Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games

[RunicFox]

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.

Not all companies just look at revenue. I concede that bad ones exclusively look at their revenue. From personal experience, Valve does not look exclusively at revenue, and it shows in their F2P.

On the point of protecting the old or unwise I think it's noble but Candy Crush is still the not an offender in my mind. However, I think having this same conversation with others is key. Stick to facts, stick to money. Challenge them to play their games completely free -- it will become apparent which ones force you and which ones don't. And in that...those people will stop playing those games

I'm very honestly glad you work outside of Forums to push this information. The issue I've had with this topic as a whole is that a lot of people are saying the same thing. I felt the need to stimulate that conversation. I hope everyone does the same to talk about the issue, objectively.

 

[otakon17]

Didn't we HAVE micro-transactions way before this? The arcades before home consoles became a thing. Games that were hard or cheap and just kept eating our quarters for hours on end. I think that's the mentality they've got when they come to think on it.

"Well if they were happy enough to spend 20 bucks and 2 hours on an arcade game and not even blink, they'll do it again"

Am I the only one that sees that similarity?

As for them being the future of gaming:

FUCK YOU KING!

 

[Uratoh]

I am *REALLY* getting sick of hearing devs go 'oh, this is the future. We want it, we said so, and you customers are just going to have to deal with it.' This is the third or fourth time it's been touted about...the last time was in Diablo 3, as I recall.

 

[Qizx]

Didn't we HAVE micro-transactions way before this? The arcades before home consoles became a thing. Games that were hard or cheap and just kept eating our quarters for hours on end. I think that's the mentality they've got when they come to think on it.

"Well if they were happy enough to spend 20 bucks and 2 hours on an arcade game and not even blink, they'll do it again"

Am I the only one that sees that similarity?

As for them being the future of gaming:

FUCK YOU KING!

Yeah I can see it, but at least there you can make the argument that you're paying to use the facility you're playing in, the machine you're using, and the electricity/"renting" the game for that time. Whereas with these models... I don't know, I can't defend 99.999% of FTP games, I've played quite a few, none of them retained my interest (unless you count RuneScape when I was younger but I was a Member).

That being said, I'm certain this isn't the future of gaming, so many people would simply REFUSE to play these games. I also certainly would never let a child of mine spend money on microtransactions as long as they're under my roof.

 

[agent9]

if this is to be the future of gaming then I'd rather there not be a single game ever again.

 

[WildFire15]

There will always be an audience for complete games sold at a single price. For the longest time, that was the only option with boxed games, but now there's the 'Free to Play' model, more people are playing games. Thing is, while new models can be brought to the table, old models simply cannot be removed and saying only one model can exist and all others must be destroyed is foolish.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

So, a representative from a patent troll company of a crappy match-3 game company is making sweeping statements about a specific medium?

Yeah, no.

Fuck off mate, if we could trust companies with micro-transactions then it'd be less of a problem, but you lot just cannot resist nickle and dime-ing people, can't you?

Christ, and companies like Activision and EA look upon these people with envy at their success.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

how cute he thinks hes an actual game developer, this idiot won the lottery with his stupid ripoff casual game, and now wants to spend all the money on more lottery tickets thinking hell make more money



F2P doesnt fit all platforms or all genres thats a simple fact

 

[Callate]

It sounds more reasonable as he said it than the "fall in line" mentioned in the headline (which sounds like something a backwater dictator would spout shortly before finding himself being burned in effigy.)

But the source (King) certainly doesn't help, nor does the fact that in most genres, F2P and its pay-to-play cousins have been handled with about the tact and consideration of a clown trying to drum up business at a funeral.

I think people are unhappy with the standard pay-once-and-own model only in as much as they feel that they're paying more for less fulfilling experiences, frequently experiences that are stretched thin (must develop singleplayer, multiplayer, minigames, bonus missions, achievements, online prequel spin-off, AR tie-in, all in the same amount of time and with the same number of people and across three platforms... Ah, crap, when is the deadline?) or quasi-intentionally abbreviated (buy the rest of the game as DLC for three payments of...)

Too much of the Free-To-Play market (and worse, the "pay now and later market) right now feels like a timeshare presentation; no matter how nice they might be to you initially, you're just waiting for the hammer to fall and the experience to become so hellish that you'd pay to leave.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

While there are successful "core F2P" games (I've even played a few), the F2P model is not going to work for every core game. Yet, Mr. Palm either thinks that they can work, or that "core" games should be changed to fit the F2P model just because "it's better".

In either case, he is making a grave error, since "standardization" by requires discouraging and eventually eliminating competing models. Standardization of something should only be done when commonality is absolutely practical for everyone involve, not just because you made a mint exploiting that something.

Games like Dark Souls, The Binding of Isaac, Risk of Rain...none of those would survive a transition to F2P without losing what gives them their appeal.

And to presume that hardcore gamers will "fall in line" suggests to me an attitude of complete arrogance, if not contempt.

Which is why I honestly cannot interpret his spiel in any nice way; either he thinks core gamers will give in because they will have no choice (oppressive approach), or that they will "see the light" as if they didn't know what they wanted, which is dismissive and insulting (pretentious approach; bonus points for the irony of flying in the face of "hardcore")

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.

I agree that is how F2P, or any "service-centric" kind of game should approach their customers.
If there's any sort of persistence past install or during play, they need to give it some value.

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.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I want to be clear that my opposition isn't based on some pre-conditioned response to Candy Crush; if you (or anyone) likes the game, whatever. I won't take that away from you (or them).

But I'm always wary anytime some industry bigwig comes out and starts trying to dictate how I will spend my money.

 

[loa]

Nice bubble you have there.
Would be a shame if it popped.

 

[RunicFox]

While there are successful "core F2P" games (I've even played a few), the F2P model is not going to work for every core game. Yet, Mr. Palm either thinks that they can work, or that "core" games should be changed to fit the F2P model just because "it's better".

In either case, he is making a grave error, since "standardization" by requires discouraging and eventually eliminating competing models. Standardization of something should only be done when commonality is absolutely practical for everyone involve, not just because you made a mint exploiting that something.

Games like Dark Souls, The Binding of Isaac, Risk of Rain...none of those would survive a transition to F2P without losing what gives them their appeal.

And to presume that hardcore gamers will "fall in line" suggests to me an attitude of complete arrogance, if not contempt.

Which is why I honestly cannot interpret his spiel in any nice way; either he thinks core gamers will give in because they will have no choice (oppressive approach), or that they will "see the light" as if they didn't know what they wanted, which is dismissive and insulting (pretentious approach; bonus points for the irony of flying in the face of "hardcore")

I agree that is how F2P, or any "service-centric" kind of game should approach their customers.
If there's any sort of persistence past install or during play, they need to give it some value.

Sounds like we pretty much agree.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I want to be clear that my opposition isn't based on some pre-conditioned response to Candy Crush; if you (or anyone) likes the game, whatever. I won't take that away from you (or them).

But I'm always wary anytime some industry bigwig comes out and starts trying to dictate how I will spend my money.

I apologize for the statement. It was broad. Most of my recent time on any community forum has been about candy crush or free to play lately, and a lot of people's initial reaction being knee-jerk.

I think these last few sentences of yours are your best. Always be wary, and try to understand why someone is enjoying something.

 

[bimon_1234567]

Maybe I should send out applications for the position of a 'game guru' at a big company. It seems you are qualified as long as you master the art of talking out of your posterior.

 

[MCerberus]

King: We need all the money and rip off people
Adult Swim Games: Yah, some of them are free. Some of them only work through a purchase. We'll put some of them on Steam if they feel like good PC games


One of these studios earn several million dollars a day...
...
!@#$ I hate mobile

 

[moggett88]

Well...I have been meaning to learn to play the piano. I guess the day I stop playing games cos they're all F2P is as good a time as any.

 

[nevarran]

Charging for the demo of your game, sounds good too!
Ah, the future is bright, suits!

 

[jklinders]

King as a company might be a pack of smashed assholes but really is this guy wrong? Microtransactions are creeping into AAA games. And before that there was the DLC. It's happening. Want to play multi on CoD with all of your friends? Better buy all of the map packs so you can be on the same games as them. Sure the multiplayer might be free but when you have to buy the right to use the various playgrounds, that is a form of microtransaction.

Dead Space 3 has the whole trade time for money mechanic. it's happening already. Gamers are in fact already falling in line. I don't have to like it, but when we get right down to it, whether we like what the guy has to say or not, it's happening. Almost everything ships these days with small little cosmetic bits you can pay real money for. no real gameplay added but you pay for it. Squadmate armor sets for Mass Effect 2? Horse armor for oblivion anyone? That was from some folk's beloved Bethsoft. Not even the evil EA or Activision.

SO it may be more true to say not only is it here, but it has been here for a good long time. It will continue to be here as long as people keep feeding quarters into the machine.

Odious? Sure, but don't disregard the truth of the message because you don't like it or it's messenger.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Sounds like we pretty much agree.

Aye.

I apologize for the statement. It was broad. Most of my recent time on any community forum has been about candy crush or free to play lately, and a lot of people's initial reaction being knee-jerk.

S'alright.
To be fair, with the growing sense of overt distrust between producers and consumers in the game market comes more polarized responses. The Internet is an easy place to say something absolutely terrible and stupid, which goes for producers just as much as the "vocal minority".

 

[Poetic Nova]

I don't know if I should laugh really loud or be really pissed off about this bullshit.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

What the fuck had this guy been snorting?