Which Game Payment Method do you Prefer?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

1. Buy to Play: Think 'regular video game'. The developers can later make "expansion" packs for the game and sell that to get money too. (sadly, the introduction of internet shopping has made too easy for the developers to rip people off by supposedly selling them a whole product for one purchase while withholding already developed content for the game and selling them off as "DLC". This not only reduces the value of the game but also inflates it's price buy raising the cost of obtaining all the game's content (ie, Skylanders, Mass Effect).)

2: Pay to Play: Pretty easy to figure this one out. Basically, in return for high-quality game content and patches being developed so that your game can be funner, the devs ask their customers to pay a monthly fee (usually between $5 and $15). Sadly, very very few MMOs nowadays offer high enough quality content to justify the subscription cost, and so therefore they switch to the later mentioned Free-to-Play format to recoup their investment.

3. Play to Pay: This is Pay-to-Play with a twist: players can use money they acquire ingame to pay for their subscription fees (EVE Online, Wildstar). Unfortunately, this means that a player would have to play the game very regularly (ie, daily basis) to obtain the money required to bypass having to buy for subs with real money.

4. Free-to-Play: Alright, the games using this format aren't really free, but it's close enough. This payment method is where players can simply go to their website, make an account, download the game, and start playing. The catch? Devs try to squeeze money out of the players by producing special, tempting content that can only be acquired by paying real money (ie, nice looking spaceships, mech paint, etc.). The other downside is that it makes it too easy for the developers to focus all their time and effort on paid content rather than work on the "free" content (Rift, SWTOR).

[Fencers]

I don't actually prefer any one. They make no difference to me in a practical/personal sense.

The viability of various payment methods is far more interesting on a game to game basis and in relation to the business forces at work.

But to me personally? It has no impact or relevance.

[7seti]

I prefer pay-to-play provided it's paired with a strict no-cash-shop policy (services like paid transfers are ok). Subscription fee + cash shop is just plain greedy.

[Drikkink]

Play-to-pay is one of the most idiotic MMO models out there. I still don't get how people can stand playing EVE.

That said, subscription model is horrible, but F2P is a scourge to humanity, so Buy-to-play is probably the best if done correctly. The problem with that, is that developers tend to treat buy-to-play like F2P with guaranteed money.

For a legitimate MMO, a model where you buy the game then it's set up like LOL (where you can get everything that actually affects your performance in-game with in-game currency, all other cosmetic stuff is real life money) would work the best. Game makes money off everyone, makes more off some. However, greedy game companies are greedy and this would never happen.

[zito]

Buy to play with a cosmetic sub option that grants perks and cosmetic only cash shop is the most reasonable imo

[Afrospinach]

Buy to play for sure, I even like DLC a la fallout 3 etc. But that "buy this vehicle or weapon" crap in something like just cause 2 can fuck right off.

[Deleted]

This poll should really been a multiple choice.

For me it is very much depended on what I want to play.
MMORPG - Pay to Play, if it is good enough to justify a subscription.

If I want to play a singel player game, such as Skyrim, i would never choose a game with a Pay to Play option. Then it is Buy to Play

When I play something on my Android device, I most often choose a Free to Play game, since I tend to change game a lot and never play a game for more than a couple of days. I can take ads and shit when sitting on the bus or train. If it is a game I really like I might spend a few buck to get a full version or something in a cash shop.

[vindicatorx]

I hate free to play games and refuse to use them

[Vespian]

I don't actually prefer any one. They make no difference to me in a practical/personal sense.

The viability of various payment methods is far more interesting on a game to game basis and in relation to the business forces at work.

But to me personally? It has no impact or relevance.

I agree.

It depends on what the game represents and whether the sum represents the game.
- If I buy a game and it turns out to be crap, I wasted $60 for 3 days played. (ignoring refunds for a moment).
- If a game is great, I don't mind paying through F2P means, B2P means or P2P means.

Deducting from that, B2P has the greatest risk, but the largest return over time. F2P has the least risk, but more spendings over time (and often more than P2P). P2P is a small risk (a fraction of a B2P price per month) and if the game is good, you'll gladly pay for it, but if your time is limited, you will hesitate.

So it's all about the quality of the game and the segment of the market they are addressing. Plus how they handle the F2P elements. I don't mind shops selling (personal) progress (xp pots etc), I do mind shops selling power.

The thing I absolutely do not like, are combinations of the mentioned types, when it's the full price. Paying 60 for a game and still paying 14 per month. Or buying the game, which allows you to play, and then you need to buy expansions ingame or new classes ingame (much like STO did).

[Yunru]

1. Buy-to-Play I dont like to buy those games any more. Mostly because i fell like its missing a lot and i usualy am i forced to use mods to have fun with it.
It was fine when the had for example---buy a full new game...and after 2 years later they realise a polished game with extra feratures (new veicles, gear, better command and so on)

2. Pay-to-Play I prefer this system because it forces the company to pull out quality continent or they lose subs pretty fast. Its smiliar to buy to play but more costly (and you can cut the cost by not subing)

3. Play-to-Pay or in other words grid like hell to buy a game time. Its a system that works if the game is fun.....if its not it will die out. Its also good for company as players keep playing more that usualy and this makes subs numbers higher that other games.

4. Free-to-Play or in other words..PAY TO WIN. I dislake those games with a burning hatred. The game forces you to grid 99hours or pay 5 dolars for a sword of truth.
Generaly you grid like moron all the time trying to reach the powerfull item. And you get pwned all the time by those you purchased it. Generaly i avoid this games like plague.

[Dezerte]

They all have their pro's and con's and I don't think I can decide on any of them.

[razmir]

Depends on the game,

p2p: high quality game, no cash shop, lots of new content made
b2p: Game that you can play occasionaly, maybe a cosmetic cash shop
f2p: meh


..but no real preference

[Daeaye]

I prefer pay-to-play provided it's paired with a strict no-cash-shop policy (services like paid transfers are ok). Subscription fee + cash shop is just plain greedy.

I agree with this, but I am more lenient towards cash shops. As long as the items being sold for real money in a shop don't affect gameplay then it doesn't bother me at all. If you're able to buy gear with stats, trinkets, or items to improve your damage then I am 100% against it. If they're charging money for a unique pet or mount like WoW does then I see nothing wrong with it, because these don't affect your game play whatsoever, have unique models that aren't available in game, and you are not forced into buying any of it to stay ahead whatsoever. If people want to spend their money on these things then I don't see why they shouldn't - as long as the line of what can and cannot be sold in the shop remains clear and never crossed. I'll be honest: this experience boost potion crosses the line, in my opinion. If they ever make heirlooms available in the store then I would have a lot to say about it.

Personally, I prefer buy to play, since I can then play the game whenever I want without having to worry about account subscriptions being live, or if there's even any money in my bank account. That said, I don't mind the subscription method, but it does make me less likely to play a lot of games with the same build. I only play WoW as a pay to play game, and I think I always will unless something blows it out of the water (in my opinion, not popular opinion). I don't really want to spend money on 3 different subscriptions every month.

[Scummer]

I guess I prefer F2P games simply because there is no risk in playing it initially and it works well with my low budget.

The only problem I've really come across with F2P is that not every game does it right and it can lead to circumstances where it becomes pay to win or prices are too high although this is arguably more of a flaw with the company that creates the game rather than the actual F2P model itself.

My two favorite games are TF2 which I played way before it went F2P and since then have only loved it more and DOTA 2.

[obdigore]

I prefer Free to Play games that have no cash shop and are amazing.

That said, I will happily pay a sub for a game I play a lot of, if it is good enough and they keep producing content, or there is enough there to keep me entertained.

I hate f2p games that include p2w cash shops, however.

[Frozenbeef]

I'm not really sure anymore...a year ago i would have said i preferred p2p as you get more/ better quality content.... however I've been playing GW2 and it releases content much much faster than blizzard and I'm not even paying for it 0o

Then you have f2p...there is a vast difference between SWTOR and Rift. SWTOR restricts every conceivable thing in the game to make you pay. Rift doesn't place any new restrictions, playing rift is the same as when i was paying however i now have the choice to pay in order to expand on what i had before.

I think it just depends on the company really :/ i know for sure i absolutely hate how swtor did their f2p but don't mind rift. I think i've spent £40+ on rift in the last couple of weeks yet i refuse to pay anything on swtor.

[Repefe]

If you know you will play the game at least a few hours every week for months to come then p2p acceptable. Otherwise b2p or f2p with reasonable micro transactions ftw.

[Mechazod]

For me its pay a full one time price for a game with only full expansions available to extend the game with preferably no DLC content in any form (unless its player made content).

I wont touch free to play games unless they are MMOs with a free sub and I never purchase DLC (though I would have no moral issues with pirating it).

[Holtzmann]

I don't actually prefer any one. They make no difference to me in a practical/personal sense.

The viability of various payment methods is far more interesting on a game to game basis and in relation to the business forces at work.

But to me personally? It has no impact or relevance.

Same here. I'll buy and play a game if I think it's fun. I don't care about subscription fees or real money transactions unless I'm either ridiculously strapped for cash (which I thankfully haven't been for two years now) or said microtransactions give you actual performance boosts in-game (and no, I don't consider extra XP to be a performance boost). If the game draws my attention and it's reasonably priced, I'll play it. I've wasted more money in microtransactions on Planetside 2 (a F2P game) than I did purchasing and playing EVE Online for three months. :P

EDIT: this poll needs a "I don't care, I play games because I like them" option.

[Itisamuh]

I prefer buy to play, a one time purchase. If a game is good and a lot of people buy it, the developers may not feel the need to have a bunch of micro transactions like a free to play game. Either way though, I hate pay to play as a model. What a giant ripoff.