4 ms·

Perhaps you're unaware that Zynga explicitly treats games like skinner boxes? Their whole deal was using metrics to manipulate the feedback loop to maximize pr

Perhaps you're unaware that Zynga explicitly treats games like skinner boxes? Their whole deal was using metrics to manipulate the feedback loop to maximize profit. Even the most mainstream traditional games were designed to be fun -- they might aim for the lowest common denominator, they may artificially inflate the game length, but the goal was still entertainment. Because all they wanted you to do was buy the game. That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. That means their goal is getting you addicted to the skinner box. The mechanics of such a game are all built to reinforce this goal. Zynga took this to its logical conclusion by A/B testing the various game parameters. As Tim Rogers said, such games are "a love letter from a computer virus." http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076 http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076 (Warning: long but insightful article (But if you recognize the author's name you'd already know that.))

aeturnum 13y ago
>That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to play the game, to feel a need to play the game. Zynga focuses on mechanics that promote habits, but to say that's the only approach incentivized by F2P is a pretty myopic view of the market. The F2P model incentivizes addictive gameplay more than other genres, but it's not like building an addicted game was a bad thing pre-F2P. Valve's DOTA 2, for instance, has largely identical gameplay to its 100% free Warcraft 3-based ancestor (tangentially, Team Fortress 2 isn't much of a skinner box either).
saraid216 13y ago
> That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. This is actually more true for subscriptions than for F2P. With F2P they need you to have a reason to actively buy things. With subscription, they need you to play enough to find the next month worth paying for. Whereas one-time box sales the way you're talking about is all about getting you to make the purchase at all.

aeturnum 13y ago

>That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to play the game, to feel a need to play the game. Zynga focuses on mechanics that promote habits, but to say that's the only approach incentivized by F2P is a pretty myopic view of the market. The F2P model incentivizes addictive gameplay more than other genres, but it's not like building an addicted game was a bad thing pre-F2P. Valve's DOTA 2, for instance, has largely identical gameplay to its 100% free Warcraft 3-based ancestor (tangentially, Team Fortress 2 isn't much of a skinner box either).

saraid216 13y ago

> That's not the case with the microtransaction free-to-play model -- they need you to not just play the game, but to feel a need to play the game. This is actually more true for subscriptions than for F2P. With F2P they need you to have a reason to actively buy things. With subscription, they need you to play enough to find the next month worth paying for. Whereas one-time box sales the way you're talking about is all about getting you to make the purchase at all.