Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[SL33TBL1ND]

But I like being a dick. Plus loads of people could really exploit this.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Nope, you should never charge anyone extra money to unlock features of a game they own. Once they buy the game it is theirs even if they are a jerk...just police them without monetary charges. Extra $100 for using voice? Really? Wow.

The "already own" argument against locked content is incredibly flawed. Did you knowingly buy a product with disabled features that cost more to unlock? If you did and you didn't pay the fee to unlock them, by definition, you did not buy a game with those features. Your argument only holds if "the game" that you bought actually had those features, but it didn't.

And then everyone tries to salvage the argument by claiming that the features are on the disc and you bought the disc, so withholding them just for the sake of money is unethical. First, buying the disc is not the same thing as buying all of the content on it. If you want those to be the same thing, you're going to become a very unhappy person very quickly when you realise how hard this would make legally distributing hardware containing intellectual property. Second, by that logic, selling virtually any product is unethical. Third and perhaps most importantly, the reason they're on the disc is because it makes distribution of the features easier. They could just as easily not put them on the disc, but that would mean the difference between a simple patch to enable the content and actually having to patch in the content. It's hard to make an argument that it's less ethical if they're on the disc and disabled than if they weren't included at all given that the only time it makes a difference to the consumer is when they do want to unlock the feature, in which case leaving it on the disc is advantageous to the consumer. If you don't unlock the content, the decision of whether or not to include it on the disc is completely inconsequential to you as a consumer.

And when talking about a platform like Steam, you can't even claim that you own the entire content of the data just because you purchased hardware containing all of the data.

Everyone who buys the games should be allowed to the same content. If one person can use voice then everyone should. Police after the fact, and penalize with money. That's what bans and suspensions are for.

And no I did not read all of what you wrote so no need to respond.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Nope, you should never charge anyone extra money to unlock features of a game they own. Once they buy the game it is theirs even if they are a jerk...just police them without monetary charges. Extra $100 for using voice? Really? Wow.

The "already own" argument against locked content is incredibly flawed. Did you knowingly buy a product with disabled features that cost more to unlock? If you did and you didn't pay the fee to unlock them, by definition, you did not buy a game with those features. Your argument only holds if "the game" that you bought actually had those features, but it didn't.

And then everyone tries to salvage the argument by claiming that the features are on the disc and you bought the disc, so withholding them just for the sake of money is unethical. First, buying the disc is not the same thing as buying all of the content on it. If you want those to be the same thing, you're going to become a very unhappy person very quickly when you realise how hard this would make legally distributing hardware containing intellectual property. Second, by that logic, selling virtually any product is unethical. Third and perhaps most importantly, the reason they're on the disc is because it makes distribution of the features easier. They could just as easily not put them on the disc, but that would mean the difference between a simple patch to enable the content and actually having to patch in the content. It's hard to make an argument that it's less ethical if they're on the disc and disabled than if they weren't included at all given that the only time it makes a difference to the consumer is when they do want to unlock the feature, in which case leaving it on the disc is advantageous to the consumer. If you don't unlock the content, the decision of whether or not to include it on the disc is completely inconsequential to you as a consumer.

And when talking about a platform like Steam, you can't even claim that you own the entire content of the data just because you purchased hardware containing all of the data.

Everyone who buys the games should be allowed to the same content. If one person can use voice then everyone should. Police after the fact, and penalize with money. That's what bans and suspensions are for.

And no I did not read all of what you wrote so no need to respond.

TL;DR version: that's like knowingly buying an edition of a book without a particular chapter in it, claiming that you therefore "own the book", and insisting that you are therefore entitled to a free copy of the chapter or that the publisher is unethical for selling you a copy without that chapter when more expensive editions do have it.

By insisting that everyone should get the same thing, you eliminate the cheaper option for people who didn't want the content, which in turn means you price out more people, which in turn means the publisher has to charge a higher price for the single product to continue to turn the same profit. So that attitude helps no one.

More simplistically, your view is based on the idea that by purchasing something, you should somehow be given ownership of parts of it that were explicitly not included in your purchase.

 

[ExplosionProofTaco]

Hmmm... Intriguing Idea, but I imagine it will be easy to exploit this system.

If they had this system on Xbox live, Everything on the arcade would cost thousands of dollars.

 

[ExplosionProofTaco]

Hmmm... Intriguing Idea, but I imagine it will be easy to exploit this system.

If they had this system on Xbox live, Everything on the arcade would cost thousands of dollars.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

It technically puts the price of your game in the hands of the reporting system, which can be just as lousy as the people in the game...

 

[mooncalf]

Sounds horrific and wonderful all at once.

 

[mdazfrench]

? . . . . Gabe, there are times I really wonder just why the hell they let you speak for the company. Actually checked my date to make sure it wasn't April 1st again. Elegant in concept, impossible in execution, and one of the few things guaranteed to alienate EVERYONE.

 

[The Cheshire]

Well, my main reason not to play online is because it's all full of cunts, and I already have to tolerate too many in my daily life to search for them online

 

[Low Key]

Well, no one ever said Gabe wasn't ambitious. It'd be interesting to see how they'd handle people complaining that they can't use advertised services despite griefer status. Charging however much extra per feature could be considered extortion even if it were written into the EULA.

 

[Aprilgold]

Bad for EVERYONE!
If I let my friend play on a server, and the server decides to ban him, then its fair that he is banned from said server, unless Steam is going to put out official servers on their games allowing people to get this as an extra side thing, and not a whole thing, then I could accept it, because then I wouldn't have to be nice to the troll that is abusing everyone so that I don't have to pay 100$ to use the mic again. Its literally stupid to try and control someones server, its their server, they have admins, and they will ban if needed, no need to try and remove trollers from the community, because there will ALWAYS be some. If I'm being trolled by someone, and write some mean things about said person asking if the nearby admin could kick, or even ban him, then I could be told that now I have to pay 100 dollars to use the online component of a new game I FUCKING PREORDERED! It would work if they added in a feature to where you get a clean slate every few weeks or something. Again, if it were something like valve had servers dedicated to this, or a clean slate idea, then it may work, but at its state right now, its just not going to work at all. I don't know, what do you thoughtful people at the escapist think of this?

 

[Sabinfrost]

My generation teabagging was a cause for laughter and payback, not an insult.

I think kids these days have taken it too far.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Doooo EEEET! Doooooo EEEEEET!

 

[Aprilgold]

My generation teabagging was a cause for laughter and payback, not an insult.

I think kids these days have taken it too far.

definetly.

 

[GWarface]

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.

Thats funny because its true.. And because thats the model most of the western world is using, like with taxes, healthcare and stuff like that..

I do not approve..

 

[BlueSinbad]

This is a bit ridiculous seeing as people could abuse the system with everyone being nice thus everyone getting free games? XD

 

[The_General]

The positive part, rewarding people for being nice and attracting others, perhaps running a server, is good. Punishing jerks won't really work, though. Take the money and run, Valve!

 

[Typhon1388]

This would never work as an industry standard pricing model. I do not see how you can factor in the personality of your customers to your profit margins.

-Everyone is nice results in a large decrease in revenue.
-Everyone is 'bad' and sales decrease due to a high product price.
-Players who get a discount for their positive popularity are likely to get a string of negative complaints to drag them back down.
-Effective moderation of the system will cost any company more than its worth.

If this was applied to a current mixed situation every player will feel like they are being monitored for every action they do with a financial bonus/penalty for any true or false reports made about their behavior. Does anyone want this stress attributed to their hobby?

Besides the very nature of a good deed would be devalued by the financial reward. The respect given to helpful members of the community would be eroded over time as their current status as 'nice guys' is replaced by 'just doing it for the discount.'

 

[Mr Companion]

Well what if we don't wan't to socialize? Can't we just play a product, conduct ourselves in good manner online but generally avoid community groups? I don't wanna lose out on good prices despite being a loyal customer just because I didn't hang out with the special kid enough.

 

[DoctorPhil]

Lol, awesome idea. I'd better grief on DotA 2 like no tomorrow when it's released before it's too late! Tiny's throw anyone?