Kongregate: the science behind the massive profits of F2P games • Hacker News Board

Re: Kongregate: the science behind the massive profits of F2P games

#51

Post by hellbanner » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #47

hellbanner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 Emi…

> 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 o…

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!

Re: Kongregate: the science behind the massive profits of F2P games

#52

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

rjaco31 wrote: post #34

T-hawk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those both essentially do run on wait timers. You can earn the components needed to play at a high level gradually with a limited number of plays per day, or pay to accelerate that process. This model isn't as harsh as actually locking out from the game if you don't pay, but it sure does move along the same axis of paying to alleviate a time-based restriction.

Uh? This might be somehow true for Hearthstone, but you'll have a hard time convincing me there is any kind of timer in LoL. All the in-game purchases are basically just cosmetics, and the lightweight grinding is more of a tutorial phase than anything else.

[deleted]

Re: Kongregate: the science behind the massive profits of F2P games

#53

Post by the_af » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 11:29 PM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #44

the_af wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue comes down to if games are a legitimate, healthy hobby or not. For me the issue is not whether "games are a healthy hobby", but whether F2P games are. I think they are not, or rather I should clarify: the kind of games usually called F2P or "freemium", which base their gameplay on grinding and which try to make you spend money to buy coins, which are powerups that essentially "speed up" the boring parts o…

Please see my comment above which discusses Emily Greer's rationale for why freemium isn't inherently evil - people already spend large sums on physical sports. Buying better equipment is paying-to-win. That said, in most sports your equipment augments a skill. The skill of mindlessly clicking (or not clicking -- see the "idle games" genre) isn't particularly fascinating to you or me so we shouldn't make those kinds…

This is highly subjective, of course, but I don't think it's the same as with physical sports... or even genuinely challenging videogames!

In those cases sometimes it's partly paying-to-win, but even then there is genuine value in the activity itself. Playing hockey or Counter Strike is its own reward. But clicking cows isn't, it's an exploit of the human brain's tendency towards addictive behavior. Often there is very little "game" in these F2P games, which is why you spend money to quickly progress through the grinding and bypass the boring gameplay. You level up or buy clothes for your mascot or a bigger house, but don't engage in an actual enjoyable activity.

I understand this is a lucrative business opportunity, and of course no-one is forcing anyone to play these games... but I find the whole thing perverse. I don't agree casual games should necessarily be hacks of the human brain.