Jimquisition: Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I kinda wish Jim would go and like, just rant at people. Maybe form a posse and raid these panels with SR4 dildo bats and throw tomato sauce jars at people.

 

[mindfaQ]

That ending was gold.
Make players happy and the game more valuable/great/enjoyable for them should be the prime target for game development. That doesn't mean you have to make everyone happy though, since you can't, but you should make the people happy that are interested in the theme/genre/whatever of your game, wether it is silly fun, horror stuff or intellectually challenging.

I don't think F2P is bad per se and surely not every panel about that was bad. It's not bad when people share their thoughts about the "do"s or "don't"s in that area. Sad enough though a lot of people don't really seem to know what's good and what's for F2P games. They just see short term profit and try to milk off some gamers as long as it works, just to leave them drained.
There are people that do it right, but they are the minority and that's what makes me a bit sad, personally. But only a little, as I have the choice to avoid crappy F2P models and are happy with the good F2P examples (namely Dota 2).

 

[WarpZone]

Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

AKA how to sound like a complete and total dickhead.

Watch Video

God I want to believe it's possible for non-dickheads to make money. The real problem is all the "top grossing" games are the bullshitiest ones, and they remain at the top of the charts forever. Is this just an artifact of the way "top grossing" gets calculated? Is there a silent "of all time" tacked onto the end there? Would a "top grossing of this month only" chart reveal that the entire player base churned out of Candy Crush Saga months ago? Or are idiots, whales and accidental purchases really the driving force behind the entire mobile market like these cynical fucks say they are?

Why the hell are people still paying? Or why AREN'T non-whales paying!?

I've had a theory for a while now that this whole "whales" thing is a side-effect of the recession-- regular folks won't buy a video game for 5 bucks, so the people who are willing to drop 500 on micro-transactions are suddenly the only game in town. That theory doesn't fit with the loose data we have, though. The numbers I've seen say something like 10%-20% of revenue comes from whales, the rest comes from casual gamers who only ever buy a handful of items.

Seriously, what the fuck is going on? None of this makes any sense to me. Is the whole industry literally just built from the ground up on tricking people into making purchases they're not satisfied with?

PLEASE give us some examples of companies that are doing it right (without going broke.)

 

[Powerman88]

First off thanks Jim incredibly entertaining episode as always!

Although the practices are terrible and I mostly agree with everything you said, the f2p cubicle androids don't really scare or bother me because they don't affect me all that much. Don't get me wrong after Sim City I will never buy an EA product ever again (and I had been buying EA products since the early 90's I still have Genesis carts with the yellow tab on them), and it bother me that they made that shit DK mobile game instead of a proper PC title. With all that f2p mobile stuff though I just play and buy what I want and ignore what I don't.

Titles like Dota 2 and Hearthstone have given me an awful lot of high quality and polished fun for very little investment. I have felt compelled to spend a little money on both just because of the amount of time I have spent with both, but they are 2 examples of what I would think f2p done right is. Titles like Dungeon Keeper just sail by me and don't affect my enjoyment of the fun games that are out there.

I would argue that the reason cash grab mobile f2p's exist is because of the "whales". The people who are spending that kind of money on those kinds of products are what keep the "soulless androids" using terms like monetizing synergies in virality paradigms whales.

In any industry there will always be companies that get it and grow to the top and companies that will be stagnant for years. There will always be the Valve's who just grow and dominate and there will always be the EA's who remain stagnant.

 

[Joos]

Ah, the level of unbridled fury is surely fun to watch. But having it released like this is GLORIOUS!

Also, deftotes agree with everything said.

 

[Colt47]

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.

So this somehow made it a good idea to use a title to a presentation that was almost guaranteed to give bad press from the get go? My statement still stands that whoever came up with the title of the presentation was either negligent at best, or at worst losing sight of what a business exists for. They are using a term that casinos use to describe a patron who gambles rashly for high stakes and framing it in such a way as to make it sound like the presentation is about exploiting these people for profit. Taken in the context of the F2P market, that includes compulsive spenders forced to part with their money due to behavior issues. Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[senordesol]

Snip

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.

You said nothing that was untrue. However, I am saddened that you're willing to turn your back on an entire entertainment vector because of the actions of a few high-profile jerks. Saddened, but not surprised and -ultimately- not unsympathetic.

The unfortunate thing about M/F2P is that it's such an untested field that it's a bit like the Wild West right now. I wouldn't argue that it's unsustainable, but it certainly needs to be 'civilized' before it is. Thankfully, the big assholes don't tend to do that well anyway. That Dungeon Keeper game Jim hates? Didn't hit above TG74 on its BEST day (TG210 today).

The fact is that some of the tried-and-tested rules of Game Design go out the window in M/F2P. The stuff I learned in college and as a modder flew out the window on my first day so -despite some teachable moments in the similar standalone industry- this is an infant field and, as you'll recall, videogames had some rough time in infancy as well.

Just remember that context is everything and dismissing an entire industry just because of some business practices you don't like or aren't used to really isn't fair to the many talented people who are trying to create compelling products but are trying to earn money at the same time. The fact is: we HAVE to understand how to retain and monetize people. If we make a quality game that can be finished in a day: we're screwed. If we make a quality game that doesn't pay for itself: we're screwed. It's simply not enough to 'make it good' and let the rest take care of itself.

However, I hate to leave this on a down note; so I'd like to recommend some M/F2Ps that I like (none of them are from the company I work for, so there's no agenda here).

Asphalt 8, Boom Beach (Canadian App Store only), Hellfire, Brave Frontier, Pocket Mine, OMG: TD, Big Win Basketball (or any Big Win sports game), Deer Hunter 2014, Dead Ahead, Temple Run 2, Zombie Gunship, and Sheep Happens.

 

[Rabid_meese]

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.

They shouldn't be working in the games industry if their goal isn't to make games - both morally, and financially.

The games industry has some of the worst working conditions of any workplace or environment. Its long hours, the pay is terrible (comparatively), and the likeliness of being fired is extremely high. Like you implied, you could take any of the skills used to make video games (programming, art/visuals, sound design, etc), take it to a different sector, and make more money doing it there - without the brutal hours, working conditions, and with more job security.


It, financially, doesn't make sense to be in game design unless your goal is game design. In which case - you want to offer the best vision of your product that you can. A lot of companies will shovel out complete shit just to tuck money away for a pet project, which is understandable - but that doesn't mean we should be accepting of it. And Jim isn't throwing everyone under the bus. At all. If you're not refering to your customers as whales, or trying to make money off of ripping off kids, he doesn't seem to have a problem with them. And I'd imagine if something is controversial over, say, the ending, or an artistic design, the 'minimizing blowback' portion doesn't have effect - if you feel like you're making the right choice, you shouldn't expect blowback.

He wasn't demonizing EVERY company, nor was he demonizing EVERY company with a Free to Play model. He was demonizing the worst of the worst.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Just remember that context is everything and dismissing an entire industry just because of some business practices you don't like or aren't used to really isn't fair to the many talented people who are trying to create compelling products but are trying to earn money at the same time. The fact is: we HAVE to understand how to retain and monetize people. If we make a quality game that can be finished in a day: we're screwed. If we make a quality game that doesn't pay for itself: we're screwed. It's simply not enough to 'make it good' and let the rest take care of itself.

FOREWARD: This turned out longer than expected, and I will try to space it enough that it's readable.

1) F2P FROM A REGULAR GAMER

I'll be honest, I lament the direction some games are going. Specifically multiplayer F2P games.

F2P mandates jerking the player around to make money because the model carries higher fixed costs than "traditional" games.
In fact, it's turning out like MMOs have, where some forced "progress" method or pay/grind wall is required.

While I won't speak for anyone else, I'm snapping back against grind more and more lately; mostly because the model conflicts with the changing nature and necessities of my life. I just don't want to spend time doing busywork during my leisure time now.

Worse, the concept of F2P is still relatively new. That "wild west" you describe lends itself towards exploitation, as most new markets experience. So not only are F2P games coping with developing solutions to problems inherent in their emerging model, but there's a strong drive to exploit players as much as possible, either for a quick buck, or just in case the whole thing turns out to be a bust in the long run.

------------------------------------------

2) EXAMPLE: TRIBES 2 VS TRIBES ASCEND
To provide some personal context, I'm going to use an example.
Tribes 2 vs Tribes: Ascend.
Though separated by a large gap in age, it's safe to say that they're basically trying to be the same game aimed mainly at the same audience.

Yet, my Tribes 2 experience was by far superior because I didn't feel like I was being yanked around for money or time.
I pick a server, play a match, and I stop. Simple, offers closure, and effective.
All classes, weapons, packs, skins and maps were available to me from the start in Tribes 2.

In Tribes Ascend, the player is basically stuck with whatever class they pick for a long, long time due to the credit grind unless they open their wallet. This gets even worse when cosmetics are introduced, for obvious reasons.

In Tribes 2: Servers were local or community-hosted, and the scale of a match supported that model just fine.
But the drawback is of course, community servers are not always reliable or well-policed. But it worked well enough.
(if it didn't, there wouldn't be a market for Tribes: Ascend to begin with)

Yet, Tribes: Ascend would not even exist without the F2P model, because Tribes is multiplayer and current investors look at multiplayer successes like Call of Duty and get dollar signs in their eyes. So the idea is to bring the game back and funnel all the players of that game into one place. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, since a multiplayer game is only worth more the larger its playerbase is.

But to achieve that funneling, they need dedicated servers. To pay for the servers, the developer must monetize the game persistently, which means breaking out the MMO standbys: Subscriptions or Paywalls. Either of which requires grind to force the player to stick around longer by adding a monetary value to the investment of time.

So now, I (the regular gamer) am caught in an unfortunate (and ironic[footnote]*Ironic, because for the longest time, I was restricted in the types of games I could play online due to my shitty dial-up. Now that I (and most of the market) has broadband, the market has latched onto its existence as an excuse to milk players and enforce online gating.

"Everyone has broadband now, so stop whining about the online requirement and play."

The parable of Adam Orth, I think, should have been a wake up call for everyone in the business.[/footnote]) scenario where if I want to play these types of games, I have to put up with more arm twisting grind and/or paywall bullshit.

Keep in mind: Nothing has actually changed in the core concept or style of the game; only how its content is priced and balanced.

I mean, if I were to actually buy all content in an average F2P game, it would cost me many times more than the cost of a "traditional" equivalent of that game. Worse, I would lose all of that if the servers or developer went under.

Ugh...I've gone off on a tangent. Sorry.

------------------------------------------

3) SUMMARY AND CLOSING THOUGHTS
But my point is: I'm pretty sure I understand the plight of F2P developers. But I don't think the F2P model will ever evolve past the point where I won't feel like I'm being jerked around for more money. And in that, I am always going to be at least somewhat dismissive of the F2P model.

The added persistent cost of hosting servers offers some convenience, but demands a greater cost/concessions in gameplay design, and some gamers like me aren't pleased about that. Some leading to open hostility. *glances at topic*

And I think such open hostility is now pushing a dangerous reactive mentality, like that in the GDC this year:
"Forget the regular gamer. It's just not worth trying to please them anymore. Focus on milking the gullible big spenders (whales) instead and finding new ways to shunt the fallout."

That, I think, is a more "civil", subdued explanation of the things Jim is railing against.
At least, as I interpret it.

 

[senordesol]

3) SUMMARY AND CLOSING THOUGHTS
But my point is: I'm pretty sure I understand the plight of F2P developers. But I don't think the F2P model will ever evolve past the point where I won't feel like I'm being jerked around for more money. And in that, I am always going to be at least somewhat dismissive of the F2P model.

The added persistent cost of hosting servers offers some convenience, but demands a greater cost/concessions in gameplay design, and some gamers like me aren't pleased about that. Some leading to open hostility. *glances at topic*

And I think such open hostility is now pushing a dangerous reactive mentality, like that in the GDC this year:
"Forget the regular gamer. It's just not worth trying to please them anymore. Focus on milking the gullible big spenders (whales) instead and finding new ways to shunt the fallout."

That, I think, is a more "civil", subdued explanation of the things Jim is railing against.
At least, as I interpret it.

I understand how you got there, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions.

Firstly: If you don't feel *some* pressure to monetize in the M/F2P model; we're not doing our jobs. Think of it as a 'street performance'; it's not as big or grand as a paid concert, you can technically listen to it all you like, but if you're gonna stick around or make a request; you should really flick a fiver in the ol' hat.

If that dynamic really bothers you, then I'm not sure what can be done about that --BUT all that means is that F2P isn't for you, and that's fine. However, I really can't conceive of anything to make it more palatable to you (other than contemporary pay-to-play).

Secondly: I think a little too much ire is being drawn from the term 'whale'. Every company I've worked has used that term, and it's not derogatory at all; it's just short-hand for 'player who consistently contributes 'X' percentage above the Average Revenue per Daily Active User' (which is a bit of a mouthful). When your ARDAU is $0.30 - $0.40, having a few 'PwCC#%AtARPDAU' (See?) is a really good thing as they boost your overall ARPDAU (and allow you to make money faster), since creating content for...I'm just going to say it... 'whales' tends to be fairly cheap engineering-wise, the execution of such might tick a few non-paying to low-paying users off. This is understandable, and there certainly is a right way and a wrong way to do it (which is probably what was discussed in those panels); but it doesn't mean that you discount your *sigh* minnows either. Now, you don't want pay to win mechanics (after all, if it's too easy to win; they stop playing anyway) but if someone's willing to give you $100 - $200, you want to make sure you give them a lot of bang for their bucks. Does that mean that sometimes priorities shift toward people who *are* paying vs people who aren't? Uh...yeah. Duh. Doesn't mean we don't want other players; but no one's happy if we can't stay in business.

***

M/F2P is not going to be the same as contemporary P2P. Applicable thinking to one market may not be so for the other, and this needs to be understood, appreciated, and accepted. This isn't to say that serious missteps and cashgrabs haven't been made, but it doesn't mean we're all money-grubbing shills either. However, Retention and Monetization are our watchwords. It doesn't matter if you retain on a console release because they've already got your money (whether it's a good game or not). In M/F2P we constantly have to compete for the player's attention and the player's dime, because there's literally NOTHING stopping him from going elsewhere or outright not paying even if he's using our product. As such, I see nothing wrong with having multiple panels at GDC addressing such a heavy concern in a burgeoning industry.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Firstly: If you don't feel *some* pressure to monetize in the M/F2P model; we're not doing our jobs. Think of it as a 'street performance'; it's not as big or grand as a paid concert, you can technically listen to it all you like, but if you're gonna stick around or make a request; you should really flick a fiver in the ol' hat.

See, I'm not opposed to paying. I believe in fair trade, and that truly good games are worth premiums. But if a model inherently is demanding more of me (time or money) for essentially the same thing I could get somewhere else, I'm going to be more averse to it.

But back to F2P...if you want to make the direct comparison to a Public Performance, well, you should know going in that you're going to have to contend with Tragedy of the Commons; a pretty stiff handicap. And forcing all this paywall business sounds more like having to work around a handicap you knew about.

The only thing I can agree with is that F2P offers essentially, an interactive demo inherently in its model which avoids some of the problems associated with traditional games (which front-load the risk; F2P back loads the risk).
I just wish the back-loaded version didn't cost several times more.

If that dynamic really bothers you, then I'm not sure what can be done about that --BUT all that means is that F2P isn't for you, and that's fine. However, I really can't conceive of anything to make it more palatable to you (other than contemporary pay-to-play).

That's probably the way it's going to be.

I noticed that the panel cited was about retaining TEENAGERS; ie, kids who are just learning what real fiscal responsibility is. They're more impulsive in their spending, and it's no secret that they're the demographic that the gaming business has prioritized milking for as long as I've been aware of the concept of milking.

Maybe I'm just outgrowing this business; even as a hobby.
I certainly get less enjoyment from playing F2P titles now than I used to, and that kinda defeats the point.

Secondly: I think a little too much ire is being drawn from the term 'whale'. Every company I've worked has used that term, and it's not derogatory at all; it's just short-hand for 'player who consistently contributes 'X' percentage above the Average Revenue per Daily Active User' (which is a bit of a mouthful).

I've heard the term used in gambling well before I heard it used in video gaming, so I'm actually not shocked or offended.
Still, I can see how the term leaves much to the imagination given the history of whales; none of it pleasant.

...creating content for 'whales' tends to be fairly cheap engineering-wise, the execution of such might tick a few non-paying to low-paying users off. This is understandable, and there certainly is a right way and a wrong way to do it (which is probably what was discussed in those panels); but it doesn't mean that you discount your *sigh* minnows either. Now, you don't want pay to win mechanics (after all, if it's too easy to win; they stop playing anyway) but if someone's willing to give you $100 - $200, you want to make sure you give them a lot of bang for their bucks. Does that mean that sometimes priorities shift toward people who *are* paying vs people who aren't? Uh...yeah. Duh. Doesn't mean we don't want other players; but no one's happy if we can't stay in business.

What I'm taking from this, is that the spending-gradient of customers (from none to whales) itself precludes any sense of "fairness" from the start. I don't just mean mechanical fairness, though that is certainly a potential issue.

With a traditional game model, it doesn't really matter how rich someone is; everyone starts and ends on the same playing field. But with F2P, the gradient necessitates distinction; you need to give the whales a reason to feel good about their spending, but if you screw over the minnows, they get mad.

There are ways of placating the lot, but just like the force of friction, all you can do is minimize it; you can't truly eliminate it.

...Retention and Monetization are our watchwords. It doesn't matter if you retain on a console release because they've already got your money (whether it's a good game or not). In M/F2P we constantly have to compete for the player's attention and the player's dime, because there's literally NOTHING stopping him from going elsewhere or outright not paying even if he's using our product.

Well, I wouldn't say "nothing". Skinner Psychology is a powerful inhibitor that encourages retention.
Though in the absence of that crap, yeah. There's not much stopping them.

As such, I see nothing wrong with having multiple panels at GDC addressing such a heavy concern in a burgeoning industry.

True, the concept itself isn't inherently wrong; though I'm loathe to invoke a platitude, it fits here: "everything in moderation".

Take care that you don't rely too heavily on squeezing your customers.
Eventually, they burn out or snap back, and today, they've become particularly vicious.

I snapped back -heavily- at MMOs when I realized how much of my life was being wasted on them, and how little fun they actually were. For largely the same reasons I don't like most F2P games I've tried.

Though I suppose if the interim attitude is that there are always new suckers out there, then sustainability for F2P is just a matter of time anyway.

 

[Aramis Night]

If you really want to make a statement about your position on F2P games, I would suggest that its just as important to support those that do it well and appropriately as much as we should close our wallets to those that only seek to exploit our finances without giving us anything worthwhile in return and only see us as suckers to be gamed. For this reason I'm personally going to be shelling out some more money to Grinding Gear Games in thanks for providing me with lots of entertainment for free with Path of Exiles. I know this makes me sound like a shill, but I honestly hope that there F2P strategy catches on, even though I doubt that many games will be able to compete with them in terms of quality from what I have seen in the F2P realm. The fact that PoE was a superior product to Diablo 3 and was entirely free is something I'm still blown away by. They really do have the best cash shop. Nothing necessary to play from beginning to end or even competitively, just nice aesthetic touches. Not a single thing to punish or disadvantage people who didn't put money into the cash shop. And they are doing additional content expansions for free.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

When Skyrim was coming out I recall a bit of fervor over the proposed 'dumbing down' of the interface/character aspects. This is one of those scenarios that was going to have a backlash either way. The purists are going to be upset if it's anything less than Morrowind level complexity, whereas new players drawn in by the epic symphonies and flashy trailers are going to probably appreciate it, at least at the onset.

I don't know if that's perhaps what part of this panel could be focused on, it is one possibility. With the omnipresent vocal [minority] 'core' gamers for each franchise there's probably going to be backlash regardless. The minute you announce your game someone's going to fault it for something. There's still a vocal bunch who claim Oblivion / Morrowind are better than Skyrim. I don't personally agree (I liked the character system better, but I wouldn't trade the span, visual upgrades, and improved combat for it), but they're still grousing.

So I agree with Godsend Jim on this being a seemingly stupid panel, but at the same time one cannot underestimate the stupidity one is bound to find in online game discourse.

 

[senordesol]

See, I'm not opposed to paying. I believe in fair trade, and that truly good games are worth premiums. But if a model inherently is demanding more of me (time or money) for essentially the same thing I could get somewhere else, I'm going to be more averse to it.

But back to F2P...if you want to make the direct comparison to a Public Performance, well, you should know going in that you're going to have to contend with Tragedy of the Commons; a pretty stiff handicap. And forcing all this paywall business sounds more like having to work around a handicap you knew about.

The only thing I can agree with is that F2P offers essentially, an interactive demo inherently in its model which avoids some of the problems associated with traditional games (which front-load the risk; F2P back loads the risk).
I just wish the back-loaded version didn't cost several times more.

Well, it is a trade-off I suppose. I rarely monetize on F2P titles myself, which only goes to show that the business -while potentially lucrative- will only appeal to a certain section of the player base, as such you've got to do your damndest to ensure that no money gets left on the table.

I noticed that the panel cited was about retaining TEENAGERS; ie, kids who are just learning what real fiscal responsibility is. They're more impulsive in their spending, and it's no secret that they're the demographic that the gaming business has prioritized milking for as long as I've been aware of the concept of milking.

Maybe I'm just outgrowing this business; even as a hobby.
I certainly get less enjoyment from playing F2P titles now than I used to, and that kinda defeats the point.

Okay, here's an area that vexes me: why are we pooping our pampers about marketing to teens? Did I wake up in an alternate dimension where teenagers never spend their money on anything? I remember scrimping and saving to buy the Half-Life collection in my teenage years. But I also bought movie tickets, food; all sorts of stuff. So why is the idea of pursuing non-adults as a potential (again -for emphasis- POTENTIAL) monetization vector so damn bizarre and taboo?

I've heard the term used in gambling well before I heard it used in video gaming, so I'm actually not shocked or offended.
Still, I can see how the term leaves much to the imagination given the history of whales; none of it pleasant.

Well...go cry about it? (Realize that it's not directed at you, just people who are irritated by well-established industry shorthand.)

What I'm taking from this, is that the spending-gradient of customers (from none to whales) itself precludes any sense of "fairness" from the start. I don't just mean mechanical fairness, though that is certainly a potential issue.

With a traditional game model, it doesn't really matter how rich someone is; everyone starts and ends on the same playing field. But with F2P, the gradient necessitates distinction; you need to give the whales a reason to feel good about their spending, but if you screw over the minnows, they get mad.

There are ways of placating the lot, but just like the force of friction, all you can do is minimize it; you can't truly eliminate it.

Basically, yeah: In a system where everyone's paid the same $60 for the same game, it makes sense for players to be on equal footing. But in an area with scalable investment...well it doesn't.

Well, I wouldn't say "nothing". Skinner Psychology is a powerful inhibitor that encourages retention.
Though in the absence of that crap, yeah. There's not much stopping them.

Whatever the case, the choice to stick with a particular property is *still* a choice on behalf of the player. We do our best to convince them not to move on, of course, but at no point can we say 'well we got your money, so screw you'.

True, the concept itself isn't inherently wrong; though I'm loathe to invoke a platitude, it fits here: "everything in moderation".

Take care that you don't rely too heavily on squeezing your customers.
Eventually, they burn out or snap back, and today, they've become particularly vicious.

I snapped back -heavily- at MMOs when I realized how much of my life was being wasted on them, and how little fun they actually were. For largely the same reasons I don't like most F2P games I've tried.

Though I suppose if the interim attitude is that there are always new suckers out there, then sustainability for F2P is just a matter of time anyway.

And that's really the crux of everything, isn't it? What we're seeing in the M/F2P market is nothing new. It's not the 'cancer' some make it out to be. It's the same damn stuff that's been plaguing human kind since the beginning of time. Some people will try anything to fleece you out of everything you've got. Some people don't do enough. Everyone else is trying to do something in between, fiddling from one end of the spectrum to the other.

This is why we need these panels. This is why these panels are a *good* thing. If we agree that it's reasonable for a company to attempt to make a profit, but unreasonable for it to take advantage of its customers; then best practices in monetization, proper capitalization on customers already inclined to spend big, and careful branching into higher-risk customer bases are *exactly* the things you should want companies to be doing.

 

[uhohimdead]

thought this would interest some people
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016417/-100-000-Whales-An

 

[softclocks]

They shouldn't be working in the games industry if their goal isn't to make games - both morally, and financially.

The games industry has some of the worst working conditions of any workplace or environment. Its long hours, the pay is terrible (comparatively), and the likeliness of being fired is extremely high. Like you implied, you could take any of the skills used to make video games (programming, art/visuals, sound design, etc), take it to a different sector, and make more money doing it there - without the brutal hours, working conditions, and with more job security.


It, financially, doesn't make sense to be in game design unless your goal is game design. In which case - you want to offer the best vision of your product that you can. A lot of companies will shovel out complete shit just to tuck money away for a pet project, which is understandable - but that doesn't mean we should be accepting of it. And Jim isn't throwing everyone under the bus. At all. If you're not refering to your customers as whales, or trying to make money off of ripping off kids, he doesn't seem to have a problem with them. And I'd imagine if something is controversial over, say, the ending, or an artistic design, the 'minimizing blowback' portion doesn't have effect - if you feel like you're making the right choice, you shouldn't expect blowback.

He wasn't demonizing EVERY company, nor was he demonizing EVERY company with a Free to Play model. He was demonizing the worst of the worst.

Very well put, and I agree with you 100%.

The people who are trying to force some hard-working, honest, bullshit ideal onto these greedy developers are just fooling themselves. This isn't about some blue collar american dream joke trying to make money to feed his starving family. These are people targetting a specific sect of compulsive buyers, often young children, in an effort to get the most money out of delivering the least value to their customers.

These ridiculous "Champions of Apathy" that keep defending it, solely based on it being business and "that's how business works", are just encouraging the trend to continue.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

AKA how to sound like a complete and total dickhead.

Watch Video

God I want to believe it's possible for non-dickheads to make money. The real problem is all the "top grossing" games are the bullshitiest ones, and they remain at the top of the charts forever. Is this just an artifact of the way "top grossing" gets calculated? Is there a silent "of all time" tacked onto the end there? Would a "top grossing of this month only" chart reveal that the entire player base churned out of Candy Crush Saga months ago? Or are idiots, whales and accidental purchases really the driving force behind the entire mobile market like these cynical fucks say they are?

Why the hell are people still paying? Or why AREN'T non-whales paying!?

I've had a theory for a while now that this whole "whales" thing is a side-effect of the recession-- regular folks won't buy a video game for 5 bucks, so the people who are willing to drop 500 on micro-transactions are suddenly the only game in town. That theory doesn't fit with the loose data we have, though. The numbers I've seen say something like 10%-20% of revenue comes from whales, the rest comes from casual gamers who only ever buy a handful of items.

Seriously, what the fuck is going on? None of this makes any sense to me. Is the whole industry literally just built from the ground up on tricking people into making purchases they're not satisfied with?

PLEASE give us some examples of companies that are doing it right (without going broke.)

Only ones off the top of my head that does it almost perfectly with no problem is CDProject Red and FromSoftware. FromSoftware got a little iffy with the marketing on Dark Souls 2 though.

These aren't really indie, but they started that way and stayed good up until now.

Of course these aren't F2P guys but this is assuming that F2P isn't the only way to market a game also because its not.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Snip

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.

You said nothing that was untrue. However, I am saddened that you're willing to turn your back on an entire entertainment vector because of the actions of a few high-profile jerks. Saddened, but not surprised and -ultimately- not unsympathetic.

The unfortunate thing about M/F2P is that it's such an untested field that it's a bit like the Wild West right now. I wouldn't argue that it's unsustainable, but it certainly needs to be 'civilized' before it is. Thankfully, the big assholes don't tend to do that well anyway. That Dungeon Keeper game Jim hates? Didn't hit above TG74 on its BEST day (TG210 today).

The fact is that some of the tried-and-tested rules of Game Design go out the window in M/F2P. The stuff I learned in college and as a modder flew out the window on my first day so -despite some teachable moments in the similar standalone industry- this is an infant field and, as you'll recall, videogames had some rough time in infancy as well.

Just remember that context is everything and dismissing an entire industry just because of some business practices you don't like or aren't used to really isn't fair to the many talented people who are trying to create compelling products but are trying to earn money at the same time. The fact is: we HAVE to understand how to retain and monetize people. If we make a quality game that can be finished in a day: we're screwed. If we make a quality game that doesn't pay for itself: we're screwed. It's simply not enough to 'make it good' and let the rest take care of itself.

However, I hate to leave this on a down note; so I'd like to recommend some M/F2Ps that I like (none of them are from the company I work for, so there's no agenda here).

Asphalt 8, Boom Beach (Canadian App Store only), Hellfire, Brave Frontier, Pocket Mine, OMG: TD, Big Win Basketball (or any Big Win sports game), Deer Hunter 2014, Dead Ahead, Temple Run 2, Zombie Gunship, and Sheep Happens.

Its a little sad I must admit. Its sad because the "Wild West", as it were, of the mid to late 90s didn't seem to have anywhere near these kind of problems. Is it the ease with which to "arcade-ize" everything like the 80s with F2P or what? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[WarpZone]

The fact is that some of the tried-and-tested rules of Game Design go out the window in M/F2P. The stuff I learned in college and as a modder flew out the window on my first day so -despite some teachable moments in the similar standalone industry- this is an infant field and, as you'll recall, videogames had some rough time in infancy as well.

Just remember that context is everything and dismissing an entire industry just because of some business practices you don't like or aren't used to really isn't fair to the many talented people who are trying to create compelling products but are trying to earn money at the same time. The fact is: we HAVE to understand how to retain and monetize people. If we make a quality game that can be finished in a day: we're screwed. If we make a quality game that doesn't pay for itself: we're screwed. It's simply not enough to 'make it good' and let the rest take care of itself.

Let's say I want to believe you. The biggest assholes in the room are *not* making much money right now, even though they were copying the *second biggest* assholes in the room and turning their cruelty-based progression gameplay models up to 11.

What does that imply? What practices can a company like yours employ that allow it to make money without being a scum-sucking parasite grinding up and spitting out hapless consumers for the sake of temporary short-term gains?

What are we talking about? Make a game that's actually fun? Only charge money for things that people will actually appreciate having purchased? I'm not asking for trade secrets, just give me a vague overview. How little evil are we "allowed" to put into our games and still have them be profitable on Mobile?

That's where the discussion needs to be right now. Everyone needs to be talking about that. Coming up with ideas, vetting them, postmorteming them, refining them. If you seriously value your industry and want it to become in any way respectable, start adding to that conversation.

How do we fucking do BETTER? Give us a goddamned counterexample.

And I mean from the mobile sector. Dark Souls and the like aren't what the conversation is about, here.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I just want to say that was a marvellous use of the C-word.

Over in Britland we don't have as much of a stick up our collective arses about it. It's still a very strong word, but it doesn't carry anywhere near the weight it does in the U.S., and is equally applied to both men and women, probably men more in fact. Hell, amongst some of us it's a perfectly acceptable way to refer to a close friend.

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.

I think this is a really good idea. Jimquisition is at it's best when it's informative, and while I never leave an episode disappointed, I must say I feel that I left this one rather more uninformed than I would like. I feel your outrage Jim, but without a clearer picture, I can't help but wonder if it's justified for everything you mentioned this episode. As mentioned by others, the preventing backlash bit could have just been well meaning advice on practices to avoid, i.e. ones gamers hate.

However, it is your show at the end of the day, and I'll still watch it regardless. Though I do wonder if at some point this is going to turn into a cult, and the Jimquisition will no longer be a show, but rather something akin to the Spanish Inquisition, involving hordes of angry gamers busting through the doors of publishers and developers' offices to ensure that they follow the doctrine of making games for gamers, and casting out those only in it for the money.