Jimquisition: Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

[SnowWookie]

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.

Even if that was the case, the fact is that games don't happen unless the developers get paid. Games are a business first and foremost. As I already pointed out, the vast majority of those involved in the industry are already "doing it for the love of games". Industry conditions for game developers are appalling. Seriously, look up "game development crunch time". The people doing it could easily make more money for less work doing another similar job. So yeah, their primary concern right now is how to get paid. Because nothing else happens without that.

Now, all that said, it actually turns out that GDC *wasn't* the "Fucking Over Customers 101" event that Jim painted it as.
There were 7 monetization sessions (http://schedule.gdconf.com/track/monetization), and several had valid points to make.

Meanwhile, there were over 40 programming sessions in the first 2 days alone.
http://schedule.gdconf.com/track/programming

So yeah, I'm really not impressed by Jim on this. It looks like he saw a few sensationalist session titles and didn't bother to do any further research.


And actually, while I'm at it.... if you don't like the models being used (and you shouldn't, Jim is spot on that some of them are fucking awful)... DON'T BUY/PLAY THE FUCKING GAMES. Seriously, this bullshit only works because people are giving them money.

 

[senordesol]

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.

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.

Videogames devs want to be artist but don't treat it as such. What did they expect?

Well, when you face the dilemma of 'artistic integrity' and 'unemployment line'; some tough calls gotta be made.

Yes, not everyone is going to be or *can* be a chart topper; but when you look at the chart toppers they tell you one very important thing: What your customers are buying. Now, you *can* take that information, take a risk and do something no one was expecting. Maybe it works out for you, or maybe mommy has to be the bread winner for a while. So you can do that, *or* you can learn from and emulate the best and put out a product that brings food to your table.

The whole 'starving artist' chic really loses its lustre when you are, indeed, starving. The artistically uncompromising (i.e.: 'expensive') games just don't tend to bubble to the top in certain markets. So that tells us that isn't what people are looking for, so how can you expect the industry to do anything other than provide what their audience has proven they want to pay for?

Yeah and Dark Souls was a niche that didn't do very well. The point is that if you show integrity you can still make a game that caters to people without the bullshit.

I'm not positing that such a thing is impossible. The idea here, however, is that whatever choice you make is a choice about -conceivably- whether your dev team gets to eat tomorrow. So you can take a risk (and if it works out: great!), or you can do the thing that has a provably high chance at working. While we all like to believe that which has sufficient artistic integrity will have its day soon enough; I can tell you from first hand experience: that's not always the case.

I tell you the truth: the talented artists and engineers who staff F2P studios don't want to make vapid, derivative games. Hell, *I* don't want to make vapid, derivative games. But when Fekkin' Flappy Bird and Candy Crush and Kingdoms of Camelot and Clash of Clans and any bloody given casino game are CLEARLY the ones that are making any money, and the more 'niche' titles see limited success at best; what are the people in charge supposed to think? They've only got so much time and so much money to turn a profit. The wrong call puts scores if not hundreds of families on the unemployment line.

Again, this is not to say that risks can't pay off. When I started, I dismissed Candy Crush as a Bejeweled Clone. But I don't know what to tell you: We try our best to do what we think will work. It's up to the consumer to tell us whether we did right or wrong (and you don't tell us via angry Escapist videos, btw).

 

[Werekettle]

Great Ep as always.
Thank god for Jim

 

[Isengrim]

Ok, I will sound like a teenage boy cheering like a little **** he is when somebody tells somebody to go and screw themselves in the arse with a pendrive... but...

That was a fucking great episode Jim.

And I seriously understand your anger, it's rather bloody obvious that the shit that is being pulled off, is well beoynd any level of good taste, not to mention a respect to a customer.

While, of course the arseholes behind it will not feel any urge to change... anything, as long as they are making their money, hopefully more and more people realise what they are... and stop being little bitches they are treated like.

The reason anything anti-consumer happens is not because of happy and healthy relationship between customer and publisher exists ( well... it does but it's rare as hell; I think I have to give credit to CDProjekt Red for this one ), but because most of the time, caring about brand loyalty or customers seems unnecessary.
They treated you like a ***** once - No cries, rages, petitions, internet controversies?
Well, there you go, now you'll be treated like a ***** all the fucking time... because you let them treat you this way...

You didn't like their game but still bought the next one?
You hate their anticonsumer bullshit BUT you still bought the game?
Congratulations, little ***** status unlocked, now you can be screwed left and right by publishers... because you let them to.

I understand that gamers love games... hell, I am a gamer myself, I adore playing videogames, however it's a matter of a damn self respect. Seems like not many people have that anymore...

That's how it unfortunatelly works.

 

[arithine]

The term whale actually comes from the casino business, referring to exceptionally wealthy patrons who come to gamble their access wealth away, which makes sense given how the f2p market has been saturated with cash in skinner boxes these days. It's a completely repulsive attitude to have but I believe it's merely a symptom of the overlying problem. (this is coming from someone who enjoys certain f2p games, in fact i got really into infinity wars recently and haven't had to spend a dime to get more cards, f2p when done right can be a good thing.)

 

[MrHide-Patten]

This is why I have a stern distrust of suits, I mean there's nothing wrong with earning money, bitches gotta eat. Hell even a seminar titled; 'How to Respect the Customer and Yourself: Monetization strategies for a long enduring business' Would be a lot better.
But what most upsets me is that they're ruining the F2P market, they're flooding it with stupid anti-consumer bullshit that turns everyone away from the model itself, which'll only lead to more of the same and stagnate the market (particularly mobile).

I've already seen posts here; "Durrgh I don't even play F2P 'cos they're all garbage hurrgh", the dams breaking at the seems already you flowchart loving fuck-scoffs. They should have just bunched 'em all together under; "Big Bucks and Zero Fucks".

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Glorious. Way to lay it down. I'm disgusted that the term 'whale' transferred over from the gambling industry - which is pretty much as openly predatory as you can get - to gaming. When I have time I'd like to look up who the people are who talked at these panels, who they work for, and never buy anything from those people or the companies they belong to again.

 

[Haru17]

Best. Show. Ever.

 

[cdemares]

Man, I really hope the "How to reduce backlash" panel involved apologies and humility. Of course, it probably had more to do with various forms of manipulation.

 

[Do4600]

Can I get a list of the developers that attended those panels, because I will honestly never buy a game by them ever again. This is sick. I am disgusted.

I am disgusted and incredibly proud of Jim.

 

[Demonchaser27]

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.

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.

Videogames devs want to be artist but don't treat it as such. What did they expect?

Well, when you face the dilemma of 'artistic integrity' and 'unemployment line'; some tough calls gotta be made.

Yes, not everyone is going to be or *can* be a chart topper; but when you look at the chart toppers they tell you one very important thing: What your customers are buying. Now, you *can* take that information, take a risk and do something no one was expecting. Maybe it works out for you, or maybe mommy has to be the bread winner for a while. So you can do that, *or* you can learn from and emulate the best and put out a product that brings food to your table.

The whole 'starving artist' chic really loses its lustre when you are, indeed, starving. The artistically uncompromising (i.e.: 'expensive') games just don't tend to bubble to the top in certain markets. So that tells us that isn't what people are looking for, so how can you expect the industry to do anything other than provide what their audience has proven they want to pay for?

Yeah and Dark Souls was a niche that didn't do very well. The point is that if you show integrity you can still make a game that caters to people without the bullshit.

I'm not positing that such a thing is impossible. The idea here, however, is that whatever choice you make is a choice about -conceivably- whether your dev team gets to eat tomorrow. So you can take a risk (and if it works out: great!), or you can do the thing that has a provably high chance at working. While we all like to believe that which has sufficient artistic integrity will have its day soon enough; I can tell you from first hand experience: that's not always the case.

I tell you the truth: the talented artists and engineers who staff F2P studios don't want to make vapid, derivative games. Hell, *I* don't want to make vapid, derivative games. But when Fekkin' Flappy Bird and Candy Crush and Kingdoms of Camelot and Clash of Clans and any bloody given casino game are CLEARLY the ones that are making any money, and the more 'niche' titles see limited success at best; what are the people in charge supposed to think? They've only got so much time and so much money to turn a profit. The wrong call puts scores if not hundreds of families on the unemployment line.

Again, this is not to say that risks can't pay off. When I started, I dismissed Candy Crush as a Bejeweled Clone. But I don't know what to tell you: We try our best to do what we think will work. It's up to the consumer to tell us whether we did right or wrong (and you don't tell us via angry Escapist videos, btw).

Well I do appreciate your honesty. Thanks for keeping it real, and I apologize for the sarcasm. I've said this in another topic, but sometimes we just have to ask "what the hell" ya know. It's true that to some degree its the fault of 'overspenders' but perhaps this is also a case of bad apples ruining the bunch. Big unethical businessmen started this and once they manipulated enough sorry souls it was on.

 

[drednoahl]

Completly disagree with you there Jim.
Using terms/jargon in a business talk has nothing to do with dehumanisation, nothing. You are overreacting and i think you now this. Getting pissed off because of someone using a term like whale is like getting pissed off because someone used the therm FPS for Fallout 3, because FO3 is not a FPS but a roleplaying game with a new way of combining gunplay and turn based combat in wich you are able to choose between first and third person view.

There are not enough hours in the day to hold a business talk without certain terms and or jargon. What would you recomend for a substitute for whale? Bigspenders? Idiots with to much money in their wallets?

And if you haven't realised yet, the game industry is just that: An industry. And in every industry you need some white collar/business types who are responsible for the money/marketing.

And by the way: Complaining about the industry making money is more then a little hypocritically from you. Where do you get your money from? Not directly from the publisher/developer i know, but from the industry. You are, if you like it or not, a part from this industry. Just like the sleezy suit and the hungry underpaid indy studio.

Also: What is so bad with a panel to tell developers how to reduce backlash? Do you remember Mass effect 3 and the reaction of the gamers to the ending? Not all reactions from the customers are justified. You yourself brought up the question of customer/gamer entitlement.

No doubt, there are many companys who's business practices are shady at best, but dismissing the whole idea of bringing some professionalism into game development is just wrong and a bit juvenile.

I'm sorry for my bad english, as you maybe guessed it is not my primary language. So i could not argue and express myself as good and refined as i wanted.

And yes my dear jim + forum users, i myself have a background in businessmanagement.

The problem is that in gaming the guys in charge of WA and monetisation are exploiting the addiction of their customers as the focus of games design; the economics of a drug dealer.

 

[thisbymaster]

When I read the title for this video I figured it must be something to do with Jim having a stroke while writing it. Now I know about about whalers and now feel even better about playing those FTP games and never giving them a dime.

 

[BillDaCatt]

Standing ovation!

Okay, I didn't actually stand up but I did start clapping at the end.

 

[ExtraDebit]

Do what I do, avoid free to play games and games that got in app purchase. Most free to play games and games with in app purchase integrate their monetization into the game balance which ultimately fucks up the game. In addition avoid EA games like the plague.

 

[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.

I believe that you make some serious and extremely valid points that are somewhat unadressed throughout the thread.

I would ask you this, though: What do you think went wrong with the release of Idle Worship? An overtly generous f2p system? Were many people downloading the game? If so, were many people playing, yet not paying? How was the game received? Was it well marketed? Sorry for 3rd degreeing you, just trying to get a handle on that side of things and think on ald the things that can conceivebly go wrong.

But, insofar as Jim is arguing from the viewpoint of the consumer, I do inevitably empathise with his argument. And I do believe there is a fine line in earning a living and turning a profit from a product ( which obviously implies studying the market and find ways to engage buyers to your product) and actively treating that same consumer base as "whales" and using exploitative and ethically questionable systems. There's little excusing in the business practices of an EA, Crytek or Square Enix, to name 3 examples of major studioes dabbling in microtransactions (with the first two actually including them in full priced games), and even less excuse for seminars on dealing with the fallout of shady business practices rather than avoiding them in the first place.

I'd say the issue with IW was that it was a little *too* polished. Had I any rank at the time I worked there, I would have argued we were release-ready five months before we actually released. Now the game sure did shine after an additional 5 months of polish; and we had a HUGE fanbase (for what we were), but making that money back just proved impossible; the spending just wasn't there. Then a lot of people (including me) were out on their asses. Could we have been saved if we had released early? I actually don't rightly know. It's quite possible that it was just *too easy* to not spend money on that game (there was many a heated meeting over that). The DAUs were rights, the DSPUs were right, but the almighty ARPDAU was all wrong.

My time there was wonderful; I met many warm, friendly people ready and eager to make IW the best game they could make it -some of whom remain my friends even today- but I learned some harsh, harsh lessons from the experience. Lessons I was able to apply to great (and very calculated) effect later at a new job. When Jim began listing the various monetization sessions in the video; I'm sure he meant to evoke ire or derision, but I heard nothing that struck me as unreasonable.

Are some companies shamelessly exploitative? Absolutely! Without question! And they're only making it harder for the rest of us. Do I wish there was more 'game' in F2P Games? Of course I bloody do! But a solid and studied understanding of monetization and retention models will not hurt your studio. Your ability to deliver what your players crave even if they don't know they crave it and (more importantly) how to leverage that to make money...well, it's everything. Because no one comes to your rescue on that final, dismal walk to the train station. As a company, not every decision you make is going to be a popular one; so you better know how to handle backlash. Not every game you make will be a profitable one; so the ones that are need to be milked for all they're worth. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with greed (some do, but you'd probably be surprised by how few). Can't monetize those teens? Say goodbye to half of your engineering staff. Can't get those Whales to sing? Well, the art department only needs to be *so* big.

So instead of thinking that every mobile or F2P dev is a Snidely Whiplash trying to fleece you; know that any money you give him is money you *chose* to give him; whatever practices he might employ. And know that if you offer a product for free with the mere option to pay, you had better hope you made something people are willing to pay for.

 

[direkiller]

There was a distinct absence of mic drop in that episode. Maybe that's because I didn't purchase the expansion pack which adds said mic drop as well as a new character skin.

Seriously now: "Whales"? THAT's what they call their paying customers now? WHALES!? Anyone who uses that term to describe a paying customer can just f$&# right off!

No it's saddly worse
in FTP mobile "games" something like 1% of the player base is spending 80% of the money.
Whales are that small player base, the ones with possible addition problems and/or are kids.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?print=1

 

[Nurb]

F2P is a poison... yes, yes, those one or two games you know of do it right, but 99% is shit and they're trying to bush F2P shit on us even more.. more microtransactions... more DLC.

The more they strategize to squeeze money out of people for less content, the less I care about what piracy does to them.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You, know, this talk of referring to customers as "whales" and "minnows" reminds me a lot of Blue Ocean Strategy.

And if you don't know what Blue Ocean Strategy is...at the risk of oversimplification, it's basically a market-business model that focuses exclusively on adage "There's a sucker born every minute."

There's a bit more to it than that, but the concept assumes that there's enough demand rotating in and out of a market at any given time that you don't need to focus on (or listen to) existing customers and should instead constantly court new customers.

Which unfortunately can lead to a mentality that treats customers as disposable sacks of blubber to be gutted and dumped, because, who cares? There's plenty more big spenders out there, might as well tap them for what they're worth.

"Hunting whales in the Blue Ocean" as it were.

Obviously, more savvy gamers will recognize a cash grab when they see one, but that's the trick of Blue Ocean; it targets the unknown, in this case the naive new potential customers; the new markets who don't necessarily know what's good and what isn't.

I'm not surprised that these strategies are being applied to the newer markets (casual and mobile especially) and game archetypes like F2P and Freemium.

 

[Wraithfighter]

Well, I put together a bit of a post summing up my own response to this video: http://beyondthepolygons.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/a-response-to-jim-sterlings-monetizing-whales-for-the-retention-of-virality-video/

If you're not interested in my wall of text, however, my google searches did reveal a few fun links:

- Monetizing Teens in a Safe and Legal Manner: http://schedule.gdconf.com/session-id/828320

That appears to be the panel that Sterling opened up the video talking about.

- The #monetizing #teens #GDC panel: http://storify.com/10rdBen/the-monetizing-teens-gdc-panel-thurs-20th-march?awesm=sfy.co_qRdS

One of people at the panel put up a post about it too. Fairly innocuous stuff focusing on the legal issues surrounding teens playing F2P games and that you need to make sure the parents have control of the purse at all times. Granted, some of the innocuousness might be a reaction to the reaction to the panel's name... but hard to say at this point.

- You Own the Game but the Community Owns You: http://schedule.gdconf.com/session-id/826308

I think this is the "Backlash" panel that Sterling ended the video talking about. The desc is a bit douchey, I gotta say, but it's understandable given...

- I'm Going To Murder Your Children: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7955-Im-Going-To-Murder-Your-Children

A video put out by Sterling last year about how the backlash to events in the industry can become hyperbolic, offensive and other shit that players can direct at the deveoplers and publishers and such. Seems like a panel on dealing and reducing backlash is... probably a good idea in the end.