4 ms·

"efficiently monetizing their userbase." Is this newspeech for ripping off their customers? I don't know their games, but I wouldn't be surprised if their cli

by Tichy 14y ago

"efficiently monetizing their userbase." Is this newspeech for ripping off their customers? I don't know their games, but I wouldn't be surprised if their clients are mostly teens maxing out their parents credit cards. Yeah sorry, I am a bit in a cynical mood I suppose.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
emcl 14y ago
Are candy/confectionery manufacturers supposed to feel guilty that they make stuff kids like and nag their parents to spend money on their products? Supercell has carefully designed the game to encourage impulsive purchases but that doesn't mean that the players are not deriving any pleasure out of it. And teens maxing out credit cards is something that can be easily stopped.
- lmm 14y ago
  >Are candy/confectionery manufacturers supposed to feel guilty that they make stuff kids like and nag their parents to spend money on their products? Yes?
- throwaway64 14y ago
  I belive there is a real moral hazard to selling addicting/impulsive products, especially to children. After all this is part of the reason why zynga has such a bad reputation.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I don't know, are tobacco manufacturers supposed to feel guilty for selling addictive cigarettes that kill? Is anything that makes money automatically good? After all, somebody is willing to pay for it? As for chocolate, we still have adverts praising health effects of some chocolate for children (in Germany). I think eventually they might get sued, as happened to the cigarette industry.
- LaGrange 14y ago
  You know, Luxemburgerli are ridiculously expensive. But they're mostly marketed to adults, and as a luxury food that you get to indulge on, and don't even buy in huge amounts. This is different from marketing something to children, or making something addictive, or doing both at the same time. And, this shows that you can make something with a big profit margin without relegating to abusing your customers. Of course, games may be different. At some point everyone and their dog will own Minecraft, and not everyone can live off donations like Dwarf Fortress. I don't think that justifies going into dependency-forming mechanisms, though. If that means you can't ethically fund the rest of your life out of a single game (nor does it automatically make you ultra-wealthy), well, welcome to the movie business. Or book business.
gluegeorge 14y ago
How can you rip people off who want to pay and know what they're getting? I guess I'd call it good design and user acquisition.
- Tichy 14y ago
  The question is, are their users children or adults? I have seen it a lot of times that children are being ripped off with mobile games. They don't really know how much they are spending.
sublimit 14y ago
I'm not a fan of free-to-play games myself because of this reason. The game mechanics are so clearly calculated based on the revenue they'll bring in. I feel like I'm always just a walking micro-transaction to the developers, even after I pay for something (actually even more so at that point). And one can't truly succeed in the game without paying, so it lacks the healthy competitiveness non-casuals want from their games. It's good business, but not good gaming.
ericcholis 14y ago
I'm usually inclined to agree, but it's not as clear cut with Clash of Clans as a Zynga game for example. Clash of Clans follows a traditional RTS model, building things takes time. Now, they've given you the option to purchase gems to automatically finish buildings. This clearly exploits people's need for instant gratification. However, that need for gratification is up to the user, not the game. The game itself is quite fun and easy without ever spending a dime. There is nothing "game breaking" that has to be purchased with real funds. It's one of the truer time = money models out there.
- xutopia 14y ago
  One detail though is that some buildings at the beginning of the game (I couldn't play any more than that) take 10 minutes to build. If you want to shorten that time to a playable amount of time you have to purchase gems.
jerf 14y ago
I dunno. It's not as if mobile games cost $50 bucks, but ship basically incomplete and you have to buy more stuff in the game itself to really play it. We're starting from a baseline of what is, in general, grossly inefficient "monetization", so seeing someone succeed at actually making some money probably isn't grounds for immediate cynicism. (And I too am a natural cynic.) Compare with MMORPGs that did cost $50 and then you had to have a monthly subscription too, or Diablo III and its real-money auction house.
- EwanToo 14y ago
  If you look at some recent "freemium" games like My Little Pony [1], then mobile games can very quickly start to cost $50 or more. In that case, it was selling a single in-game pony for £50/$80, but cut the price for that pony to $8 after user complaints. 1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20629245 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20629245

by Tichy 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

emcl 14y ago

Are candy/confectionery manufacturers supposed to feel guilty that they make stuff kids like and nag their parents to spend money on their products? Supercell has carefully designed the game to encourage impulsive purchases but that doesn't mean that the players are not deriving any pleasure out of it. And teens maxing out credit cards is something that can be easily stopped.

lmm 14y ago
>Are candy/confectionery manufacturers supposed to feel guilty that they make stuff kids like and nag their parents to spend money on their products? Yes?
throwaway64 14y ago
I belive there is a real moral hazard to selling addicting/impulsive products, especially to children. After all this is part of the reason why zynga has such a bad reputation.
Tichy 14y ago
I don't know, are tobacco manufacturers supposed to feel guilty for selling addictive cigarettes that kill? Is anything that makes money automatically good? After all, somebody is willing to pay for it? As for chocolate, we still have adverts praising health effects of some chocolate for children (in Germany). I think eventually they might get sued, as happened to the cigarette industry.
LaGrange 14y ago
You know, Luxemburgerli are ridiculously expensive. But they're mostly marketed to adults, and as a luxury food that you get to indulge on, and don't even buy in huge amounts. This is different from marketing something to children, or making something addictive, or doing both at the same time. And, this shows that you can make something with a big profit margin without relegating to abusing your customers. Of course, games may be different. At some point everyone and their dog will own Minecraft, and not everyone can live off donations like Dwarf Fortress. I don't think that justifies going into dependency-forming mechanisms, though. If that means you can't ethically fund the rest of your life out of a single game (nor does it automatically make you ultra-wealthy), well, welcome to the movie business. Or book business.

gluegeorge 14y ago

How can you rip people off who want to pay and know what they're getting? I guess I'd call it good design and user acquisition.

Tichy 14y ago
The question is, are their users children or adults? I have seen it a lot of times that children are being ripped off with mobile games. They don't really know how much they are spending.

sublimit 14y ago

I'm not a fan of free-to-play games myself because of this reason. The game mechanics are so clearly calculated based on the revenue they'll bring in. I feel like I'm always just a walking micro-transaction to the developers, even after I pay for something (actually even more so at that point). And one can't truly succeed in the game without paying, so it lacks the healthy competitiveness non-casuals want from their games. It's good business, but not good gaming.

ericcholis 14y ago

I'm usually inclined to agree, but it's not as clear cut with Clash of Clans as a Zynga game for example. Clash of Clans follows a traditional RTS model, building things takes time. Now, they've given you the option to purchase gems to automatically finish buildings. This clearly exploits people's need for instant gratification. However, that need for gratification is up to the user, not the game. The game itself is quite fun and easy without ever spending a dime. There is nothing "game breaking" that has to be purchased with real funds. It's one of the truer time = money models out there.

xutopia 14y ago
One detail though is that some buildings at the beginning of the game (I couldn't play any more than that) take 10 minutes to build. If you want to shorten that time to a playable amount of time you have to purchase gems.

jerf 14y ago

I dunno. It's not as if mobile games cost $50 bucks, but ship basically incomplete and you have to buy more stuff in the game itself to really play it. We're starting from a baseline of what is, in general, grossly inefficient "monetization", so seeing someone succeed at actually making some money probably isn't grounds for immediate cynicism. (And I too am a natural cynic.) Compare with MMORPGs that did cost $50 and then you had to have a monthly subscription too, or Diablo III and its real-money auction house.

EwanToo 14y ago
If you look at some recent "freemium" games like My Little Pony [1], then mobile games can very quickly start to cost $50 or more. In that case, it was selling a single in-game pony for £50/$80, but cut the price for that pony to $8 after user complaints. 1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20629245 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20629245