4 ms·

Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish, but I think it’s much more enlightened to simpl

Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish, but I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. When players are having fun, they like your game more, stick around, tell their friends, and spend more in your store.

kbenson 8y ago
> Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish That's exactly what I was referring to. In this situation, you would be sort of like a transaction processor. > I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. I'm not sure I would use "enlightened" to describe anything to do with the majority of games that use microtransactions, at least when it's a constant barrage of "special deals that last for a limited time and you'll only ever be able to get this digital item right now and if you miss out it will never be back." When aimed at a very young audience, this is anything but enlightened. I don't mind my kids paying for the content they use. I do mind them investing in digital content locked to a single platform that they both don't own, and which becomes useless when they stop playing. At least if they collected cards for a collectible card game in real life, they could look at a collection, pass it on, or sell it. Basically, I'm advocating for revenue streams that don't require hiring specialists in promoting addictive behavior linked to spending for games where a large part of the audience includes adolescents.
- gafferongames 8y ago
  Speaking as the CEO, I would think twice about working with any customer who intends to pass the cost on to the player.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Why? If it's up front, and it allows two classes of players and clearly defines them (and allows people to sort by them for games), what'st the problems that would make you think twice? I can see some problems with the model, where it might not allow for a more evenly distributed set of revenue from players and certain players would get the benefit without the cost by having a very good and well connected and routed ISP that happens to line up with most servers, but what's the problem? If the accounts were designated "competitive" tier, that seems to clearly signal what the user gets. Additionally, at least it's then more information the service can expose about a player advantage, rather than the user paying for it outside the service and having a similar advantage but without the same signalling. If it's about pay to win, I understand the sentiment, but I think there's a clear difference between pay nothing (or a token amount) and pay something for a "regular" account without a bunch of microtransactions and extra tiers, and what we see with games where you literally can buy your character into an elite level of capability that changes the game at a fundamental level (either from hard to easier or from nearly impossible to possible). I think making it so your players can easily separate based on these levels is good as well (which is another point towards very few differentiating levels). As long as the price is low enough that anyone could easily afford it for a while, it's not a real problem. Close to unbounded capability to pay for advantage is though.
    - gafferongames 8y ago
      Pay to win is a serious concern. There’s also the fact that not everybody gets improvement. For some players, some of the time, their default route is just fine. Would be a shame to charge those players $5 a month for something that gives them no benefit.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Well, there's plenty of payment options for games that include multiple things, some of which many people never find a use for. What use is a novelty model/skin that's part of a paid package that is never utilized? As part of a paid account I think it at least has utility for a large percentage of people, and may provide more or less useful as their play mode changes or they play on different servers or with different people over time. I think a $5 a month plan that included your service, plus a visual indicator or something on the name or player that's customizable, plus early access to some content such as maps, would be a good sell. Some people might not take advantage of the player customization, some might never play the maps early because their group includes people that aren't paying, and some people might not have a use for the better networking, but all together, it's an interesting package.
        politician 8y ago
        Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)! The more honest way to do it would be to convert funds to "latency improvement" tokens that trickle out of customers' accounts when used to improve performance, and provide the user with analytics of that improved performance. (NN could take note here and manage this token bucket feature themselves in a 3-way arrangement between customer, vendor, and NN that maintains NN's B2B focus. Happy to explain more if you want to spitball the idea). I really was joking when I said that players could find latency improvement tokens in lootboxes.

kbenson 8y ago

> Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish That's exactly what I was referring to. In this situation, you would be sort of like a transaction processor. > I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. I'm not sure I would use "enlightened" to describe anything to do with the majority of games that use microtransactions, at least when it's a constant barrage of "special deals that last for a limited time and you'll only ever be able to get this digital item right now and if you miss out it will never be back." When aimed at a very young audience, this is anything but enlightened. I don't mind my kids paying for the content they use. I do mind them investing in digital content locked to a single platform that they both don't own, and which becomes useless when they stop playing. At least if they collected cards for a collectible card game in real life, they could look at a collection, pass it on, or sell it. Basically, I'm advocating for revenue streams that don't require hiring specialists in promoting addictive behavior linked to spending for games where a large part of the audience includes adolescents.

gafferongames 8y ago
Speaking as the CEO, I would think twice about working with any customer who intends to pass the cost on to the player.
- kbenson 8y ago
  Why? If it's up front, and it allows two classes of players and clearly defines them (and allows people to sort by them for games), what'st the problems that would make you think twice? I can see some problems with the model, where it might not allow for a more evenly distributed set of revenue from players and certain players would get the benefit without the cost by having a very good and well connected and routed ISP that happens to line up with most servers, but what's the problem? If the accounts were designated "competitive" tier, that seems to clearly signal what the user gets. Additionally, at least it's then more information the service can expose about a player advantage, rather than the user paying for it outside the service and having a similar advantage but without the same signalling. If it's about pay to win, I understand the sentiment, but I think there's a clear difference between pay nothing (or a token amount) and pay something for a "regular" account without a bunch of microtransactions and extra tiers, and what we see with games where you literally can buy your character into an elite level of capability that changes the game at a fundamental level (either from hard to easier or from nearly impossible to possible). I think making it so your players can easily separate based on these levels is good as well (which is another point towards very few differentiating levels). As long as the price is low enough that anyone could easily afford it for a while, it's not a real problem. Close to unbounded capability to pay for advantage is though.
  - gafferongames 8y ago
    Pay to win is a serious concern. There’s also the fact that not everybody gets improvement. For some players, some of the time, their default route is just fine. Would be a shame to charge those players $5 a month for something that gives them no benefit.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Well, there's plenty of payment options for games that include multiple things, some of which many people never find a use for. What use is a novelty model/skin that's part of a paid package that is never utilized? As part of a paid account I think it at least has utility for a large percentage of people, and may provide more or less useful as their play mode changes or they play on different servers or with different people over time. I think a $5 a month plan that included your service, plus a visual indicator or something on the name or player that's customizable, plus early access to some content such as maps, would be a good sell. Some people might not take advantage of the player customization, some might never play the maps early because their group includes people that aren't paying, and some people might not have a use for the better networking, but all together, it's an interesting package.
      - politician 8y ago
        Explicitly passing on fees to the customer for a capability that may (or may not) help them see lower latency erodes trust and makes NN look like an insurance scam. As mentioned, not all users will definitely see performance improvements, so your proposed $5/mo is more of an insurance policy than a defined capability -- it could even be pure profit (who would know?)! The more honest way to do it would be to convert funds to "latency improvement" tokens that trickle out of customers' accounts when used to improve performance, and provide the user with analytics of that improved performance. (NN could take note here and manage this token bucket feature themselves in a 3-way arrangement between customer, vendor, and NN that maintains NN's B2B focus. Happy to explain more if you want to spitball the idea). I really was joking when I said that players could find latency improvement tokens in lootboxes.