The Ethics of "Freemium" / Free-to-Play Design

[Henroid]

So there's a pretty brief article up on Gamasutra by Patrick Miller, which seems to comprise merely of quotes from some panel that occurred. While I'm trying to find the contents of the panel in full, what's here in this article is enough to warrant discussion. Before you read, I think some of this was said as satire, but the article isn't quite clear on the nature of the panel so because Poe's Law is a thing someone is bound to be serious.

"This whole concept of freemium play, in my opinion, is the most radical form of entertainment socialism since Obama got elected. You've got a whole bunch of one-percenters paying for a bunch of freeloaders."

- Scott Dodson, chief product officer of Bobber Interactive, playing the role of "soulless capitalist" in a panel on the ethics of modern game design at GDC Online with Nik Davidson (Amazon.com) and Scott Rigby (Immersyve).

Other choice quotes from the panel include:

Nik Davidson opening the conversation of ethics in game design:

"Our industry bears the characteristics of a gold rush, and in any gold rush, you have honest prospectors and you have claim jumpers."

Scott Rigby on "whales" and other business terminology:

"What do we call our best customers these days? I'm not sure I'd want to be called a whale by anybody. 'Sticky' is not, generally, a good quality. I think we have this subtle language of control for our customers, and when paired with our ability to collect data, it raises some interesting ethical questions."

Davidson on the target market for free-to-play games:

"We like to think that the ones spending vast sums on these games are sons of Dubai oligarchs, but we have the data to prove that they're not, and that they probably can't afford to spend what they're spending. We're saying our market is suckers -- we're going to cast a net that catches as many mentally ill people as we can!"

Scott Dodson on the industry's responsibilities:

"I don't think it's always our responsibility to baby-sit people. My kids are 9 and 12, and they've been playing World of Warcraft since my son was 5 and sitting on my lap. I've never had an unauthorized purchase."

Davidson on the dangers of making unethical games:

"The long-term danger [of employing psychologically manipulative design techniques in games] is that we are poisoning the well; we're watching a large-scale tragedy of the commons play out on our player bases. Our audience is becoming inured to viral trickery we employ to get people what we want to do. For example, good UX design says 'Find the button the user is most likely to press, and make it as large and central and green as possible.' So what social games designers do is put the button you want to press and make it small and gray and uninviting, and make the button that shares to your whole friend feed that you just passed level two of the tutorial. We've boiled the frog."

What do you think? Should we as an industry consider game design a matter of ethics? If we should, how should we try to design with ethics in mind?

Regarding the first quote (the Obama one), the point I'm pulling from it is that there are indeed a select few people who pay into the game by a large margin. Spending habits on these games is a little interesting. For the most part, people are just making those one or two time purchases of a few bucks right? Meanwhile there's dopes like me who lump cash hurriedly but only spend so much time playing. I tend to buy things that are actually necessary, rather than cosmetics, but I still feel a portion of guilt that I'm enabling a business model that is easily taken advantage of.

The gold rush analogy is pretty spot on perfect. Any sort of major breakthrough has met this gold rush approach and each has stymied off in its own way. The latest that's coming down is the social app gaming bubble (which Will Wright was correct about, see Zynga's horrid stock performance), and the newest growth (which is an offshoot) is mobile apps. I'm never really opposed to these bubbles by their mere existence, just the malicious ones like Zynga.

Now, Nik Davidson's next quote has some pretty stark realities to it. I am not a high-income earner whatsoever (I'm actually in the poverty area, I'm willing to share that much about myself for the sake of the discussion). The price points of things within freemium games is pretty appealing because I'm able to invest in something to give it some legs without committing to buying a whole new game. It's fucked up how I can see this for what it is and I still bite. The thing I wonder about is if the intent of these price points are for the purpose of goading people like me, or if the goading is a side-effect. I easily see it being both at the same time.

This is another tragic part of the video game industry I feel, because when you think about the face value of "It's free to play, we'll just sell some shit now and then if you want" sounds like a pretty okay deal. But like DLC or digital distribution, there's some awful realities involved.

[Roderick]

From a gamer perspective, my big problem with Freemium games is that the very nature of it changes the game. Games with a high, set entry price are generally unconcerned with earning further money (unless it's through standalone packages), and their focus is on providing the absolute best quality gaming experience possible. That's not the case with Freemium, where the objective is to provide an addictive gameplay experience (abusing inherent psychological weaknesses) to coax people to stay and purchase goods. It's a game that doubles as a market place, where the latter often overshadows the former. Worse, the whole experience of the game is usually tied to making purchases, e.g. you can only get to the higher end areas if you buy this or that.

It's the opposite of what I want from an interactive experience and as a result I generally am not interested in these types of games. This opinion is, to clarify, based on the type of Freemium that exists on micro-transactions and purchasable goods (all Facebook games), not on the sale of a monthly subscription such as World of Warcraft.

[elmuerte]

I completely agree with Rodi, it's a whole different ball-/Video game.

I don't have much to add, but I just wanted to say that I really cringe at statements like "most radical form of entertainment socialism since Obama got elected". WTF does politics have to do with this. Statements like that carry a double meaning. And besides that, the whole statement of Nik and Scott is wrong. There is no form of socialism in freemium because the freeloaders don't get any of the benefits of the 1%ers. Sure, they get the right to "play", for as far as you can call it playing.

Also, a lot of freemium games are also ad supported, so it's not just the 1% that pays.

(damn you forum for converting videogame into Video game)

[Sno]

I've read some things where freemium developers talk about what a struggle it is to maintain a design mindset that doesn't mistreat free users. (On the premise that free users are evangelizing the game to their friends who in turn may be the kinds of people who do pay in.)

At the time it seemed like a positive perspective on freemium design, trying to maintain a good experience for the free players, but now i'm realizing that i've seen scarcely few developers say anything about how they're treating their paying customers.

"We like to think that the ones spending vast sums on these games are sons of Dubai oligarchs, but we have the data to prove that they're not, and that they probably can't afford to spend what they're spending. We're saying our market is suckers -- we're going to cast a net that catches as many mentally ill people as we can!"

Fuuuuck, what a harsh reality that is.

I mean, it's the kind of thing i'm sure everybody suspected all along, that a lot of the people paying into freemium games are spending compulsively.

However, faced with the reality of it, what responsibility is on the developer? (If there is even any at all.)

I still find the whole freemium movement so distasteful, i hate what it's doing to gaming. (I will extend that hate to shitty DLC practices on retail games too, fuck that as well.)

This forum seriously has the weirdest fucking word filter. Look at me, getting away with saying "fuck" so much, yet i can't say Lords Management.

[Lu]

I agree with Rodi too, to an extent. And yea, I think game designers have an ethical responsibility, but obviously not all design has an ethically questionable basis; referring back to the Nik Davidson quote ("Our industry bears the characteristics of a gold rush, and in any gold rush, you have honest prospectors and you have claim jumpers.") I take some issue with the idea that freemium's objective is to be addictive. It's true for a lot of them, but I think a lot of standard retail games do the exact same thing. Maybe they're not linked to a marketplace, but does that make it any less ethically dubious?

There are a lot of aspects of game design that deal with the manipulation of a player's psychology to get them to do what we want. That isn't inherently good or bad, but I think there is a blurry line between having a good sense of feedback and stimulating compulsion. In that sense, I think some of the games out there are downright predatory, banking on those for whom it becomes compulsory. The 2nd thing Davidson said, basically.

The subject of casinos and people with gambling addiction seems closely related? Is it the distinction of making games to entertain and making games to make money?

I don't know. I'm unsure about most things.

[Sno]

I think you've misattributed those quotes there, the formatting in Henroid's post is a little confusing though.

Also, with the gambling comparison, I am reminded of this whole thing.

I mean, but the thing is, it isn't just closely related, it is gambling.

Minus the potential for monetary rewards.

So it's arguably worse.

Mass Effect 3 did this thing where you could pay into the game for a random chance at some multiplayer loot, i thought it was fucking reprehensible in a game that was already getting a retail 60 dollars from people, and it made me angry that the internet wasn't up in arms about it. (Too focused on the stupid damn ending.)

[Lu]

I think you've misattributed those quotes there, the formatting in Henroid's post is a little confusing though.

I did, sorry. I edited it.

[Joewintergreen]

I also basically agree with everything Rodi said, and also

It's the opposite of what I want from an interactive experience

it's also the complete opposite of what I want to provide as a developer. I want people to keep playing my games because they are having fun/some kind of meaningful experience, not because they're compelled to for some other reason. Not really a freemium example, but a few years ago I noticed my WoW-playing friends had completely stopped enjoying the game but still felt compelled to play it every day and couldn't satisfactorily explain why. I still don't exactly get it but I remember wanting to never end up making anything like that.

I do think developers have some responsibility about this stuff but also probably most of them haven't thought super hard about it. I do know some people who are making a freemium game, very much hoping/planning to make most of their money out of in-app purchase compulsions. None of them are people who would ever actually consider spending their own money in a freemium game, so the quote about casting a net and hauling in suckers really rings true to me. Instead of "let's connect with our community" it's "I don't know who the hell these people are but apparently people pay money for this shit so let's go for it". Not that it's a consciously predatory thing, I think the developer attitude often is that people should just be smarter with their money (even though you're basing your financials on them not doing that)

hmm, possibly this post is a mess, I should sleep

[Malice Song]

"We like to think that the ones spending vast sums on these games are sons of Dubai oligarchs, but we have the data to prove that they're not, and that they probably can't afford to spend what they're spending. We're saying our market is suckers -- we're going to cast a net that catches as many mentally ill people as we can!"

Fuuuuck, what a harsh reality that is.

I mean, it's the kind of thing i'm sure everybody suspected all along, that a lot of the people paying into freemium games are spending compulsively.

What makes this rather difficult to take a stance on imo is that at least to me it seems to come down to a very fine line between actual compulsive behavior and spending money on a hobby that gives enjoyment and seeing it for what it is. I think in the very first Idle Thumbs episode Chris brought up the topic of the semi-casual who buys one game every other year and proceeds to play the crap out of it. Now in that example I am sure that person would probably jump on the opportunity to prolong that experience with additional, paid for content. And I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In contrast, I personally think it's way over the top to buy all or close to all available consoles each generation to the point where I wonder if it's not just the mentality of "got to have it". In that case, however, I think I'm looking at a well informed purchasing decision from someone who is deeper into the hobby than I am and simply decided that that is what he wants to spend his money on.

So then the question to me is, what is the difference between spending 200 bucks a month on 4 games and spending it on one game? The main one I could see would be developers' intent and the latter being consciously designed in a way to facilitate that spending. Right now I am just not convinced that actually matters, but that the more important point to look at would be consumer mindset. I think the comparison to gambling is rather worthwhile here. I've played cards for a while and within a small social circle we basically had one what the article might refer to as "sucker" who'd usually end up bleeding money on the table, though the amount was rather negligible in the end due to stakes. Still, it struck me as slightly odd, so I brought it up at one point and his stance on it was rather brilliant I think: he was fully aware that he'd pay most nights, the point was he enjoyed the game, the company and the thrill of winning every now and then and to loosely quote: "if I went to the cinema instead, all things considered, it'd cost just as much and I wouldn't have as much fun as I have doing this".

Point being, while I don't want to underestimate the point about gameplay designed to being addictive and raking in more money, the line between being concerned about that and potentially telling grown men and women what they should spend their cash on seems a bit blurry to me at times, especially when enticing consumers to spend money on products is such a predominant thing in general, not just games.

I don't want to deny that this type of game can lead to compulsory and flat out irresponsible purchasing habits, but the root of that might be a lot deeper than just gaming and maybe instead of pulling a white knight for a fraction of the customer base and potentially limiting options for everyone, the really ethical thing to do would be to educate the population in general about the psychological effects attached to money and instill some responsible spending habits. I can only speak for my country, but to my knowledge this is not something schools do around here and as long as that it is the case, the same ethical question applied to freemiums could (and maybe should) be asked in the context of a ton of other services, products and marketing practices and I am not sure I'd like to live in a scenario where all of those would be kept in check by anything other than society (and more prominently the targeted and educated consumers) itself.

[darthbator]

I think this is a really interesting topic. I don't think it's possible to take a stand on this at the moment on either side. I think that many developers feel a moral (personally righteous) obligation to not "use their powers for evil". We are at a time where game design in what I generally refer to as the "serotonin dump" era has become pretty highly refined. All you need to do is look at the fact that many emerging designs and mechanics are attempting to use games to convey an experience or emotion different from pure engrossment or empowered enjoyment. The old design tools are so refined people are looking to make entirely new ones to build entirely different kinds of things. I don't think it's that hard for skilled game designers to create systems that will drive a certain type of player to continually spend. I'm sure this has caused a lot of designers to reflect on that. However despite an individuals personal moral compass I don't think the strong sense of community required for true ethical decisions has really sprung up inside game development as a medium. Ethics demands the cohesion of a group to create social standards. As it stands now many game development decisions are driven by corporate ethics. The ethics of a publicly traded corporation demand that they leverage every resource at their disposal in order to continue exiting and maximize profits for their shareholders. As inhuman as it sounds in that particular case ethics demands that they push that type of design to it's earning limit. Who knows what kind of awful dissonance this must cause developers who's morals conflict with the ethical standard they're working under? Maybe this is one of the reasons that churn appears to remain at incredible rates in the game industry.

I think it's sad that the proliferation of that particular kind of ethic has really outpaced emergence of a communal ethic of game developers. I do think that exists but a lot of factors subvert that particular group ethic. Subjugation to a different ethic to acquire funding. The hard realities of making money to stay in existence themselves. I think a lot of "what is good for games" can often run contrary to "what is good for the people making them". The answer to the latter is almost always higher profits.

I have a few friends who have worked on "F2P" projects and I don't know anyone who seems to really like the model. Although in a time where there is so much product on the market competing for your dollar and you may only catch a limited player base no one can argue the business effectiveness of the model. I certainly don't have any answers, and I am very worried about the "race to the bottom" effect the free to play games are almost certainly going to have on the market over the long term. It hasn't really done damage at this point, but as more and more F2P games emerge it's hard to imagine a scenario where they don't end up seriously effecting the market and possibly the entire business of how games are made.

[BFrank]

Flip the analogy and you get the perfect argument for why multiplayer games work best with a 'socialistic' business model: if you don't have anyone with which to play the games you've purchased, the value of the game you bought 2 months ago drops to zero, making it much less likely for you to go out and buy another one. You end up getting this death spiral where people don't end up picking up multiplayer games they'd like to pay for because they're not sure if anyone's playing them.

The 1%ers need the freeloaders to get the full value of the game.

[syntheticgerbil]

This is a big thing on my mind right now, especially after seeing all of those quotes the other day. I work at a company that will only exclusively develop games on a F2P model because despite what anyone pleas the owner says, "We just don't have anyone here experienced with regular games, free to play is all we know."

One of our games is exclusively held up by about 20 nutcases (the whales) that give 60% of it's perpetually dying revenue every month. All other games so far failed to bait anyone to spend more than a few bucks. Ideally you'd want almost all of your players to spend a few bucks, but the free to play model seems to be built only on a select amount of people supporting every month. Maybe there are companies that aren't like this, but I would be most Zynga games work the same. Once you get into this dangerous territory of seeing what your company needs to do to survive, I think that's when you just release strings of content that cost way too much to keep those that are hooked paying, which I find unethically. One of the most disgusting things our director of design said in a meeting once was, "I read in an article about free to play companies and how they compare marijuana dealers to crack dealers. Marijuana dealers smoke their own drug, while crack dealers never touch the stuff. We are the crack dealers." That was just one of the most depressing things about it. Here I am, still at the same company, six months later. Can't wait to figure a way comfortable way out soon.

My personal thoughts initially when joining the company and contesting with the designers of certain games was that you shouldn't have content that reaches far beyond what you'd spend on a $60 AAA title. Besides the energy model just being a broken mess to wait or pay, a lot of F2P games have at least a $30 or upwards buy in rate just to get exclusive items or levels. Almost none of these "social games" tend to be worth that much. I wouldn't even say any of our games were worth beyond $5 if even, as we have a great habit of releasing unpolished buggy stuff early and then waiting for money to roll in while we fix known bugs and finish our base content and UI. So many other companies are just as guilty as taking advantage of that. There's no incentive to polish everything as great as you can have it up front when there's the possibility of making money right out of the gate. Of course explaining an abstract concept of broken unfinished games turning early adopters away plus their word of mouth and how this is bad for business in the long run is futile.

So assuming a lot of companies are just as naive and greedy as my own, why would any customer in their right mind spend $25 and upwards on exclusive base content (weapons, part members, crops, or accounts with faster replenishing energy and health, all before time savers) for a game that is more fucked up, broken, and unoptimized than a neato game with higher production values that costs $5 on your iPad, Steam, or PSN/XBLA alike? You would carry less stress from dealing with customer support because of errors and not feel pressured while playing the whole time. It makes me think that anyone playing a F2P game has slipped through the cracks or are just unaware of other games out there, only starting because this garbage originated on Facebook. And if people are catching on to other games because of it, perhaps that has more to do Zynga's failures this year than anything else at hand?

I mean, the other part I can't speak of on the free to play model is the way League of Legends operates. It seems safe enough to just buy more characters if you want, but does it run into that harmful area? I haven't played well enough to own, but it seems to be the only F2P game with the halo on it's head. How dangerous can F2P stuff with League of Legends? The other facet to all of my thoughts and misgivings on working with a company with this kind of model is that I know I could never seriously tackle any Free to Play game because of my OCD tendencies that spill over in games. I feel very stressed and unnerved when I can't finish a game or get 100% of everything. It's a very shitty situation when I know I've gotten into a game that I have no way of completing anything, to the point where I will quit for that sole reason. Ideally I suppose I'd be the exact kind of customer for forking over tons of money for a F2P game as I do in everything else I collect in life (books, movies, music, etc.), but I know better as I've played games all my life and know what to look for in experiences that end and designers that don't make a living off of jerking you around.

[I_smell]

Instead of "let's connect with our community" it's "I don't know who the hell these people are but apparently people pay money for this shit so let's go for it". Not that it's a consciously predatory thing, I think the developer attitude often is that people should just be smarter with their money (even though you're basing your financials on them not doing that)

Yeah this is basically what I was gonna add. I have to work with business-focused people in games all the time and they seem to have no idea that they're the worst people in the world. In their heads they've bought into the idea that Farmville is fun, and sharing things on facebook is great. I had to put a button on the bottom-left of a web game once that went to the client's site, and the conversation was:

"What if people click it by accident? it'll open a new tab and ruin the game."

"Hey if people want to play something else, they can open a list of a hundred free games at any time, this is a great feature!"

I've had dozens of conversations that ended in "being addictive isn't being fun? what are you smoking!".kind of people who judge 1:1 how good a game was by how many people played it. They're not cartoon villains, they're just looking at games a different way than we are; which makes them so good at their job.

"Green thumbnails in the app store are what sells right now" people play MMOs and Pavlov's App and think this is how you do a good job in making games.

And then the BOSS of all those people has probably never played a Video game in his life and is happy to report that their computer games are more popular than ever. Everyone who knows and cares about why this is an issue is working OUTSIDE of those companies.

-----------

Also side-note on bigger games doing this: Team Fortress 2 has slowly morphed into this since 2007. Mann VS Machine feels like Progress Quest to me, and how malicious IS selling hats? It's hard to hate on Valve for too long, because the Steam Workshop and Source MovieMaker and most other things that come out of TF2 are just awesome; but hearing that they're recording people's brain activity in testing Dota 2 is kind of the opposite of the image most people like us have of Valve. They literally do attach TF2 bonuses to random sales, and judging by the "How many games have you bought and never played" thread, this compulsive consumer manipulation stuff we're talking about in Facebook games is happening to YOU in Steam.

Oh and also the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer fucking stinks, I want more guns, but it takes like 3 hours of playing with wimpy pistols just to work up the space-credits.

[Joewintergreen]

"I read in an article about free to play companies and how they compare marijuana dealers to crack dealers. Marijuana dealers smoke their own drug, while crack dealers never touch the stuff. We are the crack dealers."

This is extremely true. I consider myself to be largely immune to microtransactions and the like - I would never consider buying a TF2 item for instance (though I've sold a couple that somehow ended up in my inventory, for real money, to my at-the-time astonishment). The guys I've known who are making free to play games are also immune, they'd never buy a hat, they don't understand why you would want to, and here they are basing their games around the same thing, and ethical considerations don't necessarily occur to them, even at the level of "should I care if people are wasting money on my horse armour". You can go very easily from making the games you'd want to play to targeting this incredibly nebulous (but, you assume, vast) audience who you don't understand, and you maybe have nothing in common with. Maybe you've never even met one of them. Maybe you'll make a million bucks or maybe you sabotaged yourself by targeting an audience you might not be capable of understanding. Jury might still be out on that.

Also, a while ago a reader mail of mine was on the cast, the one about getting pressure from other devs to implement stuff like this (also achievements/leaderboards/etc), it's near the end of I Had A Gleam, and the discussion was good. Didn't really touch on ethics of freemium so much as "is this smart", but relevant. Also the interview with Foddy from ages ago was really interesting and made me think about this stuff more.

[I_smell]

I've bin hearing a lot of this "ethics in game design" talk over the passed couple years from independant developers, and the first good round-up of the whole subject I saw was

. Then

.

I WAS gonna post both, but you guys are all pretty up to speed.

[youmeyou]

I think the crack dealer analogy makes sense, and not just in the video games industry. I work in broadcast advertising and I don't even have cable or watch network television. I never even see the product of my own work unless it's on at a bar. I think this kind of disconnect is a natural part of actually being neck-deep in the mechanics of the product you are selling.

Now I imagine this is quite different when there is a very small team behind a game. When you have an intellectual stake in your product I bet you think more about the end result than if you're just one of many people contributing. Which may separate the honest prospectors from the claim jumpers in the case of free-to-play games.

[The Claw]

I find it difficult to take anyone who says "we have data to prove X" seriously. The wonderful thing about unpublished data is you can abuse it to fit pretty much any claim, even if your intentions are good. There will always be people who are foolish with their money and I've yet to see a media business that would turn those people away.

I don't think the gambling analogy holds water precisely because there is no monetary reward for playing these games.

I have real trouble understanding precisely what is the ethical dilemma here. If it is that 1% of users prop up a bunch of freeloaders then surely shareware is unethical. If it is that these games artificially extend their lifespan by time-limiting a user's access to the content (as Jon Blow seems to suggest) then surely broadcast television is unethical. If it is that these games use psychological trickery to entice players to continue to pay to play then surely arcade games are unethical.

Perhaps it is the combination of these factors that pushes it over the edge?

One thing that is exciting about free to play it's still experimental and it is testing out new models. Many will fail. Anyone who believes there is a clear model for free to play games is a crazy person, whether you like it or not this is innovation and not every attempt is going to be acceptable to people. Ultimately I think the players of these games will judge, not some dudes with a vested interest in protecting the status quo.

Edit: I_smell, I watched the video you posted about gamification and largely agree with it's main point that gamification is a stupid waste of people's time and doesn't increase engagement. This video struck me as a warning that gamification won't work when overlaid on top of existing models once people realise the rewards are bullshit. I'm not sure this applies to free to play games where the customer accepts the rewards are going to be entirely artificial up-front. People don't get up in arms about Solitaire. Not all entertainment has to nourish the soul, the very least it has to be is a distraction.

[Lu]

I think the crack cocaine analogy is a bit ridiculous. There is a very big difference between addiction and compulsion.

I don't think the gambling analogy holds water precisely because there is no monetary reward for playing these games.

Because it exploits the same compulsorily psychology, I think. Why would money need to be involved for it to be unethical? Edit: Having thought about it a bit more, I think the aspect of money does push it over the ethical line for me. I think I agree, but I'm not sure yet.

One thing that is exciting about free to play it's still experimental and it is testing out new models. Many will fail. Anyone who believes there is a clear model for free to play games is a crazy person, whether you like it or not this is innovation and not every attempt is going to be acceptable to people. Ultimately I think the players of these games will judge, not some dudes with a vested interest in protecting the status quo.

I agree, and you are right; the players will decide, but to me this discussion of ethical/unethical is a question for developers and something that presents a choice for us. How far do we go with these techniques and tricks, and how do we apply them? They're tools of the trade, no doubt, but I think most of us here would prefer to engage a player through other means than compulsion, right?. I think it's healthy that the folks who have an influence on culture ask questions about said influence and their role.

Basically, when is it alright and when does it go too far is what concerns me.

Not all entertainment has to nourish the soul

No shit.

[Henroid]

Worse, the whole experience of the game is usually tied to making purchases, e.g. you can only get to the higher end areas if you buy this or that.

This kinda touches up on "pay to win," which I want to ask you guys: Can you cite specific examples of this? Both so that I can see what qualifies and also how much it actually happens. New freemium games' discussions usually begin with people going, "PAY TO WIN" blindly. I've certainly seen circumstances of paying for content or bonuses existing, but I've never seen it overshadow the free players immensely. There was this game, Shattered Galaxy, that had some pay to win associated with it; your character's stats were capped in free mode at 100, but with money you could surpass it to 120 (if I remember right). Plus, the shop to upgrade your units had special forms of items that were slightly better but cost real money. But you know, because it was an RTS (MMO) there was still skill involved it was possible to shame those players who paid money into it.

There is no form of socialism in freemium because the freeloaders don't get any of the benefits of the 1%ers. Sure, they get the right to "play", for as far as you can call it playing.

Well, they mean from the perspective that the game is up and running and that the company has incentive to continue running the game. Which you did address with the ad point, but I wanted to clarify that anyway since I saw the truth in it (despite it being so poorly worded).

I take some issue with the idea that freemium's objective is to be addictive. It's true for a lot of them, but I think a lot of standard retail games do the exact same thing. Maybe they're not linked to a marketplace, but does that make it any less ethically dubious?

You know, that reminds me of some freakish behavior I see sometimes when people are discussing any given game since the MMO market boom the last ten years. There are people who seek out those manipulative design practices and dislike games (to some degree or another) that don't make use of those schemes. It's like a scary video game Stockholm Syndrome.

I'll get to more points in this discussion later, just glad to see it rolling along.

[Nachimir]

This kinda touches up on "pay to win," which I want to ask you guys: Can you cite specific examples of this?

ZT Online is, I think, the archetypal one. As far as I've heard, Western gamers tend to react quite badly to that model, which affronts some cultural sense of fairness we have.

[Henroid]

ZT Online is, I think, the archetypal one. As far as I've heard, Western gamers tend to react quite badly to that model, which affronts some cultural sense of fairness we have.

I'd like to go on the record as never hearing about this game ever.

I've seen "pay to win" used to describe City of Heroes (side note: fuck off NCSoft), Star Wars: The Old Republic, and Dungeons & Dragons Online (just to cite some examples), but the phrase has been used and actively pursued as accurate merely because these games use freemium models (or will in the case of TOR). The closest any of these get to that concept, however, is DDO, which you buy actual dungeons to unlock permanently. You certainly don't have to buy that content, but it keeps the game from being a stagnant, same-shit-over-and-over grind. The rewards of that content are no better or worse than the freely provided content slices though.

[Nachimir]

Yes, I think it's the kind of term that's easily abused and assumed to be true. Actually, Americans and Europeans react really badly when genuinely confronted with a game on those lines.

Here's an interesting thing: At around 13 minutes into this video, Ed Key talks about Proteus as a Skinner Box.

[Lu]

That's super interesting. I remember reading about superstitions in video games, WoW in particular, where you had people doing these bizarre rituals like taking off all their gear only to put it back on in the dungeon, because apparently that upped your chances of getting a certain rare drop. Even when the developers say flat out that it's nonsense and doesn't work like that, the behavior persisted.

Here's another example of this, but in Dungeons & Dragons Online. The same Skinner Box experiment is mentioned.

[Nachimir]

Very interesting, I know that in Proteus, the ambiguity it sometimes has between cause and effect is deliberate. The first time I played it, I found I developed a little ritual of

walking around the towers because I thought thats what made them teleport me

.

That's a different discussion though. I think one of the most interesting things about it is that "Skinner Box" is also thrown at social games as an insult. IIRC, rats in Skinner Boxes developed compulsive behaviour once cause and effect between the lever had been demonstrated but later decoupled. I don't think Proteus would do that to anyone because the only rewards it gives are aesthetic; none of it is based around consumables or resources. I've certainly seen facebook games that exploit that kind of thing to create compulsive behaviours though.

[theGreatjon]

I think the gambling and crack analogies are way over the top. And yes the pay to win expression is over used. One of the most successful games in this "genre", League of Legends, sells mostly cosmetics. It also sells additional characters, which some argue is pay-to-win, but since these characters are not necessarly more powerful than the free characters, it's rather about diversification and personnalization.

Anyway, I don't share the "burn the witch" mentality I often see in the industry. I think it's just a new way of monetizing games (and we live in times where new business models, in many fields, are legion).