senordesol said:
Thank you for the clarification. In short, and what I take from it is that there was theoretically a viable and profitable game in Idle Worship, but you failed to strike a perfect balance within its monetization mechanics, as well as too much time spent in production. That is unfortunate, especially in the context that you did try to come up with a good product, only to have it fail for many of the reasons that actually made it good value for money. Which, again theoretically, doesn't mean a good balance can't be found.
Ultimately, though, the whole topic of the GDC pannels strikes me as a lot of busines practices that developers and content creators can justify within the context of that industry, but sound (not without good reason) abhorrent to the consumer. A good deal of the problem also seems to be that those few companies that do milk the living hell out of its clientele and push the most obnixious business practices are also the ones with money to spend, and have such a stranglehold in the market that smaller companies end up having little choice but to play by those rules. Again, while I can sympathise and empathise and definitely understand where you're coming from and why you argue passionately about it, and not wanting to paint F2P with too wide a brush here, that situation doesn't make those prectices right.
My main objections are two-fold. First, I personally already vote with my wallet, and have little to no interest in f2p games, and even if I did, the exploitative techniques in practice by so many of them are enough to turn me off to the whole model. And I agree, adults should be conscious of the way they spend their money. However, a good deal of these practices are indeed being aimed at kids and teens who lack the same kind of judgement and who can and will find a way to circumvent supervision despite a parent's best efforts. Especially when companies devote so much time not in making the experience better, but keeping people hooked. And this goes to adults as well, the moment companies focus more in how to keep you "engaged" than they do in keeping you entertained. And that, apart from not being particularly sustainable in medium to long terms, does actually raise some ethical qualms about the pertinence of the existence of f2p games in its currently dominating form. And those qualms can't quite be brushed off by saying "everyone does it and I need to do it to survive".
Secondly, the issue *does* begin to affect me directly as a consumer of games when those practices begin to invade those games I would normally consume. It's one thing to have a game being sold free and then encourage you to pay for your enjoyment, and I'm not questioning the legitimacy of that, just the way most of it is done. But when already bought and paid for games like Ryse, Forza, Dead Space, off the top of my head, all come up with ways to make you pay for a game and then keep paying for the game you played (and subtly or unsubtly altering game design to nudge you in the direction of said microtransactions), then you have the beginnings of a problem. How long since, say, someone at Namco/Bandai decides "you know what? Farming is such an integral part of the Dark souls experience, lets start selling Titanite packs at 1.99"? How long until prepaid games begin to include the same kind of practices, fueled by the same kinds of seminars on how to implement them for maximum monetary game at the consumers enjoyment, and on how to deal with the possible backlash of decisions that negatively affect game design? I will still vote with my wallet should those days come in earnest, but at the same time I can also lament the industry falling prey to such tactics.
Again, and in a TL;DR, and keeping in mind that Jim is indeed given to Hyperbole (and I'm not gonna try and speak for him, he's enough of a loudmoth without anyone's help, and bless him for that), We're ultimately arguing from very different starting points. I readily concede that not all f2p is the devil and his workers minions of hell, and that ultimately, it is hard for smaller studios to compete while staying clear of the more objectionable business models implemented by the market leaders, even if you don't really advocate them. Similarly, I understand the need to survive in the business, and that ultimately, it is the livelihood of many which is at stake. The flipside is that we as consumers have a right to frown upon business practices who seemingly view us as "marks" or cash cows, and speak out against those practices, not only for the utter disrespect they show for the consumer, but for the adoption of practices that are, IMO, detrimental to all involved in the long run.
Edit: After reading Wraithfighter's post and response, I'm open to the possibility of those conferences titles being more demonic in paper than what they really were. Which still does imply a bit of a communication problem where public perception is concerned, and does not take away from the fact that those practices do exist.