Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[Tom Goldman]

Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

One of Gabe Newell's theoretical Steam payment methods would charge more for players that are awful people.

There are a few standard payment models for videogames today that include retail, monthly fees, and microtransactions. Valve boss Gabe Newell recently called these models "broken," revealing that the company is looking into new ways of charging customers based on the customers themselves.

In a lengthy interview with Develop, Newell said: "The industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone. That's actually a bug, and it's something that we want to solve through our philosophy of how we create entertainment products."

Rather than pricing a product based purely on what that product is worth, Newell talks about pricing a product based on what the customer is worth as well. "Some people, when they join a server, a ton of people will run with them," Newell continued. "Other people, when they join a server, will cause others to leave."

"So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get Team Fortress 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104353-Valve-Confirms-DotA-2-for-2011]," Newell added. "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."

Newell also went over how Valve is already charging high-value customers "negative" amounts, such as those that were paid royalties [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104607-Valve-Pays-Royalties-for-Fan-Created-Items-in-TF2] for creating Team Fortress 2 items. "Their cost for Team Fortress 2 is negative $20,000 per week," he said. "You're never going to see that in a retail store ... It's people who make hats get paid. People who are really popular play for less, or free."

Could this be a method that actually reduces the number of people whose internet anonymity causes them to spout an endless number of obscenities and racially motivated comments just because they were gunned down by a sniper? It seems like it might. Not that internet jerks would disappear overnight, but money could be a strong motivator to make someone pat a fellow player on the back instead of tea-bagging him.

Source: Develop [http://www.develop-online.net/features/1192/Gabe-Newell-on-Valve]

Permalink

 

[LavaLampBamboo]

This sounds like a good system, but surely this would become griefed. What happens if I happen to have a really crappy connection and then I drop out a bunch of times. I don't want other people to have to pay extra for other games.

Or if it was like a reporting system where you report a person being really offensive. That'd just end up being misused all the time...

But it's an interesting concept. I'd love to see where it goes and how this idea develops.

 

[E-Penguin]

Interesting idea...

It will probably cause tons of rage, though.

 

[PixelKing]

But what about console-tards like myself?

In seriousness, This is a industry changing idea and could work brilliantly. I would imagine some company would take this idea and fuck up. No prizes for guessing

 

[Cool Welshy]

Interesting concept by Gabe. I don't personally like it, especially since there is going to be some bitching on the forums about it, but I can see it working.

 

[Toasty Virus]

It's a really nice idea, but I can't see it working. too open to abuse.

but if anyone can work around that, it's valve.

 

[joeman098]

interested i am but i mean who dosnt love a good trolling every once in awhile

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Could this be a method that actually reduces the number of people whose internet anonymity causes them to spout an endless number of obscenities and racially motivated comments just because they were gunned down by a sniper? It seems like it might. Not that internet jerks would disappear overnight, but money could be a strong motivator to make someone pat a fellow player on the back instead of tea-bagging him.

And then Valve wouldn't make nearly as much money, and they'd get rid of the system, and everything would return to like it was before.

Honestly, this sounds like an idea you come up with when you're up crazy late, suffering from sleep deprivation, and think "...that's brilliant! Why hasn't anyone thought of that?" Followed by waking up the next morning, remembering the idea, and thinking, "that has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever thought of."

The best idea for video game pricing still belongs to Shamus Young. Simply charge full retail price at first, then drop the price gradually for the next few weeks or months, rather than over the next few years. Resulting in games being around $10-$15 about six months after launch.

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

Personally I find it give more incentive to play to people who are able to create anything around a game, what happens to people that may be like me that just play a game and not really interact a lot with people or don't have any preset skill to create, I don't usually grief and most of the time I just past without notice so how would I be rated?

In a game where there 30 people playing there only maybe 1 or 2 really distinguishable people among them either goodly or badly otherwise they are just there to play and have fun without really communicating other than the basic information of strategy if any implies

 

[Woodsey]

Wasn't this discussed ages ago?

I'm pretty sure you've even run a news story on it before.

 

[CalPal]

While I do enjoy the prospect of playing online games without having to hear stupid comments towards others because the person is a jerk, at the end of the day, I just get this weird feeling like some game companies are going to just abuse this kind of system to make it so only fans loyal to the series without question get the cheaper prices. Is anyone else thinking that too, or is this tin foil hat only lowering my IQ?

 

[Jordi]

I like the idea in theory, but I don't see how it can be implemented well. I don't want games to turn into a popularity contest.

 

[Legion]

... People are either taking this seriously, or they are very good at pretending.

 

[Jumplion]

This is an....interesting idea, but the system could easily be abused. People could "thumbs down" bomb them or something, there could be unjust reports of being a jerk, it creates a large divide between player base, and what constitutes as "jerky" behavior comes down to a number of personal factors. Hell, maybe the guy just had a bad day, and now he's being punished for that.

VALVe already gives the really good guys (the hat makers, modders, etc...) plenty of benefits. I think this system would only make people hate those "higher-ups" or could just have an influx of shitty mods sent to VALVe. I don't see how dividing the "good" players from the "bad" really helps sales. Everyone is a customer, you don't want to patronize potential customers by saying "hey, you're a jerk, you have to pay twice as much unlike the good guy who gets it for free". The jerk is most likely not going to pay, and you've lost two sales.

 

[linkvegeta]

This is actually a great idea. Its motivation to be a nicer person.

 

[viranimus]

Mind bogglingly bad idea.

Its like a gigantic smack in the face to your core demographic.

But from a corporate sense it is logical... its an excuse to overcharge the largest portions of your population and reward a small handful of people, thus generating more money per copy.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

I actually really like this idea. I mean, the extra $100 thing is outrageous, but other than that? It rewards the hardcore and the friendly gamer whilst shooting the jerks in the foot.

Now we need a system like this for consoles. C'mon MS, I want Stacking for free!

 

[Togs]

This seems like an april fools, a very weird way of working, but its got a glimmer of a good idea buried in their somewhere.

 

[Trololo Punk]

I can imagine lots of people being charged unnecessarily and complaining.

 

[Angel Molina]

ummm, interesting... very interesting. I can see this system could still be abused and its only a matter of time until some hacker figures out how to get all of his games for free, it's only a matter of when:

This sounds like a good system, but surely this would become griefed. What happens if I happen to have a really crappy connection and then I drop out a bunch of times. I don't want other people to have to pay extra for other games.

Or if it was like a reporting system where you report a person being really offensive. That'd just end up being misused all the time...

Yeah, basically this^^