3 ms·

As far as the concept of a game goes, it's uneven because ultimately, someone is going to have more money than everyone else. From my experience, games that in

by phaus 13y ago

As far as the concept of a game goes, it's uneven because ultimately, someone is going to have more money than everyone else. From my experience, games that involve skill are the only ones worth playing.

derefr 13y ago
The thing is, everyone playing those games knows that they're being ranked on how much time they (can) spend on the game. It's part of the social contract of the game. This is why I would dispute saying it's "uneven." Every game ranks people somehow; some people prefer to be ranked given different criteria than others. - A skill-based game shakes out as a ranking based on skill, so players with high technical aptitude for these sorts of games enjoy participating in skill-based game communities. - A grind-fest game shakes out as a ranking based on "temporal capital", so people who have a lot of time (and perhaps not a high capacity for skill) enjoy participating in the grind. - A pay-to-win game, finally, shakes out as a ranking based on, well, money. People who have a lot of money (and perhaps not a high capacity for skill, or time to invest) enjoy paying to win. (I met a "whale" for one of these games, an oil tycoon from a middle-eastern country; he was very happy to be able to basically play a game of fiscal chicken against his tycoon friends/rivals, using the game to prove who was willing to waste more money to get what they want.) These three game "classes" are each totally sensible on their own, for the players who want to play them. The danger comes almost entirely in trying to sell one class of game as if it were another class, or trying to mix classes of players within a single game.
- chii 13y ago
  the problem comes when one class of game vastly outperform financially compared to the others. You end up getting tonnes of pay to win games because it nets the creator/publisher more money, where as skill based games tend to be non-existent anymore because, lets face it, there are way less people who are disciplined enough to play these sorts of games compared to instant-gratification games that gets you to pay for that feeling.
  - derefr 13y ago
    And so you suggest... what? That developers make skill-based games, and then trick pay-to-win players into playing them to make their money? How would that work, exactly? If they can't pay-to-win in the game, they won't be paying at all, and then they'll lose and quit. You'll end up with the same sort of environment you get from a bait-and-switch seems-to-be-skill-but-is-really-pay game: an entrenched upper class who has already "won" the game, and a flow of newbie players who come in expecting to compete on axis X, but end up being exploited on axis Y (in this case, by being beaten to a pulp by those with greater skill.)
socialist_coder 13y ago
And that is why there is more than 1 type of game- because there is more than 1 type of gamer.

by phaus 13y ago

derefr 13y ago

The thing is, everyone playing those games knows that they're being ranked on how much time they (can) spend on the game. It's part of the social contract of the game. This is why I would dispute saying it's "uneven." Every game ranks people somehow; some people prefer to be ranked given different criteria than others. - A skill-based game shakes out as a ranking based on skill, so players with high technical aptitude for these sorts of games enjoy participating in skill-based game communities. - A grind-fest game shakes out as a ranking based on "temporal capital", so people who have a lot of time (and perhaps not a high capacity for skill) enjoy participating in the grind. - A pay-to-win game, finally, shakes out as a ranking based on, well, money. People who have a lot of money (and perhaps not a high capacity for skill, or time to invest) enjoy paying to win. (I met a "whale" for one of these games, an oil tycoon from a middle-eastern country; he was very happy to be able to basically play a game of fiscal chicken against his tycoon friends/rivals, using the game to prove who was willing to waste more money to get what they want.) These three game "classes" are each totally sensible on their own, for the players who want to play them. The danger comes almost entirely in trying to sell one class of game as if it were another class, or trying to mix classes of players within a single game.

chii 13y ago
the problem comes when one class of game vastly outperform financially compared to the others. You end up getting tonnes of pay to win games because it nets the creator/publisher more money, where as skill based games tend to be non-existent anymore because, lets face it, there are way less people who are disciplined enough to play these sorts of games compared to instant-gratification games that gets you to pay for that feeling.
- derefr 13y ago
  And so you suggest... what? That developers make skill-based games, and then trick pay-to-win players into playing them to make their money? How would that work, exactly? If they can't pay-to-win in the game, they won't be paying at all, and then they'll lose and quit. You'll end up with the same sort of environment you get from a bait-and-switch seems-to-be-skill-but-is-really-pay game: an entrenched upper class who has already "won" the game, and a flow of newbie players who come in expecting to compete on axis X, but end up being exploited on axis Y (in this case, by being beaten to a pulp by those with greater skill.)

socialist_coder 13y ago

And that is why there is more than 1 type of game- because there is more than 1 type of gamer.