 1v1 player match), and that’s where a lot of the butthurt of a market model perceived as pay-to-win comes from. Someone’s going to lose, and it’s usually the person that doesn’t pay to get ahead somehow.

This doesn’t mean non-paying players can’t compete, but they have to compete harder to play at the same level as someone who’s accelerated their growth with their wallet. Some people complain, but that’s life I guess…


Short version for lazy readers: I firmly believe that any premium available for real money (even if in-game currency is an option) that furthers a player’s progress through acceleration, special premium equipment, or whatever helps the paying player achieve more of their personal goals, and thus they “win” more than someone that doesn’t pay.

That’s my own definition. I suspect other people use this definition too, but more often in the form of declaring a certain premium purchase unfair to the non-paying players.

(Just for the record, I don’t see premium content as evil. It does tend to make people unhappy if it unbalances things too much though, and I prefer playing games with more joyful communities.)
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SS_Seedlings:

(Just for the record, I don’t see premium content as evil. It does tend to make people unhappy if it unbalances things too much though, and I prefer playing games with more joyful communities.)

Thank god, I’m not the only one.

A wonderful post! Thank you!

 
Flag Post

And there’s quite a difference between the egregious cash-grabs that ask you for money every two game screens and the rather excellent clout, which appears to be an actual game with actual choices. I have no issue with clout, as it actually adds something new to the genre. The humorous theme, interesting (so far) player interaction and lack of any lag to speak of gets a +1 from me. I believe it’s the negative halo effect from quite a number of the other MMOs on this site that is causing the negative feedback on your game: if you hadn’t come on the forums personally to argue your point, I would have treated your game like every other “multiplayer” game on this and rated it 1/5 after clicking around the menu screen. The fact that bad multiplayer games are allowed to propagate on this site hurts legitimate multiplayer games like yours that rely on good gameplay instead of a repetitive feedback loop to get attention. Hell, the passing out and addiction systems actually break the repetitive feedback loop.

Props on actually trying to make a good game in this genre. I think I’ve only ever seen two games that have done this well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

Oh, so you admit you were being an obtuse shitheel with no actual argument who was putting words in my mouth and contradicting yourself when you posted this?

So glad we’re finally on the same page. Nighty night.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ne0pets22:

And there’s quite a difference between the egregious cash-grabs that ask you for money every two game screens and the rather excellent clout, which appears to be an actual game with actual choices. I have no issue with clout, as it actually adds something new to the genre. The humorous theme, interesting (so far) player interaction and lack of any lag to speak of gets a +1 from me. I believe it’s the negative halo effect from quite a number of the other MMOs on this site that is causing the negative feedback on your game: if you hadn’t come on the forums personally to argue your point, I would have treated your game like every other “multiplayer” game on this and rated it 1/5 after clicking around the menu screen. The fact that bad multiplayer games are allowed to propagate on this site hurts legitimate multiplayer games like yours that rely on good gameplay instead of a repetitive feedback loop to get attention. Hell, the passing out and addiction systems actually break the repetitive feedback loop.

Props on actually trying to make a good game in this genre. I think I’ve only ever seen two games that have done this well.

At least it’s nice to know that people like the game when they’re actually paying attention. Thanks for actually giving the game a fair chance and catching on to the various failsafe features I included to stop the game from getting dumb or p2w. It’s the occasional person like you that makes the effort worth it.

Theeeen on the other hand we have mister facepalm. Who doesn’t really seem to understand what that image macro is for.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

You have no idea what P2W means. Stop using the term.

I think herein lies your problem.. i just did a quick google scan of “pay2win” and there isn’t a clear definition. There is a definition you have in your mind, a definition that others have in their minds, and there seems to be a disconnect between the two. Can you definitively prove that your definition is the correct one?

I do agree with your original point, though… and this is why I call games “cash-grabs” as opposed to p2w. Most of these cash-grab games (and probably yours, too), offer very little actually gameplay, but do have lots of micro$ interactions… if you are a developer that has $ buttons everywhere in your game… go away. If you are a developer who has no gameplay in your game… go away.

 
Flag Post

I really wouldn’t call it a cash grab. There are so many safety valves to stop the player from playing too long or spending massive amounts of money that you really can’t say it’s just a bid for your wallet. The cash-grabbing games will try to compel players to come back every day with non-gameplay features like daily chests. Energy refills can be bought with in-game money, which is already a massive improvement over the cash-grabbers. Usually, the option to keep playing would be for-pay only, purchasable only with a second tier of currency that you pay real money for – in Clout, they’re actually quite cheap. They actually behave like game mechanics too, with drawbacks to make using them an interesting risk. And throughout the game, I only see one button to pay real cash, and that one is metered per month. What kind of insane money grubber would want to limit the amount of money they can eke off you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Piple:

Great example OP. You are paying to skip part of a level. Lazy much?

Pay2win is paying to get the advantage to “win” the game quicker or win over others. Any FPS that sells powerful weapons, even it’s for a day, is pay2win, cause you get advantage over others.

If a game is advertising content that can only be played if you buy it via $$$, it’s considered pay2play.

If it helps you win the game – pay 2 win

If it helps you beat others via online – pay 2 win

What if it has a space for ads and people pay to put ads in your game?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wattro:
Originally posted by delosford:

You have no idea what P2W means. Stop using the term.

I think herein lies your problem.. i just did a quick google scan of “pay2win” and there isn’t a clear definition. There is a definition you have in your mind, a definition that others have in their minds, and there seems to be a disconnect between the two. Can you definitively prove that your definition is the correct one?

I do agree with your original point, though… and this is why I call games “cash-grabs” as opposed to p2w. Most of these cash-grab games (and probably yours, too), offer very little actually gameplay, but do have lots of micro$ interactions… if you are a developer that has $ buttons everywhere in your game… go away. If you are a developer who has no gameplay in your game… go away.

Thanks for inaccurately judging my game as P2W without ever playing it. :\

That makes what, about 10 people in this thread doing that now? I kind of rest my case as to the thread title and my complaints about misuse of the term.

And as I’ve gone over before: there is a definition of P2W, it’s pretty obvious, and it’s not just synonymous with “free to play”. Calling every free to play game “P2W” just makes P2W a useless redundant term. It is not a useless redundant term. It describes a subset of shitty “free to play” games that aren’t even free to play at all in any meaningful capacity. That’s why “P2P” and “P2W” are considered bad in “free to play” games… because they’re NOT free to play. These games should just have a subscription system and trial period like a normal MMO. If you really want to see a bunch of people agree with me, go look at urban dictionary. Top definition (by over 2x the votes) mirrors mine. P2W is a very old term and it has an established meaning. Entitled children labeling all F2P games as P2W or P2P isn’t a controversy as to the meaning of the word.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

Thanks for inaccurately judging my game as P2W without ever playing it. :\

He barely even mentioned your game. I read his post as a general opinion on P2W, not the attack on your you seem to have taken it as. Lol.

 
Flag Post

Most of these cash-grab games (and probably yours, too)

Sometimes when people tell you that you don’t read posts, it’s because you actually don’t read shit before you post.

edit: lol, nice job editing your post so you look like less of a moron. Guess I should quote you whenever you say something dumb now.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

Most of these cash-grab games (and probably yours, too)

Sometimes when people tell you that you don’t read posts, it’s because you actually don’t read shit before you post.

His post was a pretty general statement about his opinion on cash grab games – with the caveat that you haven’t been very convincing in this thread about how your game is different. You’re not exactly doing a good job of promoting your game, for the most part xD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:If you really want to see a bunch of people agree with me, go look at urban dictionary. Top definition (by over 2x the votes) mirrors mine. P2W is a very old term and it has an established meaning.

Ah, guys, 65 people on Urban Dictionary agree with a vague definition, it must be the only possible one.

/thread.

 
Flag Post

Nice strawmean, NeilSenna!

I’ve actually explained thoroughly why P2W logically fits that definition, and did it before ever being aware of the definition given by UD. Gee that’s awfully coincidental.

But please, tell me more about how my only argument is urban dictionary.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

Nice strawmean, NeilSenna!

I’ve actually explained thoroughly why P2W logically fits that definition, and did it before ever being aware of the definition. Gee that’s awfully coincidental.

But please, tell me more about how my only argument is urban dictionary.

I believe he meant that your only citation is Urban Dictionary.

 
Flag Post

His post was a pretty general statement about his opinion on cash grab games – with the caveat that you haven’t been very convincing in this thread about how your game is different.

No, he pretty specifically said my game is PROBABLY pay to win without paying any attention to anything I’ve posted or playing the game.

Notice how anyone who actually plays the game realizes it isn’t even close to P2W? Even the guy who posted the original comment is playing again after I explained the failsafes. Maybe you should read the post from that other guy up there where he explains how the game avoids pretty much every shitty trope of MMOs and F2P games. He did a better job of explaining it than I usually do.

Oh right, and please don’t edit your posts in the future after I respond to them to make yourself look like less of a self-contradictory idiot. That’s just pathetic.

edit: Nice double post. You think that about the UD definition because you can’t read. The highest-rated definition mirrors mine, and I only even looked because someone posted a lower-rated definition that agreed with you.

edit2: lol, now he deleted the posts he made saying the UD definition doesn’t support me. TIME MACHINE DEBATE GO GO

 
Flag Post

I believe he meant that your only citation is Urban Dictionary.

That’s really what you got out of this?:

Ah, guys, 65 people on Urban Dictionary agree with a vague definition, it must be the only possible one.

/thread.

That’s actually a strawman. Pretty huge one. He’s trying to dismiss the entire thread because I referenced urban dictionary (after somebody else did to try and support their dumb entitlement “definition”).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

Notice how anyone who actually plays the game realizes it isn’t even close to P2W? Maybe you should read the post from that other guy up there where he explains how the game avoids pretty much every shitty trope of MMOs and F2P games.

Well, not everyone, there was that one commenter who played it and decided it was pay to win. You started a thread about him, remember? It was actualyl this one.

Anyway, that makes it 1 – 1 between him and the guy in this thread saying it isn’t… I don’t think many other people were talking about your game specifically, though, because we’ve been debating the definition of the term.

If I read this thread knowing nothing about your game I’d think it was probably pay to win as well, because you’re so ultra defensive at even the slightest hint someone might think that.

PS: I think the Urban Dictionary definition could be taken as supporting either side of the debate over the definition.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

I believe he meant that your only citation is Urban Dictionary.

That’s really what you got out of this?:

But seriously, would you care to provide a citation (outside of Urban Dictionary) that agrees with your definition of pay-to-win and states that it’s a universally accepted definition?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by delosford:

Nice strawmean, NeilSenna!

Beautiful, isn’t he? Fancy hat and cute little buttons for eyes…

I’ve actually explained thoroughly why P2W logically fits that definition, and did it before ever being aware of the definition. Gee that’s awfully coincidental.

But please, tell me more about how my only argument is urban dictionary.

Your only argument is actually ‘I think it, so it is so’, not Urban Dictionary. The UD comment I made was intentionally light-hearted because I believe this thread has deteriorated to the point that it invites only ridicule.

But I’ll try a serious post. Thread recap:

You’ve explained why you believe P2W is defined the way you think it is.

Others in the thread have explained why they believe P2W is defined in a certain way.

And another group have explained why they believe there is no single definition of P2W.

The only conclusion one can reach from this is that different people define this extremely vague and undefined term in different ways.