Jimquisition: Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

[SonOfVoorhees]

Liked you used a screen grab from comedy show Bottom. That show is comedy gold.

Great vid. Thing is people dont mind monetizing content to a point, its just the issue where they make getting that content normally such a painful grind that it can only be to force people to pay. Like with Forza and GT game recently, making cars expensive and making the ability to gain credits a grind and thus they sell credit packs for DLC. Mobile gaming is now moving into AAA titles. Now with mobiles, fine, games are cheap so your not costing you to much with the DLC. But its unacceptable to have this shit when selling a game for £40-£50. Recently, with the Elder Scrolls MMO, they are charging you full price, then a monthly sub fee and still have the audacity to charge for content via micro transactions. Unacceptable. An now, from your vid, companies are actively going out of their way to work these extras into their games. This is the start of the end of gaming as it will be abused.

 

[Colt47]

That panel at the GDC sounds like someone failed to take even a basic course on marketing. Talk about the worst case of marketing Myopia I've ever had the displeasure of reading about. Games are about satisfying peoples wants and desire for play at a fair price: Not exploiting peoples behavior for maximum profit.

 

[Abnaxis]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that its at least theoretically possible to run a constructive panel titled "How to Avoid Backlash," if the subtitle wasn't "The Secret to Screwing Your Customers and Getting Away With It," but rather "How to Keep Molehills from Becoming Mountains."

I mean, how many times in your own show, has Jim gone up in front of the camera to talk about some gaming "controversy" that has exploded way out of proportion? I would consider it least somewhat positive if companies did a better job of delivering difficult messages/not letting the little stuff explode. See also: Resolution Wars, Mass Effect 1 sex controversy, Mass Effect 3 sex controversy, etc.

Of course, given that so much of the conference was dedicated to sucking as much money out of consumers as possible, I'm sure the primary take away from the panel was "How to Screw Customers," but I can always dream...

 

[TAGM]

I dunno, as much as I agree that this kind of thing isn't the way we wanna go, Jim, I'm still not 100% sure this is the way that we are going, even in terms of GDC.

See, if the presentations are being cynically designed with the message of "How to leach the most money from your customers with your F2P game", then yes, may the hatred boat always sail.
But, if the idea was something closer to "How not to completely fuck up your F2P game with a really shit paying mechanic you greedy bastards", then that's something I can almost get behind. I mean, if more people learn to not fuck over their F2P games in a desperate money bid, that means at least a few better games, right?

I dunno, did you end up actually watching the presentations, Jim? (Honest question, it's not one of those sly little rhetorical "I think you're wrong you fat egotistical bastard" ones.) Do you know if there's any sort of archives where you can watch them online? I'd sort of like the full picture: Either to get (very VERY vaguely) behind people teaching developers how to monetize PROPERLY in their games without completely cocking up the game in question (I.E. League Of Legends, Loadout, ect.) or to just spit bile at the greedy fucks who think that their customers are walking wallets. Or maybe both - 20+ people can have different opinions, after all.

(I do agree that we shouldn't need 20+ panels on this shit, but I can vaguely understand it - I mean, sure, those 19 other people may be talking about the same new idea that I am, but they're not talking about it My way, the RIGHT way, now are they?)

 

[Windu23]

That was a deservedly strong ending. And was pretty much what I said in my head once I heard the panel title.

Also. Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends. Lu Bu's daughter? Tomorrow can't come soon enough.

 

[senordesol]

*Sigh* Oh Jim. Your heart's in the right place, so I can't be mad at you.

I've been in the F2P industry for a while now, and I have to tell you: being up to date on monetization and retention techniques is crucial and invaluable. "Why not just make good games?" You may ask. "Take a look that the iOS 20 Top Grossing/Top Paid lists" would be my answer.

One company I used to work for, Idle Games, we spent more than a YEAR and a HALF crafting a heartfelt, painstaking, absolutely gorgeous Free to Play game (Idle Worship)(Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uhzflV8QFQ) Hand-drawn animation, total non-monetizing progression completely possible, lots of humor and spirit. It lasted less than a year. Now Idle Games only makes casino games.

This isn't to say that you have to completely lose your soul in order to be effective in the F2P market; but you have to be aware of *who* is buying, how much, where, and why. My studio would *LOVE* to make a classic-style RPG for the mobile phone (in fact, I had all sorts of ideas about how to do it when I came on to my company) but there's no apparent money in that. Those exist in the mobile market; but people just don't seem to be buying them.

So be as mad as you want that the F2P industry is rather cynical in terms of how it views its clientele but remember that consumer entertainment is a democracy, and everyone votes with their wallets.

 

[Kmadden2004]

On a somewhat related side note, did anybody else see the guy from EA try to defend Dungeon Keeper's business model on Giant Bomb's GDC coverage (he was basically saying all the backlash came from people angry at EA for just putting DK on the mobile platform... and that's it), and all the indie devs in the room practically (and politely) tore him a new one for trying to deflect the criticism away from the real issue?

CAPTCHA: "jerk store"

Never have truer words been spoken, Captcha.

 

[soh45400]

That last bit of advice Jim, given the last few videos before the PS4 one, you should really think about following it yourself.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Hooo-WHEEE! Jim is pissed, and rightly so! I was at GDC last week, and now I am glad my pass didn't let me into any panels that weren't about the Games Careers Seminar. I would have knocked someone out. I spent most of my time there around the Career Pavilion and the Indie studios showing off in GDC Play, and that shows there are people that are still passionate about making good games, as art and as technology. Around the Expo Floor, there were also a lot companies with enthusiastic people who want to show off their new tech. Well it was mainly selling things to other developers, but I didn't see any corporate cocks referring to customers as whales. The fact that there are people WORKING IN VIDEO GAMES makes me sick!

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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?

Also, what does latte-drinking or skinny-jeans wearing have to do with anything? Would these practices be OK if they were done by people wearing three-piece suits who drink tea?

 

[Airon]

Dreadful business. Someone has to yell at it.

In contrast, here's Valve's Steamdevday talk about ingame economies of two free-to-play games, Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC-uGDbu7s

Their basic recommendations are summed up at 9:00

Very, very different approach and goals. Valve's primary goal appears to be to keep the customers happy.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

 

[Luminos564]

Wow, I think this was the first time I actually saw Jim very, very angry. Not that I blame him. The idea of a "reduce backlash" panel strikes me as downright, Saturday-morning cartoonishly evil. It sounds like companies (at least certain ones) are trying their best NOT to make their potential customers happy, but keep them as silent as possible so they can keep on doing things that will tick people off. Apparently, nobody thought to let these people know that "reducing" does not equate to "eliminating". Backlash, however big or small, will eventually pile up. And when it reaches a boiling point, your dam is going to burst and you will drown.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Jim... are, are you alright?

Don't get me wrong, your anger is completely righteous and justified, but I was genuinely worried you were going to burst for a bit there.

But yeah, any question about artistic integrity (or lack of it) is almost beside the point when your dealing with shit like this. I could at least slightly admire an artistically bankrupt fat-cat, if they were at least so good at squeezing money out of the masses, but these people aren't even good at that. The vast majority of cynical rip-off's and blatant cons that attitudes like this inspire bomb spectacularly, because there's no exciting creative vision at the top, just a long procession of the blind leading the blind straight into a homogenised, uninspiring quagmire, and even the least adventurous and most gullible consumers will only stand for so much open contempt being shown to them in public.

The problem isn't even that these people are cold-hearted businessmen, it's that they're bad cold-heated businessmen. A good businessmen would understand that the best way to get noticed in such a huge market would be to stand out from the crowd, not just shovel out second-rate versions of another game that did well; as well as understanding that the best way to get consumers coming back for more, is to make them enjoy giving you their money, rather than holding the keys to any potential enjoyment at all behind pay-wall after pay-wall before so much as throwing them a bone.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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.

 

[Nghtgnt]

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.

 

[BlackMasamune]

A sad state of affairs.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

While your insight is usually very good, I felt this episode was a little lacking in said insight. You seem to be angry at some very valid points (calling gamers "Whales", for example) but then just lump in everyone else for using business jargin. Retention isn't a bad thing. Every developer wants to retain their player base. Making a captivating game is a way to retain customers, as well as listening to complaints and trying to enact upon them. Not all retention tactics are bad practices and a lot of bigger businesses could stand to learn a few of these things. The same goes for reducing backlash, though you seem to have posted a quote with no source and trusted we all understand what's going on in an earlier post.

I'm not trying to say this episode was bad, just maybe a little hastily done out of anger. Maybe you should go to GDC and other events and attend the panels? Being more informed on how these panels are run, finding out exactly what they're discussing and then reporting it back to the consumer would certainly help give us a view behind the curtain. I'd rather a well informed opinion than conjecture based upon some lingo that could go either way on the fence. I've come to expect a higher standard from the great Jim Sterling in his insight and this episode fell short of that.

Just my two cents.

 

[Dosbilliam]

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]

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.