Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games

[Atmos Duality]

The micro-transaction is so strong and it?s definitely a much better model. I think all companies have to transition over to that.

Ahh I love these half-truths: Better for who, Tommy?
Because it sure as fuck isn't better for the gamer.

If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they?re not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, Do you want to continue playing your favourite game for years to come? And the answer will be yes.

No, Tommy. No we won't.
Not all of us are the gibbering spineless addicts you think we are.

Should gaming ever reach that dark hellish future you envision I will GLADLY leave. I've seen the model you're pushing and the type of game you're peddling and it's one of the greatest voids of nothing I can ever imagine spending money on that's still somehow legal to sell.

I could dissect and refute your claim in so many different ways that you'd look like a pretentious fool stuck so far up your own ass that Tom Six is writing a film inspired by you.

Instead, I'll just remind you of the basic fact of markets:
You, Supply, don't dictate what is acceptable or what the entire market will or must do. That's up to Demand. Supply may innovate and scheme, but for the most part Supply can only respond to what Demand allows.

Just off the top of my head, I can name two big things that the captains of the game industry thought were infallible and the future of games: Motion controls and WoW Clones.
One was a game presentation gimmick, the other an attempt at recreating the success of the most consistently profitable games of all time. Yet for all their planning, neither of them took off as envisioned by the captains of industry.

Palm went on to stress the importance of sensible pricing and making games truly F2P. ?I think for companies it is very important to find a good balance. Free-to-play games are difficult to do, and you really need to be good at making it feel balanced to the gamers. So it?s not too greedy."

This is a throwaway line so transparently fake and useless he might as well not have bothered.

Though I suppose he had to at least TRY to half-heartedly refute the obvious drawback of F2P games: They cost more to the consumer compared to packaged games (either in waste-time, or money)...which is exactly why he's trying to pitch them as a standard in the first place.

"Why, this here fox is the BEST at guarding hen-houses, Mr. Farmer!"

?At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you?re forced to pay. So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn?t pay to get there.?

Oh bravo. *golf clap*
More than half of your gamers were able to play your Bejeweled clone without spending a dime.

Fantastic achievement brought by the power of F2P; thought it might be undermined a teensy bit by the fact that Bejeweled clones are a not even a dime a dozen on mobile platforms; they're a dime a thousand.

Pain[sic] went on to cite Hearthstone as an example of a great free-to-play title that is resonating with a more traditional gaming audience. ?Just looking at Blizzard?s Hearthstone ? it?s a great example of a F2P game that is made really well, it?s well balanced, and I don?t think many people are complaining about that business model. It?s easy to see if there?s concept that is close to your heart. It works out really well.?

Oh boy! Meaningless cherry picking! I can do that too!
For every good F2P game you can point to, I can point to over a dozen horrible ones; including a sizeable number of electornic CCGs (which came under fire in recent years in Japan and South Korea for teetering on the line as being "gambling" or "gacha")

Nevermind how Hearthstone basically piggybacked off one of the most popular games on the planet.
With that kind of exposure, it was bound to succeed at least in part.

 

[Dalisclock]

Yeah. No. I'm also gonna need you to come in on saturday, Mr. Palm.

I don't think everyone is going to buy into this particular brand of idiocy, but if it does, then it's okay. Just gives me an excuse to stop buying new games and actually clean out my steam backlog.

And once that's done, Read all those books sitting in my library I've never started.

And write a novel or two.

In Short: Suck it, Palm.

 

[Silvver]

We will fall in line? What a fuckin' dumbass. I hope his company crashes and burns and everyone forgets it existed.

It's inevitable as new generations are born and pick up game pads/keyboards/mobiles and so forth whilst the current generation fades out naturally. Without experience of what is actually decent and normal they take what is given as the norm and fall in line.

Not right, but how can you realistically stop it. It truly is disgusting.

EDIT: Typo

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I do enjoy some free to play games with microtransactions, but the idea that ALL games should have them? NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES NO! Please tell me how Dark Souls would be improved by microtransactions.

I hope this guy steps on a lego brick in the middle of the night.

A lego brick is too tame, make it a 4 sided dice, those fuckers can pierce skin.

Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games


Furthermore, Palm added that while hardcore gamers will, naturally, resist the transition at first, that attitude will change as all of their favorite franchises become free-to-play. "If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, 'do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?' And the answer will be yes," he said.

No sir, my answer will in fact be:
[quote/]However, before you get out your torch and pitchfork, Palm did stress the importance of sensible pricing. "I think for companies it is very important to find a good balance. Free-to-play games are difficult to do, and you really need to be good at making it feel balanced to the gamers. So it's not too greedy."[/quote]

Pitchfork? *chuckles* Oh Steven, don't be silly. This is a job for Tranquilizer darts. This man deservese to be strapped in for Chinese Water Torture. Every hour, on the hour, the torturer offers him a ten minute reprive from the Water Drops bashing his skull, for the low low price of $500,000. If he would like to pay $750,000 instead, he can reduce the rate of Drip for half an hour, and have 1 aspirin.

 

[thewatergamer]

Uhhh "we will all fall in line"

What is this some type of brainwashing thing?

No I don't see a future where microtransactions are in all games, because fuck that future

I don't mind some F2P games coexisting with Buy to play games but I am not interested in a future where microtransactions are in all games

Also fuck king as a company I hope it crashes and burns

 

[RunicFox]

Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

?At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you?re forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn?t pay to get there.?

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

?At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you?re forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn?t pay to get there.?

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

The only surprise to me, is that you seem OK with this. On the topic of the Very true stats about Candy Crush: Those are what WE call "Smart" people, and what the industry terms "minnows." They are not the target audience, the target audience are those people who can be Gulled (literally) into dropping the full cost of a console on some LIE of a "game."

Also, you will notice that the Bile and Desire to Curb-stomp are DIRECTLY aimed at Tommy for his STUNNINGLY ignorant statements.

If you find Candy Crush in-offensive then I have two words for you: Slippery Slope.

"Oh it's not THAT bad." is fine, right up until somebody cuts the Red Ribbon in front of Auschwitz.

 

[direkiller]

The way most Free-To-Plays work now... its more likely this is the short-term future of gaming, and nothing more.

It'll die eventually, and it might just take a huge chunk of the industry with it if the industry at large is stupid enough to go along.

I don't see it dieing out for MOBA, MMOs or free shooters, as they have had 10+ years to get a working system not built around 1% of the community.

 

[Nazulu]

It seems like half the devs who are interviewed have some twisted view on where gaming should go next.

The only change that would be a far bigger improvement than any other suggestion is that the creative artists should be in charge of most of the work, you know, instead of corporate robots trying not to be too greedy. I'm still waiting for them to notice this.

 

[RunicFox]

Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

?At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you?re forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn?t pay to get there.?

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

The only surprise to me, is that you seem OK with this. On the topic of the Very true stats about Candy Crush: Those are what WE call "Smart" people, and what the industry terms "minnows." They are not the target audience, the target audience are those people who can be Gulled (literally) into dropping the full cost of a console on some LIE of a "game."

Also, you will notice that the Bile and Desire to Curb-stomp are DIRECTLY aimed at Tommy for his STUNNINGLY ignorant statements.

If you find Candy Crush in-offensive then I have two words for you: Slippery Slope.

"Oh it's not THAT bad." is fine, right up until somebody cuts the Red Ribbon in front of Auschwitz.

Please tell me you did not compare this sort of conversation with the Holocaust. Please don't. It's a very disrespectful stance.

On the point of Candy Crush -- I've worked in this industry for awhile now, and what he's saying is 1) Not new 2) giving recognition to those doing it right (companies always credit themselves first) 3) Candy Crush is as close to a game as you can get on the top 10 - 20 grossing charts outside of minecraft and sometimes infinity blade.

Let me point a few things out:
A) I dislike the company for their patenting. All companies do this but they've been aggressive.
B) I'm still not as fluent, but accusations and evidence of copying other people's work to the pixel is a bit terrible
C) They're a one-trick pony company which is why their stock is worthless
D) A lot of people who work with King probably want to make the video games you and I love.

Candy Crush is a better spin on the match-three mechanic than I've seen in awhile. And to be honest, it can be pretty challenging. Their purchases are usually limited to dollars and not, say, 20 - 500 dollars you're seeing in the obviously cash-grab companies. They make their money off of excitement and virality, which I would say is akin to people being excited about their product.

What this guy is saying? Whatever. It's some of the most repeated jargon in the F2P sector. Be upset, if you like, but I just don't see the point. Even if, in this make-believe-world of his, that every thing suddenly went free to play...you'd stop playing games. Or if you did it would be so selective. There's never going to be a point where one type of system will dominate 100%. This is the new trend...and I'm not going to get upset by that. We all still have options of purchase.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

*looks up from Fire Emblem*

Oh, someone let the loonies out and gave them a megaphone again.

I don't even know why we're condemning him. His very words already show that he's basically ignorant to anything we'll say, and will probably just crash and burn under his own idiocy than anything.

I say give Candy Crush Saga two more years and we can laugh as we remember such a childish relic.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

?At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you?re forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn?t pay to get there.?

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

The only surprise to me, is that you seem OK with this. On the topic of the Very true stats about Candy Crush: Those are what WE call "Smart" people, and what the industry terms "minnows." They are not the target audience, the target audience are those people who can be Gulled (literally) into dropping the full cost of a console on some LIE of a "game."

Also, you will notice that the Bile and Desire to Curb-stomp are DIRECTLY aimed at Tommy for his STUNNINGLY ignorant statements.

If you find Candy Crush in-offensive then I have two words for you: Slippery Slope.

"Oh it's not THAT bad." is fine, right up until somebody cuts the Red Ribbon in front of Auschwitz.

Please tell me you did not compare this sort of conversation with the Holocaust. Please don't. It's a very disrespectful stance.

On the point of Candy Crush -- I've worked in this industry for awhile now, and what he's saying is 1) Not new 2) giving recognition to those doing it right (companies always credit themselves first) 3) Candy Crush is as close to a game as you can get on the top 10 - 20 grossing charts outside of minecraft and sometimes infinity blade.

Let me point a few things out:
A) I dislike the company for their patenting. All companies do this but they've been aggressive.
B) I'm still not as fluent, but accusations and evidence of copying other people's work to the pixel is a bit terrible
C) They're a one-trick pony company which is why their stock is worthless
D) A lot of people who work with King probably want to make the video games you and I love.

Candy Crush is a better spin on the match-three mechanic than I've seen in awhile. And to be honest, it can be pretty challenging. Their purchases are usually limited to dollars and not, say, 20 - 500 dollars you're seeing in the obviously cash-grab companies. They make their money off of excitement and virality, which I would say is akin to people being excited about their product.

What this guy is saying? Whatever. It's some of the most repeated jargon in the F2P sector. Be upset, if you like, but I just don't see the point. Even if, in this make-believe-world of his, that every thing suddenly went free to play...you'd stop playing games. Or if you did it would be so selective. There's never going to be a point where one type of system will dominate 100%. This is the new trend...and I'm not going to get upset by that. We all still have options of purchase.

Alright, look: If I gave offense by mentioning the Holocaust I apologize. Substitute it for whichever disgusting end result of people not speaking up before it's too late of your own choice. Iron Curtain, Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing, the list goes on.

Yes all of those are [/b]propper[/b] tragedies, with results infinitely worse than the ruination of our hobby by Blind Greedy Bastards. They do SHARE however, some asshole or Organization thereof, with a vision of the Future which the rest of the world need "Fall in line" behind.

Lastly, I am whole heartedly trying to give offense, but to the Offensive asshole in the article.

 

[Eternal Visitor]

I have no problems at all when free to play games are done well, when there's real fun to be had away from the paying aspect. the problem comes when the micro-transactions ARE the game, or wall off the game until you pay. it really should be against some kind of law to call a game free to play if it can't be enjoyed without paying.

 

[RunicFox]

Alright, look: If I gave offense by mentioning the Holocaust I apologize. Substitute it for whichever disgusting end result of people not speaking up before it's too late of your own choice. Iron Curtain, Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing, the list goes on.

Yes all of those are [/b]propper[/b] tragedies, with results infinitely worse than the ruination of our hobby by Blind Greedy Bastards. They do SHARE however, some asshole or Organization thereof, with a vision of the Future which the rest of the world need "Fall in line" behind.

Lastly, I am whole heartedly trying to give offense, but to the Offensive asshole in the article.

None of my points were to go against speaking up -- but there's a lot more that you can do than 'speak up' in a forum if that's the case.

I did, in all honesty, want to have this conversation with you, but I can't if the way we're going to continue discourse is to compare tragedy to entertainment.

I have no problems at all when free to play games are done well, when there's real fun to be had away from the paying aspect. the problem comes when the micro-transactions ARE the game, or wall off the game until you pay. it really should be against some kind of law to call a game free to play if it can't be enjoyed without paying.

@Eternal Visitor

I don't disagree with the feelings but it's this that I think is the hardest for most people to discern:

I have no problems at all when free to play games are done well, when there's real fun to be had away from the paying aspect.

A lot of people like a lot of different things. I think it's easy to find the most heinous offenders, but I bet there are a group of people out there is LIVID that hearthstone is even a thing.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil.

The man openly stated that he believes every HARDCORE GAMER will eventually "fall in line" with F2P, presumably with sufficient market pressure and/or out of necessity. While there are several interpretations of his statement, from the perspective of a core gamer none of them are remotely good because all them require discarding many existing models and design philosophy hardcore gamers want.

I really must emphasize how important it is to realize that he is *NOT* addressing the casual-mobile demographic that feeds his business; he probably feels he has them in his pocket already. But in order to push F2P as a universal gaming standard, he needs to convince prospective producers to fly directly in opposition to the protests of hardcore gamers.

This is a market-equivalent version of "You can practice religion, as long as it's mine."
So yeah, I'd say the hatred is actually pretty justified in this case.

 

[Orks da best]

I do enjoy some free to play games with microtransactions, but the idea that ALL games should have them? NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES NO! Please tell me how Dark Souls would be improved by microtransactions.

I hope this guy steps on a lego brick in the middle of the night.

Likewise I enjoy some free to play games, and spend money if I see the purchase worth it.

But I hope he steps on a few thousand lego bricks too. Considering what he did recently, his words have no meaning.

 

[RunicFox]

The man openly stated that he believes every HARDCORE GAMER will eventually "fall in line" with F2P, presumably with sufficient market pressure and/or out of necessity. While there are several interpretations of his statement, from the perspective of a core gamer none of them are remotely good because all them require discarding many existing models and design philosophy hardcore gamers want.

I really must emphasize how important it is to realize that he is *NOT* addressing the casual-mobile demographic that feeds his business; he probably feels he has them in his pocket already. But in order to push F2P as a universal gaming standard, he needs to convince prospective producers to fly directly in opposition to the protests of hardcore gamers.

This is a market-equivalent version of "You can practice religion, as long as it's mine."
So yeah, I'd say the hatred is actually pretty justified in this case.

He believes. But a lot of what he has been saying is proving to be substantially difficult for companies. I can pick up a lot of examples of 'core' games that are free to play and are successful. It's happening at a decent pace. But they're also not hitting 'revenue' the same way as boxed releases can. Their secret is longevity, which is about respecting and orienting to your player base.

This is something that mobile lacks. This is why he has very little clout in my mind. He's not saying anything you haven't heard in much worse terms from people way more detached. My original comment was surprise that THIS man gains the heat. I think it's just a triggered response to "Candy Crush" and selected title for the article.

That said, I agree 100% with you. If it were me, I would have been entirely careful about my words. He's not addressing an accepting audience and chose things that, quite frankly, confuse me.

 

[MCerberus]

Coming from someone who works in IT from a project perspective:

"guru" is an adjective that means "person that doesn't know anything about it". They're raving lunatics only kept around so that you can recognize a bad idea simply because they're convinced it would work. The fact that they're letting him speak at all means that the whole company originates from a mirror universe where everyone wears goatees.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Alright, look: If I gave offense by mentioning the Holocaust I apologize. Substitute it for whichever disgusting end result of people not speaking up before it's too late of your own choice. Iron Curtain, Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing, the list goes on.

Yes all of those are [/b]propper[/b] tragedies, with results infinitely worse than the ruination of our hobby by Blind Greedy Bastards. They do SHARE however, some asshole or Organization thereof, with a vision of the Future which the rest of the world need "Fall in line" behind.

Lastly, I am whole heartedly trying to give offense, but to the Offensive asshole in the article.

None of my points were to go against speaking up -- but there's a lot more that you can do than 'speak up' in a forum if that's the case.

I did, in all honesty, want to have this conversation with you, but I can't if the way we're going to continue discourse is to compare tragedy to entertainment.

A single comparison was made: King.co = Dictator shoving unwanted things down a populace's throat until the very nature of what was has been perverted. I am sorry if you took that to mean we the gamers are supposed to be the Jews in that comparison. Perhaps it was a poor choice of situations, I can admit to making a derp.

As far as more effective choices than sounding off in a Forum, you are correct and I employ them. However, it has been demonstrated by content creators on this site, that the only Data these companies analyze is the money they receive from whales. NOT the money they DONT receive from you and I, the discerning customers. So while it is not the only method, it definitely helps for all of us to discuss such things in a forum. It is my hope that one day people will take a stand and simply not even download this offal. In order for that day to come, there needs to be enough public outcry and derision of what we, the consumers most emphatically DO NOT WANT. There needs to be understanding that the reason for DO NOT WANT isn't some hardcore elitism, but a sincere desire to see that A) games continue actually be games and B) people like our parents and less tech-savvy family such as grandparents don't get ripped off for hundreds of dollars playing a game that is worth $0.10, and can probably be emulated on a Texas-Instruments Graphing Calculator.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

FTP is essentially not a bad* thing BUT

"I think for companies it is very important to find a good balance. Free-to-play games are difficult to do, and you really need to be good at making it feel balanced to the gamers. So it's not too greedy."

THIS is where 99.99% of all FTP games FAIL!

*It is emperically proven bad, not conceptually.