Since we started the development of IdleMMO, we’ve spent a great deal of time refining and improving our monetisation strategy, addressing countless questions along the way. Recognising that not everyone is aware of our previous discussions, I believe it's important to clearly articulate the rationale, process, and broader context of IdleMMO's monetisation approach. One of the primary concerns is understanding whether this game is considered to be pay-to-win or not. We hope that this strategy will help you in assessing whether the game can be considered pay-to-win.
Before delving into the details, I want to clarify that this post is not an attempt to defend or justify any imbalances in the game, nor is it aimed at swaying opinions in our favour. Instead, the goal is to provide a fair, balanced, and unbiased analysis of what we refer to as 'the pay-to-win conundrum' and to give you a clear understanding of the reasoning behind the monetization strategy we've chosen for our games.
Additionally, we also need to clarify that this monetisation strategy applies only to IdleMMO and any future games we create. It does not include SimpleMMO, which uses an older monetisation approach that was in place long before Galahad Creative existed.
Context
Before we begin, it's important to understand the monetization structure, which consists of two main components: memberships and tokens.
IdleMMO offers an optional membership subscription for a small monthly fee. And when we say optional, we mean it. It’s not one of those "technically optional but really necessary if you want to progress" setups. The benefits are negligible at best when it comes to actual progression. No content is locked behind a paywall, and subscribed players don’t gain any truly meaningful advantage. That’s by design, and it’s how we intend to keep it.
Our goal is to strike the perfect balance with our membership, making it worth the cost without creating disparity between free and paid users. We'll dive into the specifics of what the membership includes later in this blog post.
Tokens are the other form of monetization in IdleMMO. They can only be used for two things: slot expansions (like buying an extra inventory slot) and cosmetic skins. That's it. We've purposely designed tokens to be completely optional, just like the membership. You can totally play the game with the default number of slots. The expansions are there to provide a small improvement in reducing the inconvenience of managing your inventory, but they're absolutely not necessary.
Defining Pay-to-Win
Before we continue on, I think it's important to define 'pay-to-win,' a concept we have given considerable thought. The Cambridge dictionary defines it as:
in computer games, involving or relating to the practice of paying to get weapons, abilities, etc. that give you an advantage over players who do not spend money
Cambridge.org
While accurate, that definition is broad and misses the nuances of gaming contexts. Take Old School RuneScape, for example. It uses a two-tiered subscription model with both free and paid tiers and is one of the most respected MMOs around. Yet, by that broad definition, it could technically be labelled as pay-to-win. This overlooks its relatively balanced monetisation, especially when contrasted with the more aggressive pay-to-win models prevalent in mobile gaming. It's important to note that we're not categorising 'Old School RuneScape' as definitively pay-to-win or not. That's not our call to make. However, this example illustrates that the term 'pay-to-win,' while technically applicable to RuneScape due to its membership advantages, doesn't quite capture the full picture of its monetisation approach, particularly in the broader context of the gaming industry.
The core challenge with the 'pay-to-win' concept is its inherent subjectivity; it defies a one-size-fits-all definition. In a survey we conducted to better understand how players perceive the term, responses varied significantly. Some argued that if a game lacks a definitive “win” state, it can’t truly be considered pay-to-win. Others took a stricter view, believing that any game offering microtransactions for non-cosmetic items fits the label.
This wide range of opinions highlights how difficult it is to define pay-to-win in any universal sense. The term has become so broad that, in theory, almost any game could be placed under its umbrella - diluting its meaning to the point of near irrelevance.
Minecraft is a great example of this. You can pay for private servers or small convenience features, but there’s no real “win condition.” Sure, being able to create a dedicated server for you and your friends might be an advantage that some players can’t afford, but even then, calling Minecraft pay-to-win would be a stretch by any measure. And to be clear, we’re talking about Minecraft itself - not privately owned servers that may include genuine pay-to-win mechanics.
Taking 'Old School RuneScape' as our case study, the debate around its use of bonds illustrates the complexity of the 'pay-to-win' concept. A simple Google search reveals divided opinions: some argue that purchasing gold with real money creates an inherent imbalance. Yet, if we consider the bigger picture, buying gold doesn't guarantee rapid character progression - significant time investment is still a prerequisite for any substantial advancement. This case study highlighted a significant distinction: the concept of 'pay-to-progress-faster.' While it's related to 'pay-to-win,' it represents a separate idea within the same general framework. It's evident that players who invest both time and money will progress faster than those who spend the same amount of time but no money. Whether this is fair or detrimental is subjective and depends on the context - does the progress of others truly impact your own? We understand the validity of both perspectives and it's important for us to keep this in mind.
The intent in this blog post is not to covertly sway you towards a particular viewpoint on the 'pay-to-win' debate. Instead, the aim is to highlight the complexities associated with the casual use of the term. A deeper examination might lead to the recognition that labelling a game as 'pay-to-win' is a subjective judgment that can obscure the merits of a game's monetization strategy, which may in fact be quite fair and thoughtfully designed. This is compounded by the vast spectrum of individual opinions on a matter as subjective as this.
Considering the broader context
As previously mentioned, it's of paramount importance to consider the broader context when evaluating monetization strategies. This is a pivotal reason why many do not regard other MMO's as a 'pay-to-win' game, despite the option to purchase gold, items, or upgrades directly. It's within this context that IdleMMO enters the discussion.
Monetisation Models
While developing IdleMMO, we explored a range of monetisation models, from energy systems to a cosmetics-only approach. In the early stages of our closed beta, we tried a membership system similar to Old School RuneScape’s, where certain areas were restricted to members. In our naivety, we assumed that replicating a proven model would bring similar results. After all, Old School RuneScape’s approach has stood the test of time and, aside from the occasional criticism around bonds, strikes a solid balance between sustainability and accessibility.
Yet, we soon recognised that this approach inadvertently marginalised our free players, who are essential to the game's success. In fact, for an independent studio like ours, free players are just as crucial as paying ones.
Recognising that Runescape may not face this challenge due to its established popularity, we quickly revisited our approach. We introduced a subscription model that provides minor in-game boosts and cosmetic perks while keeping the entire game accessible to free players. This adjustment was made with care and reflects our ongoing commitment - outlined in previous IdleMMO development blogs - to building a fair, sustainable monetisation system that respects both free and paying players. Refining our membership benefits was an important step in staying true to that vision.
While we continue to closely monitor the membership benefits—particularly the slight boosts to experience and skill efficiency - we’ve intentionally kept these perks subtle to prevent any significant gap between paying and non-paying players. In the long run, yes, membership saves time - but it never lets you skip effort. Every meaningful achievement in IdleMMO remains bound to play, not payment.
Our goal is to strike a very delicate balance: we don't want to devalue the subscription to the point where it's not worth the investment, nor do we want to enhance it so much that it creates the disparity we sought to avoid by moving away from a 'Runescape'-like model.
Our survey indicated that most players are indifferent to these minor boosts, viewing them as 'the lesser of all evils' in game monetisation.
Pay-to-Win Claims
Despite our careful efforts to maintain balance in IdleMMO, we’ve seen some claims that the game is “pay-to-win.” We’ve spent time trying to understand where this perspective comes from. It likely stems from overlooking the broader context or not fully considering alternative models.
Again, to be clear, as stated at the outset, this blog post is not intended to influence your stance in our favour. The main goal is to give you a full understanding of how our monetization strategy works in the game while considering other monetization models. That way, you can make an informed decision about whether IdleMMO - or any other game - is "pay-to-win".
After countless discussions, we’ve concluded that the “pay-to-win” concerns don’t come from the subscription or token model itself, which has received, overall, very little criticism. Rather, they centre on the feature that allows players to sell membership subscriptions to other players for in-game gold.
At that point, we completely acknowledged the logic behind these concerns: the capability to effectively 'purchase' gold with real money naturally raises balance considerations. Yet, it's equally vital to consider the role and value of gold within the game's economy to fully grasp the implications of this feature.
In designing IdleMMO, we’ve placed a strong focus on rewarding consistent engagement over occasional play. Gold alone doesn’t guarantee faster progression - time and effort do. No matter how much gold a player has, it can’t match the value of actively resetting skills every eight hours. To put it plainly, time is - and always will be - king in IdleMMO. If you’re not putting in the time, that gold is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. This philosophy aligns with how RuneScape’s bonds are generally viewed: they’re not considered pay-to-win because, while they offer gold, real progress still demands genuine time investment.
If the value of gold ever becomes too directly tied to progression, we’ll rebalance the economy or limit what gold can buy. Our stance isn’t static - it’s principled: no one should ever be able to purchase progress faster than they could earn it through play.
However, for the sake of argument, what happens when a player has both time and money? In gaming, when players invest in both, some degree of imbalance is inevitable. The real question is whether that imbalance actually matters. The term “pay-to-win” often comes up here, implying that spending money gives players an unfair edge. Some argue that without a defined “win” state, the concept doesn’t apply. As a company, we remain sceptical of that idea. A game can still foster a pay-to-win environment even if there’s no clear endpoint or victory condition.
In this specific instance, when deciding whether a game is “pay-to-win,” the key factor is whether another player’s accelerated progress - made possible through spending - affects your own experience. This influence can be extremely subtle. Paid advantages might indirectly shape your gameplay in ways you don’t notice right away. To truly assess it, consider this: does a system that lets others advance faster have any real impact on your personal progress in the game?
When evaluating this, it's important to consider the subtle nuances of game development as a whole. Even in a non-competitive game, a pay-to-win environment can still emerge if developers devote a significant amount of their time and resources to content accessible only to paying players. This influence isn’t always obvious; it often appears in small, gradual ways that still shape the overall experience. The reality is that when development priorities shift toward paid content, it inevitably affects everyone, including those who don’t spend money. For that reason, it’s entirely reasonable to view such a game as pay-to-win, even without a defined competitive element.
The subjective nature of gaming means the answer can vary widely. For competitive players focused on leaderboards, the response might be an absolute "yes." For others less concerned with rankings, the impact might be minimal. Some players can engage with the most pay-to-win-heavy game imaginable and still see it as fair because they haven’t spent anything and the experience aligns with what they enjoy. They might not care about obtaining the best items, and the timer limits or energy systems simply don’t affect their enjoyment.
Because of this, as developers, it’s important that we don’t place too much weight on player opinion alone. Player feedback is valuable, but it’s inherently subjective. While the general consensus can guide us, our monetisation strategy should ultimately be grounded in both ethics and practicality, not popularity.
To take it to the extreme - imagine we created the most blatantly pay-to-win game ever made, and players were still happy with it. Would it really be right to profit from that? Would it be moral to take money in a way that exploits players who may not even realise they’re being taken advantage of?
Alternative Monetisation Models
Sometimes it’s important to step back and look at a game’s monetisation model from every angle. You might find a better way - or realise there isn’t a perfect solution at all. Our goal has always been clear to create a game that’s both balanced and sustainable. Unfortunately, sustainability requires generating revenue to keep the game and the company afloat, but our focus is on doing so responsibly. Choosing the right monetisation strategy is a complex and nuanced process for exactly that reason.
Games, especially live-service titles, need a consistent source of income to keep development moving forward. Doing things the right way comes with significant development, operational, and administrative costs. Finding a way to generate that income without compromising the game’s integrity or cutting corners is an immense challenge, often more difficult than people realise. There’s no simple answer; it requires careful thought and a deep understanding of every factor involved.
In shaping our approach, we explored a wide range of monetisation models. Most either didn’t fit IdleMMO’s design or would have made the membership so unappealing that no one would see value in it.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the alternatives we considered.
One-time purchase
Adopting a one-time purchase model for IdleMMO wasn't feasible purely from a financial standpoint. The extensive costs associated with maintaining an online-only game make this approach impractical, as it would shift our business focus from maintaining a loyal player base to constantly seeking new players to sustain the game.
It’s important to recognise that while this model works well for some games - like Melvor Idle - it doesn’t fit our operational reality. IdleMMO runs on a server-based technology stack, meaning nearly all of the game’s processes happen on our servers rather than the player’s device. In simple terms, the interface you see is just a window into what the server is doing behind the scenes. This heavy server reliance significantly increases our operational costs.
Additionally, this doesn't consider other associated ongoing costs, such as administration, salaries, and maintenance, render a one-time purchase model unsustainable for us.
Cosmetic Only Approach
This topic is more nuanced than it might seem at first glance. It’s common to hear people praise games that rely solely on cosmetics, claiming that “lots of players buy them.” But the reality is quite different - especially in free-to-play games.
Many players use cosmetics, but far fewer actually buy them. According to Flurry data, only around 0.5% to 6% of players spend money in free games at all [1] - and that figure covers all types of microtransactions, not just cosmetics. In other words, the share of players purchasing purely cosmetic items is even smaller.
Let’s be generous and assume 3% of players are willing to buy a cosmetic. That leaves another 3% spread across every other form of in-app purchase - timer skips, boosts, pay-to-win mechanics, and so on. Even under these generous assumptions, the slice devoted to cosmetics is tiny.
A blockbuster game with 20 million players could easily generate $3,000,000 from a single $5 skin if just 3% of its players bought it. But for a smaller independent title with only 5,000 players, that same 3% would bring in just $750. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even short-term operating costs, let alone sustain development.
And that’s being generous. In reality, the percentage of players who purchase cosmetics is usually far below 1%. Most microtransaction revenue in the wider industry comes from mechanics that directly impact progression 0 what many would call pay-to-win systems. Like it or not, they’re popular because they’re extremely profitable.
Relying exclusively on cosmetic sales for revenue is a tough business model. Not every player is willing to spend money on purely visual upgrades, and that sentiment is especially common in smaller communities. Big studios can make it work because their player bases are massive - the scale compensates for low conversion rates. For smaller games like IdleMMO, the numbers simply don’t add up.
In fact, to date, only around 17% of IdleMMO’s total revenue comes from tokens, which are used for cosmetics and slot expansions. The vast majority of our income comes from membership subscriptions. In other words, cosmetics make up a very small slice of the pie.
It’s simply not a viable financial reality for us. Cosmetic-driven monetisation only works when you have the scale to support it. A perfect example of this is the World of Warcraft mount microtransaction. Former Blizzard Entertainment developer Jason Hall once claimed that a single $15 mount in World of Warcraft generated more revenue than StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty [2]. That’s the power of scale -World of Warcraft can pull that off because its player base is enormous. Smaller games don’t have that luxury.
And that’s before considering the costs of producing those cosmetics - hiring artists, designing and testing assets, and managing the release pipeline. Those expenses add up fast. The truth is, the success of a cosmetic-based model depends heavily on a game’s active user base and demands precise balancing to remain sustainable.
Hybrid between one-time costs and cosmetics
Many games use a hybrid model where players pay a one-time fee to access the game, then have the option to purchase cosmetics or other bonuses in-game. It’s an increasingly popular approach, especially among AAA titles without a strong online component. It's not than unusual to purchase a single player game with micro-transactions. But for most developers of MMO's, this model still isn’t financially sustainable unless you really want to gamble. Guild Wars is a good example of this working, because they're big enough to make it work.
The core issue remains the same: scale. The games that make this model work typically have massive audiences that allow them to absorb the limitations of a one-time payment system. For live-service games with ongoing operational costs, though, one-time fees are a death sentence unless significant optimisation work has been done to move most of the game’s processing onto the user’s device.
Even then, that approach comes with major challenges - security being one of the biggest, especially in MMOs where no one wants to deal with cheaters. And beyond that, it’s just not how we build our games. We develop using server-side technology, meaning much of what happens in IdleMMO depends on infrastructure we maintain. Scale aside, what’s possible for others simply isn’t possible for us.
Had we released IdleMMO with even a $0.99 one-time fee, our downloads would have dropped dramatically. That would have meant far fewer players seeing the game - and by extension, far fewer people ever encountering our cosmetic options. Only about 2% of all app downloads are paid [3]. For a small company like ours, that kind of barrier would have been fatal. The game would’ve been dead on arrival. It’s as simple as that.
Advertisements
No advertisements.
We don’t feel the need to go down that road. We’re incredibly proud of the games we create. Each one is carefully built for players to enjoy around the world, and we’re not about to compromise that with intrusive ads. Ads only become profitable when they’re disruptive and ever-present. Think of the free games that shove an ad in your face after every level or keep one plastered across the bottom of the screen. It’s frustrating. It breaks immersion. It ruins the experience.
While optional ads can bring in a bit of extra income, they only work if players choose to engage with them - and even then, the revenue is minimal. Without overwhelming the player with constant interruptions, ads simply don’t generate enough income to justify the hit to quality and enjoyment.
Limit Tradable Microtransactions
For IdleMMO specifically, the issue boils down to one core problem: selling membership items for in-game currency effectively lets players purchase gold with real money. While the fix might seem obvious - ban the trade of membership items for in-game gold - that approach is flawed and could actually make things worse.
Our goal is to maintain a system that’s financially sustainable for us while remaining fair to everyone. Removing the option to buy memberships on the market would disadvantage a large portion of players who rely on in-game gold to access subscriptions, keeping the game open to all regardless of financial means. As November 2025, more than 65.2% of IdleMMO players have obtained their memberships this way - without spending a single cent.
The dilemma presents us with two obvious paths:
- Ban the market sale of memberships, which could widen the gap between free and paying players, as only those with the financial means could afford membership.
- Maintain the market sale of memberships, allowing players to use in-game gold for purchase. This runs the risk of a minority accumulating substantial gold wealth.
To us, the choice is clear. Restricting membership to only those who can pay with real money, just to stop a small number of players from accumulating in-game wealth, feels unjust and inconsiderate. It would prevent countless players from accessing membership altogether simply because it could no longer be obtained with in-game gold. And if we were to sell it for in-game gold ourselves, it would defeat the entire purpose of having it as a monetisation strategy in the first place.
Beyond that, there are a few other, lesser known, alternatives. So, to cover all bases, let's go over them.
Cap Subscription Sales
We don’t claim to be economic experts, but this runs counter to basic supply and demand. Market prices are driven by demand. Reducing the supply of memberships would likely push demand higher, allowing sellers to charge even more and earn greater amounts of in-game gold - ultimately making the problem worse, not better.
Maximum Listing Price
IdleMMO operates as a completely free market. Whether that’s good or bad from a gameplay standpoint is up for debate, but it’s the path we’ve chosen to stick with. Forcing players to sell items - like memberships - at a fixed price just isn’t practical. The market is inherently volatile, and finding a price that both rewards sellers and minimises imbalance is nearly impossible. On top of that, enforcing such a restriction could discourage players from selling memberships altogether, pushing those who normally buy with in-game gold to spend real money instead. In a sense, that would be completely counterproductive.
Conclusion
In the end, as we've explained in this post, we've put a lot of thought into how we've monetized IdleMMO. Our goal is to create a game that's both fair for everyone and gives the game financial stability, and the approach we've outlined seems to be the closest we can get to that idea without compromising the integrity of the game itself.
Rather than compromise the game with ads or exploitative boosts, we chose the least intrusive sustainable path - one that respects both player time and our studio’s longevity.
So, the million-dollar question is: Is IdleMMO "pay-to-win"? At the end of the day, that's for you to decide based on your own perspective and values. The aim of this blog post is to equip you with a deeper understanding to inform your judgement on whether IdleMMO, or any game, fits the "pay-to-win" category, by examining the nuances of the term within the game's specific context.
Whether you believe IdleMMO is "pay-to-win" is entirely your prerogative, and we completely respect that perspective. The this post is to clarify that the "pay-to-win" label is highly subjective and can differ greatly among individuals; simply using the term doesn't capture the complexity of the issue.
References
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110810132946/http://blog.flurry.com/bid/65656/Free-to-play-Revenue-Overtakes-Premium-Revenue-in-the-App-Store
[2] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/11/10/starcraft-2-made-less-money-than-wow-mount-blizzard-jason-hall
[3] https://www.tekrevol.com/blogs/mobile-app-download-statistics/
Last Updated
November 3, 2025