Does Pay-To-Win Contradict The Purpose Of Gaming?

Video games are competitive in nature and any good competition should be fair. Do pay-to-win shops contradict the purpose of playing games?

[isarai]

Yes.

[Christopher]

Going to use the first comment to get downvoted, but....

Video games are a medium, not a restriction on the art. P2W is as much about gaming as F2P or MMO games. There is no "purpose of gaming" other than to be entertaining. Challenge isn't even a necessity of gaming (see walking simulators).

Do some gamers dislike P2W? Yup. But tons of mobile gamers play the games anyway and enjoy them immensely. Heck, you could say it's one of the reasons other types of games have gained new gamers because others got hooked on a P2W mobile game and moved onto others.

[VoiceMale]

You are missing the point being made here...this is not talking about gaming in a whole, but competitive gaming..
And yes P2W contradict that purpose for many reasons.
In nab 2k23 to reach level 85 to even be competitive on day 1 is impossible... it takes 50 plus hours to reach that level and on release day ppl pay in excess of 100 US dollars on vc to get there...
And that's just 1 example of a game doing this...many others
Cosmetics to me is fine. But the minute it gives another player a competitive advantage in a competing game the purpose is lost...
My ability to compete should never be equal to economics
Competitive =\< cash

[sadraiden]

Not only does VoiceMale make a strong point against P2W in competitive games, there's also the main point about YOUR enjoyment of the game.

Yes, games are about fun. They're about having fun playing the intended game loop. If you can pay money to in some way bypass the game loop and go straight to a Victory screen, you're actually reducing the amount of enjoyment the game offers. If all you need is a dopamine hit, and you're unable to beat games the right way, maybe gaming just isn't for you.

P2W is predatory monetization, aimed at children and the weak minded, marketed as a way to skip the core gameplay loop. If that's what you consider fun, I question your mental health.

Comparing P2W tactics to MMOs or even the F2P market is bad faith framing of the issue. Even F2P games like Fortnite, monetization aside, don't truly have a P2W feature and the gameplay loop is satisfying in and of itself.

[NotoriousWhiz]

As a gamer, P2W in video games can disappear forever and nothing of value would be lost.

But if you look at actual sports, it is very much pay to win.

Need the best gear and the best trainers and the best diets, and the best 'supplements' to compete in football, basketball, boxing, MMA, golf, etc.

[Christopher]

***but competitive gaming..
And yes P2W contradict that purpose for many reasons.***

Most mobile games with P2W are very competitive. I didn't miss that at all.

I'm disagreeing with the idea that P2W is outside the definition of gaming or even competitive gaming. It isn't.

Much like if you don't like racing games, if you don't like P2W then don't play them.

[Snookies12]

Yep.

[shinoff2183]

Yes. It needs to go away.

[phoenixwing]

Only whales will say pay to win is okay

[staticall]

And people who're getting paid to promote this garbage. A lot of "influencers" and journalists are ready to promote anything, as long as they're getting paid - microtransactions, lootboxes, pyramid schemes, crypto scams, you name it.

'member articles from places like PCGamer and such defending and making excuses for lootboxes and microtransactions? I do. Like server upkeeps, "free" updates, etc.

[Profchaos]

Nothing I hate more than "influencers" if I want to follow someone it's probably because they are someone that has proven they are delivering content that isn't about themselves eg I watch digital foundry's content all the time I don't always agree with their opinions and I've noticed bias and they get trips to ms headquarters to reveal machines first but their work analysing tech is spot on and df Retro is easily the most unbiased look at tech without the console wars weighing in because the fanboys have moved on and a critical lense can be applied

[porkChop]

Of course it does. I understand that some gamers don't have the time to grind for stuff, so I get the argument from that perspective. But there has to be a better way than outright paying to unlock stuff.

[Crows90]

A better way is simple. Some progression while not actively playing would help those that don't have the time. It would still be fair since even those that play a lot will have moments of inactivity which they would still be rewarded for.

Let's not pretend here that companies don't know how to find way to deal with the problem. Monetization is the only resolution they want.

[JEECE]

Or just be a real, fair multiplayer game where everyone has access to the same weapons regardless of whether you have played for 2 hours or 200 hours.

[Crows90]

@Jeece
Well yes that would work but people enjoy progression. Whether its towards new weapon skins or new outfits etc. Remove the online store to purchase additional content and things are good. No purchasable content is more fair than simply giving everyone everything regardless of effort. That game would die quite quickly. Would have to an extremely compelling game to survive.

[JEECE]

"Well yes that would work but people enjoy progression."

True. This is why I always argue that the gaming community is as much or more to blame than devs for the state of multiplayer gaming today (focus on mtx, live service, GaaS). People playing games now care more about the meta game of unlocking new skins/guns/characters than about playing the game itself. In the 2000s and early 2010s (I know there was multiplayer in the 90s but it was really only on PC and few people had the internet speed to meaningfully participate) a game could survive with a strong community purely on good gameplay. But now if there are no new things to unlock, the game is branded "dead" and "abandoned" even when servers are still live.

[Crows90]

@jeece

Actually...early 2000s games had unlockables instead of MTX. They had challenges and secrets behind overcoming certain challenges or completing levels in certain ways...thinking of perfect dark in N64 here....there was also timesplitters multiplayer with all the characters to choose from...

Unlockables have been a part of gaming for a long time. They simply placed them all behind a pay wall. Those unlockables were the progression. Then afterwards good gameplay kept a game going or the grind did like with diablo 2

[JEECE]

You have accidentally identified the problem. There should be no "progression system" for multiplayer games at all. A multiplayer game should be the same experience day one as day one hundred. One player shouldn't have access to better guns/equipment than other players just because they played the game longer. As long as there are items/weapons that affect gameplay walled behind time, there will be options to pay to unlock them, at least in some games.

[Shane Kim]

I think the way KZ2 did it was the best.

[hiawa23]

I think each gamer will determine what the purpose of gaming means to them, and one or a few doesn't determine what that should be for another. There is no one size fits all as far as I am concerned.

[Crows90]

Absolutely.

[jznrpg]

Paying hundreds to thousands to even a million+ $$ on one game is shite and totally not needed at all.

[Lexreborn2]

It’s essentially the whole concept of games like Yugioh, which makes it something only the top spenders can enjoy. Games really should be about enjoying first and foremost to the consumer. Not how much money can be sucked out of us for a superficial win that grants us nothing but a numeric in a game that will be around for what? A year? 2? Not worth it

[Orchard]

Well, obviously. Fortunately a lot of games (at least outside of the mobile space) have moved to making real money items cosmetic only.

COD handles this well with the battle pass. Lots of paid cosmetics but the new weapons are free.

[gold_drake]

absolutely

[CantThinkOfAUsername]

Pay to win wouldn't matter if there were a good matchmaking system to even the odds. Yeah, you can drop a grand to get the most powerful gear/characters/XP, but if you're matched with other players on the same level, skills will determine the winner.

However, this 'fairness' doesn't bode well with the psychological effect of stimulating purchase behaviour that companies are seeking in order to fatten their pockets.

[Bathyj]

Single player gamer here
I'm glad this crap has nothing to do with me.

[jambola]

As much as I hate pay to win crap
I also don't like being told "the" reason for gaming

[VoiceMale]

It's because the article is written with it being understood that the reader knows P2W is ONLY multi-player games are being identified hence the term "THE"reason

[KrillinShine]

Yes, though one could argue that this became relevant many decades ago with popping quarters in arcade machines to brute force your way through beat-em-ups and fighting games at the time.

[Soulsborne]

...

[BrainSyphoned]

I feel like this P2W article is a failed new years resolution to not regurgitate decades old shit.

[BlackDoomAx]

Yes, that's why i don't play them.

[Abear21]

NBA 2K says hello and it’s lawyers are ready

[lellkay]

Pay to win trash. Boot it.