5 ms·

I think they cross the line by not limiting how much people can spend in the game.

by dagurp 10y ago

braymundo 10y ago
But is there a limit on how much people can spend on games that are not considered as belonging to the same category as Game of War, such as Hearthstone or Magic: The Gathering? Granted, the addictive mechanics are not as overt, but potentially you could spend a lot there as well.
- eswat 10y ago
  It’s a question of intent by the business as well. Blizzard and Wizards of the Sword coast, despite getting into similar mechanics as F2P games, are still companies that largely extract value from customers as a byproduct of providing them with fun experiences. Companies like that in the article are different, usually extracting value by producing thinly-veiled gambling experiences that prey on the fallacies in our internal reward systems. Both kinds of companies have access to the same tools and tricks to manipulate our reward systems. But how we play depends on the intention.
- lgieron 10y ago
  In Magic at least it's not pay to win - the better you are, the less you need to spend.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    afaik pro players either borrow their cards from stores, or are running stores in order to have access to the cards. Almost none of them would be able to play the game at their level while also paying for their working tools. But, somehow, they are shown as examples to players without these connections... If I can give an advice to anyone willing to play somewhat competitive magic without mortgaging their house, play block pauper magic.
    - technofiend 10y ago
      The difference is in GoW battles between armies destroy the armies. Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder. Now imagine your Power 7 are set on fire before you eyes when you lose instead. GoW is designed to consume resources which can only be replaced by unrealistic wait times (days, weeks) or purchased for cash. At least for the ycombinator crowd, the lesson learned should be how to design such a game assuming your morals allow it. I briefly considered writing a parody that openly abused you for spending money in game. BROADCAST: "Hey everyone, this idiot just spent $10 on some bits on a server in California!" But yeah I would feel bad even making money from that game, and it seemed like a lot of work for something that would probably net $35.
      - dagw 10y ago
        Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder. I haven't played M:TG in over decade, but at least then it was standard 'ante up' a card before each game that you would lose if you lost.
        technofiend 10y ago
        Yes I remember that, but it was only one card. :-)
        evanelias 10y ago
        Much more than a decade, I'd wager! Ante stopped being standard quite a long time ago. Personally I stopped playing in 1997 and ante had already ceased to be a common practice in my area several years before that, from what I remember. Just googled it and the last card to even have an ante-impacting ability was printed in 1996. Seems it stuck around as an optional rule but wasn't common in my experience, probably because tournaments always skipped it.
        dagw 10y ago
        ...you're right. Fuck, I'm getting old.
  - vincnetas 10y ago
    IIRC Magic the Gathering IS pay to win. Spend money to get more powerfull and rare cards to win...
    - lgieron 10y ago
      Only in constructed formats (where you build a deck out of your entire collection). In limited formats (which are hugely popular), you and people you play against build decks out of a common pool of cards. There is an entry fee and there are awards for finishing in top spots. So, in the long run, if your win rate is high enough, you can play for free or even make money, but if you suck, you're going to spend a lot.
      - pyrale 10y ago
        In order to get to the cash prizes, you have to train a lot, and the price of training is high enough that you have got to resell cards to profit (although online versions made it easier to acquire draft/sealed xp).

I think they cross the line by not limiting how much people can spend in the game.

by dagurp 10y ago

I think they cross the line by not limiting how much people can spend in the game.

But is there a limit on how much people can spend on games that are not considered as belonging to the same category as Game of War, such as Hearthstone or Magic: The Gathering? Granted, the addictive mechanics are not as overt, but potentially you could spend a lot there as well.

eswat 10y ago
It’s a question of intent by the business as well. Blizzard and Wizards of the Sword coast, despite getting into similar mechanics as F2P games, are still companies that largely extract value from customers as a byproduct of providing them with fun experiences. Companies like that in the article are different, usually extracting value by producing thinly-veiled gambling experiences that prey on the fallacies in our internal reward systems. Both kinds of companies have access to the same tools and tricks to manipulate our reward systems. But how we play depends on the intention.
lgieron 10y ago
In Magic at least it's not pay to win - the better you are, the less you need to spend.
- pyrale 10y ago
  afaik pro players either borrow their cards from stores, or are running stores in order to have access to the cards. Almost none of them would be able to play the game at their level while also paying for their working tools. But, somehow, they are shown as examples to players without these connections... If I can give an advice to anyone willing to play somewhat competitive magic without mortgaging their house, play block pauper magic.
  - technofiend 10y ago
    The difference is in GoW battles between armies destroy the armies. Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder. Now imagine your Power 7 are set on fire before you eyes when you lose instead. GoW is designed to consume resources which can only be replaced by unrealistic wait times (days, weeks) or purchased for cash. At least for the ycombinator crowd, the lesson learned should be how to design such a game assuming your morals allow it. I briefly considered writing a parody that openly abused you for spending money in game. BROADCAST: "Hey everyone, this idiot just spent $10 on some bits on a server in California!" But yeah I would feel bad even making money from that game, and it seemed like a lot of work for something that would probably net $35.
    - dagw 10y ago
      Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder. I haven't played M:TG in over decade, but at least then it was standard 'ante up' a card before each game that you would lose if you lost.
      - technofiend 10y ago
        Yes I remember that, but it was only one card. :-)
      - evanelias 10y ago
        Much more than a decade, I'd wager! Ante stopped being standard quite a long time ago. Personally I stopped playing in 1997 and ante had already ceased to be a common practice in my area several years before that, from what I remember. Just googled it and the last card to even have an ante-impacting ability was printed in 1996. Seems it stuck around as an optional rule but wasn't common in my experience, probably because tournaments always skipped it.
        dagw 10y ago
        ...you're right. Fuck, I'm getting old.
- vincnetas 10y ago
  IIRC Magic the Gathering IS pay to win. Spend money to get more powerfull and rare cards to win...
  - lgieron 10y ago
    Only in constructed formats (where you build a deck out of your entire collection). In limited formats (which are hugely popular), you and people you play against build decks out of a common pool of cards. There is an entry fee and there are awards for finishing in top spots. So, in the long run, if your win rate is high enough, you can play for free or even make money, but if you suck, you're going to spend a lot.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      In order to get to the cash prizes, you have to train a lot, and the price of training is high enough that you have got to resell cards to profit (although online versions made it easier to acquire draft/sealed xp).