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?

Read Full Story >>

The story is too old to be commented.
Christopher82d ago

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.

VoiceMale82d ago

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

sadraiden82d ago

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.

NotoriousWhiz82d ago (Edited 82d ago )

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.

Christopher81d ago (Edited 81d ago )

***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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 81d ago
phoenixwing84d ago

Only whales will say pay to win is okay

staticall83d ago

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.

Profchaos82d ago (Edited 82d ago )

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

porkChop83d ago

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.

Crows9083d ago (Edited 83d ago )

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.

JEECE82d ago

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.

Crows9082d ago

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.

JEECE81d ago

"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.

Crows9081d ago (Edited 81d ago )


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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 81d ago
JEECE82d ago

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 Kim82d ago

I think the way KZ2 did it was the best.

Show all comments (35)
The story is too old to be commented.