Today's mobile terminals have several access network interfaces. New protocols have been proposed during the last few years to enable the concurrent use of multiple access paths for data transmission. In practice, the use of different access technologies is subject to different interconnection costs, and mobile users have preferences on interfaces jointly depending on performance and cost factors. There is therefore an interest in defining “light” multipath communication policies that are less expensive than greedy unconstrained ones such as with basic multipath TCP (MP-TCP) and that are strategically acceptable assuming a selfish endpoint behavior. With this goal, we analyze the performance-cost trade-off of multi-homed end-to-end communications from a strategic standpoint. We model the communication between multi-homed terminals as a specific non-cooperative game to achieve performance-cost decision frontiers. The resulting potential game always allows selecting multiple equilibria, leading to a strategic load-balancing distribution over the available interfaces, possibly constraining their use with respect to basic MP-TCP. By simulation of a realistic three-interface scenario, we show how the achievable performance is bound by the interconnection cost; we show that we can halve the interconnection cost with respect to basic (greedy) MP-TCP while offering double throughputs with respect to single-path TCP. Moreover, we evaluate the compromise between keeping or relaxing strategic constraints in a coordinated MP-TCP context.