12 ms·
I think it's just a case of novelty. The average mobile gamer hasn't been playing video-games for a very long time, so contrary to veterans gamers who will from
by leppr 12y ago
I think it's just a case of novelty. The average mobile gamer hasn't been playing video-games for a very long time, so contrary to veterans gamers who will from the very start model the game as a system in their head, they just interact with it in a more primitive fashion. Therefore they won't feel that the game is unfair or dumb because they don't see the ropes long-time players do see and criticize.
And just like mobile UI designers are starting to reintroduce more complexity as the average user becomes more familiar with touch interfaces, I'm sure we'll see a decline in "pay to win" games as the average mobile gamer becomes more experienced and long for more interesting games.
- therealdrag0 12y agoYou can have successful in-game-purchase games that aren't "pay to win". Cf. League of Legends.
- drawkbox 12y agoTrue there are hills and valleys but certain addiction game designs will always draw a crowd. You can look at any top list in grossing, free or paid and still see casino games of all types because the new mobile games like Game of War or Clash of Clans still tap into that PvP or beat the system type competitive behavior. I prefer games with gameplay but others play games just to compete and it fuels PvP type games and pay to win. People get hooked on them that are competitive, it is why Clash of Clans had to be banned on the MLB Kansas City Royals (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24762153/royals-world-series-journey-almost-derailed-by-clash-of-clans http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24762153/royals...) because the low impact, frequent replay, low action game fit perfectly into their day and fulfilled their competitive spirit, once they got invested they were also paying to win which is an element of competing in the real world and works.