OK genius, explain how someone else spending money impacts on you or your gameplay? 

The game is built around competition that is evolvinng.  

Hi!  I'm a microbiologist and guess what a big part o my job is?  Understanding communities and competitions at the individual and community level, especially when all resoures are equal but useability of resouorces is differentiated.  

To answer the question: 

As I see the current competitive model.  Serious P2P players are about two years in advancement ahead of nonpaying customers and nonserious P2P players.  

Yes, F2P can get almost everything P2P can but the game evolves, everything gets better, harder, etc.  the game like life isn't stagnent, it's either progressing or regressing.  P2P are able to stay at the leading edge of game mechanics and game winnning strategies.  F2P can't maintain the same leading edge, they simply do not have the ability to take advantage of the now like P2P.  

The impact is simple.  F2P players have to work harder to do the same thing and "force" P2P to spend or fall behind.  

How does this impact you?  F2P can't compete where it matters most.  The now and the tomorrow.

Just to add on to my original point - the problem is not this specific champ. Looking over her kit, she seems okay, nothing game-changing.

The problem is the precedent it sets. Forge pass is on a roughly 2-month cycle, I think? So, are we to expect that every two months there'll be a new champ that people can buy, but not consistently get through any other means? How long before that starts changing the meta, for the worse?

You already saw it happen with forge pass, where the bolster set was briefly meta-defining. But, as FTP, I completed it, and managed to piece together a decent set with the parts they made available tome.

If, on the other hand, I'd have had to spend money to get the pieces, then, during that time, I'd have been materially disadvantaged compared to those who spent money.

A big part of the draw of this game, to me at least, is essentially "beating the system", so to speak. Finding creative ways to win despite others having access to more resources by virtue of spending money. Take that out of the equation, and the game becomes much less interesting.

"They aren't spending to win, it's a progression game, spenders reach the end goals quicker - why they want to do that I don't know, but that's their choice, ftp get there as well but it takes a lot longer."

Anyone else played a ton of games like this?  Have you found the above statement to be perpeturted by the games developers from the get go but never seen any truth to it in any end game, ever.  I you have found it to be true, please, point that gaming model out to me because, I've never seen it.  

It reminds me of the "Monty Python" Dead Parrot sketch.

Using microbiology as a justification for your opinion on mobile game monetization strategies is ...... interesting I guess. Although as a molecular biologist and biochemist who also works with something that doesn't relate to mobile phone games at all, I personally wouldn't use my nonrelated expertise as an appeal to authority.

Perhaps if you were an expert in gaming, monetization or casinos, I'd be more on board with the conclusions you erroneously apply to mobile games from your research.

Population dynamics and competition on an individual and community based on phenotypic competition... Sure, I'm a complete idiot.  Carry on.

I'm offered Xena for £40, but HellHades is being offered it for £60. I think it's a big error if Plarium have used dynamic pricing instead of a flat rate for the Champion Pass, according to your spend level. That's a major price difference. 

I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on Raid and my spending allows the game to be Free of Charge to those who cannot afford (or don't wish to) invest in the game. I'm generally very happy to share what I have with others but quite frankly, what incentive do I have to spend on the game if I can get everything for free? 

So - Plarium is putting a champion behind a pay wall - what in the world is wrong with that? Those of us who spend tremendous sums of money deserve tremendous things in return. The entitlement of Free2Play individuals amuses me - not even Minecraft is free (!), but yet Plarium has somehow gone insane for charging limited fees for certain content? Oh come now, surely not. 

In my opinion, large amounts of the game should be open to everyone, but there simply is nothing wrong with offering access to special content, champions, bosses, rewards and more to the individuals who directly fund the development of a great game everyone can enjoy (almost all of). 😉

I am actually tempted to break my f2p for this one time purchase.

I am actually tempted to break my f2p for this one time purchase.

Why so Trips? You think she's that good? Thought you're more of a DEF nuker enthusiast. 

As long as you know I'll never let you live it down, you filthy closet whale. 😂

Your f2p claims are far more outrageous than mine... just saying 😌 

I agree, you are absolutely correct that those who spend a tremendous amount of money should get a lot for their money.  Giving you a champion for $40 is beyond irrelevant to you and everyone else in the game.  Honestly, people like you will have multiple copies of this champ before I ever get one and that is fine with me.

An interesting question though is how Plarium wants to be perceived by the huge part of the player base that is F2P or low spending (i.e. $20/month or less).  

I believe the game is successful because it has a huge player base which supports the
brand (F2P/Low Spend) AND high spenders who support the game financially.

This is why I think Kramaswamy's remarks are important and valuable.  Plarium needs to strike a difficult balance between rewarding P2P and still making the game fun for a large F2P audience.  In the last year it seems like their monetization push may be hurting their brand which isn't good for the spenders either... but maybe the spenders and Plarium don't care if the game has a large player base?

You answered yourself with your closing comment.

Neither cares about the f2p population.  I oversimplify/exaggerate that they add ZERO value to the game, whereas they were necessary to grow the game prior.   But the value converges to 0 over time.

At an individual a new f2p has potential future value, only correlated with the probability of p2p conversion.