4 ms·

There is one verbal thing that i don't see people do in these types of discussions. Nobody ever boils it down to the very simple fact, this being: Some gam

There is one verbal thing that i don't see people do in these types of discussions. Nobody ever boils it down to the very simple fact, this being: Some games are built to sell the player cheats. I do not know if this is because many people discussing this aren't old enough to remember magazines with cheat code sections, or a few years later, the time spent on websites accumulating collections of cheat codes and easter eggs. Once upon a time things were build into the game to ease testing, or allow players to dick around in the game if they didn't feel like hunting after extra lives, usually used after the game was beaten. Nowadays some games put these into a New Game + mode, or make them unlockable with achievements. Other games, especially in the mobile realm however make games that can't be completed sicne they are playable ad infinitum, but are designed so the tediousness ratchets up over time. And then they employ the master stroke: They sell the player one-time cheat codes.

DanBC 13y ago
But the worst examples build in things that increase the need for cheats. Spending 2 units to enter a dungeon, and having those units replenish through a timer or buy an never ending supply via IAP adds nothing to game play but takes money from the player. It feels a bit like "you enjoy playing this game? Here's a poke with a sharp stick."
Tohhou 13y ago
Or in other words: >Games are built to make players feel powerful. Players understand that money is as much a currency as their time is, and some would rather trade their money to feel powerful than spend their time to build up to feeling powerful.
- eterm 13y ago
  But what if the game knows if you buy the cheats, and it makes you feel more powerful in the short term before hobbling you extra hard in the medium term so you buy more cheats? So that you buy a token to increase your power but the transaction actually decreases your power, but is cleverly disguised so you don't realise? The weaker you get, the more "power-ups" you buy, which only makes you weaker and more dependent on power ups. That's what is particularly evil about some of these mechanisms.
  - eropple 13y ago
    This is part of the problem--but it isn't making the player weaker in the long term, it reduces the growth of player skill. Which amounts to the same thing as what you're describing, but a little more indirectly. The bigger issue for me is that IAP pushers are not selling something the user decides they want, they're selling something that the pusher has manipulated the user into deciding that they need by changing the environment around them. It's not even in the same bucket as marketing (which sucks), but rather the outright control of the player's experience to drive them towards consumable IAP. There's no way that's not malicious.
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    If you spend $60 on a AAA game which makes you feel powerful is it less evil than spending once $2 in a F2P game which also makes you feel equally powerful? Is it only more evil once the user has spent more than $60 to feel powerful, or is it only the fact that the user can spend a little at a time to feel powerful that makes it evil compared to the one off $60 purchase?
    - izzydata 13y ago
      Depends if the game is a competitive game or not and if you can continue to spend 2 dollars or not.
      - Tohhou 13y ago
        Consider a competitive game where someone who normally sucks buys a game which is awesome. He is able to have fun with all of the free players who are just good, and doesn't always win because he sucks. He's suddenly like a mini-boss to the players who don't pay, and they feel awesome when they manage to defeat them, because even though that other player had paid power they still won. And players who are both good and pay are set to fight against other players who are good and pay. Everyone is happy. It's not evil.
        ferongr 13y ago
        Skill-based matchmaking is better. Furthemore, pay-to-win elements cannot be justified, even as a boost for weaker players in games that revolve around PVP competition. Skilled players will exploit them and create havoc in the overall balance.
ballard 13y ago
It's a balance between making a cool app and making a living. The zines are another part of building the cool and business too.
wudf 13y ago
The reason you don't see it is that "cheat" is the wrong word. Cheating means breaking the rules. The shortsighted view you've presented disregards the entire premise of the Gamasutra article, which is that these are money games, not skill games. If you buy an advantage in a skill game, you are cheating, but if you buy an advantage in a money game, you are just playing by the rules.

DanBC 13y ago

But the worst examples build in things that increase the need for cheats. Spending 2 units to enter a dungeon, and having those units replenish through a timer or buy an never ending supply via IAP adds nothing to game play but takes money from the player. It feels a bit like "you enjoy playing this game? Here's a poke with a sharp stick."

Tohhou 13y ago

Or in other words: >Games are built to make players feel powerful. Players understand that money is as much a currency as their time is, and some would rather trade their money to feel powerful than spend their time to build up to feeling powerful.

eterm 13y ago
But what if the game knows if you buy the cheats, and it makes you feel more powerful in the short term before hobbling you extra hard in the medium term so you buy more cheats? So that you buy a token to increase your power but the transaction actually decreases your power, but is cleverly disguised so you don't realise? The weaker you get, the more "power-ups" you buy, which only makes you weaker and more dependent on power ups. That's what is particularly evil about some of these mechanisms.
- eropple 13y ago
  This is part of the problem--but it isn't making the player weaker in the long term, it reduces the growth of player skill. Which amounts to the same thing as what you're describing, but a little more indirectly. The bigger issue for me is that IAP pushers are not selling something the user decides they want, they're selling something that the pusher has manipulated the user into deciding that they need by changing the environment around them. It's not even in the same bucket as marketing (which sucks), but rather the outright control of the player's experience to drive them towards consumable IAP. There's no way that's not malicious.
- Tohhou 13y ago
  If you spend $60 on a AAA game which makes you feel powerful is it less evil than spending once $2 in a F2P game which also makes you feel equally powerful? Is it only more evil once the user has spent more than $60 to feel powerful, or is it only the fact that the user can spend a little at a time to feel powerful that makes it evil compared to the one off $60 purchase?
  - izzydata 13y ago
    Depends if the game is a competitive game or not and if you can continue to spend 2 dollars or not.
    - Tohhou 13y ago
      Consider a competitive game where someone who normally sucks buys a game which is awesome. He is able to have fun with all of the free players who are just good, and doesn't always win because he sucks. He's suddenly like a mini-boss to the players who don't pay, and they feel awesome when they manage to defeat them, because even though that other player had paid power they still won. And players who are both good and pay are set to fight against other players who are good and pay. Everyone is happy. It's not evil.
      - ferongr 13y ago
        Skill-based matchmaking is better. Furthemore, pay-to-win elements cannot be justified, even as a boost for weaker players in games that revolve around PVP competition. Skilled players will exploit them and create havoc in the overall balance.

ballard 13y ago

It's a balance between making a cool app and making a living. The zines are another part of building the cool and business too.

wudf 13y ago

The reason you don't see it is that "cheat" is the wrong word. Cheating means breaking the rules. The shortsighted view you've presented disregards the entire premise of the Gamasutra article, which is that these are money games, not skill games. If you buy an advantage in a skill game, you are cheating, but if you buy an advantage in a money game, you are just playing by the rules.