Most recently, a pair of analyses on the topic of free-to-play spending coercion versus pay-to-play spending coercion was spread far and wide via social media.
Ramin Shokrizade, an industry consultant who has written numerous papers on the topic of free-to-play monetization, detailed his research into how social games will trick players into making in-app purchases through incomplete information and virtual currency. Part of this method involves providing the player with "fun pain" -- a term coined by Zynga's Roger Dickey to denote the situation in which a player is put into an uncomfortable position, and then offered the chance to remove the "pain" by spending real money.
There's also a sort of opposite monetization method to this, which Shokrizade calls "Reward Removal. But the use of virtual currency is where the coercion really takes off, says Shokrizade. Griffiths stated before that spending virtual currency teaches players the mechanics of gambling, but Shokrizade goes a step further and argues that when players see their real-world cash in terms of virtual currency, it lowers the sense of anxiety and allows them to be less apprehensive about spending larger amounts.
Elsewhere, Shokrizade details what he calls "Ante Games" -- those free-to-play titles that appear to be games based on skill when you first boot them up, but gradually turn into a money game, as the more experienced players put real money in to beat other players. It's worth reading Shokrizade's entire article on the topic, which also delves into "Progress Gates" and sales boosts.
Though there's no reference to Shokrizade's piece in it, Spry Fox's Daniel Cook posted a blog a few days later titled "Coercive PayPlay techniques," in which he takes to task many of the arguments against free-to-play with a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal of his own.
He notes that pay-to-play games invite players to spend large amounts of money without ever having played the game first, while some companies purposely use videos, adverts and previews to artificially increase excitement for upcoming and released games. Cook adds that this pre-release "propaganda" means that developers don't need to worry as much about the actual game design, and can simply make the sell by "having a catchy theme, pretty graphics and the ability to turn out short sequential games rapidly.
He also targets Skinner Box game design, the various methods of sale such as bundles and time-limited discounts, and other forms of manipulation in free-to-play games. He closes by jokingly suggesting that pay-to-play games are hurting the industry, and are an immoral practice. Cook is, of course, is making light of the free-to-play arguments a fair bit, although the overall point of the article is to compare just how "coercive" the free-to-play model actually is -- especially when these worst-case scenarios are compared to the worst-case scenarios for pay-to-play games.
Cook's blog is well worth a read. Laralyn McWilliams is a video game designer and producer who has previously worked on SOE's free-to-play kids' game Free Realms as creative director.
She has written at length about the strengths and weaknesses of the free-to-play model. I sent McWilliams much of the information I had uncovered while researching this article, and she told me, "From a practical perspective, people will always find an activity that attracts them to the exclusion of many other activities.
She notes that whether we should be encouraging or discouraging this common human behavior comes down to two main factors:. Whether the activities being included are considered "valuable" or "worthwhile," and whether the activities being excluded are or are considered "essential.
Universal elements like food, sleep, health, hygiene, maintaining a source of income, and paying important bills. Most people would also agree that playing a game so many hours in the day that you don't sleep or eat and your health deteriorates is also something we shouldn't encourage.
Where the conversation gets muddy, McWilliams argues, is when you begin to compare free-to-play spending with traditional retail video game spending. She notes that while we might pull a face at someone spending thousands of dollars on a single free-to-play over a year or so, you could argue that many players who purchase console and PC games may spend just as much over the same period of time. I have to figure out a way to cut back," she says of one of the stories I collected.
Sure, some of that's probably the social perspective right now that free-to-play games in general and virtual goods in particular are not expenses we value as much as expenses for other hobbies including retail games , but I suspect he might still feel the same way even without that social input.
With this in mind, McWilliams believes that are two fundamental questions that free-to-play developers should be asking themselves:. Are we providing good value for money spent, and if we are, why doesn't it feel that way to many players? Says McWilliams, "Even if the percentage of players who fit in the first category is very small when you look at actual data and compare it to the behavior patterns recognized as unhealthy addiction in gambling, for example , we should be concerned about the fact that public perception -- even from our own players -- would put far, far more people into the 'unhealthy spend' category, because there's a fundamental feeling that any significant amount of money spent in the game is money that didn't result in meaningful value.
A lot of people wouldn't, even if they play the games for the same length of time. She continues, "Is it the intangibility of virtual goods? The fact that once you buy Remember Me , it doesn't ask you to spend that same amount again next week? The International Social Games Coalition is a group that was set up earlier this year, with the aim to better educate people about the inner-workings of the social games business. I should note at this point that the ISGC was set up by Zynga alongside a variety of social casino game companies, and it was a Zynga representative that suggested I talk to Delany.
I say this not to undermine any of Delany's points, but rather to give you the full picture when reading his views, and to explain why much of the discussion is focused around comparing free-to-play "whale" spending with "whale" spending in the gambling industry.
He notes that in gambling games, there is a risk of loss, and the opportunity of winning -- therefore the addiction that players have to free-to-play games is very different. People spend so much money on handbags, on golf clubs, on all kinds of other forms of entertainment, but gambling is very clearly defined as games where there is a stake, a chance, and a win or loss. I ask him about the example of Chris purchasing Team Fortress 2 "keys" in the hope that he will be rewarded with an "unusual" item, and then continuing to purchase keys until he found such an item.
Isn't there an element of stake and chance there? People text in to play along with a game, trying to find the money in the box -- yet that's not a regulated gambling service. As a society, we've judged that to be the motivation of a payout, that creates a certain risk amongst players. Therefore we've decided that this level of regulation is necessary.
Delany is keen to stress that social games are already heavily regulated -- there are consumer rights, data protection acts, unfair commercial practice directives, and more -- and he questions, "Is there proof that this form of entertainment is more harmful or addictive than other forms of entertainment?
At this point, I questioned how harmful or addictive a free-to-play game would have to be before we, as an industry, should have to take it seriously. In the '90s it was games consoles, in the '80s it was television, before then it was radio -- radio was going to destroy culture etc.
So it's not a new discussion, that people scrutinize new forms of entertainment. It's a healthy part of society. We know that people spend too much money is all forms of entertainment. There's a lot to take in here, and clearly my delving into the underbelly of free-to-play is just the tip of the iceberg.
Whichever way the signs appear to point, a hell of a lot more research is needed to truly paint the full picture of what is going on behind the scenes.
Anyone who has played tf2 even a tiny amount of time had encountered one of those, "bots". You want to know why theres a pandemic of these automated robots? In my opinion, it's because tf2 isn't pay to play, and it's too convenient to make multiple steam accounts for automated bots.
Imagine a script kiddie, making bots and flooding them into games: In gta 5 for example, there are no bots as far as I know, but cheaters, which people have to individually control and maintain.
In Payday 2, which is 99 cents right now, is cooperative, which disables most of what bots do; kill other players. It's also why you don't see too many bots in MvM. You might have though, I don't play MvM often anymore In Minecraft, I've not seen many people try to "hack" the game and succeed; Instead, so called hackers would gain trust just to ruin servers, which takes a really long time.
Now see tf2, free to play, is a game that is riddled with bots; how is it that bots are invading the game, you may ask. Two Reasons: 1. It's a free to play game, and people can make multiple accounts in steam's case, steam accounts with little to no security measures nor consequence. It is really convenient to learn how to make these bots and send them automating the game, attempting to make it unplayable.
In my opinion, there are two ways that this issue can be fixed. Valve, take notes. Make tf2 pay to play This is not an attempt to limit the number of players playing on the game, rather, it is an attempt to make it less convenient for people to make multiple accounts to play tf2.
If theres one thing in common with script kiddies and people, it's their limit of money. Hosting Casual servers isn't free. It has an upkeep cost. They have to maintain these servers too. That all costs money.
People say "Valve doesn't care", but if they didn't care we'd still be dealing with Catbots while Valve would just shut down all the casual servers to not deal with issue and save money. Thats what someone who didn't care would do instead of at least trying to push forward updates to bandaid the issue.
Last edited by supersand ; 26 Jun, am. Originally posted by supersand :. They need the profit from the economy to keep hosting the casual servers. Cutting their income is the worst thing you can do for it. Originally posted by Maxzloch :. It involves ONE of the two remaining classes.
It's NOT the Pyro. Let the speculation begin!
0コメント