5 ms·

You cannot win. All of the self righteous people here calling monetization evil... There are people who legitimately think you are evil if you charge any money.

by Tohhou 13y ago

You cannot win. All of the self righteous people here calling monetization evil... There are people who legitimately think you are evil if you charge any money. Have ads? You're evil. Charge more than $1? Scumbag! Free game with with no ads and no monetization? Either.. Wow, you're such a nice guy for making this game! It's too bad you don't have any money to make more! Or... it's probably a shit game that's why it's free. No matter what you do there will be people calling for your head. Let people make their own choices. If people "fall" for "tactics" and say they are "happy" then who is anyone to tell them that can't like and support what they like.

bentcorner 13y ago
That's not a helpful attitude. I'm of the opinion that the current state of IAP is terrible, and as a gamer I hope that it dies. What would I like to see change? Keep IAP, but limit IAP to things that you can only buy once, and limit the # of IAP items to some reasonable number (say, 10, with permission to increase with human oversight). This retains the ability for developers to offer add-ons and demo play, but removes the capability for freemium developers to milk customers. Does it destroy the freemium game model? Sure, that's the point.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  I still trying to understand how IAP are bad when I am obviously millions of others saw no need to make them. Its not a forced purchase. Now I am all for not being able to obfuscate the actual costs of IAP. This method is used a lot by supposedly free to play MMOs. You don't buy items/upgrades/boosts with real money, you buy another currency to buy these IAPs. Worst, most purchase quantities are set to purposefully keep you from getting the exact amount you need. Apps are merely doing what has been happening in full on computer games for years. The difference is that many purchases are made by children because insufficient parent oversight. So instead of putting the blame where it belongs we go after those who sell it?
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > I still trying to understand how IAP are bad when I am obviously millions of others saw no need to make them. Its not a forced purchase. They are bad because someone is purposefully exploiting known cognitive biases to trick a significant part of players to give out their money. On an individual level it might feel that you have a freedom of choice, but it's an illusion - game authors still know very well that a calculated percentage of players will fall for their tricks, they just don't know (and don't care) who in particular.
    - Tohhou 13y ago
      Why can't you accept that some people like what you don't like and they are not just dumb fools getting tricked into giving their money away?
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        I accept that, but were the producers targeting such people, they wouldn't have to resort to methods that are designed to tricking people into giving their money away.
      - CodeMage 13y ago
        For the same reason I wouldn't accept the rationalizations about the victim in any other kind of abusive relationship.
        Tohhou 13y ago
        Is every situation where money exchanges hands an abusive relationship? If the same gameplay mechanics existed but there was zero way to pay money and instead only spend time is it suddenly no longer abusive?
        kiiski 13y ago
        I doubt there would be games like that (same as now, but where spending time is the only option). The whole mechanic of spending a long time waiting is there to encourage paying to not wait. But yes, it would not be abusive if there is no way to pay. If the mechanic exists solely for gameplay reasons, rather than for manipulating the player, it's not taking advantage of anyone.
king_jester 13y ago
This is way off base. We have seen that games with pure ad revenue models can become extremely popular just like games that are pay to win via lots of IAPs. We have also seen that some games do well with simple pay once models, whether its on the store directly or via a single IAP. The fact of the matter is some forms of monetization are unethical and sacrifice gameplay and enjoyment in order to make more money from players. There are true dark patterns for game design and development. Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads.
- Tohhou 13y ago
  >There are true dark patterns Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others. > some forms of monetization are unethical Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal. >Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads. Yes, actually plenty of people are. Subscriptions are dark. Premium games are dark. Skill games are dark. Gambling games are dark. Ads are dark. Freemium is dark. Everyone can call anything dark.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others. Not true. Some of them can have proven statistical effectiveness, which is why they are using them in the first place.
    - Tohhou 13y ago
      That they are effective doesn't make them dark or evil! Makeup is effective at making people look more attractive than they would look without it that doesn't make makeup evil or dark.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    > Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal. There are plenty of things that are legal but unethical. It's impractical to ban every unethical thing, and it would generally not be a good idea to try. Therefore some people can get away with being nasty, but the fact that they are not violating the laws of some particular nation isn't really a defense. An alternative is to lobby your Congressperson to ban these unethical strategies, or otherwise regulate them. The EU is taking an in-between step by discussing whether false-advertising statutes should apply to labeling games "free" when they're actually designed to pull money out of you within the game. That has pros and cons too.

by Tohhou 13y ago

bentcorner 13y ago

That's not a helpful attitude. I'm of the opinion that the current state of IAP is terrible, and as a gamer I hope that it dies. What would I like to see change? Keep IAP, but limit IAP to things that you can only buy once, and limit the # of IAP items to some reasonable number (say, 10, with permission to increase with human oversight). This retains the ability for developers to offer add-ons and demo play, but removes the capability for freemium developers to milk customers. Does it destroy the freemium game model? Sure, that's the point.

Shivetya 13y ago
I still trying to understand how IAP are bad when I am obviously millions of others saw no need to make them. Its not a forced purchase. Now I am all for not being able to obfuscate the actual costs of IAP. This method is used a lot by supposedly free to play MMOs. You don't buy items/upgrades/boosts with real money, you buy another currency to buy these IAPs. Worst, most purchase quantities are set to purposefully keep you from getting the exact amount you need. Apps are merely doing what has been happening in full on computer games for years. The difference is that many purchases are made by children because insufficient parent oversight. So instead of putting the blame where it belongs we go after those who sell it?
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > I still trying to understand how IAP are bad when I am obviously millions of others saw no need to make them. Its not a forced purchase. They are bad because someone is purposefully exploiting known cognitive biases to trick a significant part of players to give out their money. On an individual level it might feel that you have a freedom of choice, but it's an illusion - game authors still know very well that a calculated percentage of players will fall for their tricks, they just don't know (and don't care) who in particular.
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    Why can't you accept that some people like what you don't like and they are not just dumb fools getting tricked into giving their money away?
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      I accept that, but were the producers targeting such people, they wouldn't have to resort to methods that are designed to tricking people into giving their money away.
    - CodeMage 13y ago
      For the same reason I wouldn't accept the rationalizations about the victim in any other kind of abusive relationship.
      - Tohhou 13y ago
        Is every situation where money exchanges hands an abusive relationship? If the same gameplay mechanics existed but there was zero way to pay money and instead only spend time is it suddenly no longer abusive?
        kiiski 13y ago
        I doubt there would be games like that (same as now, but where spending time is the only option). The whole mechanic of spending a long time waiting is there to encourage paying to not wait. But yes, it would not be abusive if there is no way to pay. If the mechanic exists solely for gameplay reasons, rather than for manipulating the player, it's not taking advantage of anyone.

king_jester 13y ago

This is way off base. We have seen that games with pure ad revenue models can become extremely popular just like games that are pay to win via lots of IAPs. We have also seen that some games do well with simple pay once models, whether its on the store directly or via a single IAP. The fact of the matter is some forms of monetization are unethical and sacrifice gameplay and enjoyment in order to make more money from players. There are true dark patterns for game design and development. Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads.

Tohhou 13y ago
>There are true dark patterns Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others. > some forms of monetization are unethical Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal. >Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads. Yes, actually plenty of people are. Subscriptions are dark. Premium games are dark. Skill games are dark. Gambling games are dark. Ads are dark. Freemium is dark. Everyone can call anything dark.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others. Not true. Some of them can have proven statistical effectiveness, which is why they are using them in the first place.
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    That they are effective doesn't make them dark or evil! Makeup is effective at making people look more attractive than they would look without it that doesn't make makeup evil or dark.
- _delirium 13y ago
  > Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal. There are plenty of things that are legal but unethical. It's impractical to ban every unethical thing, and it would generally not be a good idea to try. Therefore some people can get away with being nasty, but the fact that they are not violating the laws of some particular nation isn't really a defense. An alternative is to lobby your Congressperson to ban these unethical strategies, or otherwise regulate them. The EU is taking an in-between step by discussing whether false-advertising statutes should apply to labeling games "free" when they're actually designed to pull money out of you within the game. That has pros and cons too.