> In games like Clash of Clans, etc... You can play without paying. But it is just depressing to have an opponent attack you, where you can tell that they have effectively bought their way in. They didn't spend the time to effectively build their city, wait for their upgrades, etc... instead, they just bought a ton of gems and used that to make their city.
I don't really see the problem there. It's no different from players who simply got in earlier and got a head start. Games where some people join later are unavoidably going to have these kind of inequalities. To me, it doesn't matter if someone is stronger because he played longer, or because he bought his way in.
But if he bought his way in, he's probably less experienced than his strength suggests, and I might be able to defeat him despite his theoretical strength.
And MtG is far more evil in this regard. That one rare card in every pack is exactly meant to drive addiction, and get people to pay one more pack hoping for the rare card they want. In a way, MtG pioneered the pay-to-win game play, and plenty of people resent it for that reason. Though, in its defense, Magic's success may have been an accident; they may not have been intentionally taking advantage of addiction, and many of these modern mobile game companies definitely are.
But the main difference is that in the end, Magic is fun. If you just play opponents with a similarly limited collection, playing with less cards may actually be more fun than having everything. But many of these mobile games are intentionally designed to be less fun, to have lots of micromanagement and tedium with very little actual game underneath, and you can pay to skip the boring game play.
I guess the difference is that in some games, you are pitted against other players at the same "experience" level - to level the playing field. So that very experienced players aren't able to just kill all the new players immediately. However, if you have a player that has bought their way in, they will have a low experience level, but resources that are better matched against higher levels. So, if you don't buy in, you will be at a severe disadvantage.
I don't really see the problem there. It's no different from players who simply got in earlier and got a head start. Games where some people join later are unavoidably going to have these kind of inequalities. To me, it doesn't matter if someone is stronger because he played longer, or because he bought his way in.
But if he bought his way in, he's probably less experienced than his strength suggests, and I might be able to defeat him despite his theoretical strength.
And MtG is far more evil in this regard. That one rare card in every pack is exactly meant to drive addiction, and get people to pay one more pack hoping for the rare card they want. In a way, MtG pioneered the pay-to-win game play, and plenty of people resent it for that reason. Though, in its defense, Magic's success may have been an accident; they may not have been intentionally taking advantage of addiction, and many of these modern mobile game companies definitely are.
But the main difference is that in the end, Magic is fun. If you just play opponents with a similarly limited collection, playing with less cards may actually be more fun than having everything. But many of these mobile games are intentionally designed to be less fun, to have lots of micromanagement and tedium with very little actual game underneath, and you can pay to skip the boring game play.