Why Dota 2 is the Only Game that Does Free-To-Play Right

I don’t have many vivid memories of things I saw on my Facebook news feed, but this is one of them. I’m scrolling past updates from my friends who play League of Legends, and one post was about how a new champion added was so good. One of their friends commented “Is he worth?” to which my friend responded “So worth.”

As someone who plays Dota 2, I thought “‘worth’? What do you mean ‘worth’?” It hit me pretty quickly that they meant worth money. The concept of paying real money for a hero eludes me, as a Dota 2 player, with a game that has more than 100 heroes available to everyone, free of charge. While League of Legends is technically free to play, players can get a better experience by buying access to better champions – champions that have “worth.” Dota 2, not so. There’s not a single item in the game that can be purchased in any way to give players an advantage. This got me thinking how Dota 2 really is the only game that does Free to Play right, that is, in a way that benefits the player as much or more than the company.


Dota 2 is free to play with no exceptions. The only items you can purchase are purely cosmetic. This makes it so everyone can have an equal experience with the entire game without paying one dime. If you want, however, you can purchase things such as outfits, environmental effects, announcer packs, HUD skins, loadings screens and couriers (an animal in Dota 2 that will bring you your items after purchasing them). You can purchase a battlepoint booster, which will increase the rate at which you level up for a certain amount of time. However, your level has no effect on the game. Dota 2 isn’t stingy with these either, as it gives you a random cosmetic item every time you level up.

This benefits the player and Valve equally, because Valve offers players items they genuinely want to buy, not have to buy or be left behind. Valve makes money, Dota 2 players look pretty. But Dota 2 players who haven’t spent any money can still stomp into the ground players who have a cosmetic set for every hero. Moving away from League of Legends (since that debate is a particularly stomach-turning can of worms), consider Plants vs. Zombies 2. PopCap was sold to Electronic Arts after the first game, and EA moved the sequel to an all-mobile platform that’s free to play, but it’s the wrong kind of free to play. It’s the kind with micro-transactions that offer a better gaming experience.


Plants vs. Zombies 2 already has 10 “premium plants” for a total cost of more than $30 altogether, tax included. And that’s just plants. You can also pay for upgrades and in-game coins. To my knowledge, Plants vs. Zombies never went higher than $20 for the whole game, with no micro-transactions, so I can only assume PopCap is making a truckload off of this. Now I know people like to point out how less than 10 percent of people who play free-to-play games participate in micro-transactions. This makes it seem like the companies are doing what’s best for the player by offering a portion of their game for free, while only making a small chunk of change on the side to get by. It’s a compelling narrative that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. This number conveniently leaves out how much money they’re actually making from those ten percent of people who want a full gaming experience.

That would be like the U.S. claiming it isn’t a militarily focused nation, because they spend a relatively small percentage of its GDP on military. This overlooks the fact that the U.S. is perhaps the richest nation in the world, meaning that that small percentage is more than the next 30 or so developed countries combined. So how much money do free-to-play games make off micro-transactions? I don’t know. But I know it’s more than enough to stay in business, it’s more than enough to make PopCap not even consider bringing Plants vs. Zombies 2 to any other platform besides mobile, and it’s more than enough to entice several other games to go free-to-play, or at least to use micro-transactions.


Now, let’s not get carried away. Making money is a company’s goal, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue is, this benefits the company at the expense of the player. Consider this: what’s to stop Plants vs. Zombies 2 from perpetually releasing new plants while balancing the zombies and expansions in a way that necessitates their purchase, as they already have? This turns the game into an infinite cash-cow that will likely make more money than if they charged a $60 flat fee by grinding it out of players who want a full gaming experience.

The same goes for League of Legends, bringing it back into the discussion, and they have shown no sign of ever stopping this practice. They release a new champion every week, some of which cost money to play, and many of which are “worth,” leaving the players who don’t have the money behind. I was this close to trying out Orcs Must Die: Unchained before I found out that it uses the League-of-Legends-style system for hero purchasing. These games are no better than the cable company. In fact, they may be worse. Imagine if every week, Comcast started a new channel with new and amazing shows, but made you pay a new fee if you wanted to experience it.


I admit that Dota 2 has the benefit of an established fan base unmatched by almost any free-to-play game (League of Legends excluded). Not many games have fans who are willing to pay for something that doesn’t benefit them in any way. Taking that into account, though, there still is no good excuse for free-to-play micro-transactions that benefit the company more than the player. Honestly, the solution is just to make your game cost money. Remember that? When games cost a flat fee for the entire thing? This was a largely successful model, and the only reason I can see for the shift is pure greed, especially by a company like EA that already has boatloads of money to roll in.

And yeah, I know these $60, AAA titles still have some greed to work through (like $10 DLC for Titanfall that’s just three maps), but it’s all manageable, and Dota 2 is still the only game to do free to play right. Beyond Dota 2, The Last of Us just had a completely free multiplayer map pack released for it. It can be done. All gamers want is a model that fosters mutually and equally beneficial purchasing. Give it to them.

  • mrankitanks .

    I am a DoTA guy. I am surprised that though league of nations needs you to pay money to buy a “worthy” hero, there are still so many people who play it.

    • obsceneferret

      It doesn’t need you to. You have the option of using currency won from playing games, or by using real money if impatient.

  • heskey30

    Nobody I know buys league champions with real money…. it’s easy to get enough ingame currency to buy the ones you want.

    • Van

      I know a few who’ve spent a few dozen dollars on champs and skins. Either way it’s not as consumer friendly as Dota 2’s system where you don’t have to worry about grinding endlessly to unlock a sizeable amount of champions to play with, or worrying about runes and rune pages.

    • dfg

      Yeah, the thing to counter that and MAKE you pay is their rune system

  • ဘုန္းျမတ္ သန္းဦး

    so damn right, straight to the point.^^

  • obsceneferret

    I agree with most of the article, but comparing Dota2 and LoL in that way seems like linkbait, or simply using anecdotal evidence. I don’t think there’s any great difference in League’s champion balance over Dota’s. Both do a pretty great job of balancing their champions and allow users to get them for free. Both have active pro e-sports communities that rely on that balance. Both are using a much better F2P model than most of the competition (namely, EA).

    • Van

      Please don’t start. There are more underutilised LoL champs than there are Dota heroes. The ability to start and play any hero you want from the get-go is way more consumer-friendly than having to unlock them and runes. You can put Dota 2’s model with Path of Exile’s but don’t compare it LoL’s grind-to-play model.

    • Pyro

      Actually, Riot stated that their view of “balance” differs from that of dota’s, and Riot themselves have “hero tiers” that cost more or less money.

  • Timmy

    Yeah, pretty crazy that Riot would try to capitalize on their only game ever instead of being generous like Valve is

    • Van

      Except that Valve makes more money off Dota 2 per individual even though Dota 2 has the more generous model.

      • Pyro

        That’s because, at least in my and my friend’s case, when I give my money to valve is because I want to give them money so they keep developing dota, in LoL they give Riot money so they get an advantage over the other players.

        • Al Simons

          Im the same way.There might be a set in a chest that i like that is
          mixed in with sets that i dont want and i know i could end up buying
          that single/particular set at a much cheaper price through the market
          but i choose to buy through the store to help support valve and the
          creators.The only time i ever buy through the market is if there is an
          item that i cant buy through the store or if i didnt get the random rare drop from a chest.

  • Guest

    DotA 2 Player Learned Russian In-Game and Won Language Competition

  • Adelina

    DotA 2 Player Learned Russian In-Game and Won Language Competition


  • Carissa

    Bro.. have you ever even played league? There are NO champions you can’t buy with in game currency. Getting the IP for champs isn’t even hard either, even if you suck you still get IP when you lose.

  • Hugo55

    Your right in a lot of ways, but that “This was a largely successful model, and the only reason I can see for the shift is pure greed” is bullshit. Ofc thy want to make more money. But the reason free-to-play is so successful is, most people are not willing to pay for a game and most games need a big playerbase to work. Try starting a one-time-fee MOBA. U’ll never succeed cause most people play the free stuff.