Jimquisition: Monetizing Whales For The Retention Of Virality

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
barbzilla said:
I can make it incredibly simple (and there are games out there with models that follow this succeeding):

Does your game exploit the player by making them wait, grind, or otherwise waste time vs paying real money? Y/N
Does your game use tactics, items, or stats that can be manipulated by real currency? Y/N
Does your game utilize any form of exclusivity for items or materials useful in game (I.E. not just eye candy) that can only be obtained via real money purchases? Y/N
Does your game offer the real money currency through a vague or otherwise slow to gather in game system to justify its previous transgressions? Y/N


If any of these are Y then you are exploiting your customers. It is really that simple ( although I'm sure I missed some avenues, but those will surely be pointed out shortly).
This guy gets it.

Although I would argue that there's a place for grinding in some games, and even waiting-based energy systems can be beneficial to gameplay when the design of the game naturally supports it, such as with a game designed to integrate into players' existing facebook habits.

It's when these systems are abused to twist the player's arm that they become unforgivable. Where that line is and where you cross it is subjective, and varies from game to game, but in the case of the most egregious offenders, it's literally painfully obvious. You know when an abusive game is squeezing you.
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
WarpZone said:
Except that we know from those companies that have released numbers that whales are a surprising exception to the trend. They may drop 500 bucks a head on a single game, but collectively they only make up around 10% of revenue. Chasing Whales makes zero business sense in that case. "Maximizing revenue from Whales" at the cost of driving away your base is just plain suicide.

Which is why it's so surprising to me that the people with direct access to the metrics and the numbers are the ones pushing for ever-more-blatant exploitation.
Well, I definitely haven't read any studies or numbers about it, as those numbers are notoriously never released (could have been a reason to take interest in those panels regardless that).

I'm only talking from my own experience in F2P games (mosty MMO's) and I would say that they are a quite significant part of it all. In every F2P or even B2P games you had them: the guy who spent 600 dollars to get a cosmetic commander title in GW2, or thousands on a legendary (and that game isn't even focused on the whales I'd say). Or the guys who spend thousands upon thousands on lottery systems that get you very little in return.

Of course, it could be that those examples are just more apparent in my mind because the absurdity sticks around longer. But if those guys don't really matter in the overall scheme of things, you have to wonder why so many F2P games still focus so much on milking them while throwing up high paywalls that the rest of us won't cross.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
You know what? I went googling for my source on that and now I can't find it. I can't even remember if it was a gamasutra article or a set of slides from a panel. The sources I can find on google are all over the place, ranging from "half" to "most," but it sounds like they're all quoting the same, recently published report, which Kotaku wasn't even sure was real.

Of course, this is mixed with other weird claims, such as that 65% of the big spenders on Candy Crush Saga are young male hardcore gamers who also game on console-- a claim I find confusing for a number of reasons. Why do all the top-grossing games have cartoony graphics and non-violent themes, for example? Why would anyone pay thousands of dollars for fuel items in Dead Trigger when they already have a perfectly functional Halo or Killzone with much better graphics, controls, gameplay and long-term value? I'm baffled.

Obviously, I don't have any metrics of my own in front of me. I was sure the number I'd read was 10%, though this was back... probably about when Shadowgun was being hyped, I think. It looks like I'm going to have to concede the point that Whales are equally important sources of revenue as the enrire rest of the userbase put together, at least for Free-to-Play games.

BUT.

I still stand by everything I said about the morality of rigging your games to cause the players pain. Charge for content. Charge for levels. Charge to skip to the endgame multiplayer. But don't make your games deliberately painful to play, and then charge everybody to temporarily make the pain go away. For fuck's sake. Have a shred of decency.

I still say that when you design your game to twist players' arms, players will abandon your game as soon as they figure out they're being screwed. And I still can't see the old model of "exploit the noobs' ignorance" being effective in the long term. Players are churning out of the big companies' games faster than they can release new games for them to churn into. That part's public knowledge.

Players on mobile have more choices now, no matter what category of fish you dehumanize them into. You can't rely on them sticking around in a game that shits all over them. If mobile game developers don't start providing legitimate, actual value to players, whales and minnows alike are going to hop from game to game to game until they churn right out of the goddamned market.
 
Oct 20, 2010
424
0
0
Techno Squidgy said:
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.
Well, in the event that ever occurs, it will be because people are fucking cunts, and not because Jim Sterling told them to become a mob.

@ SenorDesol: "They want Flappy bird, not The Last of Us. Okay, sure, I can buy that. But precisely where do you and yours get off charging $5.00 for a game probably not even worth that, and then deliberately trying to milk the customer who already bought you game for another couple of Hundred? Pleas give me a straight, clear answer.

[edit] I would also like a clear opinnion as to how what you are doing is any different from me Fleecing people on the street with a game of 3 card Monte?

[edit #2} Arcades, at NO point in their History, EVER ONCE advertised themselves as Free to Play. Neither EVEN ONCE, did any arcade game do the same. YOU KNEW going in, that you were spending 5 - 10 dollars to have fun. At no pint did the Nice Arcade owner sit you in front of [game] and wait for you to start having fun and then stand in front of you demanding money so you could continue to play. Why is that do you think? I would guess ASSAULT. I mean, lets put YOU in this example. I am playing your recent game: "Flappy-Zombies Vs candy Crush Birds."
And you then Physically took my phone out of my hands and said "You can keep playing for $1."
Do you think I would A: Give you the money and praise you for your design? Or B: Break my Foot off in your Ass? ((please take this as a Metaphor, I wish you no personal Harm))
 

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,045
0
0
SilverStuddedSquirre said:
Techno Squidgy said:
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.
Well, in the event that ever occurs, it will be because people are fucking cunts, and not because Jim Sterling told them to become a mob.
I can't help but feel that you consider my scenario far more plausible than I ever did when I made that joke. Thinking about it, there's a chance, a mighty slim one, but I guess there is actually a chance that this could happen, some gamers are mighty irrational. Right up until someone calls the police and everyone gets either a night in a cell, a stern talking to, or a spell in the clink.

You know what, Jim, I dare you to order people to sack EA's office. I just have to know if people would actually do it now.
 
Oct 20, 2010
424
0
0
Techno Squidgy said:
SilverStuddedSquirre said:
Techno Squidgy said:
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.
Well, in the event that ever occurs, it will be because people are fucking cunts, and not because Jim Sterling told them to become a mob.
I can't help but feel that you consider my scenario far more plausible than I ever did when I made that joke. Thinking about it, there's a chance, a mighty slim one, but I guess there is actually a chance that this could happen, some gamers are mighty irrational. Right up until someone calls the police and everyone gets either a night in a cell, a stern talking to, or a spell in the clink.

You know what, Jim, I dare you to order people to sack EA's office. I just have to know if people would actually do it now.
Remember, somebody was able to convince people that if they drank Poisoned Kool-Aid, their Souls would take a Magic Comet Ride to Alien Heaven. Does people embracing the Cult of Personality to the point of Usurping said personality for their own Idiot agenda's seem plausible? Ask Dave Chappelle.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
WarpZone said:
barbzilla said:
I can make it incredibly simple (and there are games out there with models that follow this succeeding):

Does your game exploit the player by making them wait, grind, or otherwise waste time vs paying real money? Y/N
Does your game use tactics, items, or stats that can be manipulated by real currency? Y/N
Does your game utilize any form of exclusivity for items or materials useful in game (I.E. not just eye candy) that can only be obtained via real money purchases? Y/N
Does your game offer the real money currency through a vague or otherwise slow to gather in game system to justify its previous transgressions? Y/N


If any of these are Y then you are exploiting your customers. It is really that simple ( although I'm sure I missed some avenues, but those will surely be pointed out shortly).
This guy gets it.

Although I would argue that there's a place for grinding in some games, and even waiting-based energy systems can be beneficial to gameplay when the design of the game naturally supports it, such as with a game designed to integrate into players' existing facebook habits.

It's when these systems are abused to twist the player's arm that they become unforgivable. Where that line is and where you cross it is subjective, and varies from game to game, but in the case of the most egregious offenders, it's literally painfully obvious. You know when an abusive game is squeezing you.
I completely agree that they (Grinding, Energy, ect) are acceptable in the right situations, however I was specifying using those tactics as a way to entice players to spend real money to avoid or bypass said tactic. However if I was playing a JRPG, I'd expect there to be grinding, just don't draw the grinding out to stupid levels and then put a 200% experience boost in the real money store for $5.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
barbzilla said:
I completely agree that they (Grinding, Energy, ect) are acceptable in the right situations, however I was specifying using those tactics as a way to entice players to spend real money to avoid or bypass said tactic. However if I was playing a JRPG, I'd expect there to be grinding, just don't draw the grinding out to stupid levels and then put a 200% experience boost in the real money store for $5.
"Coerce." The word you're looking for is coerce. Not entice. Enticement implies you're offering something of value, not threatening to set the other party back if they don't pay up.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
barbzilla said:
I completely agree that they (Grinding, Energy, ect) are acceptable in the right situations, however I was specifying using those tactics as a way to entice players to spend real money to avoid or bypass said tactic. However if I was playing a JRPG, I'd expect there to be grinding, just don't draw the grinding out to stupid levels and then put a 200% experience boost in the real money store for $5.
That's the basic problem with the F2P model, and the point I made before: It inherently requires either more wasted time on the player's part, or "wasted" money compared to a regular version of that game.

The upside is that the risk to the consumer is back-loaded (the player gets to try the game first before committing any money to it), but yet again, this serves as a "justification" for the venue to put ridiculous price tags on everything they do sell, hoping that some dumb whales will come along and make those minnows and freeloaders worth the trouble.

So it's like every step forward the model takes sets the user two steps back, and why I have difficulty accepting it.

The only company I've seen do F2P "right" is Valve, but one may argue that they have the financial stability to warrant taking risks to smooth out their pay-elements. (at the very least, I've never felt it necessary to grind currency or pay to unlock new gameplay elements in Valve's F2P titles; it's also possible for me to unlock cosmetics items by just playing regularly, though that is a distant secondary goal at most)

I could also bring up the unfortunate bugbear that arises when discussing the distinctions between service-centric and product-centric models, but I'm not sure if I want to drag this out another page or two.
 

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,045
0
0
SilverStuddedSquirre said:
Techno Squidgy said:
I can't help but feel that you consider my scenario far more plausible than I ever did when I made that joke. Thinking about it, there's a chance, a mighty slim one, but I guess there is actually a chance that this could happen, some gamers are mighty irrational. Right up until someone calls the police and everyone gets either a night in a cell, a stern talking to, or a spell in the clink.

You know what, Jim, I dare you to order people to sack EA's office. I just have to know if people would actually do it now.
Remember, somebody was able to convince people that if they drank Poisoned Kool-Aid, their Souls would take a Magic Comet Ride to Alien Heaven. Does people embracing the Cult of Personality to the point of Usurping said personality for their own Idiot agenda's seem plausible? Ask Dave Chappelle.
I'm unfamiliar with either of those events. I've seen some of Chappelle's stand up but not being an American I have no idea what you're on about. Could you give me the cliff-notes version?
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
barbzilla said:
I completely agree that they (Grinding, Energy, ect) are acceptable in the right situations, however I was specifying using those tactics as a way to entice players to spend real money to avoid or bypass said tactic. However if I was playing a JRPG, I'd expect there to be grinding, just don't draw the grinding out to stupid levels and then put a 200% experience boost in the real money store for $5.
That's the basic problem with the F2P model, and the point I made before: It inherently requires either more wasted time on the player's part, or "wasted" money compared to a regular version of that game.

The upside is that the risk to the consumer is back-loaded (the player gets to try the game first before committing any money to it), but yet again, this serves as a "justification" for the venue to put ridiculous price tags on everything they do sell, hoping that some dumb whales will come along and make those minnows and freeloaders worth the trouble.

So it's like every step forward the model takes sets the user two steps back, and why I have difficulty accepting it.

The only company I've seen do F2P "right" is Valve, but one may argue that they have the financial stability to warrant taking risks to smooth out their pay-elements. (at the very least, I've never felt it necessary to grind currency or pay to unlock new gameplay elements in Valve's F2P titles; it's also possible for me to unlock cosmetics items by just playing regularly, though that is a distant secondary goal at most)

I could also bring up the unfortunate bugbear that arises when discussing the distinctions between service-centric and product-centric models, but I'm not sure if I want to drag this out another page or two.
Take a look at Path of Exile for an example of F2P done right, yet remaining profitable. I really hate keeping these short like this, but I do have to run. I'll try to explain more later.
 

StevieC

New member
Jan 9, 2008
47
0
0
Calling the big-spending players "whales" is actually appropriate for a far more damning reason: because if whalers keep over-hunting these prey the way their predecessors hunted their target demographic's namesake, the result is a VERY real danger that the "whales" will go extinct.