Thanatos2k said: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.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?
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.
It used to be that you made money by creating a good game people wanted to play.SnowWookie said:Sorry, but this video fucked me off. Big time.
Let me spell it out for you... remember that bit in the video where you said developers are there to make great games?
NO, THEY'RE FUCKING NOT. Developers want to get PAID. So they can eat, pay the mortgage, etc. They don't exist in some pure aesthete form just to make a perfect game. They work fucking hard and are in general vastly underpaid compared to what they could be getting doing a comparable job in a non game industry.
While I agree, there are some terrible, awful monetization models in the industry.... you can't just tar the whole industry with such a broad brush.
Yeah, I really need to upload my avatar to here. Gimme a sec....Demonchaser27 said:Yeah I actually agree with you Thanatos. Like that name. It reminds me of Secret of Mana.
I've never been pleased with F2P in any of it's current forms. There's always a catch... always.
Well like you said the practices aren't okay. They should have seen that a long time ago. Instead of going down this road they could have just tried a different model that was ethical. You don't need to wait for people to get pissed about being manipulated to know manipulation is wrong. Psychology does exist and has for well over 100 years. Long before video games existed.Nghtgnt said:Seems everyone here is in agreement, so allow me to play semi-devil's advocate for a moment (note this will all be specific to mobile gaming):
How much of this problem is a result of consumers complaining when an app costs more then a couple of dollars? Would we still have all this monetization talk if it was acceptable for games in an app store to sell for $10 or more? How would, say, Plants vs Zombies 2 or Simpsons Tapped Out be different if instead of F2P monetization tricks they were able to just charge an upfront dollar amount that is more in line with what the game is actually worth? Plenty of people have spoken before about how consumers have artificially driven down the prices of apps, and how even a quality app will suffer a BACKLASH in ratings if it isn't sold for dirt-cheap.
Now, I'm not saying that some of the F2P monetization practices are okay. Far from it in fact. However, we as consumers need to take a long look in the mirror because we are not blameless either.
The key is that if that sort of backlash is happening or you expect it, you need to ask if it really is worth pissing off a few people to genuinely make the game better.BigTuk said:To be fair Jim.. backlash can come from actually trying to improve a game. Like say rebalancing your heroes in a MOBA.. dear god. So it is possible to create backlash in your work to improve your own product.
See that's the problem with this industry and most for that matter though. "Chart Toppers" isn't necessary to "pay the bills" as you say. Everybody wants to be number 1. Jesus. **** number 1. When did people stop caring about doing things for the art and love of it. Musicians don't make millions always and they get by happy and fine mostly. Artists certainly aren't "chart toppers" as most of their work doesn't sell for millions until their dead.senordesol said:'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.FoolKiller said: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.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.
Thanks for this man. This is correct.Vivi22 said:The key is that if that sort of backlash is happening or you expect it, you need to ask if it really is worth pissing off a few people to genuinely make the game better.BigTuk said:To be fair Jim.. backlash can come from actually trying to improve a game. Like say rebalancing your heroes in a MOBA.. dear god. So it is possible to create backlash in your work to improve your own product.
But what he's really referring to isn't doing things like rebalancing to improve the game. He's talking about business models, always online, etc. which do not serve an actual useful purpose that makes the end users experience better, and which there should be no question at this point that they will just piss people off.
I think Jim's point was more that the emphasis of the conference was overwhelmingly geared toward monetization with too little emphasis on actually making good games. Yes, developers want to get paid, and they should want to get paid. But they should be aiming to get paid *by making good games*, which people will then want to buy and enjoy playing (and thereby recommend to their friends, and so on), not by fleecing consumers and treating them like shit.SnowWookie said:Sorry, but this video fucked me off. Big time.
Let me spell it out for you... remember that bit in the video where you said developers are there to make great games?
NO, THEY'RE FUCKING NOT. Developers want to get PAID. So they can eat, pay the mortgage, etc. They don't exist in some pure aesthete form just to make a perfect game. They work fucking hard and are in general vastly underpaid compared to what they could be getting doing a comparable job in a non game industry.
While I agree, there are some terrible, awful monetization models in the industry.... you can't just tar the whole industry with such a broad brush.
I'll take a whack at it.MCerberus said:A cookie per game you identify from the lists.
I went ahead and checked the schedule for the recent GDC (found here [http://schedule.gdconf.com/list]), and I've managed to find most of the panels you mentioned (to my great dismay). However, I could not find anything that resembled the "How to Minimize Backlash" panel that you, Jesse, and TB thrashed so thoroughly, even when I used the site's own search bar as well as the "Find on Page" feature in Chrome. Any proof that this particular panel actually existed other than simply word of mouth? No offense intended, btw.Jimothy Sterling said:Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality
AKA how to sound like a complete and total dickhead.
Watch Video
Is this the panel you were referring to, Jim? If so, it doesn't seem anywhere near as hideous as it was made out to be, as it seems to be primarily designed to stop people from having the same kind of breakdown as Phil Fish did (not making fun of the guy here, btw).ender1986 said:In other news: Jim wasn't invited to GDC, and now he's sad
I keed, I keed, but really, is this the "Preventing Backlash" presentation in question?
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session-id/828021
Sounds a lot less dick-ish than Sterling makes it out to be.
Well, when you face the dilemma of 'artistic integrity' and 'unemployment line'; some tough calls gotta be made.Demonchaser27 said:See that's the problem with this industry and most for that matter though. "Chart Toppers" isn't necessary to "pay the bills" as you say. Everybody wants to be number 1. Jesus. **** number 1. When did people stop caring about doing things for the art and love of it. Musicians don't make millions always and they get by happy and fine mostly. Artists certainly aren't "chart toppers" as most of their work doesn't sell for millions until their dead.senordesol said:'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.FoolKiller said: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.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.
Videogames devs want to be artist but don't treat it as such. What did they expect?
I added the missing answers to your list; enjoy the cookies!major_chaos said:I'll take a whack at it.MCerberus said:A cookie per game you identify from the lists.
Do I win?"Well you already gave us money. Enjoy the hats and free content."Hat Simulator 2012TF2
"You won't progress as quickly to the big iconic tanks, but whatever." World of Tanks?
"Then you'll just have to play the game to unlock more characters." Marvel Heroes or League of Legends
"We've been giving you free currency since you've been around since before f2p. You'll have an xp penalty though. Oh, and have all these free xp boosters." The Secret World or Tera Online
"You're only renting the guns. Also you can't have these guns that are better than yours." Blacklight Retribution.
"You're done playing, see you in 12 hours where it turns out no progress was made but log in anyway or you'll get penalized." Dungeon Keeper or facebook games in general
"The first two zones are free. Have fun grinding trash mobs to be able to afford what's next. Also no being part of the economy. Can't have that." Star Wars, The Old Republic.
"You payed for the game, enjoy the cash shop." Guild Wars 2?
"We realize that having a new character on our subscription game means a lot of leveling, give us $60." World of Warcraft
OT: Wow. I'm not surprised the industry has a low opinion of consumers, I'm just surprised that they are this brazen about it.
Yeah but there is nothing free about video games. People have every reason to voice their opinions about issues. Its up to devs and publishers to distinguish what is meaningful and not.BakedSardine said: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.