3 ms·

>It is almost certain you have or are playing a game I have produced or worked on in a major capacity. Maybe for a few minutes. I like to think I'm good at ana

>It is almost certain you have or are playing a game I have produced or worked on in a major capacity. Maybe for a few minutes. I like to think I'm good at analysing game mechanics, as a long time gamer and sometimes amateur game designer. So I mostly avoid F2P games. The tactics are repulsive to my tastes, and I can smell them from a mile away. When there's a choice between struggling to meet a challenge by improving my skill, or paying my way though, my inclination is to take a 3rd choice: stop playing this and do something else. So I much prefer paying up front for a game. I'm old-school that way. Maybe this option is viable, as a 'serious' gaming hobbyist, only temporarily. But right now, the best games (in my genres of choice) are sold on the traditional purchase model. They are PC and console games. Generally, I don't like 'endless' games; I prefer a game to have an ending: I play it, experience it 'fully', finish it, then move on to something else. (But... just to undermine everything I've stated above, I am playing Pac Man 256. It has good gamefeel. I'll play it until I get all the powerups, perhaps. No interest in high-scores...) tl;dr: IMO F2P games are inferior instances of the artform. Be cool like me and play superior PC and console games. Also, Jonathan Blow has some interesting points to make on how the payment form of games (and entertainment in general) affects their structure/quality. This is the one where he talks about addictive mobile Skinner box games [x] [x]: https://youtu.be/AxFzf6yIfcc https://youtu.be/AxFzf6yIfcc

caseysoftware 11y ago
You assume that just F2P games do this? If it "adds value" - however management describes that - then you can assume that they've considered it (at minimum) or have done it (likely).
- aethertron 11y ago
  Do what, exactly? I said a bunch of stuff about the badness of F2P. Some of it, yes, is not exclusive to F2P. Let's be specific. I extolled the superiority of AAA. (Edit: I admit I wasn't specific before. I said PC and console, and the 'best' games.) I don't think Metal Gear Solid 5 or Bloodborne mine my data and try to sell me endless IAP trinkets. But I did give my the PlayStation service access to my Facebook and Twitter to I could post screenshots. So maybe they're already doing datamining there, and it's only a matter of time before everything goes totally corrupt and shit. But it's a totally different economic model. £40-50 per game. For the time being, I reckon I'm safe.
  - derefr 11y ago
    There is an intersection between F2P and AAA, you know. TF2, StarCraft II, LoL. Most online-only competitive games. Even Nintendo's Splatoon is sort of here, despite costing $60. They all mine metrics; wouldn't you, if people's gameplay was going through your servers? And that's ignoring MMOs. I don't think anyone can say WoW isn't "AAA".
    - aethertron 11y ago
      I guess you're right. I prefer single-player games, so I'm mostly unaffected. But there's less of an incentive to mine data and go whale-hunting when you are paid up a flat fee (whether up front, or regular subscription) by your customers. Of course, it's all software and can change at any moment.
      - caseysoftware 11y ago
        True but with DLC and the catalog that more and more of these studios have (aka EA), I'd wager this is becoming more regular and more likely. I think for subscription-based games, it would be even worse. Imagine that you lament on Twitter "I just don't time to play X as much as I'd like!" and then someone else pops up and asks "oh, have you fought Y? Did you find [unique drop] yet?" Then next time you're in the game, you get that special drop. All of it appears to be unconnected and random but odds are you'll go back to that person to celebrate and be hooked again. (This is an off the cuff scenario, the actual scenarios are probably way more mature.)
    - doppelganger27 11y ago
      I don't think mining metrics itself is a bad thing. As a player of primarily online competitive games like Counter-Strike or SCII, there are certain metrics that I want devs to keep track of, like average game length, which units/guns/etc. are used most commonly (may indicate an issue with game balance). I think data about the game is useful to the devs and ultimately the players, since it can influence improvements to the gameplay experience. I'm sure that the data being kept by many F2P games is well beyond what I would consider acceptable or necessary, though.
saturdaysaint 11y ago
As someone that's into the classic AAA $60 games, I'm happy that F2P is sucking all of the casual gamers out of the market - I think the overflow of smart, challenging, deep games coming out owes a lot to the fact that the market is efficiently segmented. There may be benefits for AAA gamers to these games that collect/analyze massive amounts of data - I wouldn't be surprised if some of this analysis leads studios to stumble across really engaging/fun patterns that are applicable to AAA games. As an example, I've heard discussion of how analytics has raised game "shininess" (basically making every screen tap/game interaction viscerally satisfying) to the level of an artform - I'm assuming that this has led to knowhow that EA/Blizzard/Rockstar have gone on to apply to some degree in $60 box games.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Huh. This is an interesting consideration, that by pulling casual gamers out of the AAA market, your dollar/vote has more weight wherever you put it, which means a much more selective and competitive market for those titles.
wordbank 11y ago
All games are Skinner boxes. F2P are just more obvious ones.

caseysoftware 11y ago

You assume that just F2P games do this? If it "adds value" - however management describes that - then you can assume that they've considered it (at minimum) or have done it (likely).

aethertron 11y ago
Do what, exactly? I said a bunch of stuff about the badness of F2P. Some of it, yes, is not exclusive to F2P. Let's be specific. I extolled the superiority of AAA. (Edit: I admit I wasn't specific before. I said PC and console, and the 'best' games.) I don't think Metal Gear Solid 5 or Bloodborne mine my data and try to sell me endless IAP trinkets. But I did give my the PlayStation service access to my Facebook and Twitter to I could post screenshots. So maybe they're already doing datamining there, and it's only a matter of time before everything goes totally corrupt and shit. But it's a totally different economic model. £40-50 per game. For the time being, I reckon I'm safe.
- derefr 11y ago
  There is an intersection between F2P and AAA, you know. TF2, StarCraft II, LoL. Most online-only competitive games. Even Nintendo's Splatoon is sort of here, despite costing $60. They all mine metrics; wouldn't you, if people's gameplay was going through your servers? And that's ignoring MMOs. I don't think anyone can say WoW isn't "AAA".
  - aethertron 11y ago
    I guess you're right. I prefer single-player games, so I'm mostly unaffected. But there's less of an incentive to mine data and go whale-hunting when you are paid up a flat fee (whether up front, or regular subscription) by your customers. Of course, it's all software and can change at any moment.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      True but with DLC and the catalog that more and more of these studios have (aka EA), I'd wager this is becoming more regular and more likely. I think for subscription-based games, it would be even worse. Imagine that you lament on Twitter "I just don't time to play X as much as I'd like!" and then someone else pops up and asks "oh, have you fought Y? Did you find [unique drop] yet?" Then next time you're in the game, you get that special drop. All of it appears to be unconnected and random but odds are you'll go back to that person to celebrate and be hooked again. (This is an off the cuff scenario, the actual scenarios are probably way more mature.)
  - doppelganger27 11y ago
    I don't think mining metrics itself is a bad thing. As a player of primarily online competitive games like Counter-Strike or SCII, there are certain metrics that I want devs to keep track of, like average game length, which units/guns/etc. are used most commonly (may indicate an issue with game balance). I think data about the game is useful to the devs and ultimately the players, since it can influence improvements to the gameplay experience. I'm sure that the data being kept by many F2P games is well beyond what I would consider acceptable or necessary, though.

saturdaysaint 11y ago

As someone that's into the classic AAA $60 games, I'm happy that F2P is sucking all of the casual gamers out of the market - I think the overflow of smart, challenging, deep games coming out owes a lot to the fact that the market is efficiently segmented. There may be benefits for AAA gamers to these games that collect/analyze massive amounts of data - I wouldn't be surprised if some of this analysis leads studios to stumble across really engaging/fun patterns that are applicable to AAA games. As an example, I've heard discussion of how analytics has raised game "shininess" (basically making every screen tap/game interaction viscerally satisfying) to the level of an artform - I'm assuming that this has led to knowhow that EA/Blizzard/Rockstar have gone on to apply to some degree in $60 box games.

fapjacks 11y ago
Huh. This is an interesting consideration, that by pulling casual gamers out of the AAA market, your dollar/vote has more weight wherever you put it, which means a much more selective and competitive market for those titles.

wordbank 11y ago

All games are Skinner boxes. F2P are just more obvious ones.