Jimquisition: Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
Very sad indeed that the idea of making a quick buck and trying to limit the damage has more appeal to some in the industry rather than making something genuinely fun and exciting.

On the plus side thanks to Jim I can now use the excuse, 'I attended a Jim Sterling panel' the next time I visit the hospital after "misplacing" my usb drive :p
 

Mahoshonen

New member
Jul 28, 2008
358
0
0
Jim, I've been trolling you for a while and getting my fair share of warnings, but I feel with this episode it's best to drop the sarcasm and get right to the point: How do you reconcile your use of this show to verbally flagellate people in the industry who make games in a way you don't like, but on the same show chastise others for doing the same thing on the grounds that it's driving talent away from the industry? (the episode I'm referring to: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7955-Im-Going-To-Murder-Your-Children).

Rather than join in the choir, I remain skeptical of anyone who gets in front of a podium and rants emotionally about a subject that has real people involved, even when I agree with the ranter. I would appreciate an explanation, because this video and the one I linked seem to be at odds with each other.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
senordesol said:
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.
Instead of screwing up games trying to squeeze money out of them, why not get a "real" job make and games as a hobby? Why would you take something you supposedly love (making games) and destroy all of the joy out of it maximizing the ROI?

Integrity means you don't do something you don't think is right, even if doing it provides you with a benefit, and even if not doing it has a personal cost.

Just because the current industry is a sewer doesn't mean you have to add even more turds to it.

Wouldn't it be better to chase the dream of both doing what you love AND making money out of it? Rather than compromising the doing what you love part so much it isn't different than any other means of exchanging labor for money.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Maybe we need a seminar on: "De-programming 'whales': How to get your friend, in-law, or family member to stop propping up the shadiest part of a beloved medium with their money".

Still, it kind of underscores that that Positech guy may have had a point. When we think games should be free, this is the kind of development we're likely to continue to see. If you want good games, you have to put your money where your mouth is.

Not saying that the whole GDC thing wasn't massively disturbing, or that they aren't sickening bastards to be pushing things this way, or that it's a one-sided problem and we owe the games industry some kind of grovelling mea culpa for not wanting to pay top dollar for MoH:Warfighter or Road to Hell: Retribution.

But... I paid a shamefully low price to get Bastion in one of the Humble Bundles, and its soundtrack alone was worth more than what I paid for the whole bundle. When Transistor comes out, I'll pay the asking price. When Watch Dogs comes out, I'll wait for the reviews to see if they managed to achieve something resembling the vision promised in those early videos... but then I'll probably pay the asking price for that, too. There will still be plenty of games I buy on the cheap, but those are the ones I want to see more of, and I'm willing and able to speak up with my wallet.

Candy Crush and Dungeon Keeper Mobile, though, can suck it.
 

BakedSardine

New member
Dec 3, 2013
166
0
0
Jim completely missed the boat on reducing backlash. No matter how generous a business, there will always be backlash. Give people a free doughnut and they will complain that they can't take two. Games are a business and I do not envy developers and publishers trying to make a buck in an era where many teens think everything should be free - hence the rise of F2P games where you have to make your money on the back end.
 

Pepsik

New member
Aug 30, 2011
43
0
0
Well just to play devil's advocate here, even good games get some criticism and criticism in the hands of fanboys can change into backlash pretty easily and it's important to know, how to handle a backlash, even if this backlash isn't entirely justified. Hell change one thing in a sequel game and you can get a big backlash, but that's a price for trying something new. Imho that's better than the same games over and over again (not a big fan of call of duty) :)
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
senordesol said:
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.
Instead of screwing up games trying to squeeze money out of them, why not get a "real" job make and games as a hobby? Why would you take something you supposedly love (making games) and destroy all of the joy out of it maximizing the ROI?

Integrity means you don't do something you don't think is right, even if doing it provides you with a benefit, and even if not doing it has a personal cost.

Just because the current industry is a sewer doesn't mean you have to add even more turds to it.

Wouldn't it be better to chase the dream of both doing what you love AND making money out of it? Rather than compromising the doing what you love part so much it isn't different than any other means of exchanging labor for money.
'Get a real job?' What the heck does that mean? Not a single check I've collected in the gaming industry has bounced yet. In that vein; what 'Real' job would you recommend with years of game industry experience on one's resume?

With regard to building games as a hobby: that's definitely possible under *extremely specific* circumstances (btw, I've written a very well-reviewed novel as a 'hobby', still waiting on that 'juicy payday'); but the idea that you'll get any exposure or money with game building as a 'paid hobby' is... rather unrealistic.

As game industry professionals: this is what we *do*. Asking us to give up on making games (or reducing it to a 'hobby') is like asking actors not to act or writers not to write. However, the sad fact is: we've got to go where the money is. The Engineers, artists, producers, QATs, and Marketers have all got to be paid. I've worked on a project that was all heart and no dollar and it turns out you can't write a rent check with heart.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Rabid_meese said:
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.
Semantics.

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.
You seem to be confusing the issue. I'm not talking about power. I'm talking about player enjoyment. They're different things. If I want to play a certain hero today LoL may not let me. That degrades my experience *unless I pay.*

Going back to power, Dota knew the one core truth of all great multiplayer games - you reset the table every game. You don't carry forward anything to the next match. Unfortunately this core principle has been lost as every multiplayer game under the sun tries to shove in RPG leveling elements designed solely for player retention purposes (which would be right at home in the panels Jim railed against today)

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.
But Valve's goal was to make the best game for their customers, not manipulate them. The model everyone should be following. If "not every company can design a game" this way, then don't make anything.

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.
The same mantra EA used in Dungeon Keeper - you're not buying power, you're just buying CONVENIENCE! Buying convenience is the absolute scourge of free to play games and one of the biggest reasons they're a bankrupt game design. Make no mistake, the hero restrictions in LoL are designed to frustrate you into buying the heroes you want to play.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
"Any more further questions"?

I know I'm nitpicking, but is that grammatically correct? I'm not used to the idea of having a mental wince as a result of hearing Jim speak. I think this is my first time. :(

Grammar Nazism aside, I wholeheartedly agree. So-called "whalers" who would rather spin down customer discontent than actually address it aren't worth my time or respect. If a game sucks, don't try and astroturf your intentions and game design philosophy so it makes me, the consumer, look disingenuous or just "outside of your target demographic". If a game sucks and if it generates massive amounts of criticism, then it sucks. No amount of "Well, you plebs just don't get mobile game design!" will ever change that.

More to the point, however, I'm sadly convinced that no amount of bile would change things. Hardcore PC or console gamers aren't the target for whalers. While we're bitching at what absolutely is a worrying trend, the soccer moms and non-gamers of this world feel perfectly fine with the idea of feeding a Pavlovian machine with cash, one microtransaction at a time. Show them their end-of-month bill and they'll either laugh their expenses away or stare, jaw agape, at the money they pumped into a useless cow clicker.
 

softclocks

New member
Mar 7, 2014
221
0
0
Jim's back with a vengeance.

Great to see him passionate about something other than getting money.

Edit: Why aren't companies simply adhering to Valve's "Power User" term? Conveys the same message without the hostility...
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
"Bottom", "The Wall" and "War of the Worlds" LP art... great pics this time!!!
And a truer panel than yours GDC should WISH it had!
 

Mausthemighty

New member
Aug 3, 2011
163
0
0
To be honest I think the derogatory term "Whale" is fitting those people perfectly. If you are dumb enough to spend hundreds of dollars on a 'game' that has no actual gameplay, isn't even fun and has plenty of anti-consumer stuff like a paywall, then you've earned it...
I think the problem has two guilty parties: the developer who has the gall to think up this kind of Free to play but Pay to Win games without respecting their consumers and the idiot "Whales" who keep these malpractices afloat by spending enormous amounts of money for this tripe.
These people are exactly what's wrong with the gaming industry nowadays.
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
While I sympathize with your cause, ultimately, games are also a business - a way for some people to earn their keep and pay the rent. Therefore I have no issue with talking about how to make money off games or gamers. That being said, of course, everything can be taken too far. As soon as the money-making aspect takes precedence over everything else, something is wrong. But in cases like this the product will probably become a shitty game anyway and will be blasted by the "consumers".

In the end, it's up to each individual what he buys into. Vote with your wallet. I'm not sure you can blame Activision for delivering an over priced copy of the same shooter every year. Or EA for releasing all their sports portfolio every year. If people buy the stuff there is obviously demand for it and if people demand it, it's fair game to make business.

There are also lots of people who want innovation and excellent gameplay. The success of indies is the consequence of what big companies have been unable to deliver due to their risk-averse profit hunger. So it seems to me gaming is just fine and practically regulating itself. All the bullshit monetization practices will be weeded out and if not, it will be the fault of consumers for buying into it. So I don't see a reason to get so worked up about this.
 

DragonDai

New member
Jun 3, 2012
21
0
0
I've said it before, I'll say it again; F2P and Freemium games are a blight on the game industry, nothing good ever comes from them, and the game industry as a whole would be 100% better without them. There are MAYBE a dozen exceptions to this statement, and hundreds of thousands of proof positive examples. I'd gladly live in a world without TF2, LoL, and the other good F2P games (even though I play LoL and TF2), if it meant that the concept of F2P never existed, and never would exist.
 

Freyar

Solar Empire General
May 9, 2008
214
0
0
uanime5 said:
Also the Diablo 3 auction house was closed because it made it too easy to improve the gear of your characters without playing the game, not because it was unpopular (there's still a campaign to bring it back). Given that you could buy things using the in game currency it's clear that this auction house isn't an example of trying to get as much real money from players as possible.
No, it most certainly was. Balance changes were made in reaction to inflation on the market in which for people who played on their own, got royally screwed by the changes.

It was about generating more income than Blizzard deserved and the RMAH was the core of many of their damaging decisions.

-----

I watch an awful lot of GDC content that I can get my hands on at GDCVault. It's depressing that whenever I go into 2013's ADC (App-Developers Conference, a sister conference specifically for the mobile market) that 60% or more of the panels consist of nothing but monetization, whales, and how to game the Google Play and iTunes top charts.

I'm pretty disappointed that GDC core is showing similar panels now too. I understand that games have to make money, but when you're relying on whales, and you're actively trying to mitigate backlash instead of not causing it in the first place, then you aren't exactly working with your customers, merely trying to drain them dry before "the competition" does.

I used to spend a pretty penny into Free-to-Play games. I don't think I made it to "whale" status, but I did pay a lot, much more than I would a subscription game and after I realized how much I was paying versus what I was getting, I just stopped and find myself adverse to free-to-play games or games with cash shops in it's entirety.

I feel like I was taken advantage of by these types of business models, and frankly I believe it to be that way. I paid a lot of money and in the end got nothing by it outside of escaping some inconveniences that the developers intentionally made in their game to make it suck enough for me to pay that money.

I do still dabble in Path of Exile and pay them money because they have made a game that doesn't rely on the "Whale" methodology by damaging their game, but rather making a game that is loved after the let-down that was Diablo III.

I want to try Wildstar, but with the combination of up front box-cost, subscription fee and a cash shop? That tells me a few things:

Box-Cost and Subscription isn't enough to keep the doors open and pay for development. This is an indication that they set their budgets too high.

The cash shop is supposedly for "cosmetics" only, but who the hell actually believes they'll stay cosmetic? I sure as hell don't. They'll be looking for a way to quietly find and spear the whales with this so they can take in more cash. If the option to screw people is there, it'll be taken. There's a tiny number of studios that won't and only one of them has any sort of fame.

The cash shop shows that the developers/publisher is trying to hedge their bets. This tells me that they inherently do not have faith in their game and that they are already prepared before launch to change over to a free to play model. This isn't a great way to get me wanting to invest long-term in an MMO.

Needless to say, it feels like all these things are ignored, if just for the sake of spearing the whales while they are there. Publishers and the business development crews need to remember that they are pissing off and poisoning their customers, their sources of income.
 

el_kabong

Shark Rodeo Champion
Mar 18, 2010
540
0
0
It's fiery passion like that why I miss the mic drop. Excellent stuff and, as someone who works largely in the realm of advising retail businesses, I concur.