This Game Is Pay-to-Win

Play Mode Discussion
Prev 1 6 7 8 Next
Pay to win means a permanent advantage gained by spending money. Hearthstone doesnt have this. Example is old game tyrant warmetal had cards u could only get with warbonds. Warbonds were from money. Some of those cards were op op op. So p2w tyrant players could buy those cards and then crush ppl. That is p2w. Hearthstone has pay to skip ahead but its not permanent advantage. Permanent is required for p2w
02/23/2019 02:26 PMPosted by Praetorian
I bought 0 cards and casually cruise between 5-1 every month, its not pay to win, learn to play.


You don't get it. If I make a coin flip game where you can only win if you pay more than your opponen, but also let 1% of free to play players (randomly selected) also always win. Is it not pay to win? Maybe not strictly. You could say it's 99% pay 1%luck if you want. But effectively it still IS pay-to-win.

Just because YOU win by being f2p doesn't mean that applies to the majority. I bet people with same skill level as you but pay money are on average winning more than you.

Again it is ridiculous to suggest crafting 1 deck is enough. It is only of you are lucky. Take odd Rogue for example. While easy to reach rank 5 with prior to Rastakhan, it is now nearly impossible. Sure, it might still be possible, but you will have to be much more skilled than your opponents to achieve the same result as players with other decks. And that IS pay to win.

You can make up lack of pay with skill. But if you have pay and skill you will beat just skill.
02/24/2019 05:38 AMPosted by DSh
02/23/2019 02:26 PMPosted by Praetorian
I bought 0 cards and casually cruise between 5-1 every month, its not pay to win, learn to play.


You don't get it. If I make a coin flip game where you can only win if you pay more than your opponen, but also let 1% of free to play players (randomly selected) also always win. Is it not pay to win? Maybe not strictly. You could say it's 99% pay 1%luck if you want. But effectively it still IS pay-to-win.

Just because YOU win by being f2p doesn't mean that applies to the majority. I bet people with same skill level as you but pay money are on average winning more than you.

Again it is ridiculous to suggest crafting 1 deck is enough. It is only of you are lucky. Take odd Rogue for example. While easy to reach rank 5 with prior to Rastakhan, it is now nearly impossible. Sure, it might still be possible, but you will have to be much more skilled than your opponents to achieve the same result as players with other decks. And that IS pay to win.

You can make up lack of pay with skill. But if you have pay and skill you will beat just skill.
There are people who buy packs and craft tier 1 decks and still cannot make it out of the 20-18 range. If the game was truly p2w, simply dumping money into it would hand you the necessary wins.
02/24/2019 06:11 AMPosted by Wardrum
02/24/2019 05:38 AMPosted by DSh
...

You don't get it. If I make a coin flip game where you can only win if you pay more than your opponen, but also let 1% of free to play players (randomly selected) also always win. Is it not pay to win? Maybe not strictly. You could say it's 99% pay 1%luck if you want. But effectively it still IS pay-to-win.

Just because YOU win by being f2p doesn't mean that applies to the majority. I bet people with same skill level as you but pay money are on average winning more than you.

Again it is ridiculous to suggest crafting 1 deck is enough. It is only of you are lucky. Take odd Rogue for example. While easy to reach rank 5 with prior to Rastakhan, it is now nearly impossible. Sure, it might still be possible, but you will have to be much more skilled than your opponents to achieve the same result as players with other decks. And that IS pay to win.

You can make up lack of pay with skill. But if you have pay and skill you will beat just skill.
There are people who buy packs and craft tier 1 decks and still cannot make it out of the 20-18 range. If the game was truly p2w, simply dumping money into it would hand you the necessary wins.


tbf, your argument is completely wrong.

there are tons of p2w games that even money can't buy you out of sheer incompetence.

in a theoritical game that had the option of "pay 5 bucks get 100% increase in damage" (the definition of p2w) even that wouldn't mean that a pro f2p wouldn't be able to win vs a scrub p2w player.
02/24/2019 06:11 AMPosted by Wardrum
02/24/2019 05:38 AMPosted by DSh
...

You don't get it. If I make a coin flip game where you can only win if you pay more than your opponen, but also let 1% of free to play players (randomly selected) also always win. Is it not pay to win? Maybe not strictly. You could say it's 99% pay 1%luck if you want. But effectively it still IS pay-to-win.

Just because YOU win by being f2p doesn't mean that applies to the majority. I bet people with same skill level as you but pay money are on average winning more than you.

Again it is ridiculous to suggest crafting 1 deck is enough. It is only of you are lucky. Take odd Rogue for example. While easy to reach rank 5 with prior to Rastakhan, it is now nearly impossible. Sure, it might still be possible, but you will have to be much more skilled than your opponents to achieve the same result as players with other decks. And that IS pay to win.

You can make up lack of pay with skill. But if you have pay and skill you will beat just skill.
There are people who buy packs and craft tier 1 decks and still cannot make it out of the 20-18 range. If the game was truly p2w, simply dumping money into it would hand you the necessary wins.


So a game can’t be p2w unless you can literally buy wins to top ranks? This definition seems so strict that basically no game could be called p2w.
02/24/2019 06:58 AMPosted by VictoriousDN
02/24/2019 06:11 AMPosted by Wardrum
...There are people who buy packs and craft tier 1 decks and still cannot make it out of the 20-18 range. If the game was truly p2w, simply dumping money into it would hand you the necessary wins.


So a game can’t be p2w unless you can literally buy wins to top ranks? This definition seems so strict that basically no game could be called p2w.
Beyond 18 = top ranks?

Look, this discussion is obviously going to go nowhere as long as we have umpteen different interpretations of the term p2w flying around.

The safest middle ground would be to say p2w is on a sliding scale, with some games obviously slanting much further to one side or the other. I'd say Hearthstone is a fair amount on the f2p-friendly side of the middle, though clearly not quite as much as something like Fortnite. That, however, is due to the business model of CCGs as a whole and the fact that HS is a digital CCG, not just a random video game title that happens to use cards as part of its gameplay.
02/24/2019 06:58 AMPosted by VictoriousDN
<span class="truncated">...</span>There are people who buy packs and craft tier 1 decks and still cannot make it out of the 20-18 range. If the game was truly p2w, simply dumping money into it would hand you the necessary wins.


So a game can’t be p2w unless you can literally buy wins to top ranks? This definition seems so strict that basically no game could be called p2w.


In P2W games there are money-exclusive advantages which cannot be achieved by F2P players. Or "realistically" cannot be achieved by F2P players.

I remember some crap FPS game, were you actually had to pay for your weapons and equipment with money. Those items gave you massive advantage but expired after period of time so you had to rebuy them. After simple calculations you realised that even playing 24/7 you could earn enought in-game currency cover the cost of those upgrades. Spending money was the only realistic option.

In HS everything is vailable to F2P players and you can build competetive deck in a timely fashion. You can play HS absolutely F2P and compete on the ladder. Of course your choices will be limited, but it is possible.
I have been playing another mobile game which I "categorise" as P2W. There are packages that is only available via cash purchasable, that provides additional resources that speedup your game's built considerably. However, I am playing as a F2P and still enjoy this game greatly.

As I read through the replies above, I am able to relate to much of the posters in a certain sense.

I do not wish to participate in the debate whether the game is P2W or F2P.
However, in line with my previous replies, I think/feel that HS is still a game that can be enjoyed through a F2P method, both casually and competitively.

As going back to the context of the original post where the feeling of losing to a "better" deck/collection (not discounting that the person with a better deck/collection could be a F2P player), there are a few options worth considering provided that one is able to be open and seeking.
02/23/2019 11:33 AMPosted by Siperos
Pfft! Nice assumptions there, buddy. Did you run out of arguments? Not that you ever had any good ones based on reality to begin with but still.
and what's your argument again? hs can't make profits with cosmetics like fortnite apex because you say so
02/23/2019 12:39 PMPosted by VictoriousDN
Wrong, 20-30 games a day is more than enough to be top 100. You’re MMR is more dependent on win percentage than number of games played. The month I got as high as rank 2 legend (finished 109) was one of the months I played the least. I averaged about 7 wins a day.
they don't realise that 20 to 30 games a day is a LOT
02/23/2019 02:26 PMPosted by Praetorian
I bought 0 cards and casually cruise between 5-1 every month, its not pay to win, learn to play.
that victoriousdn guy can say "learn to play" but you're not allowed to when you're terrible
02/23/2019 03:51 PMPosted by VictoriousDN
Game is obviously pay to win. Both players have unequal starting resources.
but p2w players will always say otherwise because they're stuck at a very low rank despite that advantage
02/24/2019 07:10 AMPosted by Reid666
In P2W games there are money-exclusive advantages which cannot be achieved by F2P players. Or "realistically" cannot be achieved by F2P players.
f2p players can't get all the cards
02/24/2019 07:10 AMPosted by Wardrum
I'd say Hearthstone is a fair amount on the f2p-friendly side of the middle, though clearly not quite as much as something like Fortnite.
we agree on that, it could be worse (like fifa)
02/20/2019 06:38 PMPosted by Zaxo
I know I'm going to get negative comments posting something like this on the forums. But if you go against someone who has all the legendary cards and perfect combos just like the decks you literally google for high percentage win rates, tell me how you beat them without having specific cards to counter them yourself. If you can't answer that, it's pay-to-win.


Yep. And here’s the other side of the coin. If it takes 6 mo to grind for cards to finish a deck that probably fell outta the meta anyways and your opponent was using those same cards to smash your face 6 mo prior cuz he bought them? Pay to win.
02/24/2019 01:57 AMPosted by Ceriulun
02/23/2019 07:49 PMPosted by DrKorn
To me it is very hard to understand the F2P campaigning supporters.
I think its rather simple really... If a game does not offer any sort of an advantage to the paying customers over the non-paying customers then the game is literally Free to Play. Can we place HS in this category? IMHO this is clearly a NO... As the advantage of having access to all the cards on the first day of an expansion offers a non-negligible advantage over the rest of the players.


A f2p infinite arena player can save up resources to have all the cards on the first day of an expansion, just as a paying customer who dishes $150-200.

Your "clear No", as per your own arbitrary definition, has been invalidated.


We can quantify the non-negligible advantage offered if u so wish and it will still far out-weight the % of infinite arena players that have amassed enough gold to purchase all expansions over the years...
In the end everything is translated in time ... Idd HS is pay to skip but thats not the issue...The X% of the population that will stop playing the game once they realise that the game is extremely expensive in attempting to collect all the cards every single expansion either through use of their own time or money spent...
The effects are amplified tenfold for new players hence trying to persuade them that the game is F2P aint gonna work for long...
f2p players can't get all the cards

Infinite arena players can get all the cards.
Arena grinding with a total average of 7 wins can get a lot of resources to a f2p player. Without doing serious calculations, I'd say about 80-120 runs are needed per expansion (on top of the quests) to get all the cards.
02/24/2019 03:41 PMPosted by Ceriulun
f2p players can't get all the cards

Infinite arena players can get all the cards.
Arena grinding with a total average of 7 wins can get a lot of resources to a f2p player. Without doing serious calculations, I'd say about 80-120 runs are needed per expansion (on top of the quests) to get all the cards.
So by this logic:

As an alternative to paying for packs using money you earn spending time at your RL job...

You can spend even more time grinding arena to earn gold with which to buy your packs.

If you enjoy arena and don't consider it work, then the logic holds up nicely, at least for those few who are capable of averaging 7+ wins per run.

If on the other hand, you don't especially enjoy arena, then it's just another, much slower version of paying for your packs, using currency (gold) you earned doing work (arena) that you were doing instead of playing the game (constructed) that you wanted to play.

Does it really matter which flavor of work and which currency it pays? Either way, you're paying....

TLDR: Arena is irrelevant unless you actually enjoy it enough to actually want to play 20-30 runs a month in addition to the time you spend on constructed HS.
Sure, the new player experience kind of sucks. The game is free to play, but if you're new then you can't expect to be competitive. Other players have spent time / money on the game.

So, you either grind it out or you spend some money.
02/24/2019 04:51 PMPosted by Daikaze
Sure, the new player experience kind of sucks. The game is free to play, but if you're new then you can't expect to be competitive. Other players have spent time / money on the game.

So, you either grind it out or you spend some money.


Sure, the new player experience sucks; but it’s always sucked, so new players better get used to being used as punching bags for their first few months.

So, tell me why any new player would pick up Hearthstone with such a large pay/time-wall to be on fair footing with their opponents.
02/24/2019 06:58 AMPosted by VictoriousDN
02/24/2019 06:11 AMPosted by Wardrum
...There are people who buy packs and craft tier 1 decks and still cannot make it out of the 20-18 range. If the game was truly p2w, simply dumping money into it would hand you the necessary wins.


So a game can’t be p2w unless you can literally buy wins to top ranks? This definition seems so strict that basically no game could be called p2w.


Off the top of my head?

Animation Throwdown
Tyrant Unleased
Lords Mobile
Final Fantasy XV: A New Empire

I could make a much longer list just from memory. I could fill many pages after a short time on google.

You know what all these games have in common? The stuff a free player could play with, even given 10,000 years to grind with a 24/7 bot that manages resources perfectly, is strictly outclassed by what a player who throws large amounts of money can do on day 1.

Need an example?

If the best card (combat unit, weapon; whatever but you actually NEED the thing to compete with other players) available through any F2P method has stats like this:

11/45

and then a card identical in all other ways (Name, abilities etc) except that it has a golden border and cost $2000 has stats like this:

17/72 (and the numerics of the abilities are inflated as well)

then the game is pay to win. Like I said, could list literally thousands of games like this, mobile and pc, with a very short time spent searching. You want to talk about the "new player" experience in the same game? Your cards have stats like this:

4/4

and get no abilities at all.

Want to talk about that "realistically available" definition given above too? Sure. If upgrading your castle costs either: $500 or 4 months worth of farmed in game currency followed by a six year build time, then you can safely say the thing plainly isn't available for free and just costs $500.

Hearthstone has exactly 1 card that I cannot start a new account right now and acquire within a few hours. That card is C'thun. You can craft a golden one though if you really want to throw resources at a fun but subpar deck as a f2p (if it means that much to you anyway, it's probably worth the cost of the packs to unlock it for free as a promo with the packs).
02/24/2019 04:00 PMPosted by BadSoup
TLDR: Arena is irrelevant unless you actually enjoy it enough to actually want to play 20-30 runs a month in addition to the time you spend on constructed HS.


Why would someone play the game while not enjoying the core gameplay? It doesn't matter if someone is a paying or a f2p customer. If they don't like the game, they shouldn't play it.

If someone likes the game, there are ways to play it for free on many different levels, and it is even possible to get all cards for free. Yes, the latter requires dedication (time investment), but ~$600 a year is also very dedicated. Money alone, however, won't teach the skills that are required for high win ratios. Time investment is required either way. This is the main reason against the pay to win claim.

On a casual level, about 15-20 minutes a day got me most of the common and rare cards, about 40% of the epics, and 30% of the legendaries. These are my actual stats. Objectively, this game is very forgiving and accessible. I'm not sure about the new player experience, but for me, as a long time casual player, the game is satisfying. I put my focus on one class, and with a little resource management, I can build whatever deck I want for that class (in standard), and I can even afford some experiments. I didn't keep logs from the start, but approximating from the data of the last two years, I've opened somewhere between 900-1000 packs in total, and I completed all solo adventures. This number could be much more higher, but I missed about a year since release, as I made breaks.
02/24/2019 03:41 PMPosted by Ceriulun
I'd say about 80-120 runs are needed per expansion (on top of the quests) to get all the cards.
and when do you have time for ranked? or are you saying you can be competitive and reach top 200 without playing in ranked?
02/24/2019 05:45 PMPosted by VictoriousDN
So, tell me why any new player would pick up Hearthstone with such a large pay/time-wall to be on fair footing with their opponents.
because games where you can be competitive on day one like fortnite or apex don't existe xD wait...
th

02/20/2019 06:38 PMPosted by Zaxo
I know I'm going to get negative comments posting something like this on the forums. But if you go against someone who has all the legendary cards and perfect combos just like the decks you literally google for high percentage win rates, tell me how you beat them without having specific cards to counter them yourself. If you can't answer that, it's pay-to-win.

there are a few decks out there hat require very little total powder and do really well there is a hunter deck thats what less then i wana say 3500 powder total, my favorite class shaman is doing pretty bad right now in standard so i have not gotten very high ranked this season but, i just saw a list for a budget odd pally deck thants less then 5k powder it only runs 1 legendary and 2 epics the rest are common rare or basic cards and iv gone from rank 17 to rank 11 in 1 day (12-2) beating all sorts of decks(i feel dirty) so you dont 100% need 10k powder decks to win..... and as for paying to win i learned probly 6-8 months in before an expansion comeso out 2-3 months before allways do your dailys and u can usually get 35-50 packs from gold depending on what quests you get and how much you play, i normally get 40-50 packs and generally 6-8 legendary's on day 1 and have enuff powder to craft at least 1 that i want and pay 0.00 just need to know the tricks is this game pay to win? no is it less of a grind if you paid for packs? yes but my long drawn out point is you can win with low end decks if there built well
its the business model...its the same !@#$ as diablo immortal...they want you to get hooked/addicted so they can get tons of profit from micro transactions...

this game is the same %^-* as candry crush..you start slow...well..u win a lot..but starting at level 200 things start to get hard and messy...

the game is made so you FAIL a lot NOT UNTIL you buy those BOOSTS AND POWERUPS TO PASS THAT LEVEL !...

activision is pure evil greediness.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum