Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

clickerheroes2.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#151

Post by mirashii »

fro0116 wrote: post #115
mirashii wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Valve's model of pure cosmetics with an active workshop and ability to implement custom games shows you can still have microtransactions without turning away the notion of a player community. It just seems to me that the common monetization schemes implemented in other games is a bit of a blatant money grab made by forcing people to artificially grind.

I am a fan of the _idea_ of only charging for cosmetics customizations instead of hiding actual game content behind paywalls, but the way that Valve and others have implemented it in practice is highly predatory, because nearly everything desirable is hidden behind an opaque wall of RNG instead of just put up for direct purchase for a known price. This is how you end up with gambling addicts blowing thousands of doll…

I disagree with nothing you've said, but I do believe it's orthogonal to my main point: monetization via microtransactions doesn't need to inherently influence gameplay in any serious negative way, such as by introducing arbitrary grind or pay to win components. That said, I do wish the implementation was a bit better. It's an attempt at price discrimination which seems to work well, but the gambling aspect is definitely problematic and long in need of either a regulatory look or a pushback from the community. So far, the community seems to push back only when things become egregious.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#152

Post by lightbyte »

ansible wrote: post #78
jon_richards wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an interesting point, but I think most companies incentivise whales by putting them up against people who they can crush, whether it is deliberately (as in the case of activision's patent) or by having a matchmaking system that doesn't strictly separate people by their in-game power. Imagine a game where players only interact if they are the same level. If you can pay to gain levels, that doesn't necessarily…

There was an article recently about someone (perhaps EA) who was looking to implement a scheme to reward players for purchasing upgrades. Right after purchasing a new gizmo, you (in PvP matches) would be matched against players who don't have that gizmo. So you get to enjoy yourself with the purchase for a while. After that, the matchmaking system would then send you against players who have some other more awesome g…

That was indeed EA, they do this type of matchmaking in FIFA.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#153

Post by pavel_lishin »

dEnigma wrote: post #141
pavel_lishin wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paid for the mobile version, and it was easily worth it.

So it is a significant upgrade compared to the free prototype?

I don't know; I didn't play the free prototype, but I definitely felt like my money was well spent on the Android app.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#154

Post by colmvp »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #99
beaconstudios wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the main reasons F2Ps have become so prominent is that players want something for nothing - sure, you get all these games for free (but then, most players could easily afford $40 for a game they'll spend hours on) but then your weighted cost of development will get offloaded onto either some rich person with too much time on their hands (ethically fine) or someone with chronic gaming addiction or depre…

"I'd much rather live in a world where people were just more happy to pay for things they consume" As an "old" and grumpy gamer, I agree, but I think we are past that point. Nowadays I think new gamers are losing track of the fact that they are supposed to play to have fun, and see getting rewards as the only end-goal. Recently Hearthstone (collectible card game) announced a free roguelike single-player mode, and the…

> Recently Hearthstone (collectible card game) announced a free roguelike single-player mode, and the only thing many people in the community can think of is that the only reward for completing it is a minor cosmetic item, and that is not sufficient, that they should be better compensated for the time "invested" in it.

To be fair to Hearthstone players, the reason why they have this mentality is because the game is expensive and the amount of in-game currency one earns by playing every day is pretty small. So spending a few hours of entertainment time on Dungeon Run's is essentially giving up potentially earning gold for a pack. I don't think this would be as much of an issue had they not removed Adventures, which had a traditional purchase model (pay $20 to get complete content).

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#155

Post by jandrese »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #131
jandrese wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you pay up front the whole concept of paying to make your clickies refresh faster (IE, the entire business model of clicker games) goes away. What's left after that?

TF2 seems to have done decently with cosmetics.

TF2 has actual gameplay though. It's not just a skinner box with a coin slot.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#156

Post by CaptSpify »

feikname wrote: post #84
coupdejarnac wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering a decent NES game cost about $50 in 1987, how is $30 too steep for a game in 2017 that provides many hours of gameplay?

IMO, a game price shouldn't be about how many hours of gameplay it provides... $30 for a mobile clicker game just seems too much to me. I don't think it holds so much value. NES games were a lot harder to and took more time to produce (we're talking writing the game in assembly for a lot of them) and had less effective tools at producing content than we have today. You also had to assembly the cartridge and transport…

To add to your point: Quality is an issue here. If you put Bastion, or Fez, or something else high-quality out, sure, $30 might be OK.

Clicker games are not nearly as engaging as those games were. It's not just the cost/hour that we should measure with, it's also the quality/hour.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#157

Post by mattmanser »

Noos wrote: post #144
mattmanser wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge chunk of gaming revolves around the mechanics of progression and getting new things. There will be an audience for the game, because they like this type of game. MMOs have been wildly popular in the general community, precisely because there are no significantly complex mechanics. Yes, there can be, but a very small portion of the player-base are engaged at that level. You don't need amazing aim. You just pres…

Mercy is as skilless as Reinhardt or Winston though. Winston's gameplay is absurdly simple; find a healer or squishy, jump in, chase them around, and then jump out before you die. Reinhardt is just keeping a shield up, and knowing when it's safe to do your easily telegraphed rush. The reason why they are easier is because you need effective tanks and healers in the game, and hard healers or tanks as the only option w…

Yes, I just used her as an example of one of the low-aim heroes. I think Winston/Rein are bad starter heroes though as they require you to lead the push[1], which is a stressful job for a new player.

I think the Hanzo/Widow problem might be your personal view more than anything, there are lots of players who like winning games and did play Ana over them. The Hanzo/Widow "I want to DPS"[2] problem wasn't too bad until the disastrous Mercy re-balance caused a lot of problems including marginalising Ana players. Those sort of players don't like playing Mercy, so ended up as DPSers or, at best, Zenyattas.

Personally, I think the whole game would be simply better if they deleted Hanzo and Widow. I don't think snipers should be in a team-based, objective game.

[1] For the benefit of others, these characters are known as tanks (soak damage but don't deal as much) and usually initiate a full team fight, a match can be seen as a series of fights and knowing when to "push" is a key skill of Rein/Winston.

[2] A DPS is damage per second player, they do a lot of damage but are easier to kill. They can attract some players who aren't good at playing the objective and are just trying to get kills. A lot of people consider this role to be the most fun in Overwatch.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#158

Post by stingraycharles »

Noos wrote: post #146
gberger wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay $40-60 for an AAA console or PC game, not for a random mobile game. For that, $10 is about right.

but if you want the sim city experience, you want a AAA game. It's just not profitable to make that kind of game for $10. So you're never going to get it. If you only want to pay $10 for a mobile game tops, you will get what that $10 is worth; a 4-5 hour experience with little replayability, but has great graphics and is fun. Someone is not going to recreate a AAA title that had millions of dollars put into it in the…

I don’t expect game mechanics as refined as SimCity, or graphics like that. All I want is a sim game that doesn’t land me into a brick wall after a day because they want me to pay to expand my territory beyond 100 square foot.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#159

Post by cwyers »

stingraycharles wrote: post #158
Noos wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but if you want the sim city experience, you want a AAA game. It's just not profitable to make that kind of game for $10. So you're never going to get it. If you only want to pay $10 for a mobile game tops, you will get what that $10 is worth; a 4-5 hour experience with little replayability, but has great graphics and is fun. Someone is not going to recreate a AAA title that had millions of dollars put into it in the…

I don’t expect game mechanics as refined as SimCity, or graphics like that. All I want is a sim game that doesn’t land me into a brick wall after a day because they want me to pay to expand my territory beyond 100 square foot.

And if it was worth it to do that for ten bucks, someone probably would have already. But mobile app consumers are incredibly price sensitive, and so you see the market dominated by crap and F2P, and sometimes even F2P crap.

Re: Clicker Heroes 2 is abandoning free-to-play

#160

Post by lfowles »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #132
arkades wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's no gameplay! Sorry, I mean to say: there's no inherent evolution of plot or mechanics. It's a game that's literally defined by "numbers increasing on the side of the screen, and microtransactions to make those numbers go up quicker." What would that look like without the microtransactions? while True: i++ print i Done.

> there's no inherent evolution of plot or mechanics. It's a game that's literally defined by "numbers increasing on the side of the screen, and microtransactions to make those numbers go up quicker." That's demonstrably not true. Universal Paperclips[1] had a progression, with new game elements becoming unlocked. Spaceplan[2] had a plot, and quite a bit of humor, and was absolutely worth paying for. [1] http://www.d…

Spaceplan is pretty great. Glad to see these mechanics maturing into something that can support an engaging story. (Kind of like the progression from Super Mario Bros to recent Mario titles, I suppose!)
Post reply on HN