pay to win
Latest
EA’s Ultimate Team raked in $3k per minute last year
A 'substantial portion' of that came from FIFA Ultimate Team.
Senate bill would ban paid loot boxes in games aimed at kids
Efforts to crack down on loot boxes in the US might be underway in earnest. Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill, the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, that would bar games from including paid loot boxes, pay-to-win mechanics and other potentially exploitative elements in games that are either aimed at kids under 18 or knowingly let those children make microtransactions. These practices spur "compulsive habits," Hawley said, and developers shouldn't be permitted to "monetize addiction."
H1Z1 bests login issues, justifies and tweaks 'pay-to-win' airdrops [Update: Refunds being granted]
Zombie sandbox MMO H1Z1 launched into early access on Steam yesterday evening only to be plagued with login server issues that caused even us to cancel our planned stream. In other words, it was an MMO launch. Overnight, SOE's John Smedley told Reddit that those problems have been mopped up that that SOE is currently working on G29 and G99 errors, server framerates, disappearing chats, crash bugs, and a "runaway memory situation." Reddit and Steam's user review section have exploded not over the predictable early access technical issues but over cash-shop airdrops, which some players say constitute pay-to-win in violation of SOE's stated philosophy. Smed denied obfuscating the presence of airdrops, saying SOE has "been straight about it" and justifying the mechanic: 1) You cannot call in airdrops until the servers are 1/4 full. 2) You can't call in airdrops without generating a ton of zombie heat. 3) the airdrops are random in what they deliver. 4) you are not guaranteed to get a single thing out of the airdrop you called in. You could die trying and you're out the money. 5) We fly the plane in very slowly and loudly.. we also stream green smoke from it you can see from very far away. But he does note that SOE will be "making some big changes" to airdrops, including widening the radius, reducing the chance they'll drop guns, slowing the airdrop planes even more, and increasing the number of players who can call them at any given time. "If you think it's P2W don't buy it. Don't play it," Smed posted. "But I have to say wait until you've personally tried them before making the call."
PlanetSide 2 implant changes aren't a 'money grab,' Smedley says
Gaming blog In An Age is tracking the recent saga of PlanetSide 2's implant system, noting that the team quietly nerfed the drop rate of free implants and downwardly adjusted the power of tier 1 through 3 implants in order to push sales for the new tier 4 implants. Implants offer temporary buffs or abilities for characters and require an energy cost to activate. SOE President John Smedley defended the move on Twitter: "Sorry, but we are actually trying to make money. I don't consider it a money grab." In a later tweet, he clarified that the team "made the drop rate [for implants] too high a while ago." Commenting on accusations of promoting a pay-to-win environment with these changes, CM Tony Jones responded on Reddit, "Depends on how you define P2W. If implants are P2W, then yes, you may not like everything in the future."
Free-to-play dev says Western gamers more critical of the cost structure
Free-to-play games get plenty of hate from a large segment of the gaming populous -- and in particularly egregious examples of "pay to win" schemes, I have no problem joining in -- but Paul Simon, executive producer of the long-running iOS MMO Celtic Heroes, says this will eventually fade. In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Simon speaks about balancing the app revenue model so as not to upset players. "It's unlikely the free-to-play stigma will fade away from Western gamers anytime soon," he says. "There's a lot of psychology at play regarding fairness and free-to-play that isn't an issue to gamers in Eastern markets where the model originated." That stigma comes from games that have a poor free-to-play model and end up souring the player base on the entire concept, even before giving other games a shot. He's spot on in that regard. There are a few uniquely horrible "free" game apps that are simply shells designed to make you realize you have to open your wallet before the fun actually begins, and once you're bitten by them, you'll certainly shy away from others. That can't be an easy issue for a developer of quality free-to-play software to have to deal with, and I do sympathize, but it's become a reality of the App Store. It's strange, but over time the apps that you have to pay upfront for have become the safer bet. If an app is US$3.99 and it has a great rating, it's almost certainly gold. If a free app has a similar rating, it's impossible to tell if that rating is coming from players who have experiences the free content exclusively, or those who didn't see a problem spending $20 on some in-game "coins" or "jewels" or whatever else the app is peddling. The full interview is definitely worth a read, as Simon explains how he believes free-to-play will eventually shed its poor reputation and become a true part of Western gaming culture.
Casual escapists, Skyforge hasn't forgotten you
A new MMOGames interview with Obsidian Executive Producer Eric DeMilt sheds light on inbound sci-fantasy MMO Skyforge, which he says is angling to provide a deep experience for players with tons of time -- as well as players with very little. As he put it, "We are striving to make a great high quality free to play MMO that would have action oriented combat and allow for short rewarding session time. We wanted to make something that could accommodate short session game play as allow for enjoyable longer play sessions. It's about escapism and being larger than life." DeMilt also discusses power creep, player retention, character progression, the Facebook-inspired social network within the game, and monetization; on the last, he's reluctant to give details, but he vows that Skyforge is "not going to be a flat-out pay-to-win game."
Massively's ArcheAge launch diary: Day six - P2W and the early verdict
Is ArcheAge pay-to-win? That's a question I've been asked several times in recent days. Before I answer it, let's get something out of the way up front. And by "out of the way," I mean that this is the most important part of the article and needs to be emphasized in the intro. Pay-to-win is 100% subjective. There is no scientific or universally accepted definition of pay-to-win. Some things in this life are absolutes. Pay-to-win is not one of them.
Pathfinder early access starts September 15, cash shop structures revealed
GoblinWorks has posted some "major announcements" on its Pathfinder Online website. They include the start date for early enrollment (September 15th) as well as tweaks to early enrollment packages and a new Explorer Access package. Gameplay-wise, the firm has unveiled premium cash shop items, which it says "are not going to be mechanically superior to player-character crafted items." Two of the items will regenerate power, though, so it's worth reading the full explanation if you're concerned about potential monetization intrusions in your fantasy sandbox. Finally, GoblinWorks talks up Pathfinder's individual player structures, which are also available via the cash shop. Base camps serve as adventure-sustaining settlements when you're far from home, and they remain active for five days once deployed. Once they despawn, they're on a 15-day cooldown. They're priced at $50. Smallholdings are also available and feature "a substantial amount of local storage" for $200.
Engadget Daily: Top cellphones, Kindle Unlimited and more!
Check out the top smartphones you can buy right now, read to your heart's content with Kindle Unlimited, our review of the Samsung ATIV Book 9 2014 Edition and find out how to live off vending machines in Tokyo. All that and more inside Engadget's news highlights from the last 24 hours.
Is Hearthstone pay-to-win?
Many games that fall into the free to play category also fall into the pay to win category -- which is to say that if you want to be able to play well, you'll wind up forking over some cash. It's a big frustration with free to play games which can easily wind up costing just as much -- or even more -- than games with an ordinary pricetag. So while we wondered whether we needed to sink money into buying more Hearthstone packs, we were glad to see Polygon had done a detailed examination of the advantage you get from buying cards in Hearthstone. Though anyone interested in the economics of it should definitely read the entire article, the end result is that because there are many options to earn in-game gold to buy packs -- and because the best decks aren't necessarily built with all epic cards -- with some patience a casual player will catch up with a big spender. But, still, opening pack after pack of cards that has an appeal that has nothing to do with economics.
Grinding Gear's Wilson talks F2P ethics in Path of Exile
Gamasutra reports that over five million people have signed up to play Grinding Gear's Path of Exile title. The company hasn't disclosed how many of those people are actually paying for the free-to-play Diablo-style game, but Path of Exile's critical and financial success invites a closer examination of its business model. Unlike most F2P titles, Path of Exile completely avoids gameplay gates and delaying mechanisms and thus avoids the dreaded pay-to-win stigma. Microtransactions are purely cosmetic, and Grinding Gear's crowdfunding campaign has now morphed "into a permanent rewards-based structure for monetization." Managing director Chris Wilson tells Gamasutra that PoE's supporter packs are a big part of the game's success story in addition to traditional microtransactions, the latter of which offer "enough money to run the company on" by themselves. Wilson says that players want to support PoE because its business model puts gameplay first. "We've been careful when designing the game so there's no paying for game content or advantage in the game," he explained. "We've purposefully divorced any game mechanics from the monetization."
Level 90 boosting is not the end of the World of Warcraft
There seems to be a common misconception flying around in regards to Warlords of Draenor. Yes, you will be able to boost one character to level 90 upon purchase of the game -- in fact, as it was revealed yesterday, upon pre-order of the game. Yes, Blizzard will be offering this service as an optional purchase in the Blizzard store as well. But what people seem to be worried about is that this is a "pay-to-win" feature that is very quickly going to kill the game. Which is a really odd assessment to make. There is no real "winning" in World of Warcraft, unless you want to count sweeping a PvP season, or maybe being the first to complete all heroic modes of every raid in the current expansion. The thought of "winning the game" is an arbitrary, muddy label that doesn't actually apply to anything in Warcraft -- it's not a game designed with a finite endpoint or a finish line you can cross. Let's be clear, here -- level 90 boosts may not be for you. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be available, and it definitely doesn't mean they're going to kill the game.
The Daily Grind: What MMO slang are you sick of hearing?
Wrath babies. I hate the term. I hate everything it stands for. I hate the way it's used by old-school World of Warcraft players to dismiss the opinions of those who started playing later. It doesn't even make sense -- in pretty much every genre, there's always someone more old-school than you. You started in Vanilla? Someone else started in beta. And someone else started in alpha. And someone else before that. And a whole bunch of people started in games long before WoW showed up; all WoW players are "babies" by comparison. It's a pointless pissing contest that shuts down real debate about the quality of a game's content in any era. I'd rather never hear the terms "fail," "pay-to-win," "TORtanic," "frothies," and "dumbing down" again, either, and "such-and-such-game's NGE" can jump off a nice tall cliff. They're overused to the point that they are meaningless. But those are just my pet peeves. What MMO slang would you love to see nuked from orbit? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
Why I don't hate Warlords of Draenor's level 90 boost
BlizzCon 2013 announced Warlords of Draenor and one of its highlighted features is the ability to instantly boost one of your characters to level 90 instantly. Though it is limited to one level 90 boost per Warlords of Draenor license, there is an interesting loophole, which I discussed in a previous post on this topic. To quote myself: If players want to boost an additional 90, there's nothing stopping them from purchasing a new World of Warcraft box, Warlords of Draenor license, and a character transfer to move additional, instant level 90s to their primary account. In an attempt to cut out the extraneous steps involved in that loophole, the Blizzard development team is considering simply allowing players to purchase extra boosts. Some like that idea. Some hate that idea. I'm one of those that does not hate it. I'd like to take a moment to explain why.
Ask Massively: The dilemma of the free-to-play sandbox
Reader Sharvis recently emailed the Massively Speaking podcast with a question I felt deserved more than just a quick verbal reaction on the 'cast. That, and we just discovered that the ask@massively.com email address went dead approximately three weeks ago, and I've not been receiving your letters there (so send 'em again!). In the meantime: Sharvis. What makes a sandbox so susceptible to its business model in comparison to a themepark? I'm not experienced with sandbox titles, and I can only guess on some of the implications. For example, selling boosters in a themepark is fairly acceptable, but in a sandbox, as Jef pointed out [in his ArcheAge column earlier this summer], that'd be cutting into one of the main features of a sandbox. I'd guess it has to do with these sort of MMOs being more player-centric, and that's a very delicate system to be messing with. See? I told you this was a juicy one.
EVE Evolved: Is DUST 514 a pay-to-win game?
I've been following DUST 514's development with a cautious optimism for the past few years and have been trying to convince my console gamer friends to give it a try since it launched back in May. Last week I finally sat down to play the game myself and was thoroughly disappointed with both its 2005-era graphics and fundamentally broken gameplay. DUST 514 will likely stay in development for the forseeable future and may end up becoming a polished and integral part of the EVE Online universe, but right now it's a buggy and mediocre FPS that has very little impact on New Eden. DUST 514 launched to mixed impressions from the gaming media, catching a lot of flack from reviewers for its microtransactions options. Some have argued that selling skill point boosters and destructible Aurum tanks and equipment directly for cash makes it a pay-to-win game, while others maintain that it doesn't give you an advantage that free players can't buy for ISK. The definition of pay-to-win isn't always clear, and the console FPS audience may not be as tolerant of microtransactions PC users have long since accepted. In this week's EVE Evolved, I look at the arguments for and against it being a pay-to-win game and ask what went wrong with the game's launch.
Massively Exclusive: Red 5 talks pay-to-win and Firefall's open beta
If you haven't yet noticed, Red 5's open-world, MMOFPS, action-adventure, jet-boot-featuring Firefall is now in open beta. The sci-fi shooter saw an extended closed beta period marked by major overhauls to core systems and a slow-but-steady trickle of new content, and last week's open beta launch is the next big step in pushing Firefall toward its eventual release. We posed a few questions to Red 5 about the nature of beta testing, the complications brought on by monetizing a game in progress, and the future of Firefall.
Bungie talks Destiny, evades RMT question
Bungie's latest Mail Sack column is up, and the bulk of the conversation centers on its upcoming open-world sci-fi shooter, Destiny. Revealed (or clarified) in the post: fireteam sizes (three), total player allowances for public events (a lot, but not too many), and which month the team is most looking forward to in 2014 (the one in which Destiny comes out). Also discussed were real-money transactions, though the response from Bungie is about as PR-fluffy as it gets. When asked to what degree real-life money will be used in the game, this was the response: What we can tell you right now is that the rewards you will gain by playing Destiny – and playing it well – will be earned. You will carve them from the hides of your enemies, after you stomp them into the ground of your favorite destinations. It makes sense that the folks at Bungie would play that one close to the chest; Destiny is still in a pre-alpha state and anything could change about the game at any time.
Wargaming.net removing 'pay-to-win' options from current and upcoming games
Spend any time in a comment section or forum thread pertaining to World of Tanks and you'll inevitably find accusations of pay-to-win monetization. Wargaming.net has apparently heard the discontented rumblings, as it just announced via an interview with Gamasutra that it is "removing all pay-to-win purchase options from all its current and upcoming titles." The initiative has its own marketing slogan ("free-to-win") and will ostensibly do away with "all payable options that could be viewed as giving a player an advantage in battle." How will the firm make its money, then? "Revenue will come from sales on non-advantageous content such as premium vehicles, personalization options, and the like," Gamasutra reports. Click through the links below for the full interview with Wargaming VP of Publishing Andrei Yarantsau.
The Daily Grind: Do Kickstarter perks put you off from MMOs?
Last week, drama swirled around Chris Roberts' Star Citizen pseudo-MMO when he announced and then clarified that certain early crowdfunders will receive lifetime insurance on their ships once the game launches. Potential players rightfully worried that such a move could taint the economy and create a special class of characters with pay-to-win perks that place everyone else at a serious disadvantage. MMO players are becoming inured to the idea that Kickstarting a game might land them a poster or tattoo or title or even beta access, but non-cosmetic advantages seem to rile everyone up. It's one thing when Camelot Unchained offers special chat and another altogether when it promises big-time donors their own in-game islands. Then again, without such generous Kickstarter pledges, the games might never be made for the rest of us to play at all, so maybe the trade-off is worth it. What do you think? Does it bother you that gamers with money can buy their way into godhood before a game is even made? Are there Kickstarter perks that put you off from future MMOs? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
