Why does P2W bother you so much?

Cryomatrix · October 2019

I'm personally not really bothered by it that much.

My reasoning is that my main issue with P2W is not the P2W portion of it, it is the crappy game design that enhances P2W which prevents me from playing those games.

I don't play cellphone games because they are just so shallow and the main concept is just to entice you to pay money. The issue isn't the money, it's the shallowness of the game play.

Now the usual Asian grinding P2W crap is a no-go because those games are pathetically shallow offering nothing new or innovative, just a typical, boring, and pathetic mechanism to get you to spend money, same as cell phone games.

The other issue people don't talk about is what I call T2W or Time-2-win . . . these are the people who play all day and people like me cannot compete given busy work and family life. I consider P2W and T2W as opposite sides of the same coin.

So why does P2W bother you so much. For me 90% of what bothers me about P2W are the shallow mechanics that come with it and the 10% as the P2W portion as it ruins the purity of the game. Overall, P2W doesn't really bother me. Give me a super complex in depth game and P2W wouldn't stop me from playing it. Like, if Star Citizen ever comes out, even if it is heavily P2W, i'd still probably try it and try to carve out a nice niche for myself.

Cryomatrix

Post notes:
1) I play Entropia Universe, the real cash economy game and people wrongly consider it a P2W game, it isn't at all. If I go to a casino and spend $50 vs $5,000 do I have a better chance of getting a profit if I play slot machines using 10 cents vs $5 per roll? That's Entropia for you. Plus, the RCE is ridiculously innovative and refreshing. Everything I put in the game, I can potentially get out. If the game continues for another 7 years, i'll eventually profit it from based on my land deeds.

2) Now on to Archeage, I wasn't interested in it before because of how bad people trashed the game. Now that there is B2P it nudges me toward being interested in it. Reading on some forums how people use many alt accounts to maximize land and can pay money for whatever, is fine, EVE had the same thing (insert Kyleran and his 6 mining accounts). I don't care about spending money to get best gear. It's the same for me as someone who raided 1,000 times to get the best gear. The smarter person is the one who probably worked an extra 40 hours at work over a few months and then buys the gear . . . right. Some people are limited by money, others are limited by time, some are limited by both i guess, and some are limited by none. Either way, It doesn't bother me.

Panther2103 · October 2019

I think the time that P2W bothers me is when the game has a competitive aspect that rules in favor of people who spend more money. In Archeage the main issue with P2W was how much better the gear was on players who paid vs players who didn't when the entire game revolved around PvP. If it wasn't PvP I don't think there would have been nearly as much issue with it.

There is always players who don't like any form of payment other than a monthly fee which I completely understand, but I just don't care if someone wants to ruin their PvE gameplay by paying a lot of money. It's only when I go up against a player who one shots me because they spent 10k dollars that I get irritated especially when the game is centered around that conflict.

Amathe · October 2019

It's tautological more than it is something that can be explained.

If I want the Sword of Doom I have to spend 100 hours of my time doing in game tasks.

If Lord Fauntleroy wants the Sword of Doom, he just pays $250.00 and there it is.

If the inequity of that is not apparent to you, nothing I say will persuade you.

Image: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/513Mhz5Bk5L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

cameltosis · October 2019

There are three main issues that bother me.

1) It defeats the point of playing a game

I don't really know how to explain this one correctly. I've been reading a lot of books recently on psychology and game design. Most of them seem to agree that happiness results from challenging yourself, learning and growing. Raph Koster's book "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" literally spells out that fun = learning, and gives the psychological reasoning behind that statement. So, if you can just buy advantages in game using real money, what are you learning? Nothing! You are paying to skip stuff, to avoid the learning process and thus avoid the fun. If you win because you paid money, and not because you learnt how to play the game well, what is the point?!? It just becomes an empty ego boost, wasting your time and energy (and money) just so the devs can get rich.

2) Fairness

I want my gaming environments to be as fair as possible. when everyone is given the same starting point (buying the game) and the same opportunity (play the game) then the outcome is within our own hands. Sure, the people who dedicate all their time to playing the game will be further ahead of me and probably better than me, but they've made the choice to dedicate that time and I've made the choice not to. It's fair, and I can always choose to dedicate more time to it if the game becomes a higher priority. In addition, almost all games have a skill cap, i.e. you will not continue to get better just by playing more, you'll have hit a gear cap, level cap or simply cannot improve personally. That cap is usually achievable on a casual timetable (outside of action games) and so even time isn't a factor to unbalance the game, only your personal ability.

When P2W is introduced, that sense of fairness disappears. By it's definition, the other person has paid money to help them win. That is using an out-of-game resource (money) to influence what happens in the game. Not everyone has that option, so you're immediately unbalancing the equation. We also all have very different ideas of what is "worth" it, so even if we all had access to the same disposable money, all it takes is one person who is happy to spend all their money and it unbalances the game, making it unfair.

The core of this point, I suppose, is using resources outside the game to influence what happens in the game. It just seems wrong on every level, but its the lack of fairness that bugs me here.

3) Game Design / Spending Limit

The monetisation model always affects the game's design, so I've yet to see a P2W game where the monetisation didn't turn the game into garbage. Hell, I've yet to see a F2P game that wasn't bad. So, the monetisation has, so far, always resulted in a bad game. You can see the devs devising more and more ways to convince you to hand over money, providing external pressure. It's highly unethical in my mind and so I refuse to give them a penny. It's basically legalised bribing.

In addition, I like to know how much something actually costs. When I play a subscription game, I know exactly how much money it costs. When I play a B2P game, I know exactly how much the box costs. When you introduce a cash shop, or a P2W scheme, I no longer know how much the game costs. Will I need to spend £100 to get the most out of the game? Or £1000? Or more?

With MMOs specifically, they are long term investments of time and I value my time and hate when I'm made to feel like my time has been wasted. For example, I hate leveling up in MMORPGs, but I do it so that I can enjoy the endgame. In a P2W game, there is a very real chance that I'll invest that time (and potentially money) reaching endgame, only to find out I can't actually enjoy the endgame unless I spend 100s on upgrades and bonuses. Fuck that.

On a final note, I am actually interested in seeing real money enter gaming somehow. I like the idea that if I was very good and dedicated to an MMO, I could somehow convert my time into real money and make a "career" out of playing the game. I've read a few stories of Entropia and I like some aspects of their real money economy. I just don't have a clue how you could use a real money economy in a main-stream MMO and not have it screw over the design and community.

Utinni · October 2019

Doesn't bother me at all. If a game is P2W that affects me I just don't play it.

Sovrath · October 2019

There is a perceived inequality to it.

Someone has to play 1000 hours for what others just pay for. Sort of robs from the whole "shared experience."

However, what of the people who do play games 16 hours a day? There is an inequality to that as well. But for some reason people don't seem too miffed by it.

cameltosis · October 2019

Sovrath said:

However, what of the people who do play games 16 hours a day? There is an inequality to that as well. But for some reason people don't seem too miffed by it.

There are a lot of reasons not to be bothered about the time element.

First, it is rare that a game actually rewards you for time spent. You may spend 1000 hours in the game, but if it only takes 50 hours to hit cap and get the best gear, then 950 of your hours mean nothing in terms of gaining a tangible advantage over me.

Second, games are easy! Again, you may have spent 1000 hours in the game, but if it only takes 100 hours to master it then your extra time is meaningless and won't affect the outcome.

Third, intelligence and prior experience have a much greater effect than time spent in game and we cannot change that. For example, it took me no time at all to "master" SWTOR because it was so shallow and derivative, we'd hit cap and cleared all raids within 4 weeks of launch. Yet, when I quit the game a year later there were still players in my guild who'd been playing every day who were still utter garbage.

The only time that time spent really gives you an advantage is when there is a time-limit on limited resources (e.g. land grabs in AA), in which case the extra time spent in game helps you get access before others. The other occasion is when the game is built entirely around muscle memory, in which case the more time you play, the better your muscle memory. Even then, I'm fairly certain that muscle memory has a "cap" that you can't improve beyond so time-limited players can still eventually get there.

Utinni · October 2019

Arterius said:

It doesn't. I play plenty of games with P2W and never spend a dime. However, I never play a game to be competitive. I just play to have fun

It's almost as if playing games for fun and not to derive self worth makes them more enjoyable.

Jensyn · October 2019

cameltosis said:

There are three main issues that bother me.

1) It defeats the point of playing a game
I don't really know how to explain this one correctly. I've been reading a lot of books recently on psychology and game design. Most of them seem to agree that happiness results from challenging yourself, learning and growing. Raph Koster's book "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" literally spells out that fun = learning, and gives the psychological reasoning behind that statement. So, if you can just buy advantages in game using real money, what are you learning? Nothing! You are paying to skip stuff, to avoid the learning process and thus avoid the fun. If you win because you paid money, and not because you learnt how to play the game well, what is the point?!? It just becomes an empty ego boost, wasting your time and energy (and money) just so the devs can get rich.

2) Fairness
I want my gaming environments to be as fair as possible. when everyone is given the same starting point (buying the game) and the same opportunity (play the game) then the outcome is within our own hands. Sure, the people who dedicate all their time to playing the game will be further ahead of me and probably better than me, but they've made the choice to dedicate that time and I've made the choice not to. It's fair, and I can always choose to dedicate more time to it if the game becomes a higher priority. In addition, almost all games have a skill cap, i.e. you will not continue to get better just by playing more, you'll have hit a gear cap, level cap or simply cannot improve personally. That cap is usually achievable on a casual timetable (outside of action games) and so even time isn't a factor to unbalance the game, only your personal ability.

When P2W is introduced, that sense of fairness disappears. By it's definition, the other person has paid money to help them win. That is using an out-of-game resource (money) to influence what happens in the game. Not everyone has that option, so you're immediately unbalancing the equation. We also all have very different ideas of what is "worth" it, so even if we all had access to the same disposable money, all it takes is one person who is happy to spend all their money and it unbalances the game, making it unfair.

The core of this point, I suppose, is using resources outside the game to influence what happens in the game. It just seems wrong on every level, but its the lack of fairness that bugs me here.

3) Game Design / Spending Limit
The monetisation model always affects the game's design, so I've yet to see a P2W game where the monetisation didn't turn the game into garbage. Hell, I've yet to see a F2P game that wasn't bad. So, the monetisation has, so far, always resulted in a bad game. You can see the devs devising more and more ways to convince you to hand over money, providing external pressure. It's highly unethical in my mind and so I refuse to give them a penny. It's basically legalised bribing.

In addition, I like to know how much something actually costs. When I play a subscription game, I know exactly how much money it costs. When I play a B2P game, I know exactly how much the box costs. When you introduce a cash shop, or a P2W scheme, I no longer know how much the game costs. Will I need to spend £100 to get the most out of the game? Or £1000? Or more?

With MMOs specifically, they are long term investments of time and I value my time and hate when I'm made to feel like my time has been wasted. For example, I hate leveling up in MMORPGs, but I do it so that I can enjoy the endgame. In a P2W game, there is a very real chance that I'll invest that time (and potentially money) reaching endgame, only to find out I can't actually enjoy the endgame unless I spend 100s on upgrades and bonuses. Fuck that.

On a final note, I am actually interested in seeing real money enter gaming somehow. I like the idea that if I was very good and dedicated to an MMO, I could somehow convert my time into real money and make a "career" out of playing the game. I've read a few stories of Entropia and I like some aspects of their real money economy. I just don't have a clue how you could use a real money economy in a main-stream MMO and not have it screw over the design and community.

I don't really have anything to add about the content-I just wanted to say that as a tech writer I appreciate the formatting of your post.

Super easy to absorb and digest.

Sovrath · October 2019

cameltosis said:

Sovrath said:

However, what of the people who do play games 16 hours a day? There is an inequality to that as well. But for some reason people don't seem too miffed by it.

There are a lot of reasons not to be bothered about the time element.

First, it is rare that a game actually rewards you for time spent. You may spend 1000 hours in the game, but if it only takes 50 hours to hit cap and get the best gear, then 950 of your hours mean nothing in terms of gaining a tangible advantage over me.

Second, games are easy! Again, you may have spent 1000 hours in the game, but if it only takes 100 hours to master it then your extra time is meaningless and won't affect the outcome.

Third, intelligence and prior experience have a much greater effect than time spent in game and we cannot change that. For example, it took me no time at all to "master" SWTOR because it was so shallow and derivative, we'd hit cap and cleared all raids within 4 weeks of launch. Yet, when I quit the game a year later there were still players in my guild who'd been playing every day who were still utter garbage.

The only time that time spent really gives you an advantage is when there is a time-limit on limited resources (e.g. land grabs in AA), in which case the extra time spent in game helps you get access before others. The other occasion is when the game is built entirely around muscle memory, in which case the more time you play, the better your muscle memory. Even then, I'm fairly certain that muscle memory has a "cap" that you can't improve beyond so time-limited players can still eventually get there.

Let's call it game dependant.

Players who play a lot in a pvp game usually have a significant advantage over people who only play 2 hours every now and then. Happened in Lineage 2, happened in Aion.

Kabulozo · October 2019

It depends of the severity of P2W. In case of NCsoft for example, you will be an eternal non-factor unless you drop serious money.

Cryomatrix · October 2019

Amathe said:

It's tautological more than it is something that can be explained.

If I want the Sword of Doom I have to spend 100 hours of my time doing in game tasks.

If Lord Fauntleroy wants the Sword of Doom, he just pays $250.00 and there it is.

If the inequity of that is not apparent to you, nothing I say will persuade you.

Time = money and money = time. They can easily be converted. The smartest are those who when they sleep = money.

Overall, you could play the game for 60 hours and work an extra 40 hours over a month even at minimum wage and max taxes taken out, you'd get $350 for that which you'd be able to buy your sword.

onto another topic. yes if a game is PvP centric, then P2W would be a serious problem. Then again, i don't play an MMO for PvP . . . better to play Starcraft 1v1 on ladder where no luck is involved.

Vermillion_Raventhal · October 2019

Sovrath said:

There is a perceived inequality to it.

Someone has to play 1000 hours for what others just pay for. Sort of robs from the whole "shared experience."

However, what of the people who do play games 16 hours a day? There is an inequality to that as well. But for some reason people don't seem too miffed by it.

A lot harder to be mad at people playing a game a lot vs. paying not to play or for advantages.

PsYcHoGBR · October 2019

In a competitive game vs other players it's just wrong on all levels and requires no justification.

Octagon7711 · October 2019

Don't care about P2W just as long as I'm having fun. People say that you can't learn anything in games with P2W but you do have to learn, even if you end up buying a character boost, still losing all the time because you never learned to play it correctly. Plus there's the person who does do the work plus uses P2W for that extra edge whenever possible.

Slapshot1188 · October 2019

Sovrath said:

There is a perceived inequality to it.

Someone has to play 1000 hours for what others just pay for. Sort of robs from the whole "shared experience."

However, what of the people who do play games 16 hours a day? There is an inequality to that as well. But for some reason people don't seem too miffed by it.

One is playing the game. One is bypassing the game.

AAAMEOW · October 2019

It bothers me because I've rather spend 15$ per month instead of 100$ per month.

dave6660 · October 2019

It's gone beyond just spending real money to skip parts of the game you don't enjoy or bypassing a long grind. Now there are cash shop items (non-cosmetic) you can't earn by actually playing the game. So you reach a point where you can't progress any further without spending a lot of money (I'm looking at you Atlantica Online).

Viper482 · October 2019

If you have to ask....

Bladeburaiba · October 2019

Jeebus...talk about answering your own question in the first sentence, then contradicting yourself immediately.

How can you not have a problem with P2W, when you have a problem with P2W leading to bad game design, leading to bad games?

centkin · October 2019

It only bothers me when there are contests for best that are influenced by it. I mean I remember a game where I played really optimally and was in a spot where I was going to get a good prize -- at the very end, one person spent enough to beat me(several hundreds of dollars) and even apologized for doing it.

I suspect that person was working for the game company trying to get me to spend money. In a lot of such games that kind of thing happens.

That suspicion looms over the games.

ChildoftheShadows · October 2019

The real problem is that having a cash shop many people automatically call it P2W. Also having a cash shop only item doesn’t make it P2W, maybe pay to acquire?

VengeSunsoar · October 2019

It doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants to spend $100 on what took me a thousand hours to earn go for it.

My only concern is is the game fun. If it's fun then I don't mind spending a thousand hours doing the tasks. If it's not fun I'm not playing it anyway.

Cryomatrix · October 2019

Bladeburaiba said:

Jeebus...talk about answering your own question in the first sentence, then contradicting yourself immediately.

How can you not have a problem with P2W, when you have a problem with P2W leading to bad game design, leading to bad games?

It is called nuanced thinking.

P2W bothers me a little bit but it is not because of the money aspect, it is because of shitty design, but with so many games to choose from, there are still many games to play.

Hence, "doesnt bother me that much" because the reason i dont play, is shitty game design which prevents me from playing the games so i never really suffer from p2w hence doesnt bother me much.

Kind of like i am afraid of the ocean because of sharks, but i never worry about being attacked by a shark . . . Because i dont go in the ocean as there are many other alternatives for fun..

I dont like games with p2w because of the shitty game design, but p2w itself wouldnt bother me that much, cuz i tend not to play shallow shitty games (asian grinders, cell phone games) when there are tons of alternatives.

See how nuanced thinking works?

Iselin · October 2019

Sovrath said:

cameltosis said:

Sovrath said:

However, what of the people who do play games 16 hours a day? There is an inequality to that as well. But for some reason people don't seem too miffed by it.

There are a lot of reasons not to be bothered about the time element.

First, it is rare that a game actually rewards you for time spent. You may spend 1000 hours in the game, but if it only takes 50 hours to hit cap and get the best gear, then 950 of your hours mean nothing in terms of gaining a tangible advantage over me.

Second, games are easy! Again, you may have spent 1000 hours in the game, but if it only takes 100 hours to master it then your extra time is meaningless and won't affect the outcome.

Third, intelligence and prior experience have a much greater effect than time spent in game and we cannot change that. For example, it took me no time at all to "master" SWTOR because it was so shallow and derivative, we'd hit cap and cleared all raids within 4 weeks of launch. Yet, when I quit the game a year later there were still players in my guild who'd been playing every day who were still utter garbage.

The only time that time spent really gives you an advantage is when there is a time-limit on limited resources (e.g. land grabs in AA), in which case the extra time spent in game helps you get access before others. The other occasion is when the game is built entirely around muscle memory, in which case the more time you play, the better your muscle memory. Even then, I'm fairly certain that muscle memory has a "cap" that you can't improve beyond so time-limited players can still eventually get there.

Let's call it game dependant.

Players who play a lot in a pvp game usually have a significant advantage over people who only play 2 hours every now and then. Happened in Lineage 2, happened in Aion.

That's apples and oranges. P2W is it's own meta-game cash shop thing and it's just plain bad for the integrity of playing the game to compete in the game.

Yes, playing more than others gives you a competitive advantage but that is actually part of playing any game.

Practicing an instrument many hours per day will give you a much better chance of eventually playing at Carnegie Hall than just dabbling a few hours a week. Giving a donation of $20 million to The City of New York so your idiot son gets to play there despite being a hack would be the P2W equivalent.

PottedPlant22 · October 2019

P2W impacts game design. Games are set up to bilk you for money to advance by making obstacles incredibly tedious (not fun) to access additional content that is fun. The best (read sneakiest) ones have a more gradual gradient to lure you into commitment. A great example of this practice is inventory (bag space). You acquire a lot of loot by game design to make you want to buy more bags from the cash shop. Early on in the game this is managed by the amount of loot you acquire that you need to use (for crafting, enhancements, etc) is low. As you progress and get more invested, the requirements become greater and varied. This puts pressure on the amount of inventory space you have to make the purchasing side to alleviate this issue more attractive.

Howdy, Stranger!

Why does P2W bother you so much?

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Why does P2W bother you so much?

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey