Hacker News Reader

Comment by izzydata | Hacker News Reader

Depends if the game is a competitive game or not and if you can continue to spend 2 dollars or not.

Consider a competitive game where someone who normally sucks buys a game which is awesome. He is able to have fun with all of the free players who are just good, and doesn't always win because he sucks. He's suddenly like a mini-boss to the players who don't pay, and they feel awesome when they manage to defeat them, because even though that other player had paid power they still won. And players who are both good and pay are set to fight against other players who are good and pay.

Everyone is happy. It's not evil.

Skill-based matchmaking is better. Furthemore, pay-to-win elements cannot be justified, even as a boost for weaker players in games that revolve around PVP competition. Skilled players will exploit them and create havoc in the overall balance.

Should all people in real sports be forced to use the same exact equipment because having a pay to win advance is unjustifiable there too?

If a game is premium only, meaning it cannot be play for free, if people win in the game is that unjustifiable for those who cannot afford to play at all?

If people play and enjoy pay to win games (even though I have yet to find a game which is actually pay to win instead of pay to gain a small advantage which doesn't guarantee victory) do those who do not deserve to have their wishes met and those who are enjoying it losing what they like?

>Skill-based matchmaking is better.

There is a thing called smurfing.

The competitive games I have first-hand experience with(LoL, DOTA2, World of Tanks) have no pay-to-win elements and the different heroes/items/tanks/ are all balanced.

And this whole discussion is about f2p games with microtransactions and this thread on whether microtransactions should give an advantage. Please don't confuse the issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com