5 ms·

Yep. In particular, if demographically whales are (as subtextually claimed on slide 12) functioning upper-middle-class professionals like business owners, engi

by 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?
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  Other products don't aren't optimized by their creators to extract the maximum revenue from the 0.046% of their market that the creators have determined are vulnerable to remarkably effective psychological manipulation techiniques, and upon whom the creators are dependent for the majority of their revenue. Next question? And the next question really shouldn't be "Oh but aren't they really? Other products use advertising too!" If it is, please refer to the answer above, and add reading comprehension.
  - toyg 11y ago
    You don't know much about other industries then. Both gambling, food and drink sectors are optimized to build addiction and maintain it over the longest possible period. They call it "fidelity" but it's the same thing. I personally think f2p is essentially a branch of the gambling industry and will eventually be recognised as such in law. After all, it was the case for coin-ops (at least here in Europe), which had basically the same business model.
    - cactusface 11y ago
      His point was that in other industries they don't optimize their products for a tiny percentage of their clients.
      - toyg 11y ago
        In Las Vegas, they certainly optimize their "products" for big spenders.
        jsight 11y ago
        Yes, and there are plenty of people who would argue that is a bad thing.
personjerry 11y ago
Why do we as a society scrutinize the F2P games industry for its bias against "people with undiagnosed depression" and yet let other industries (which have been in business for ages) slide? A seemingly silly example is knives, for cutting oneself. My concern is that we are looking too closely for patterns and problems when it seems like to me that the capturing of certain types of customers is just plain old marketing.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  i don't see many knife companies actively courting people attempting to self harm.

by patio11 11y ago

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?

tjradcliffe 11y ago
Other products don't aren't optimized by their creators to extract the maximum revenue from the 0.046% of their market that the creators have determined are vulnerable to remarkably effective psychological manipulation techiniques, and upon whom the creators are dependent for the majority of their revenue. Next question? And the next question really shouldn't be "Oh but aren't they really? Other products use advertising too!" If it is, please refer to the answer above, and add reading comprehension.
- toyg 11y ago
  You don't know much about other industries then. Both gambling, food and drink sectors are optimized to build addiction and maintain it over the longest possible period. They call it "fidelity" but it's the same thing. I personally think f2p is essentially a branch of the gambling industry and will eventually be recognised as such in law. After all, it was the case for coin-ops (at least here in Europe), which had basically the same business model.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    His point was that in other industries they don't optimize their products for a tiny percentage of their clients.
    - toyg 11y ago
      In Las Vegas, they certainly optimize their "products" for big spenders.
      - jsight 11y ago
        Yes, and there are plenty of people who would argue that is a bad thing.

personjerry 11y ago

Why do we as a society scrutinize the F2P games industry for its bias against "people with undiagnosed depression" and yet let other industries (which have been in business for ages) slide? A seemingly silly example is knives, for cutting oneself. My concern is that we are looking too closely for patterns and problems when it seems like to me that the capturing of certain types of customers is just plain old marketing.

throwaway2048 11y ago
i don't see many knife companies actively courting people attempting to self harm.