No replies to this topic

[qki]

Pay to Win (abbreviated p2w) is one of those terms that get thrown around by people with very little understanding of their meaning.

An accusation, and an excuse at the same time. The last few days have seen numerous people giving some pretty ludicrous deffinitions of p2w. So what does it mean really?


Any situation in a competetive game, where one player is able to buy, using real money, a distinct advantage over his opponents, that cannot be reasonably duplicated using in-game means that do not require real money


Before you chime in to tell me my deffinition is wrong, think about it for a moment. Done? Then let's take that sentence apart, bit by bit.

Competetive game (whether it's free to play or not), and buying are pretty self-explanatory.

The crux of the matter, is "distinct advantage". What's that? Some people might argue, that anything that allows a player to perform better than he could otherwise, constitutes a distinct advantage, but that's stretching it.

Suppose you run into a player, and are able to beat him consistently. You are using your tactic, he is using his tactic, and neither is using the best one. Then, one day, you run into that player again, and this time, you lose. Nothing's changed, but the other player's tactic was made stronger by an item he purchased.

The natural reaction, for many people, would be to cry out, since that player was only able to beat you by buying himself an advantage.

Problem is, that's not an objective statement. It is based on your perception of who deserves to win the confrontation. I know I'm asking for a big leap of faith here, but think about it.

If A is stronger than B, and B is stronger than C, and you use B, then you will expect to beat anyone using C. But what if you run into someone using A? From where you stand, every player you run into could be legitimately using A to beat you - expecting them to use B and C is expecting people to follow a set of rules not built into the game.

So what now, if the "premium package" introduces D, which is stronger than both B and C, but still not stronger than A? Players who relied on B and C will cry "unfair!", since a new tactic, readily available to anyone who pays for it, allows other players to beat them.

More specifically - it allows players, that they consider inferior to themselves, to beat them. See the problem? It is all subjective.

Meanwhile, players who were using A all along, and figured on going up against A (not just B and C) will remain unfazed - since D is not a bigger competitor than the A they were already prepared to beat, their game plan does not change. And they will wonder, why the B and C players are complaining about D while insisting on still using B and C, instead of using A.


If all that ABC did not confuse the heck out of you, you might have an answer:

Because A is boring, while B is so much fun! Or a bunch of other reasons, and some of them are legitimate. Not all of them, mind you - figure this one out on your own.


So then, how can we define this "distinct advantage"? How about:

something that allows a player to achieve the same results, with less effort

Be careful though, as this is a tricky statement. Going back to our example, is D was equal to B, but required less effort (fewer shots, moves, whatever), that would surely be a distinct advantage, right?

What happened to A though? A is still there, waiting patiently. D is superior to B, but still not better than A. See where I'm going with this?

The introduction of new, "premium easy" tactics like D and E might obsolete some of the regular ones, severely limiting the choice for players, who will start running into objectively stronger opponents than before, forcing them to "up their game", or give in and purchase the "premium stuff" for themselves.



Now, what about this "duplicate reasonably using in-game means"?

Simply put - this part determines whether something is truly only available for cash, or not.
In other words - can players get a similar advantage without spending money, and what would they need to do for it. If it's a matter of playing 30 games or achieving a moderately difficult feat, it might be fine.
But what if players had to put in a 10-game winning streak for every one game they wanted to play with the advantage? If the requirements are unreasonable, than one might conclude, that the item is not really available without paying.
This also goes for items that "will be available in the future" (in other words - timed exclusives). If it's not available now, then it's not available, period.


So the next time you feel inclined to pass judgment on whether something is, or isn't pay to win, look at the big picture, will you?