The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Free to play and Microtransactions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,070 times Debate No: 57093
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Microtransactions are ruining the gaming universe as a whole. Usually they are done in the most pathetic of ways to make gaming more grindy and shitty for everyone who doesn't give money to these capitalistic tossers. Have microtransactions ever done anything good for the community? I don't think so.

Back in the day companies would wait for the buzz of their game to die down and then they'd release expansion packs to keep it up and get people interested in the game again. Those were the good times of extra content in games. Now however companies make games that are "free" to download and play but they always seem to follow the same algorithm which is something like this: Make a game that progresses fast through the first five minutes to get people addicted then slam on the brakes and get people to pay to keep up the gameplay speed.

At first you may think microtransactions are optional to take and in a way you're right. What's inexcusable is how companies make their games complete grind fests just to con people into paying into their games. This is basically hindering somebody's gameplay experience because they aren't paying to play a free game... Yeah.

Free to play is a con game. It's not being a friendly company saying "We love you customers! Here' have a game for free!" It's about getting more people to play the game but then stabbing them in the back with a massive grind fest. which brings in more money than just making the game cost money to buy. If you want this crap to stop, all you have to do is refuse to pay for any of these microtransactions. if you don't, companies will have no choice but to stop because they'd be losing money.

Here's a list of cons for Microtransactions:
  • Slower and more grindy games to get people to pay up to get the gameplay back to the level it was previously.
  • Praying on people's addictions, hooking them in and then throwing them curveball and getting them to pay up to get past the level they're stuck on.
  • Advantages to people who buy microtransactions in an effort to get more people to buy the objects that give these advantages.


The idea that free to play and microtransactions are ruining video game industry as a whole is baseless and absurd because saying that one business model is ruining the whole industry is impossible.

Free to play is leaving a lot of room for player to decide if they like the game or not before spending money on it, and it is so much better than the traditional way of paying 30-60$ on a game that you have no idea if it is going to be good, and you have to rely on the opinion of other people, and their opinion alone.
On the other hand Free to play lets players decide if they will pay money to play the game, a lot of time you have the inferior experience if you do not give money to the developers and claiming that that is unfair is ridiculous because they have to pay their rent and in the case of most games you can play for a good couple of hours before starting to feel like you are having an inferior experience, and except a couple of pay to win games 30$ will get you a good experience, the same as you would get as if you bought the boxed copy of the game.

So in the end for paying the same amount of money you get the same experience in free to play as you get if you pay upfront and the only difference is that in case of free to play you can try the game before deciding if you want to spend money on it.
Debate Round No. 1


I think you're missing some of the points that I pointed out before. Free to play isn't about letting the player decide, it's about trying to hook the player in to scrape every last penny from them. Demos are about letting the player decide. For example, a new game comes out but you're unsure about it. You try out the demo or trial version to decide if you like it or not. Free to play is more about making money from stupid people who would buy this stuff.

"So in the end for paying the same amount of money you get the same experience in free to play as you get if you pay upfront and the only difference is that in case of free to play you can try the game before deciding if you want to spend money on it." Yeah right... which orifice are you talking out of here? Even if you do pay shedloads of money to enjoy the game as much as you can it's not like that game is a large game that will be enjoyed for years unlike many sandbox games like Minecraft which doesn't have any of this Free to Play crap.

Free to play games aren't made to be good look at Dungeon Keeper. A game completely ruined by microtransactions and even if you paid for everything, it still would pail in comparison to the first game. Another example of microtranactions ruining games is the case of Rollercoaster Tycoon 4 Mobile.

Free to play is nothing about being a friendly company that wants to give a taste about their games, free to play is about starting easy to get you addicted then throwing you into a massive difficulty curve to choke out your money to get past a stage. (Candy Crush Saga) Others get slower the further you progress into them. (Sims Social) and there's another type that gives you some premium currency (the one you have to pay for) off the bat so you can get started then when this runs out you are progressing at a snail's pace. (Dungeon Keeper)

I prefer games that I can play without having to pay as I play. Just one fixed price to buy it and that's it. Non of this bull.


There is a lot of difference between free to play games and cow clickers. All of the games that you have pointed out as a bad F2P models are cow clickers which you can't buy a boxed copy and there is not even really an alternative to playing it F2P.

But let's talk about real games that include some real gameplay.
Top 8 most played free to play games:

1Dota 2 - Purely cosmetic microtransactions

2Team fortress - purely cosmetic microtransactions

3Warframe - considered on of the fairest F2P models.

4War thunder - same as Warframe

5Ghost recon phantoms - All guns are bought pernament and can be bought with in game currency

6Path of exile - the whole game can be beat whitout paying a dime

7Neverwinter - Probbably the best example of the business model that I talked about in the first round of the debate

8Planetside 2 - Purely cosmetic microtransactions

All theese games combined currently have 677117 players in game. So are you saying that 677117 are currently having their wallets scraped for every last dime?
And if you want to talk about "big bad evil corporations" lets talk about Aliens colonial marines that completely missrepresented the entire game, or COD that makes worse and worse games every year for 60$ and releases another 60$ worth of DLC which are not actual DLC but map pacs. And even Watch Dogs was missrepresented and looked better on E3 2 years ago.
All the people that are playing games like the new Dungeon keeper are playing that because they don't know better either because they have no aspiration to play better games or because they aren't informed and there are people willing to take and advantage of that, but companies that want money upfront also take advantage of consumers, don't they?
Debate Round No. 2


I never denied that there can be good games with microtransactions in them such as Coaster Crazy and many of the others you mentioned... Never denied that. But here's the thing. The bad points seem to outweigh the good. How many people play Candy Crush Saga? 93 million active users according to Gamespot. Compare that 93 million to 677117. Your point about Call of duty is a good point however. I'm against DLC and shovelware like that. The only good type of DLC is expansion packs. Most other types is just hiding features of the game behind paywalls when the game was already bought.

Let's talk evil companies who love those evil microtransactions:

Electronic Arts: Their mobile version of Bullfrog's Dungeon keeper is a prime example of abusing the free to play architecture and squeezing as much money out of those players as possible.

King: Candy Crush Saga. A very popular app game on Facebook, iOS, and Android. I bet they had money in mind when they made this. You can tell how they hook players in then spike the difficulty to squeeze the money out. There's no way that this can be argued about. Stop sending me game requests!

Atari: On iOS, Atari released Rollercoaster Tycoon 4 Mobile. A game which costs money to buy and has free to play architecture... Double dipping is bad.

Zynga: Most known for making Farmville and many other games like this. Grindy games where competition persuades peope to buy credits to do stuff.

All these companies are the epitome of microtransaction abuse. The amount of people who play these games is FAR greater than the amout who play the games you listed as good which really does suck to be honest... I believe that if you are going to make a game with microtransactions in it, just don't abuse the usage of them.

Some games actually have alternatives to play. Just get yourself on and buy the original Dungeon Keeper made by Bullfrog Productions and Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 made by Frontier for dirt cheap because they're older games which are way better than any of this free to play gumpf. Trust me, those games are masterpieces.

Noting how you said there's a difference between Free to play and "Cow Clickers" isn't correct. A "cow clicker" is a type of free to play game. Think of it like this: All alligators are crocodiles but not all crocodiles are alligators. Alligators being the "cow clickers" and crocodiles being all F2P games. Your decision if that is a good analogy.


DarxDB forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.