Where do you personally draw the line on “pay-to-win”?
Hi everyone,
Pay-to-win is probably one of the most debated topics in strategy games and it’s something we’ve spent a huge amount of time thinking about while developing SolPlex: Dominion.
One thing we’ve realised is that everyone has a different definition. For some people, the moment any paid feature provides a non-cosmetic gameplay advantage, it has already crossed the pay-to-win line. Others are comfortable with monetisation as long as spending doesn’t outweigh time, strategy and skill.
Because of that, we wouldn’t make the blanket claim that our game has “no pay-to-win.” Instead, we’ve focused on building systems that keep the game as fair and competitive as possible.
Some of the mechanics we’ve designed include:
- Optional premium economy where some resources and artefacts can be purchased.
- Valuable artefacts are distributed through a competitive player-driven economy with controlled supply, rather than allowing unlimited purchases.
- Supply limits and dynamic pricing are used to reduce whale dominance and help maintain competitive balance across the server.
- Highly active players, strong alliances, smart economic decisions and long-term planning are designed to provide a greater advantage than spending alone.
- Active anti-cheat and anti-automation systems help protect competitive integrity.
Our philosophy has always been that the game should reward time, participation, coordination and strategy first. Spending exists, but it shouldn’t become the deciding factor.
So we’d love to hear your thoughts:
- Where do you personally draw the line between fair monetisation and pay-to-win?
- Do you think a free-to-play strategy game can ever avoid the pay-to-win label or is any gameplay advantage enough to cross that line?
Interested to hear different perspectives, as it’s one of the hardest design challenges we’ve faced.