Originally posted by Superman0X The answer is very simple. Whenever there is a direct relationship to money paid, and gaming entertainment.... it is pay to win. Every commercial game (that I know of) is pay to win in some aspect (You pay money, and you get something). It is only really a matter of people choosing what form of exchange they feel is acceptable. So, people defend pay to win, because they like the results. They could choose to play games that have no monetization.... but they actually like the results that they get from playing commercial games.
I dont think you know what pay to win means. Its in the name if you didnt understand. You have to pay money to win at the game.
Games where you have to pay money to stay relevant is the definition of pay to win. Pay to win does not mean you spend a few bucks to look nice or spend some money to get certain content. Pay to win means 9/10 times whoever spent the most money will win.
This is not true in most games that we consider MMORPGs. Pay to win is mostly for strategy games, at least from what I have seen, where you can buy units, buy items to speed up production, buy premium units, wage war faster, get protected for x amount of days, etc. That is a pay to win game. Paying $x to gain a small boost is not pay to win, you are not better than any player just because you spent more money.
Originally posted by Superman0XThe answer is very simple. Whenever there is a direct relationship to money paid, and gaming entertainment.... it is pay to win. Every commercial game (that I know of) is pay to win in some aspect (You pay money, and you get something). It is only really a matter of people choosing what form of exchange they feel is acceptable. So, people defend pay to win, because they like the results. They could choose to play games that have no monetization.... but they actually like the results that they get from playing commercial games.
I dont think you know what pay to win means. Its in the name if you didnt understand. You have to pay money to win at the game. Games where you have to pay money to stay relevant is the definition of pay to win. Pay to win does not mean you spend a few bucks to look nice or spend some money to get certain content. Pay to win means 9/10 times whoever spent the most money will win. This is not true in most games that we consider MMORPGs. Pay to win is mostly for strategy games, at least from what I have seen, where you can buy units, buy items to speed up production, buy premium units, wage war faster, get protected for x amount of days, etc. That is a pay to win game. Paying $x to gain a small boost is not pay to win, you are not better than any player just because you spent more money.
You may not think I know what Pay to Win means...
However, this just shows that you dont read these forums enough. If you did, you would see that this is talked about for every game. It always comes down to the simple fact that someone paid money for something, and someone else didnt. The person who didnt pay, then considers that game Pay to Win.
Everyone has thier own opinion of what 'winning' means. It could be content (zones, classes, quests), it could be items, it could be levels/stats, it could be fashion, it could just be bragging rights. Every commercial game that sell directly to the consumer is pay to win. It is just up to each person to decide what is acceptable to them.
Originally posted by Superman0XThe answer is very simple. Whenever there is a direct relationship to money paid, and gaming entertainment.... it is pay to win. Every commercial game (that I know of) is pay to win in some aspect (You pay money, and you get something). It is only really a matter of people choosing what form of exchange they feel is acceptable. So, people defend pay to win, because they like the results. They could choose to play games that have no monetization.... but they actually like the results that they get from playing commercial games.
I dont think you know what pay to win means. Its in the name if you didnt understand. You have to pay money to win at the game. Games where you have to pay money to stay relevant is the definition of pay to win. Pay to win does not mean you spend a few bucks to look nice or spend some money to get certain content. Pay to win means 9/10 times whoever spent the most money will win. This is not true in most games that we consider MMORPGs. Pay to win is mostly for strategy games, at least from what I have seen, where you can buy units, buy items to speed up production, buy premium units, wage war faster, get protected for x amount of days, etc. That is a pay to win game. Paying $x to gain a small boost is not pay to win, you are not better than any player just because you spent more money.
You may not think I know what Pay to Win means...
However, this just shows that you dont read these forums enough. If you did, you would see that this is talked about for every game. It always comes down to the simple fact that someone paid money for something, and someone else didnt. The person who didnt pay, then considers that game Pay to Win.
Everyone has thier own opinion of what 'winning' means. It could be content (zones, classes, quests), it could be items, it could be levels/stats, it could be fashion, it could just be bragging rights. Every commercial game that sell directly to the consumer is pay to win. It is just up to each person to decide what is acceptable to them.
How is looking nice winning? What are you charlie sheen?
Originally posted by CreatorzimHow is looking nice winning? What are you charlie sheen?
How is it not? Even in the virtual world, appearance is highly desirable.
Simple. Looking good does not allow you to win in any way. Any other person can just kill you. Cant look too good on the ground.
Edit after you: She also died, looking good did not save her.
Not all games are about killing other people. However, even with those that are, they often sell animations and taunts for this.
As for her death... I dont know of anyone alive from that ERA...So, I dont think her death is a relevant factor.
Bringing up Helen wasnt a relevant factor but you still brought it up...lol
Except almost all the games talked on MMORPG essentially are about killing. So of course killing would be the goal that someone would consider to be winning. If its not about killing then I dont see how it can be pay to win. Just like the guy above, a great description of how to define pay to win games.
im a subscription fan because i believe micro transaction is just pure dirty trading. they are selling us absolutely nothing for our money you can never own what you hand money over for in video games.. the developer retains all rights to all interlectual property!! that means if you pay 20 dollars for a new starship in sto for example!!!! all your doing is paying for the right to use the code for the duration of the games life span and nothing more. the developers can remove that ship if they want as it belongs to them and your initial sum paid was nothing but a fee to use the code while it existed.
Everything you just said applies to subscription games though. You're just giving them money for a character who they can, at any point in time, delete.
That's one problem with persistent online games just in general though, the fact the online component might not always exist.
The major difference though. The guy who plays a f2p can end up burning thousands of dollars by the time it is shut down. Where as someone playing a sub game without a real cash shop will only spend a fraction of that. If you don't like the whole p2w aspect there are only a few things you can do. Don't play them. Look for companies with "fair" policies. Play a p2p and hope it doesn't go f2p. I laugh on the inside when people are all hoping ESO for example goes f2p. I'm sure people would go crazy spending money to be a cyrodiil certified ownage machine. However, since there are no cash shop boosters this is not the case. ^_^
Originally posted by CreatorzimHow is looking nice winning? What are you charlie sheen?
How is it not? Even in the virtual world, appearance is highly desirable.
Simple. Looking good does not allow you to win in any way. Any other person can just kill you. Cant look too good on the ground.Edit after you: She also died, looking good did not save her.
Not all games are about killing other people. However, even with those that are, they often sell animations and taunts for this.As for her death... I dont know of anyone alive from that ERA...So, I dont think her death is a relevant factor.
Bringing up Helen wasnt a relevant factor but you still brought it up...lolExcept almost all the games talked on MMORPG essentially are about killing. So of course killing would be the goal that someone would consider to be winning. If its not about killing then I dont see how it can be pay to win. Just like the guy above, a great description of how to define pay to win games.
Actually Helen is relevant. You questioned if looks could be winning. The fact that I can reference someone (real or not) from thousands of years ago, because of her looks is a pretty good indication that this is 'winning'.
It is true that most MMORPG's include killing, it is not true that most are based on PvP (players killing each other). Youre choice to ignore other forms of 'winning' is fine... when applied to you. However, it doesnt work as well when applied to others. You can tell other players that when they have the most gold, the best outfits, the highest levels, kill the toughest mobs, achieve the highest goals... that they have all lost, but they are not likely to agree with you. However, I will enjoy watching you try, and fail.
Originally posted by LordZeikThe major difference though. The guy who plays a f2p can end up burning thousands of dollars by the time it is shut down. Where as someone playing a sub game without a real cash shop will only spend a fraction of that. If you don't like the whole p2w aspect there are only a few things you can do. Don't play them. Look for companies with "fair" policies. Play a p2p and hope it doesn't go f2p. I laugh on the inside when people are all hoping ESO for example goes f2p. I'm sure people would go crazy spending money to be a cyrodiil certified ownage machine. However, since there are no cash shop boosters this is not the case. ^_^
In years past it was very common for the top players of P2P games to spend thousands(or more) of dollars on these games, so that they could be the best. It is less common now, only because P2P games are less common.
Originally posted by CreatorzimHow is looking nice winning? What are you charlie sheen?
How is it not? Even in the virtual world, appearance is highly desirable.
Simple. Looking good does not allow you to win in any way. Any other person can just kill you. Cant look too good on the ground.Edit after you: She also died, looking good did not save her.
Not all games are about killing other people. However, even with those that are, they often sell animations and taunts for this.As for her death... I dont know of anyone alive from that ERA...So, I dont think her death is a relevant factor.
Bringing up Helen wasnt a relevant factor but you still brought it up...lolExcept almost all the games talked on MMORPG essentially are about killing. So of course killing would be the goal that someone would consider to be winning. If its not about killing then I dont see how it can be pay to win. Just like the guy above, a great description of how to define pay to win games.
Actually Helen is relevant. You questioned if looks could be winning. The fact that I can reference someone (real or not) from thousands of years ago, because of her looks is a pretty good indication that this is 'winning'.
It is true that most MMORPG's include killing, it is not true that most are based on PvP (players killing each other). Youre choice to ignore other forms of 'winning' is fine... when applied to you. However, it doesnt work as well when applied to others. You can tell other players that when they have the most gold, the best outfits, the highest levels, kill the toughest mobs, achieve the highest goals... that they have all lost, but they are not likely to agree with you. However, I will enjoy watching you try, and fail.
And how is dying not relevant? She was killed for being pretty.
I didnt say PVP. There is also PVE where killing is still the main objective. Very few games dont lead to killing. If you want to talk about those game as being P2W then I bet there is some other type of Forum where you could talk to those type of people. But here its about killing.
Originally posted by Creatorzim And how is dying not relevant? She was killed for being pretty.I didnt say PVP. There is also PVE where killing is still the main objective. Very few games dont lead to killing. If you want to talk about those game as being P2W then I bet there is some other type of Forum where you could talk to those type of people. But here its about killing.
Lets start with the relevancy of dying. First, they are all dead (so she is not unique in this aspect). However, it does bring up a good point. You know her name, but not all the others... yet again, more proof that she 'won'.
As for things other than killing... well, this just shows you dont read these forums. You could read these forums for days/weeks/years(?) on end reading about the other things that people do in MMORPG's. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the audience.
Originally posted by Creatorzim And how is dying not relevant? She was killed for being pretty.I didnt say PVP. There is also PVE where killing is still the main objective. Very few games dont lead to killing. If you want to talk about those game as being P2W then I bet there is some other type of Forum where you could talk to those type of people. But here its about killing.
Lets start with the relevancy of dying. First, they are all dead (so she is not unique in this aspect). However, it does bring up a good point. You know her name, but not all the others... yet again, more proof that she 'won'.
As for things other than killing... well, this just shows you dont read these forums. You could read these forums for days/weeks/years(?) on end about the other things that people do in MMORPG's. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the audience.
I also know achilles and odysseus, so 2 to 1. Killing wins again.
I also know that in every game people in some time kill something in all those games as well. Besides games like second life which no one talks about on here really.
So in all the games you kill something but not all the games have anything to do with looking good? There are tons of games where you dont change your look what so ever...What about those games? How do you win to look good in those games?
If you cant understand any of this then im sorry though. I cant teach you how to play games.
I posted about how GW2 became pay to win with the new armors. They were all over me like vulchers. I posted that Archeage is already pay to win and its not even out in alpha and the same thing happens.
Paying real life cash for any type of enhancement is a pay to win scheme. Doesn't matter if its "only 6 points in every stat". You are paying real life cash to get that. Its also not a good thing to start a game with (as in, what other pay to win things will they add in the future).
Why do people defend this crap? Just because they want that instant gratification that they spent $300 on a video game to gain a few stat points over someone who doesn't pay for it? Is this what the MMO's have become now? Whoever has the most RL money spent wins?
The fact that you're saying Archeage is P2W shows you know nothing about Archeage, also nobody even knows what Trions is gonna add to their shop yet, a few +stats from a titel or costume isn't gonna make you OP.
For some reason the only response I can muster to this post is... someone knowingly defends pay to win who isn't trying to make money off the game using the model?
Those people who spent thousand in p2p games did so not by the companies design though. So, assuming a general comparison of a standard p2p user vs lets say a f2p whale the amount spent is huge. That whale risks the chance of being removed from the game by using those other methods. I recall a time where a famous eq1 player was caught buying items off ebay and was taken down hard. I know you make your living off the f2p model super(Brian) Some of us just don't want to live in the illusion where p2w is "okay"
Originally posted by LordZeik Those people who spent thousand in p2p games did so not by the companies design though. So, assuming a general comparison of a standard p2p user vs lets say a f2p whale the amount spent is huge. That whale risks the chance of being removed from the game by using those other methods. I recall a time where a famous eq1 player was caught buying items off ebay and was taken down hard. I know you make your living off the f2p model super(Brian) Some of us just don't want to live in the illusion where p2w is "okay"
So if you compare a standard user to an extreme user, you're making a valid point about free to play ? I would never have guessed that. Thank you for pointing it out.
I think that kind of services are for peeps who are really bad at gaming,most likely never won anything and these "products" gives them a chance to win atleast something some weird way,which is far from gaming tho.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
It's a shame, but pay to win is better than subscription if the game wasn't worth a subscription in the first place. Some games are better off being pay to win then being shut down. At least some of us get to enjoy the game instead of no one.
Buy to play would be the best, but almost no one does it . Subscriptions close games off from a wider mass appeal of players who may want to play, but have no time and / or money to play it. Only the top AAA best games can charge a subscription and still get millions to play them at the same time. It is either go free to play and have millions of players, or go subscription and get 250k or less players.
I posted about how GW2 became pay to win with the new armors. They were all over me like vulchers. I posted that Archeage is already pay to win and its not even out in alpha and the same thing happens.
Paying real life cash for any type of enhancement is a pay to win scheme. Doesn't matter if its "only 6 points in every stat". You are paying real life cash to get that. Its also not a good thing to start a game with (as in, what other pay to win things will they add in the future).
Why do people defend this crap? Just because they want that instant gratification that they spent $300 on a video game to gain a few stat points over someone who doesn't pay for it? Is this what the MMO's have become now? Whoever has the most RL money spent wins?
I'm curious... How is GW2 pay to win ? It's the only game where getting ascended (the best) gear isn't really needed to do every content and with gem conversion rates it'd take hundreds of dollars for you to even get close to crafting one with golds obtained this way. Now since it means nothing to me if somoene has ascended gear or not since it's not a vertical gear progression system I don't see how it's relevant and I would support that kind of deal... It's B2P afterall and they have to keep the game runing for me to play it
Also, why is AA p2w? We have nothing available yet to see how'll cash shop and subs work, what will you get and what will the limitations be. How did you come up with that one?
I hate P2W, but what I dislike more is jumping to conclusions and publicly labeling something for something that it's not.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by VengeSunsoarAnd over 4 years you spend over a thousand bucksin a p2p game but the average ftp will spend. ... nothing.
Technically the average will spend like $4 a month, so $48 a year and $156 over four years. Most F2P players will spend nothing. :-)
My mistake. Your right .
The average will spend a small bit and the mode (always have to remind myself of that one) will spend nothing.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I refuse to play any game that gives advantages to people who pay extra.
> "Imagine if soccer/football clubs were able to pay for the best players in the world...oh wait..."
And thats an unfair advantage - how ?
No matter how much they pay for said player, they still have to conform to the exact same set of rules like everybody else.
You can train getting better at your MMO too, nobody will consider this an unfair advantage. Well, ok, looking at this thread - most people wont.
> "Every MMO is 'P2W'. Most just require you to pay with your time as opposed to your money."
Most people in this thread agree that allowing shortcuts for faster leveling / getting items easier is not considered pay to win. Okay, lets say: a solid majority of people here think so.
> "life is pay to win my friend..."
Actually life is "lose no matter what" - death is inevitable.
And in the meantime, all you really need is a full refrigerator and friends / love.
> "Helen of Troy was the face that launched a thousand ships."
Uh, technically, she was the very welcome *excuse* to launch a thousand ships. No greek really cared about how Helen looked like, or about her personality. They wanted the riches of Troy, and Helen offered a nice excuse to get those.
I think that kind of services are for peeps who are really bad at gaming,most likely never won anything and these "products" gives them a chance to win atleast something some weird way,which is far from gaming tho.
Actually, even in P2W games, most people pay very little. Less than you would in a subscription.
That means either 1. Winning is so cheap, it's cheaper than a subscription anyway, or....
2. They're just SO badass, that they can outplay somebody spending lots of money.
3. They're so hardcore they can suck up losing all the time because they're JUST that dedicated and manly.
So that means those kind of games are mostly for incredible gaming badasses who can't be stopped by thousands of RL dollars. Using your logic, anyway.
Comments
I dont think you know what pay to win means. Its in the name if you didnt understand. You have to pay money to win at the game.
Games where you have to pay money to stay relevant is the definition of pay to win. Pay to win does not mean you spend a few bucks to look nice or spend some money to get certain content. Pay to win means 9/10 times whoever spent the most money will win.
This is not true in most games that we consider MMORPGs. Pay to win is mostly for strategy games, at least from what I have seen, where you can buy units, buy items to speed up production, buy premium units, wage war faster, get protected for x amount of days, etc. That is a pay to win game. Paying $x to gain a small boost is not pay to win, you are not better than any player just because you spent more money.
You may not think I know what Pay to Win means...
However, this just shows that you dont read these forums enough. If you did, you would see that this is talked about for every game. It always comes down to the simple fact that someone paid money for something, and someone else didnt. The person who didnt pay, then considers that game Pay to Win.
Everyone has thier own opinion of what 'winning' means. It could be content (zones, classes, quests), it could be items, it could be levels/stats, it could be fashion, it could just be bragging rights. Every commercial game that sell directly to the consumer is pay to win. It is just up to each person to decide what is acceptable to them.
How is looking nice winning? What are you charlie sheen?
How is it not? Helen of Troy was the face that launched a thousand ships. Even in the virtual world, appearance is highly desirable.
Simple. Looking good does not allow you to win in any way. Any other person can just kill you. Cant look too good on the ground.
Edit after you: She also died, looking good did not save her.
P2W ?
Monster are too strong for you to hand ?
>want to win again it ? pay (for stats boost)
Dungeon are too hard ?
>want to win again it ?Pay (for better gears enchant)
You bad at PVP ?
>Want to win again other player ? Pay (again , gears enchants and stats boost)
Leveling take to long and you can't get pass it ?
>Want to pass it easy ? pay (for XP boost)
Drop rate are super low and you can't get the item you want ?
>Want to get it easy ? Pay (for extra drop rate)
So far , that's 5 basic form of P2W.
And why people defend pay to win ? They want to win and they can pay for it ... so they defend it .
My experience is , no matter how much you pay , it never enough because someone will pay more than you.
Not all games are about killing other people. However, even with those that are, they often sell animations and taunts for this.
As for her death... I dont know of anyone alive from that ERA...So, I dont think her death is a relevant factor.
Bringing up Helen wasnt a relevant factor but you still brought it up...lol
Except almost all the games talked on MMORPG essentially are about killing. So of course killing would be the goal that someone would consider to be winning. If its not about killing then I dont see how it can be pay to win. Just like the guy above, a great description of how to define pay to win games.
The major difference though. The guy who plays a f2p can end up burning thousands of dollars by the time it is shut down. Where as someone playing a sub game without a real cash shop will only spend a fraction of that. If you don't like the whole p2w aspect there are only a few things you can do. Don't play them. Look for companies with "fair" policies. Play a p2p and hope it doesn't go f2p. I laugh on the inside when people are all hoping ESO for example goes f2p. I'm sure people would go crazy spending money to be a cyrodiil certified ownage machine. However, since there are no cash shop boosters this is not the case. ^_^
Actually Helen is relevant. You questioned if looks could be winning. The fact that I can reference someone (real or not) from thousands of years ago, because of her looks is a pretty good indication that this is 'winning'.
It is true that most MMORPG's include killing, it is not true that most are based on PvP (players killing each other). Youre choice to ignore other forms of 'winning' is fine... when applied to you. However, it doesnt work as well when applied to others. You can tell other players that when they have the most gold, the best outfits, the highest levels, kill the toughest mobs, achieve the highest goals... that they have all lost, but they are not likely to agree with you. However, I will enjoy watching you try, and fail.
In years past it was very common for the top players of P2P games to spend thousands(or more) of dollars on these games, so that they could be the best. It is less common now, only because P2P games are less common.
And how is dying not relevant? She was killed for being pretty.
I didnt say PVP. There is also PVE where killing is still the main objective. Very few games dont lead to killing. If you want to talk about those game as being P2W then I bet there is some other type of Forum where you could talk to those type of people. But here its about killing.
Lets start with the relevancy of dying. First, they are all dead (so she is not unique in this aspect). However, it does bring up a good point. You know her name, but not all the others... yet again, more proof that she 'won'.
As for things other than killing... well, this just shows you dont read these forums. You could read these forums for days/weeks/years(?) on end reading about the other things that people do in MMORPG's. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the audience.
I also know achilles and odysseus, so 2 to 1. Killing wins again.
I also know that in every game people in some time kill something in all those games as well. Besides games like second life which no one talks about on here really.
So in all the games you kill something but not all the games have anything to do with looking good? There are tons of games where you dont change your look what so ever...What about those games? How do you win to look good in those games?
If you cant understand any of this then im sorry though. I cant teach you how to play games.
The fact that you're saying Archeage is P2W shows you know nothing about Archeage, also nobody even knows what Trions is gonna add to their shop yet, a few +stats from a titel or costume isn't gonna make you OP.
So if you compare a standard user to an extreme user, you're making a valid point about free to play ? I would never have guessed that. Thank you for pointing it out.
Why do people defend pay to win schemes?
I think that kind of services are for peeps who are really bad at gaming,most likely never won anything and these "products" gives them a chance to win atleast something some weird way,which is far from gaming tho.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
It's a shame, but pay to win is better than subscription if the game wasn't worth a subscription in the first place. Some games are better off being pay to win then being shut down. At least some of us get to enjoy the game instead of no one.
Buy to play would be the best, but almost no one does it . Subscriptions close games off from a wider mass appeal of players who may want to play, but have no time and / or money to play it. Only the top AAA best games can charge a subscription and still get millions to play them at the same time. It is either go free to play and have millions of players, or go subscription and get 250k or less players.
Technically the average will spend like $4 a month, so $48 a year and $156 over four years. Most F2P players will spend nothing. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm curious... How is GW2 pay to win ? It's the only game where getting ascended (the best) gear isn't really needed to do every content and with gem conversion rates it'd take hundreds of dollars for you to even get close to crafting one with golds obtained this way. Now since it means nothing to me if somoene has ascended gear or not since it's not a vertical gear progression system I don't see how it's relevant and I would support that kind of deal... It's B2P afterall and they have to keep the game runing for me to play it
Also, why is AA p2w? We have nothing available yet to see how'll cash shop and subs work, what will you get and what will the limitations be. How did you come up with that one?
I hate P2W, but what I dislike more is jumping to conclusions and publicly labeling something for something that it's not.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Technically the average will spend like $4 a month, so $48 a year and $156 over four years. Most F2P players will spend nothing. :-)
My mistake. Your right
.
The average will spend a small bit and the mode (always have to remind myself of that one) will spend nothing.
> "Why do people defend pay to win schemes?"
Frankly ? Because people are morons.
I refuse to play any game that gives advantages to people who pay extra.
> "Imagine if soccer/football clubs were able to pay for the best players in the world...oh wait..."
And thats an unfair advantage - how ?
No matter how much they pay for said player, they still have to conform to the exact same set of rules like everybody else.
You can train getting better at your MMO too, nobody will consider this an unfair advantage. Well, ok, looking at this thread - most people wont.
> "Every MMO is 'P2W'. Most just require you to pay with your time as opposed to your money."
Most people in this thread agree that allowing shortcuts for faster leveling / getting items easier is not considered pay to win. Okay, lets say: a solid majority of people here think so.
> "life is pay to win my friend..."
Actually life is "lose no matter what" - death is inevitable.
And in the meantime, all you really need is a full refrigerator and friends / love.
> "Helen of Troy was the face that launched a thousand ships."
Uh, technically, she was the very welcome *excuse* to launch a thousand ships. No greek really cared about how Helen looked like, or about her personality. They wanted the riches of Troy, and Helen offered a nice excuse to get those.
Actually, even in P2W games, most people pay very little. Less than you would in a subscription.
That means either 1. Winning is so cheap, it's cheaper than a subscription anyway, or....
2. They're just SO badass, that they can outplay somebody spending lots of money.
3. They're so hardcore they can suck up losing all the time because they're JUST that dedicated and manly.
So that means those kind of games are mostly for incredible gaming badasses who can't be stopped by thousands of RL dollars. Using your logic, anyway.