JonB wrote:

nick_md wrote:

For sure, I'm only speaking of my own experience. Rank practice is rank practice, I've never argued there aren't unsavoury systems in play, my argument is against the blanket all or nothing vitriol. It ain't going away.. maybe let's try to make it work?

Well, if it has to be there then yeah, make sure it follows some rules or something. It's clear that it's a model that aims to extract large sums of money from a small percentage of people, and for me there should be clear spending limits imposed.  But I've no interest in it. Just playing Disc Jam earlier this year, where wins gave you points that you could spend on capsule machine for outfits, poses etc (no real money involved) and it got on my tits. Just let me choose the ones I want FFS. So, I'll certainly be avoiding anything based on that mechanic, as well as anything where it's completely optional but gets in the way of the rest of the game. MGSV is my favourite game of the last few years, but it's slightly spoiled by having the in game economy in SP connected to the economy in the MP/online mode. Not really an issue with microtransactions, but just a way in which upgrading weapons in the main game is slowed down if you don't participate in the rest of it. The more that happens the more it'll put me off playing certain games.

I've been meaning to reply to this for a while but haven't had the time, plus ofc it's a pretty difficult question to answer! I'll try to respond as best I can to a few points:

JonB wrote:

It's clear that it's a model that aims to extract large sums of money from a small percentage of people, and for me there should be clear spending limits imposed.

I'm all for clear spending limits and this is the Japanese system I referenced earlier. I imagine, as in Nippon, it'll take a large scandal for spending limits to be imposed in the EU.

Also, to say that this model 'aims' to extract a large sum of money isn't always the case. Again, I can't speak for every developer out there, but the people I've worked with on titles that include gacha are *as* opinionated as you lot on the pitfalls evident in the system and *as* keen as you lot to be fair and *not* build a whole economic plan on milking a small amount of users. Every company wants the ARPDAU (average revenue per daily active user) to be healthy, they don't want to rely on ARPPAU (average revenue per paying active user). It's far more sensible to have a lot of people paying something, than have a small 'whale' proportion subsidising your whole project.

Granted it doesn't (rarely?) work out like that.

JonB wrote:

Just playing Disc Jam earlier this year, where wins gave you points that you could spend on capsule machine for outfits, poses etc (no real money involved) and it got on my tits. Just let me choose the ones I want FFS

You just described having to play the game to unlock outfits, which has been pretty standard since the 16bit era, I think.

JonB wrote:

MGSV is my favourite game of the last few years, but it's slightly spoiled by having the in game economy in SP connected to the economy in the MP/online mode.

I don't think developers can be blamed for this sort of thing *if done properly* (the crucial caveat, as always). Developers want to guide you around their title, 'the funnel', as it's called, or even a FTUE (first time user experience). More and more developers will create a 'cycle' of gameplay (the core loop), which exposes you to each and every game mode, along with some hand holding the first time you go through (the FTUE). Games these days are created with an eco-system of player behaviour: user does X which unlocks Y which gives them Z which they can user to X more and get more Y then expose better Z. There are reams of people employed to ensure you see each and every bit of the title and are guided through it. Not really sure what I'm arguing here other than, if MGS is making you play MP, it's because the devs wanted MP to be an integral part of the ecosystem.


I am fully aware I'm speaking from the opposite side of the fence to you btw, and am more than happy to be challenged in my assumptions. I'm not saying what I've outlined above is all good practice, but that it is the current thinking.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Not really. Playing the game to unlock outfits is "do X to unlock Y". He's describing a lottery.

"Just playing Disc Jam earlier this year, where wins gave you points that you could spend on capsule machine for outfits, poses etc (no real money involved) and it got on my tits. Just let me choose the ones I want FFS"

Ah I see, sorry I didn't see the capsule element. Okay, so winning lets you unlock cosmetic stuff but maybe not the stuff you wanted. So you play some more.

Did I get it wrong?

@nick

Every company wants the ARPDAU (average revenue per daily active user) to be healthy, they don't want to rely on ARPPAU (average revenue per paying active user). It's far more sensible to have a lot of people paying something, than have a small 'whale' proportion subsidising your whole project.

I guess the question here is does it ever work? Are there successful FTP games that have done well by taking a small amount of money off a lot of people, and not loads off anyone? I don't know enough about it to say, obviously, but if such a model still hasn't proved viable it seems a bit disingenuous to keep going down that route knowing the likely results.

And yeah, the Disc Jam thing was a capsule machine. You'd play a few games to unlock one shot at it and then often get something for a character you didn't use or a crap slogan that showed on you profile, or a duplicate of something you had. A very slow process just to get a few customisation options, and it wasn't fun to me at all.

Games these days are created with an eco-system of player behaviour: user does X which unlocks Y which gives them Z which they can user to X more and get more Y then expose better Z. There are reams of people employed to ensure you see each and every bit of the title and are guided through it. Not really sure what I'm arguing here other than, if MGS is making you play MP, it's because the devs wanted MP to be an integral part of the ecosystem.

The issue here was more the detrimental effect the MP had on progress through the SP mode. It was one thing to introduce you to it as part of the main game, another to connect the SP economy to online features. Still only a minor issue on an excellent game though.

Actually, the recent Everybody's Golf is a much better example of fucking a game up with paid for content. It's designed around a dull grind and then upgrades that really encourage extra spending to get the top level clubs, and it spoiled the whole structure even though the core gameplay was still good. So, it's creeping in there.

I suspect Pokémon Go has taken lots of small amounts off lots of people rather than relying on 'whales'.

And there is plenty of gameplay there as a fully free game.

No gambling, just let people buy the thing they want. Design the game around an upper limit eg £20 buys everything in the game. Only cosmetic changes with the iap. That’s probably the worst set up ever and my company is probably going bankrupt.

There’s too many games, the market is too crowded and the cost of failure too great. None of that helps the small or medium dev who is just trying to get something out the door and get the bills paid for the next thing they want to make. It’s a systemic thing with the economy I think. But then we’re getting into the territory of society's ills thread.

I paid for Mario Run and never played it again because I hated the iPhone so much and got rid.

Yeah, the problem with Mario Run was the price. Cheap for a Nintendo game, but massively expensive for an iPhone title. Killed its chance of massmarket appeal.

Aye, that looks decent … but “Nintendo is still disappointed”.

The last minute or two is awful, but this brought some stuff to my attention.



Also here's a pretty good long interview with former iD and Bioware person, not holding back.

https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/evbdzm/race-in-games-ea-woes-with-former-mass-effect-manveer-heir

You've not seen Sterlings stuff before then?

afgavinstan wrote:

Loot boxes, eh? What bastards.

Sterling says some good shit but fucking hell he's annoying.

Dark Soldier wrote:

Sterling says some good shit but fucking hell he's annoying.

Imagine his fans.

He must run them at full power, what with all the congealed sweat under that pleather.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/11/03/call-of-duty-wwii-loot-crates-are-yucky/#more-490935

Here is me watching some other players watching a player open his loot crate.

I always play vanilla in quiet protest. The only addons I've bought are WipEout HD Fury, which was a proper update, and eight Uncharted 2 maps.