Zato-1 said:
However, I do contest your diagnostic of what, exactly is the problem. The business model drives botting- but which here is the problem? The business model, botting itself, or both? I'm inclined to say botting is the problem- or at least the bigger problem.
Like I said, that's a personal question, and one I've wrestled with in recent years.
Grind-based-value metrics (like the cards, or any player-based item economy) work because they prey upon human nature.
The research on Skinner Psychology is well known and documented now, and HEAVILY implemented into service-centric gaming.
(virtually every single MMO and F2P game uses it by necessity)
I guess the short and dirty description I can offer is that "Grind is bad for gameplay pacing, but great for business."
Now, some people will claim they "enjoy" grind, but I find that a weak argument because that same claim can be applied to virtually anything. In movies, it'd be like saying one enjoys watching test patterns.
Sure, it's technically possible, but for purely irrational reasons.
But if the biggest problem arising from Hearthstone's business model is this botting issue, which is a discrete problem that can be solved at no great cost (indeed, as of now it seems to be mostly solved already), then does it make sense to try and change the whole business model, which has otherwise been (very) successful for Hearthstone thus far?
Of course, Hearthstone doesn't need me or you to defend it; its success speaks for itself.
But an appeal to popularity won't keep me from questioning why players tolerate concessions like grind in game design or why they're made...beyond the how it's a fiscally-sound business model (for now; standards may change, and that is my intent)
My criticism is that there are double-standards employed here:
-Blizzard selling boosts to bypass grind? A-OK.
Yes, it's their game and their rules.
But that kinda ignores the problem from the PLAYER'S perspective. (Word of God fallacy)
-Botters automating the process to bypass grind? Serious offense, by your own evidence.
Yet both methods have the same end goal because they're both responses to the same problem; hence, why it's a double standard. The only real difference in consequence is the end beneficiary: either it's the player, a middleman player, or Blizzard.
And the sad thing is: Most people will never realize this, or if they do, they will rationalize it away.
Once the botting symptom has been treated (temporarily) their "work" is given some perceived value again.
At a strictly pragmatic, business level, bots are just a symptom Blizzard will have to treat, just as part of the price of doing business.
And if you like the F2P model, or any other grind-based model; good for you.
But I don't, and it's not for a lack of trying. However, I also think that trying to understand WHY is a worthwhile process, for the sake of thinking; even if I never really convince anyone to the contrary.
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Well considering its a free game that doesn't lock you out or restrict your access to any cards or card types or classes, a game people paid nothing to download and execute except whatever it cost them to have internet that month (which doesn't go to Blizzard), charging for packs and arena tickets isn't a big deal.
"Free-to-play" is free in name only; you will pay in other ways so long as you play even if it's not with dollars and cents.
More on that later.
Since everyone's time can't be quantified in a dollar amount ... you can't compare the dollar price of card packs or arena tickets to how much time one "wastes" on getting cards.
Actually, you -can-. It's just really obnoxious to data-mine.
But in essence: it takes averaging the amount of time necessary to acquire [X-Threshold] of cards (or whatever your metric is), and then statistically determining the payout rates per pack of cards. (the irony here, is that the botters would provide a good baseline for time efficiency vs game complexity)
In the end, you should have a ratio of two rates: One for the Money Payout rate, and the other for the Time Payout.
That information, on its own, will give the player a reasonable means of comparing what Blizzard is really charging for their inconvenience mechanic (in this case).
You can then divide one by the other and compare to the average amount of time you spend playing.
But if you wanted to take that a step further, you could compare your rates to the going rate for selling accounts (difficult, but not impossible; an illicit market is still a market) and you would have a rough, but applicable estimation of what that time is worth.
I've actually seen this done with some MMOs; hell, I saw this done with Diablo 2 YEARS ago and a black market that used in-forum currency for trades; it conformed to economic trends to a shocking degree, for an illicit market.
Of course, I wasn't making that direct comparison in the first place; remember Opportunity Costs and Monetary Costs?
You actually touch upon those twice in your reply, even if you didn't realize it.
In non-economic terms: You either pay with your time doing busywork, or you pay with your money to bypass it.
Now, you can argue all day what you think is a reasonable amount to pay for EITHER, but know that Opportunity Costs have more direct implications for game design than Monetary Costs, and that's why I question those models that rely heavily on wasting the players' time.
Simply put, the necessity for grind devalues the experience for the player if it's making them want to do other things.
Hence, my original post in this thread.
All botting does, in this case, is automate the process to lower the Opportunity Cost...And in doing so, bypasses the Monetary Cost (which irks Blizzard for obvious reasons).
If what I'm saying sounds weird, it's really just basic economics and a bit of Game Theory; namely, the behavioral elements. (the original game theory...not that show with the really annoying host the Escapist partnered with)
There's a LOT of behavioral elements in the video game world from the business-side all the way down to game mechanic design; primarily because Video Gaming, more than any other creative medium, is driven by behavioral conditioning thanks to its requirement of audience interaction.
Games don't play themselves, and designers have to shape the players' behavior in some way in order for them to have an experience. It's for that very reason I take jabs at grind, because I think the medium can do better, but that's just my personal philosophy, and not hard fact.
)