2 ms·
I never played trading card games... I even had to look up what TCG meant. So, I'm not the best to suggest why they were better accepted. But if I had to guess,
by mbreese 13y ago
I never played trading card games... I even had to look up what TCG meant. So, I'm not the best to suggest why they were better accepted. But if I had to guess, it was that everyone one had a shot at getting the best cards. Even if you only had one or two packs, you could have gotten a super rare card. If you had a hundred packs, you still may not have gotten the "golden ticket". So, money didn't necessarily correlate 1:1 with advantage.
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.
So, the users who don't just buy their way can feel cheated by the game. They put in a lot of time into their cities, but they can just get crushed by people who just bought theirs.
Sure, the authors can get more money, but it just ruins game play for the rest of us. Even in games like Candy Crush - you can win without paying extra, but for some levels it's almost impossible to complete without using bonuses.
Source: I've played both Candy Crush and Clash of Clans to the point where they weren't fun anymore largely because of the pay-to-play nature.
- mcv 13y ago> 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.
- mbreese 13y agoI 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.