1. I think this is actually not the case for Valve games, specifically CS:GO. Valve gets the majority of their CS:GO profit from taxing the hell out of the in-game skin market, and players paying for endless case openings for purely cosmetic items.

  2. Not sure I entirely agree. I buy skins, but I often almost 8/10 see people with a paid skin, or something else of that variety.
    I enjoy the grind in games currently, but I will argue, that most people won't enjoy it if the games grind isn't rewarding or makes them feel like they're achieving or earning something, and I've heard this same thing from several others.

  3. I've never paid for any sort of character or item that I could grind for instead and honestly I don't mind it. Most games that offer these sorts of things like Apex or dbd are fun regardless of the character you have access to. The only problem is making sure that this sort of thing doesn't turn into pay to win, but I'd say most studios manage that pretty good.

  4. I think you watched a very biased video. Everything heavily depends on the type of game. Sure, in some games this makes sense. In other games it doesn't at all. Look at CS:GO or League of legends, they make A TON of money through cosmetics. A lot has to do with the quality of the cosmetics and exposure time (how much of screen time is spent looking at the element in question). Other games like WarThunder have a clever progression system, where you progress faster by buying a premium account for example, this is their big moneymaker. Mobile games have pay2win systems and I personally don't understand the appeal, but they make a lot of money this way. Pay2Win and pay to progress is also linked very closely together. Saying that one method is better than another is simply not true, since there are a lot of variables that decide where the money is made.

  5. Halo Infinite's challenge swaps absolutely ruined the game. Nobody wants to chain lightning 4 enemy players, and even fewer want to ever purchase a challenge swap. I'll come back when the challenges aren't aggravating and they focus on a better online experience over thinking up ridiculously obtuse challenges.

  6. The only reason i don't play a LOT of games like COD specifically is the sheer amount of grinding involved. I didn't grow up with cod because of my strict parents but have played a little bit of bo2 bo3 and a little more of vanguard and cold war. The amount of time it takes to unlock a weapon's attachments is ABSURD. especially when you consider the fact that the whole time- you HAVE NO GOOD ATTACHMENTS. you have to play with a gun in a shitty state for hours and hours before the fun even begins. now multiply this by EVERY gun in the game. why would i put this playtime in when i can just play something like overwatch(bad example but you get the point) for the same pricetag and have everything unlocked immediately?

  7. Your understanding of the Bartle Taxonomy is still superficial. Yes, you can always set up a skinner box to milk your userbase, but it's often a "pay to skip", meaning that the game is a free hit of "the good stuff" followed by a shitty "labor camp" wothdrawal to the "cool endgame content". Okay, so why have the midgame then? It was only put there to make you pay up. Good games don't do that.

  8. The most egregious example of the 'pay to progress' model is in my opinion War Thunder. There is easily over THREE YEARS of f2p grind (and I'm talking 3+ hours a day grind) to get ONE high-end tank or plane (granted this is starting from nothing, which is quite common because the grind in one tech tree does not carry over in any way to another tree). When new updates drop, it some times takes otherwise maxed f2p players MONTHS to simply play with the new thing that's getting added.

    To give an example of this, War Thunder is adding the F-14 Tomcat some time in June. I'm not quite yet maxed on the American tech tree, but I have spent $60 on a premium plane (A-10 Warthog) to speed up the research tremendously. Even then, I've run out of premium. It is going to take me WEEKS to unlock this content free to play (~600,000 RP / ~2,500 RP per 10 minute game = about 240 games = about 40 hours of nonstop grinding).

    People who pay enjoy 2x research and free currency rewards, but only for a limited time. They may also pay upwards of $60 to skip a PART of the grind, allowing them to start later on in the tech tree on a nation (while still being forced to research the pre-requisites for their desired tank/plane). This is expected of players who have already finished the tech tree of one singular nation, so as not to spend another few years grinding out yet another tree. Keep in mind, there is no "New Game+" feature once you finish one nation's tech tree.

    I have sunk over 4,000 hours into one singular account since 2018 – after watching a misleading video showing Italy's top tier tank (the OTOMATIC) getting 7 kills in under a minute. I didn't get the OTOMATIC until 2020, and by that time it had been nerfed to the point of irrelevancy.

  9. Grind when there's no money at stake can be fine (e.g. offline games/older games) – unfortunately with the money part – much like a casino, you can never be sure how stacked the grind curve is. That always sticks in the back of my mind.

    Not to mention if said progression has a meaningful gameplay impact (e.g. weapon unlocks/attachments or new characters with more powers) then that shifts the balance of matches based on which teams/players have the most strategic options due to paying the most e.g. CoD, League, Battlefiled, Apex etc

  10. I think one of the strongest and famous games that works like that and, as garbaj said, goes past the limist is Clash Royale, I mean you technically can max out every card levels and etc without spending money, but it will take so many years thats almost impossible for a normal human being, while spending money will just take you a few minutes

  11. Going to be a long essay, but im bored and I was very moved by this video. Just like everything in this world, there must be a balance. But the one thing I would cut out entirely is pay to win content. Unless the player is able to unlock it without the need of real world cash, things that give you an edge over others regardless of what it may be, should be banned in it's entirety. Not only does it make the game unfair, but it also makes you feel worse while playing and is just down right not fun and almost kills everygame it touches. Besides that "killer" aspect of motivation. I believe that every game should definitely have a balance of explorer, achiever, and socializer aspects of monitization. If I had my own game. I would add all those aspects as to not only earn good money, but to also demonstrate passion and give more diverse groups of people something they may enjoy. I still hope to see a new game like this though.

Leave A Reply