How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year • Hacker News Board

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#51

Post by bairrd » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #30

mdorazio wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on this and I think the problem really got started when Zynga began actively optimizing to monetize underlying addiction in its core users years ago. The real solution here is that we need legislation for "casual" games that puts addictive games into the same bucket as gambling, but doing that is going to be really difficult (how do you even legally define bad addicting gameplay?).

More legislation? While I agree that many of these games are fundamentally indistinguishable from gambling, gambling laws themselves are a complete overreach by the state. In general, when it comes to regulation, the role of the government should be to interfere at negative third-party externalities. When individuals are impacted by things they didn't consent to or take part in, there is a case for the protection of…

What would you define as the third party in cigarettes? Smokers and cigarette manufacturers seem to not have some negative third party by your definition, yet I find it pretty hard to accept that the current legislation against cigarette companies hasn't done a world of good for humanity.

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#52

Post by TomMckenny » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

Extremely interesting analysis. But it would be nice to know their marketing budget.

Without that, we don't really know whether the design or the advertising is the reason for revenue.

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#53

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

bairrd wrote: post #51

ralusek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More legislation? While I agree that many of these games are fundamentally indistinguishable from gambling, gambling laws themselves are a complete overreach by the state. In general, when it comes to regulation, the role of the government should be to interfere at negative third-party externalities. When individuals are impacted by things they didn't consent to or take part in, there is a case for the protection of…

What would you define as the third party in cigarettes? Smokers and cigarette manufacturers seem to not have some negative third party by your definition, yet I find it pretty hard to accept that the current legislation against cigarette companies hasn't done a world of good for humanity.

If what you want is a "Warning, this game may be addictive" every time you load the game, then fine.

But I do not think the government should be passing hate taxes on things they don't want you to do. People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar, and they're very likely to be going for animal based products at some point.

I don't think it's the government's job to control the populace. They can force companies to make risks clear, but if the consumer accepts the risk, that should be that.

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#54

Post by sleepybrett » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

congratulations, you made a skinner box.

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#55

Post by mattnewport » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #30

mdorazio wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on this and I think the problem really got started when Zynga began actively optimizing to monetize underlying addiction in its core users years ago. The real solution here is that we need legislation for "casual" games that puts addictive games into the same bucket as gambling, but doing that is going to be really difficult (how do you even legally define bad addicting gameplay?).

More legislation? While I agree that many of these games are fundamentally indistinguishable from gambling, gambling laws themselves are a complete overreach by the state. In general, when it comes to regulation, the role of the government should be to interfere at negative third-party externalities. When individuals are impacted by things they didn't consent to or take part in, there is a case for the protection of…

I used to be a pretty hardcore libertarian. The standard libertarian arguments only really work when you have a mostly libertarian system already however. They tend to have problems when you have some form of a welfare state such that individuals who for whatever reasons are unable to support themselves end up being supported by the state. That in itself is a classic libertarian argument - the logic of welfare inevitably leads to government overreach in all areas of life because the state has established a financial interest in preventing people from engaging in "harmful" behaviors.

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#56

Post by charliesharding » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #43

hu3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People belittling others in a game for not having spent money on a bunch of pixels is depressing. This behavior is perpetrated even by streamers which are followed by many, including children, as role models.

In CSGO, your skins are a direct representation of how good you are. This is fact. If you spent 1k on a Dragonlore, you're one of the best AWPers in your region, hands down.

As someone who drunkenly bought 10 keys and unboxed gloves I can confirm. I'm now competing at a much higher level.

Seriously though I think the loot box model is ethically wrong. However, I don't believe it's wrong to offer skins for sale - this is no different than people wearing different brands of clothing when they compete in sports

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#57

Post by iscrewyou » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

Reminds me of Battleheart(!!) on iOS. Now, THAT was an idle game. Seems like these people just took that concept online...

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#58

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #53

bairrd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you define as the third party in cigarettes? Smokers and cigarette manufacturers seem to not have some negative third party by your definition, yet I find it pretty hard to accept that the current legislation against cigarette companies hasn't done a world of good for humanity.

If what you want is a "Warning, this game may be addictive" every time you load the game, then fine. But I do not think the government should be passing hate taxes on things they don't want you to do. People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar, and they're very likely to be going for animal based products at some point. I don't think it's the government's job to control the populace…

> People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar

Where is sugar being regulated as tightly as tobacco?

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#59

Post by ralusek » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

bairrd wrote: post #51

ralusek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More legislation? While I agree that many of these games are fundamentally indistinguishable from gambling, gambling laws themselves are a complete overreach by the state. In general, when it comes to regulation, the role of the government should be to interfere at negative third-party externalities. When individuals are impacted by things they didn't consent to or take part in, there is a case for the protection of…

What would you define as the third party in cigarettes? Smokers and cigarette manufacturers seem to not have some negative third party by your definition, yet I find it pretty hard to accept that the current legislation against cigarette companies hasn't done a world of good for humanity.

I don't think that the role of the government is to do good for humanity. The role of the government, at least in a liberal democracy like the US, is to preserve liberty. In a state where the primary mandate is to pursue actions on behalf of the "good," the obvious problem is to do with how we define "good." There are plenty of cases to be made for the prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes altogether, and there have been periods where this has been democratically felt to be for the good of the nation. Many people advocate for the banning of pornography. Prostitution. Drugs. Fast food. Violent video games. There are all kinds of things that people regulate for people's purported best interest. The problem is that, as stated, people's interests vary. People's capabilities to control themselves vary. People's senses of morality vary.

But the illusory nature of "good" isn't even the primary problem. The real problem is tyranny. Government is force, no matter what, and even democracy is tyranny of a thin majority. Unless the powers of the state are limited in terms of its objective capabilities, then what is subjectively being enforced by its authoritative capacity is necessarily tyrannical to the minority.

Re: How Idle Heroes Made $100M in a Year

#60

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #26

chipperyman573 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A really simple solution would be to cap the amount of money a user can spend on a single game in a certain time period after the initial buy-in (so games could still charge hundreds of dollars for Premium/GOTY/etc editions). Even something like $50/mo would stop whales

If it is a simple solution, then there likely is a simple work around. In this case, large companies with multiple games can have cross game promotions. Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble.

> Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble.

The business model for these games is that 99% of players spend negligible amounts, and 1% spend hundreds or thousands; the minnows are a loss leader to get to the whales. Restricting spending to $50 or $100/month would destroy games like this entirely. (Which I'm fine with, personally.)