Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Innovative idea however I don't think it is very pratical.
Imagine I was very popular at school and so my friends joined, but I was a horrible person who reguarly engaged in homophobic or racist comments. However I was playing to a crowd that loved it. I would get it for cheaper.
Or if I was anti-social but a nice chap, nobody joined because of me but I was very important in keep them still involved in the game by just being friendly and online a lot of the time. I wouldn't be rewarded.
Imagine I was very popular at school and so my friends joined, but I was a horrible person who reguarly engaged in homophobic or racist comments. However I was playing to a crowd that loved it. I would get it for cheaper.
Or if I was anti-social but a nice chap, nobody joined because of me but I was very important in keep them still involved in the game by just being friendly and online a lot of the time. I wouldn't be rewarded.
well it's not a system yet, is it? It's just a marketing philosophy. They still need to put the systems in place that will reflect the philosophy as closely as possible.LavaLampBamboo said:
But I do think it would be pretty cool if it worked out. I'll be interested to see how this ends.
I'm generally that guy who a bunch of players "run" with, but I don't care for cheaper games, I'm quite happy with the current system, if I don't like a player I mute them. How about people who've spent x amount of money on steam games get increasing amounts of money off new games, or maybe just new releases? That way you encourage people to buy more of your games, while rewarding them, without it being so obviously open to abuse.
My problem with that is the people that are actually skilled, and yet aren't dicks.. When I play a FPS I'm quite good at (games I used to play competatively) I am frequently called a hacker, and people rage quit on me often because they think I'm using an aimbot or something... Sure to me that is a compliment, but to a "scoring" system that is grading me on my friendliness.. I would lose points.. just for being good... that doesn't make sense.
nevermind the people who would be flaging people as "bad users" because they were popped in the head by them one too many times.. It's an interesting idea, but a general populus the power to make a user spend more money, with no other gauge then your opinion on them? that's an unfair and very flawed logic.
sticking with a school theme.. being unpopular for many is a very emotionally scarring thing, but it doesn't even have any physical manifest... imaging how different things would be at school if you had to pay money every day based on how popular you are... sure many bullies and jerks would have to pay up, but so would many of those who fly under the radar, or that don't fit in to the various cliques that appear in school, and don't you doubt, if a system like this came about, there would be cliques, or gangs, or clans with a fairly exclusive membership.
sticking with a school theme.. being unpopular for many is a very emotionally scarring thing, but it doesn't even have any physical manifest... imaging how different things would be at school if you had to pay money every day based on how popular you are... sure many bullies and jerks would have to pay up, but so would many of those who fly under the radar, or that don't fit in to the various cliques that appear in school, and don't you doubt, if a system like this came about, there would be cliques, or gangs, or clans with a fairly exclusive membership.
It's a nice idea, but unfortunately it's impossible to implement/police.
For starters what makes a jerk, a jerk is subjective. What some might find annoying, others might find funny.
The other thing with the example of people joining a server and others leaving... happens during lop-sided games or if someone who's godlike starts playing.
So people leave when a pro joins, but that says nothing about how likeable a person this player is.
For starters what makes a jerk, a jerk is subjective. What some might find annoying, others might find funny.
The other thing with the example of people joining a server and others leaving... happens during lop-sided games or if someone who's godlike starts playing.
So people leave when a pro joins, but that says nothing about how likeable a person this player is.
Hmmm i wonder about the legality of it. Cuz it is effectively a discrimination type of pricing. Valve might need to start defending why they label certain people as "punks" and charge them more. According to the horse's mouth "100 dollars more for voice" now that is significant for a game that may cost $60. I can assume that people might be challenging them for this decision and a few class action suits might follow as well.
All in all, imo not very practical in implementation.
p.s. for those who say that Valve can choose whoever they wanna do business with and price whatever they want for whoever, answer is no, at least not freely.
Abstracted from uslegal.com:
"If different prices are charged to different customers for a good faith reason, such as a an effort by the seller to meet the competitor's price or a change in market conditions, it is not illegal price discrimination. Merely charging different prices to different customers is not illegal, when there is no intent to harm competitors."
Major hurdle that I that Valve will need to prove: this price discrimination is done in good faith -> there is really a cost that is tangible and traceable to selling to "jerks".
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson?Patman_Act
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-discrimination/
All in all, imo not very practical in implementation.
p.s. for those who say that Valve can choose whoever they wanna do business with and price whatever they want for whoever, answer is no, at least not freely.
Abstracted from uslegal.com:
"If different prices are charged to different customers for a good faith reason, such as a an effort by the seller to meet the competitor's price or a change in market conditions, it is not illegal price discrimination. Merely charging different prices to different customers is not illegal, when there is no intent to harm competitors."
Major hurdle that I that Valve will need to prove: this price discrimination is done in good faith -> there is really a cost that is tangible and traceable to selling to "jerks".
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson?Patman_Act
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-discrimination/
If this is a joke then it's rather funny.
If it isn't, then it's the worst marketing idea since chocolate fire guards.
If it isn't, then it's the worst marketing idea since chocolate fire guards.
Pretty sure this would only make the raging worse, no?
Then comes the hatemail, the flaming, the everything, MORE anti-Valve websites and blogs, just the regular stuff.
And I would hate Valve forever if they did this, pretty sure someone would have a lawsuit on the way in the form of some human right or something.
Then comes the hatemail, the flaming, the everything, MORE anti-Valve websites and blogs, just the regular stuff.
And I would hate Valve forever if they did this, pretty sure someone would have a lawsuit on the way in the form of some human right or something.
I laughed hard at "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."
If something like this were to be implemented I doubt it would have a big impact. I'm sure they wouldn't charge someone 100 dollars to talk, maybe 5-10 dollar difference in game prices.
If something like this were to be implemented I doubt it would have a big impact. I'm sure they wouldn't charge someone 100 dollars to talk, maybe 5-10 dollar difference in game prices.
Burden of proof would be on the applicant to show that it was not good faith, meaning someone would have to prove bad faith against Valve. And that's not easy. I find it hard to think of a way in which Valve might be accused of operating in bad faith with this. I guess we're only speculating though, in the absence of any specific guidelines from Valve as to how they'd implement the idea.powell86 said:
Maybe if they were unduly favourable to people who did mods for them? Even then, it would probably be okay.
I like the idea, but I can't help but feel free speech is being damaged or something is somewhere.