4 ms·

A better way to think about it is that these games are designed for - and paid for by - exactly the very few people who want to spend this much on winning a gam

A better way to think about it is that these games are designed for - and paid for by - exactly the very few people who want to spend this much on winning a game. Everybody else gets to free-ride on this, and only pay what they want (mostly zero)

hammock 4y ago
An interesting way to think about it for sure. Sub in “jack daniels” or “bud light” for Diablo and it gets depressing fast when you consider 80% of liquor is consumed by less than 10% of drinkers, who each have an average of 20+ drinks a week, every week (forgive that I cannot source but trust this is based on seeing real data). Still, we must consider that growth is what a company is after, and that growth happens at the margin, not the core.
Ruthalas 4y ago
The problem with this is that games designed to be monetized this way are going to build their progression, reward-systems, cosmetic systems, grind balance, etc. around it. So the players who are "paying what they want (mostly zero)" aren't getting a normal but free Diablo game, they are getting version of that game balanced and prioritized around the whales that /will/ be spending the money. The actual customers. I'd rather pay than "free-ride", because I don't want incessant popups telling me how how I can skip the grind (that is tuned to irritate me) by buying a gems with my credit card. I'm not as valuable to Blizzard/Activision/NetEase with my one-time-purchase though, and they know it.
- mdavis6890 4y ago
  That's why I don't play these games. But other people have different preferences and that's okay by me. I don't see a need to judge the company(ies), the users, or the system. Not saying you are, but it seems to be the flavor of this article and much of the sentiment in these comments. Why?
  - Ruthalas 4y ago
    I think there's a point where it feels like it's gone beyond simple price discrimination to leveraging hundreds of employees and millions of dollars to actively manipulate and exploit a player base that is often substantially comprised of children. I've watched developer presentations on how best to implement Skinner boxes and other gambling mechanics to help condition users and obscure exactly how much they are spending. That may be fair to judge a company poorly for. For me personally, it represents the fact that the company is actively working against my best interests, and that feels bad. Additionally, completely selfishly, it makes me sad to see games that I would otherwise enjoy be distorted by this sort of monetization.
ThrustVectoring 4y ago
You have to identify and avoid the p2w rails in order to pull this off. Specifically: 1. Put the game down when you get hard time-gated 2. Don't do PvP 3. Especially with a leaderboard feature 4. Especially in grouped content I'm sure it's a good game up until the PMs and behavioral psychologists decide you're invested enough to put up with time-walls.

hammock 4y ago

An interesting way to think about it for sure. Sub in “jack daniels” or “bud light” for Diablo and it gets depressing fast when you consider 80% of liquor is consumed by less than 10% of drinkers, who each have an average of 20+ drinks a week, every week (forgive that I cannot source but trust this is based on seeing real data). Still, we must consider that growth is what a company is after, and that growth happens at the margin, not the core.

Ruthalas 4y ago

The problem with this is that games designed to be monetized this way are going to build their progression, reward-systems, cosmetic systems, grind balance, etc. around it. So the players who are "paying what they want (mostly zero)" aren't getting a normal but free Diablo game, they are getting version of that game balanced and prioritized around the whales that /will/ be spending the money. The actual customers. I'd rather pay than "free-ride", because I don't want incessant popups telling me how how I can skip the grind (that is tuned to irritate me) by buying a gems with my credit card. I'm not as valuable to Blizzard/Activision/NetEase with my one-time-purchase though, and they know it.

mdavis6890 4y ago
That's why I don't play these games. But other people have different preferences and that's okay by me. I don't see a need to judge the company(ies), the users, or the system. Not saying you are, but it seems to be the flavor of this article and much of the sentiment in these comments. Why?
- Ruthalas 4y ago
  I think there's a point where it feels like it's gone beyond simple price discrimination to leveraging hundreds of employees and millions of dollars to actively manipulate and exploit a player base that is often substantially comprised of children. I've watched developer presentations on how best to implement Skinner boxes and other gambling mechanics to help condition users and obscure exactly how much they are spending. That may be fair to judge a company poorly for. For me personally, it represents the fact that the company is actively working against my best interests, and that feels bad. Additionally, completely selfishly, it makes me sad to see games that I would otherwise enjoy be distorted by this sort of monetization.

ThrustVectoring 4y ago

You have to identify and avoid the p2w rails in order to pull this off. Specifically: 1. Put the game down when you get hard time-gated 2. Don't do PvP 3. Especially with a leaderboard feature 4. Especially in grouped content I'm sure it's a good game up until the PMs and behavioral psychologists decide you're invested enough to put up with time-walls.