Jimquisition: Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

Dosbilliam

New member
Jan 29, 2021
182
0
0
Country
US
Jimothy Sterling said:
Aardvaarkman said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
AKA how to sound like a complete and total dickhead.
Hang about Jim, just recently you did a video about "monetizing" the Jimquisition, and how we should have all those crappy ads shoved down our throat so you can make more money. So, why is consumer-unfriendly behavior OK when you benefit from it, but terrible when a games company does it?
Oh yeah, I remember the part in my video where I said ads were okay and I liked them and didn't criticize them at all.

Dude, I know it's your "thing" to misinterpret and complain about my videos while watching every single one, but you're getting really bad at it.
Reading something correctly and not misinterpreting it is hard apparently, since most of the internet seems to take pride in their incapability to do just that.
 

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
1. All this talk of "exploiting whales" made me think of Dunwall. I guess that makes microtransactions the plague rats and big publishers the Lord Regent.
2. Jim, you should definitely invite Cox on Dismal Jesters.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
DirgeNovak said:
That was GLORIOUS.
I'd really like a list of people who gave those whale panels so I can never give them a penny ever again.
oooh... seconded. And then send them a nice email stating that you are interested in their game but don't wish to be treated poorly so they lose out.

Also, Jim made one mistake. He assumes people have common sense to not do things that will cause backlash. Thinking common sense is common is just plain silly Jim.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Oh yeah, I remember the part in my video where I said ads were okay and I liked them and didn't criticize them at all.
Huh? What does that have to do with my post? You still went on to say that we should watch the ads, so you could make money. AKA, "monetizing." You said that despite knowing that the ads are crappy and anti-consumer.

Jimothy Sterling said:
Dude, I know it's your "thing" to misinterpret and complain about my videos while watching every single one, but you're getting really bad at it.
What did I misinterpret?

If anything, you're misinterpreting my post, as I never said you didn't criticize ads.

EDIT:

Also, are you confusing me for someone else? When you say it's "my thing" to misinterpret your videos, what other videos are you referring to that I have misinterpreted?
 

BrownGaijin

New member
Jan 31, 2009
895
0
0
Damn, I haven't seen this form of anger since "Scent of a Woman".

And John, Don, Peter, wherever you are... fuck you too!
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
themilo504 said:
Your panel on how to reduce backlash was way too long, this is my panel: Don?t be a greedy twat and make good games.
Even your panel is redundant. "Make good games" should cover it. The money will come. Maybe not as much as soon, but it will have a long-term positive effect.
 

Rabidkitten

New member
Sep 23, 2010
143
0
0
Well that was fantastic, had me laughing quite hardily. It's so sad and true. I didn't go to GDC this year but when I went, I was simply going to the Indie Game's Summit. Which when I went was very anti cash F2P bullshit. I wonder how it was this year.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Gaming is going straight into the toilet.

Also thanks for reminding me the disgrace that is going to be Roller Coaster Tycoon 4.
Well, we've always got the Corsairs of the Indies. Many of them are bad, but there are many hearts of gold out there.

As long as there are publishers like Paradox out there, we can keep at least a portion of gaming well outside the toilet. Although plenty of what's going in it at the moment seems to belong there. The question is if we should flush, I feel.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
FoolKiller said:
themilo504 said:
Your panel on how to reduce backlash was way too long, this is my panel: Don?t be a greedy twat and make good games.
Even your panel is redundant. "Make good games" should cover it. The money will come. Maybe not as much as soon, but it will have a long-term positive effect.
'Not as much as soon' sounds a lot like a 'day late and a dollar short' to a lot of people (particularly bill collectors). It'd be super nice if we lived in a just world where titles with artistic integrity were the chart toppers, unfortunately for those of us who've got rent to pay; that's not always the case.
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
verylost said:
While I agree with most of this video here's a question about the backlash issue: What if it is backlash due to a controversial issue from critics outside the gaming market (for example violence in video games) which have been known to be an issue to cause game developers to shut down projects?
Said on Facebook:

My "panel" was not for creative people who take creative risks. They wouldn't try to "reduce backlash" anyway because they should believe in what they're doing, and know it's for the best. If you care about "reducing backlash," clearly you're doing something you know ain't right. Therefore, my "panel" only applies to a certain type of developer. A shit one.
While the aim of your panel is clear, I'm not sure I can believe you're blind to creative risks being tempered or even reversed due to backlash, several that could have been avoided with help from serious panel on how to communicate ideas to get a favourable reception.
 

SummerOtaku

New member
Nov 7, 2013
14
0
0
Good vid!

It's really revealing that they'd refer to the customers they want to attract as whales. That's the casino model...chasing only after the biggest of big fish (yes I know, a mammal but you get the drift). I work at a casino and that makes sooo much sense. Casinos are obsessed with going after the big spenders and VIPs so much they are often remodeling, offering those players perks (and casual ones like being able to cut in any line to get instant service let alone getting a shit ton for free), and retooling attractions and promotions to appeal more strictly to them.

I went to a company meeting where they basically said it had been a mistake to market the resort aspect of the company since families didn't have the money...the high roller players did. I was so disgusted...I mean really?

But the thing that I don't think they get and game designers should keep in mind is those whales and VIP players ARE NOT LOYAL. Since everyone is catering to them they just go where ever is offering them the best deals and perks. All it takes is a knock off with better hosts and marketing and all those customers you had been catering to leave in the blink of an eye.

That means the product you have left is often not optimized for your substantial pool of could be/would be customers.
 

proghead

New member
Apr 17, 2010
118
0
0
Wow. Such angry. Much bile. Love it.

To be fair, those panels may have been about what NOT to do, as in "how not to end up having a PayToPlay game" but i don't know. In any case, whale does sound condescending.
 

Rabid_meese

New member
Jan 7, 2014
47
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Rabid_meese said:
Can... Can I... can I get one of those flashdrives? For... a friend

There is a very malignant attitude towards free to play games. You shouldn't design a game around the notion of "Whales." Its unsustainable business. That "Whale" is going to sing somewhere else eventually.

You should design your game in a way that's fair. Free To Play games like League of Legends do this well. You're never required, or coerced into buying something. In fact, the only reason that store is in (atleast, in the beginning) was to keep the business afloat. League was a labor of love that Riot wanted to give out for free. They felt that having a paywall blocks potential players from enjoying their pet project. The paying features are only cosmetic or a boost that really doesn't change the dynamics of the game. Buying every champion in the game, or one of their skins, doesn't give you an advantage over someone who just players the rotated champions. It gives them more options, but not more power.

That's the free to play model I have faith in. The kind that puts the game before the money - not the money before the game. That is sustainable - League's not going to die out any time soon. A year from now, who's gonna remember Dungeon Keeper?
No, Dota was a labor of love that was given out for free. League of Legends places restrictions on the players over what heroes they can use unless they pay. It absolutely contains walls that lower player enjoyment. League of Legend is better than others but NOT a good example of a good free to play game.

Actually, there aren't really any examples of good free to play games. TF2 is another one often thrown about but TF2 was not made as a free to play game.
I figrued I shouldn't have mentioned LoL, because I knew some fanboy would get his jollies twisted by it. DoTA was not a free game - it was a free mod, that required WarCraft III to play. It was iterated. League was the first big one that was standalone, without a paywall attached. DoTA 2 later followed. League is much more of a progression based multiplayer game - DoTA is not.

Owning a champion isn't an increase in power. If you want to put it in TF2 terms - its a sidegrade. The 6300 champions don't out perform the 4800's, who don't out perform the 3100's, the 1500's, or the 450's. If I was a player with no previous knowledge, owning a champion that's not on the free rotation doesn't give me anything over those who don't. Champions off the rotation aren't any better or worse then those on rotation - it was a design choice. It fits both a progression based model and a form of monetization. The only aspects of that game that DO offer a power upgrade - Runes and Masteries, are unlocked either freely or are not allowed to be purchased with real world money.

League was made to streamline DoTA - which was very unintuitive, and had many design redundancies that only served to lengthen the game, not make it more enjoyable. Part of that was the learning curve. If I'm a fresh newbie, I already have the internal mechanics to try and come to terms with - adding "knowing the mechanics of 100+ characters" to that list initially makes for a steeper learning experience. By limiting the initial interactions, you allow the player to get much more comfortable before adding in higher tier champions.

Owning every champion is not a requirement of play. Its not even a requirement of high level play - if you don't play a certain role, you don't have to waste your points on champions of that role. The requirements to unlock champions is fair and relatively quick. Saying there are walls in place is akin to pointing to any game with a progression system and calling it 'unfair.'

And, lets be real. DoTA 2 was published by Valve - a company that can (and initially did) release games at a loss because Steam will more then cover their asses. DoTA 2 was not a solvent game for a very long time - mostly because it was launched as free, with very little microtransactions. It was a money pit for Valve - costing them money on tech support, servers, and a whole host of other things. Not every company can design a game like Valve does. If League had launched with relatively.

People seem to forget that buying power is not the same as buying convenience. If you could buy a double damage relic, or if the Champions at the 6300 IP range were stronger then the lower tier champions, you'd be absolutely right. There would be a paywall that stops enjoyment. But the game is relatively well balanced - champions are only sidegrades to other champions, not upgrades. Brand is not an upgraded version of Annie.

Also - no good free to play examples? Really? TF2 is extremely fair - even if it wasn't designed as a F2P game. It became one. Its former origins of "You have to buy a retail copy to play" doesn't diminish how it stands as a free to play title right now. Path of Exile - you want to talk about fair free to play titles. It's a dungeon crawler, the likes of Diablo. It's extremely in depth, giving you full access to its rich story and gameplay. Cosmetics, such as animations or pets, and an upgraded shared stash - not inventory, mind you, just a bank. RuneScape is basically a game that splits its free to play and pay to play communities in half - a Pay to Play member has a lot more features at their disposal, but none of them are active on a Free to Play server. That's a pretty fair system - you can enjoy that game as much as you want, and neither way will interfere with the other. Hell, I even just downloaded Tetris on my android phone - 100% free, it just has ad's on the main blade and sometimes between matches.

To say Free to Play hasn't been done right at all either means you're just spouting off, or you've never played a free to play game before. Free to play is a design choice that has to have the entire game structured around it - remember, game designers need to eat too. Good examples of Free to Play are games that don't solicit or require payment to enjoy - things where the only thing you can buy are cosmetics, of conveniences that don't come at the expense of another player.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
I don't know what portion of the panels actually were that way and I think it'd be good if video recordings of panels were available so everyone can see for themselves what was actually discussed and can form their own opinion.
I also wonder how well visited some of the panels were. Maybe some of the people who were to GDC could shed some light on that?

But it is a very good episode, Jim! There has been a strong (perceived) disregard for the customers in this industry. Demoting them from customers to consumers has only been one of the first steps.
 

Veerdin

New member
Jan 29, 2014
11
0
0
I always enjoy watching Jim being angry. Especially when he's right.

That' why every episode of the Jimquisition is excellent.