WHY IS P2W BAD

[Chairman_Tiel]

TELL ME

[Pat22]

It isn't?

[Chairman_Tiel]

I don't think you've played an F2P title outside of those that do it pretty well. PS2 and Tribes are the exceptions rather than the rule, really.

[cats]

MWO is good. Not entirely F2P but not pay to win either.

[Error]

Most consider it bad because not everyone who enjoys a P2W game has copious amounts of cash to spare.

Personally, as long as I can obtain the benefits of p2w via grinding or similar, meh. If it's (e.g.) a new suoer gun available only to paying players, lolnopem8.

[Pat22]

Then the problem isn't F2P but the business model of the companies that make bad F2P games.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Or maybe the problem is F2P and Hi Rez/SOE just happen to have a spectacular business model that makes up for it.

[҉]

Or maybe the problem is F2P and Hi Rez/SOE just happen to have a spectacular business model that makes up for it.

TF2 does it well too. The problem isn't 'games that can be played for free', which is what 'F2P' means. It's 'games that make you think they can be played for free but actually require money to advance', which is an a totally different concept. This is why you changed the title of this thread from 'F2P' to 'P2W'. 'Pay to win' isn't actually bad, either, if you're willing to pay and go into it with the understanding that the game isn't really free. It gets bad when people expect to not pay and are then tick off when they can't do what paying players can.

[Chairman_Tiel]

I changed the title because people seem to confuse the two. F2P has evolved to envelop pretty much everything that's "free" initially, even freemium/microtransaction models. Nowadays what you're thinking of would be referred to as freeware or open source - the only hardline, no-expenses type of deal.

[҉]

I changed the title because people seem to confuse the two. F2P has evolved to envelop pretty much everything that's "free" initially, even freemium/microtransaction models. Nowadays what you're thinking of would be referred to as freeware or open source - the only hardline, no-expenses type of deal.

'Free to play' means something other than 'games you can play for free'? Whaaa? When did this happen?

[Chairman_Tiel]

Search 'F2P' and tell me the first results that come up aren't "games that make you think they can be played for free but actually require money to advance" that you say is "a totally different concept."

free-to-play is just that, free-to-play. But it and pay-to-win are two sides of the same coin. A very select few titles manage to balance that coin on the thin line that is a profit margin, others don't.

[Shadowcatbot]

Free to Play is when people can play the game for free. Pay to win is when the game gives those who "donate" money to the game incredibly unfair advantages to those who don't.

[cats]

MWO strikes a pretty good balance. The only things you need actual money to buy are a few mechs that don't really have any advantages over the ones you can get using in-game currency and paint colors. Well, and mech bays, which are the only actual-money things that are needed to play seriously.

If it seems like I use MWO a lot in these it's because it's pretty much the only game I play anymore.

[Iv121]

In WoT it only speeds up your progression along the tech trees, in TF2 it only allows you to trade basically as well as more slots (the two most notable diffs). In LoL and other DoTAs it is merely an alternative currency for buying charecters and skins for them.

[Prototype]

I quite like Star Conflict, you can pay to advance quicker, but end up in matches against people who got there by actually playing, so you tend to get destroyed.
Sure you can have the best ship in your tier, but you still need skill to be competitive.