7 ms·

I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The mechanics

I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The mechanics to make you pay absolutely feel contrived and scummy; the game strongly limits how much you can play in a given time period (stamina), and playing more than that requires the equivalent of $1. Dungeons also have strange difficulty levels, where the boss is significantly more challenging than the levels leading to it, so after you've invested the time to get there, you have the choice of "paying" $1 each time you are about to lose, or leaving the dungeon and potentially having to "pay" $1 to play more -- especially since the harder dungeons eat up a larger portion of your stamina. The worst, though, is that obtaining better monsters requires a slot-machine style gamble, and each try costs around $5. There's such a high chance of getting a mediocre monster instead, that there's actually a term called "Gung-trolled." That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1. Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.

Tohhou 13y ago
Why do you choose to play the game then? Who is forcing your hand?
- whichdan 13y ago
  I enjoy it enough that I consider it an expensive way to pass time during my commute. I still dislike the IAP model, though.
  - Mythrl 13y ago
    If you dislike the IAP model you should not pay to play the game, despite liking the game.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      But that's the whole point of IAPs; it's exactly what JonFish85's top-level comment says: this is an abusive relationship. It hurts you, but you keep coming back for more.
      - Tohhou 13y ago
        No. I'm fully capable of ignoring games based on my principles. He chooses to be in that "relationship" despite not liking it. It's his own problem, his own responsibility. He supports it despite his own reasoning, which is stupid, but it's his choice.
        TeMPOraL 13y ago
        You don't see this from the right perspective. You might be the special snowflake that is invulnerable to manipulation and has the ability to always choose rationally. But many people don't. It's abusive by definition, because the game makers are deliberately using proven methods of tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do. You wouldn't call something a manipulation method if it was effective only if the target wanted it to be. Brains are imperfect machines, and people making those games are malicious hackers exploiting cognitive bugs for profit.
        Tohhou 13y ago
        >tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do Look at all of these people getting tricked into playing stupid match three games! Stupid sheep liking trash - that's a bug! They should like what I like! I have actual taste and plays real games and not this shit no one would play. They would pay for power? Bah! No one pays to have advantages. Sports competitors don't spend thousands of dollars to give themselves slight advantages in physical events. Why would anyone do that. Speaking of which, why would anyone support Duck Dynasty??? It must be a glitch in those human brains again.. so easily manipulated! They are obviously being tricked into liking that stupid show. I'm not so arrogant that I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I think it's the simple case of me liking what I like and them liking what they like. If they like to spend their money on things I see as wasteful that's their choice. They probably feel the same way with how I spend my money.
  - Ricapar 13y ago
    As long as you keep doing that, you are supporting that type of IAP behavior. You have no one to blame but yourself.
  - mzs 13y ago
    You should try Puzzle Quest for DS, a used DS and cart should not be that bad, plus you can sell it all if you get bored later for not much loss and you won't have that feeling of guilt as you spend money. The game is great for short trips, basically just close the DS and it sleeps until the next time you open it, then almost instantly you are right back where you were. Charge the DS when you get home, and you might not even ever have to power it off.
    - whichdan 13y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion - that looks fun! I already have a DS but loathe the idea of having to carry it around with me. It's definitely a very nice system, and can actually sleep for a few days unlike the 3DS.
adwf 13y ago
I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation? The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back! We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?
- whichdan 13y ago
  What sort of regulation are you envisioning?
  - adwf 13y ago
    I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced pain on the player, rather than to increase the fun. So maybe just a hard limit on total IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s. Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons. The trickiest part about it would be defining what is an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too. I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena. EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist at all. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.

Tohhou 13y ago

Why do you choose to play the game then? Who is forcing your hand?

whichdan 13y ago
I enjoy it enough that I consider it an expensive way to pass time during my commute. I still dislike the IAP model, though.
- Mythrl 13y ago
  If you dislike the IAP model you should not pay to play the game, despite liking the game.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    But that's the whole point of IAPs; it's exactly what JonFish85's top-level comment says: this is an abusive relationship. It hurts you, but you keep coming back for more.
    - Tohhou 13y ago
      No. I'm fully capable of ignoring games based on my principles. He chooses to be in that "relationship" despite not liking it. It's his own problem, his own responsibility. He supports it despite his own reasoning, which is stupid, but it's his choice.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        You don't see this from the right perspective. You might be the special snowflake that is invulnerable to manipulation and has the ability to always choose rationally. But many people don't. It's abusive by definition, because the game makers are deliberately using proven methods of tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do. You wouldn't call something a manipulation method if it was effective only if the target wanted it to be. Brains are imperfect machines, and people making those games are malicious hackers exploiting cognitive bugs for profit.
        Tohhou 13y ago
        >tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do Look at all of these people getting tricked into playing stupid match three games! Stupid sheep liking trash - that's a bug! They should like what I like! I have actual taste and plays real games and not this shit no one would play. They would pay for power? Bah! No one pays to have advantages. Sports competitors don't spend thousands of dollars to give themselves slight advantages in physical events. Why would anyone do that. Speaking of which, why would anyone support Duck Dynasty??? It must be a glitch in those human brains again.. so easily manipulated! They are obviously being tricked into liking that stupid show. I'm not so arrogant that I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I think it's the simple case of me liking what I like and them liking what they like. If they like to spend their money on things I see as wasteful that's their choice. They probably feel the same way with how I spend my money.
- Ricapar 13y ago
  As long as you keep doing that, you are supporting that type of IAP behavior. You have no one to blame but yourself.
- mzs 13y ago
  You should try Puzzle Quest for DS, a used DS and cart should not be that bad, plus you can sell it all if you get bored later for not much loss and you won't have that feeling of guilt as you spend money. The game is great for short trips, basically just close the DS and it sleeps until the next time you open it, then almost instantly you are right back where you were. Charge the DS when you get home, and you might not even ever have to power it off.
  - whichdan 13y ago
    Thanks for the suggestion - that looks fun! I already have a DS but loathe the idea of having to carry it around with me. It's definitely a very nice system, and can actually sleep for a few days unlike the 3DS.

adwf 13y ago

I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation? The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back! We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?

whichdan 13y ago
What sort of regulation are you envisioning?
- adwf 13y ago
  I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced pain on the player, rather than to increase the fun. So maybe just a hard limit on total IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s. Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons. The trickiest part about it would be defining what is an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too. I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena. EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist at all. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.