5 ms·

I used to be a moderator on Kongregate and had a decent amount on interaction with multiple of the administrators. I also was somewhat involved in the flash gam

I used to be a moderator on Kongregate and had a decent amount on interaction with multiple of the administrators. I also was somewhat involved in the flash game market (just casually as a hobby). When I found out how Kongregate specifically worked with developers to help make games that target the 'whale' spenders, I was pretty shocked. Making games that are not enjoyable, just addictive, in order to take in thousands of dollars from single individuals just seemed so unethical. I just glanced over that link of Emily's ethical rationale for this, and it didn't convince me. But I'll have to go back through it more carefully before I can decide for sure.

freditup 11y ago
A few more thoughts on the matter of whales: On Kongregate, 2.1% of users buy virtual goods. Of these, about 4% (the whales) have spent over $500 and bring in about half of Kongregate's revenue. Top spenders often spend $50K-$80K. Emily's premise is this: that people who spend lots of money on games (whales) are people who healthily enjoy the games as hobbyists. Her most interesting points, in my opinion are as follows: We think whales are bad (but shouldn't) because they spend their money on virtual goods: "Spending $5-$10k on specialized PC Gaming rigs that improve your skills and enhance your competitiveness is not really that different from spending money for in-game items that do the same. But I bet you all ﬁnd it a lot easier to contemplate." We think whales are bad (but shouldn't) because we don't think games are a legitimate hobby: "The bias against games is so insidious that even within the industry we’ve internalized it enough that we question someone with means spending tens of thousands of $s on a game, especially when you combine it with the low value we place on mobile and PC games and especially virtual goods. And so people jump to explanations like “mental illness” or “evil games manipulating players” when the real explanation is that they are rational, wealthy people who are dedicated fans investing in a particular game." I personally don't agree with her though. We would have no problem with a person spending $10K on software. The issue isn't virtual vs. physical goods. The issue comes down to if games are a legitimate, healthy hobby or not. I would argue that they are not, at least for most of those who are whales. I don't have time to flesh this argument out tonight though.
- patio11 11y ago
  Yep. In particular, if demographically whales are (as subtextually claimed on slide 12) functioning upper-middle-class professionals like business owners, engineers, doctors, and CPAs, then there doesn't seem to be any meaningful harm in it. My unease about F2P monetization is that my sense of the demographics is that it tilts more towards "people with undiagnosed depression" or "the Vegas slots demographic."
  - freditup 11y ago
    Slide 12 isn't a convincing argument that these people are okay, but of course it doesn't indicate the latter either. But even if these people are upper-middle-class professionals, there's still a chance that their action stem from things like depression/addiction. My hunch would be that the cause of the big spending leans more towards addiction than well-reasoned spending on a health hobby, but without data or evidence that's purely a guess. It would also be interesting to look at the group of whales in general. Perhaps the very top 20 spenders are all well-balanced, healthy individuals with large incomes. But what about the rest of people who are spending large amounts of money? This might be where struggling individuals are more likely to be found.
    - cactusface 11y ago
      I think in the absence of data, people see what they want to see such that it agrees with their worldview. Nobody likes to endure cognitive dissonance. Even in the presence of data people see what they want to see. Me? Well, some of the time the people spending money are sorely addicted; some of the time they have a mental illness like depression / mania / psychosis / schizophrenia / OCD / whatever; some of the time it's credit card fraud; some of the time it's kids spending their parents' money; some of the time it's just some person with access to a lot of cash that decides to throw money at the problem of becoming good at the game. It would be really neat to see some numbers.
  - interesting_att 11y ago
    Actual F2P developer here. I've spent countless hours interviewing payers. Vast majority of people are normal, hardworking people who just genuinely enjoy games. You're focused on a problem that doesn't affect 99.964% of people playing the game (Math: Avg 3% of people are payers, 4% of those payers are whales, and a small fraction of those big payers could be recognized as people with issues). Moreover, even if this problem existed, that doesn't make these games inherently bad. People can develop addictions to whole gamut of things: alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, porn, Facebook, relationships, food, etc. But none of those things are inherently ban. Why is gaming any different? Yes, F2P games optimize for retention/monetization, but how is this any different from any other product in the market?
hellbanner 11y ago
"I spend several hundred dollars a year on my game. My first upgrade was to get a membership. Then I purchased new equipment. After playing for a bit, I upgraded to a better equipment so I could score more points in my game" "..surprise, my game is Competitive Figure Skating. Games are hobbies. People spend large sums of money to compete in physical games, why the stigamtism against digital games?" --paraphrasing Emily Greer. Personally I find that a great argument of why freemium isn't inherently evil. Pay-to-win already exists in physical sports. Japan, however, banned certain freemium games where you pay for increased chance of good rewards in a random check: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BetableBlog/20120525/171124/Why_quotKompu_Gachaquot_Was_Banned.php http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BetableBlog/20120525/171124/W...
- chii 11y ago
  > game is Competitive Figure Skating but the problem is that figure skating is an established "game" (aka, a sport). The rules haven't been made such that you _need_ to spend the money. A freemium game is designed in the very core mechanic, to be unfun unless you paid up. that's what i have a problem with - game is an art, and if an artist wouldn't put in a certain mechanic except under coercion (say, by the threat of non-payment), then i'd say it's not part of their original design. I only want to play the pure, original design of a game, unhampered by business requirements. Freemium games are choking the air out of the market for such games unfortunately, and that's why i hate it.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Yes. And with younger players who have less distinguished selection skills (and mental resolve to not fall into a time vortex), those games will be around for a while. Somewhat related, in Apple's design awards for top iOS apps they remarked on one game as using "in app purcahses to add variety and different gameplay modes, not just pay to win". If only Apple reviewed each game for quality!

freditup 11y ago

A few more thoughts on the matter of whales: On Kongregate, 2.1% of users buy virtual goods. Of these, about 4% (the whales) have spent over $500 and bring in about half of Kongregate's revenue. Top spenders often spend $50K-$80K. Emily's premise is this: that people who spend lots of money on games (whales) are people who healthily enjoy the games as hobbyists. Her most interesting points, in my opinion are as follows: We think whales are bad (but shouldn't) because they spend their money on virtual goods: "Spending $5-$10k on specialized PC Gaming rigs that improve your skills and enhance your competitiveness is not really that different from spending money for in-game items that do the same. But I bet you all ﬁnd it a lot easier to contemplate." We think whales are bad (but shouldn't) because we don't think games are a legitimate hobby: "The bias against games is so insidious that even within the industry we’ve internalized it enough that we question someone with means spending tens of thousands of $s on a game, especially when you combine it with the low value we place on mobile and PC games and especially virtual goods. And so people jump to explanations like “mental illness” or “evil games manipulating players” when the real explanation is that they are rational, wealthy people who are dedicated fans investing in a particular game." I personally don't agree with her though. We would have no problem with a person spending $10K on software. The issue isn't virtual vs. physical goods. The issue comes down to if games are a legitimate, healthy hobby or not. I would argue that they are not, at least for most of those who are whales. I don't have time to flesh this argument out tonight though.

patio11 11y ago
Yep. In particular, if demographically whales are (as subtextually claimed on slide 12) functioning upper-middle-class professionals like business owners, engineers, doctors, and CPAs, then there doesn't seem to be any meaningful harm in it. My unease about F2P monetization is that my sense of the demographics is that it tilts more towards "people with undiagnosed depression" or "the Vegas slots demographic."
- freditup 11y ago
  Slide 12 isn't a convincing argument that these people are okay, but of course it doesn't indicate the latter either. But even if these people are upper-middle-class professionals, there's still a chance that their action stem from things like depression/addiction. My hunch would be that the cause of the big spending leans more towards addiction than well-reasoned spending on a health hobby, but without data or evidence that's purely a guess. It would also be interesting to look at the group of whales in general. Perhaps the very top 20 spenders are all well-balanced, healthy individuals with large incomes. But what about the rest of people who are spending large amounts of money? This might be where struggling individuals are more likely to be found.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    I think in the absence of data, people see what they want to see such that it agrees with their worldview. Nobody likes to endure cognitive dissonance. Even in the presence of data people see what they want to see. Me? Well, some of the time the people spending money are sorely addicted; some of the time they have a mental illness like depression / mania / psychosis / schizophrenia / OCD / whatever; some of the time it's credit card fraud; some of the time it's kids spending their parents' money; some of the time it's just some person with access to a lot of cash that decides to throw money at the problem of becoming good at the game. It would be really neat to see some numbers.
- interesting_att 11y ago
  Actual F2P developer here. I've spent countless hours interviewing payers. Vast majority of people are normal, hardworking people who just genuinely enjoy games. You're focused on a problem that doesn't affect 99.964% of people playing the game (Math: Avg 3% of people are payers, 4% of those payers are whales, and a small fraction of those big payers could be recognized as people with issues). Moreover, even if this problem existed, that doesn't make these games inherently bad. People can develop addictions to whole gamut of things: alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, porn, Facebook, relationships, food, etc. But none of those things are inherently ban. Why is gaming any different? Yes, F2P games optimize for retention/monetization, but how is this any different from any other product in the market?

hellbanner 11y ago

"I spend several hundred dollars a year on my game. My first upgrade was to get a membership. Then I purchased new equipment. After playing for a bit, I upgraded to a better equipment so I could score more points in my game" "..surprise, my game is Competitive Figure Skating. Games are hobbies. People spend large sums of money to compete in physical games, why the stigamtism against digital games?" --paraphrasing Emily Greer. Personally I find that a great argument of why freemium isn't inherently evil. Pay-to-win already exists in physical sports. Japan, however, banned certain freemium games where you pay for increased chance of good rewards in a random check: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BetableBlog/20120525/171124/Why_quotKompu_Gachaquot_Was_Banned.php http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BetableBlog/20120525/171124/W...

chii 11y ago
> game is Competitive Figure Skating but the problem is that figure skating is an established "game" (aka, a sport). The rules haven't been made such that you _need_ to spend the money. A freemium game is designed in the very core mechanic, to be unfun unless you paid up. that's what i have a problem with - game is an art, and if an artist wouldn't put in a certain mechanic except under coercion (say, by the threat of non-payment), then i'd say it's not part of their original design. I only want to play the pure, original design of a game, unhampered by business requirements. Freemium games are choking the air out of the market for such games unfortunately, and that's why i hate it.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Yes. And with younger players who have less distinguished selection skills (and mental resolve to not fall into a time vortex), those games will be around for a while. Somewhat related, in Apple's design awards for top iOS apps they remarked on one game as using "in app purcahses to add variety and different gameplay modes, not just pay to win". If only Apple reviewed each game for quality!