I used to be a moderator on Kongregate and had a decent amount on interaction with multiple of the administrators. I also was somewhat involved in the flash game market (just casually as a hobby). When I found out how Kongregate specifically worked with developers to help make games that target the 'whale' spenders, I was pretty shocked. Making games that are not enjoyable, just addictive, in order to take in thousands of dollars from single individuals just seemed so unethical.
I just glanced over that link of Emily's ethical rationale for this, and it didn't convince me. But I'll have to go back through it more carefully before I can decide for sure.
On Kongregate, 2.1% of users buy virtual goods. Of these, about 4% (the whales) have spent over $500 and bring in about half of Kongregate's revenue. Top spenders often spend $50K-$80K.
Emily's premise is this: that people who spend lots of money on games (whales) are people who healthily enjoy the games as hobbyists.
Her most interesting points, in my opinion are as follows:
We think whales are bad (but shouldn't) because they spend their money on virtual goods:
"Spending $5-$10k on specialized PC Gaming rigs that improve your skills and enhance your competitiveness is not really that different from spending money for in-game items that do the same. But I bet you all find it a lot easier to contemplate."
We think whales are bad (but shouldn't) because we don't think games are a legitimate hobby:
"The bias against games is so insidious that even within the industry we’ve internalized it enough that we question someone with means spending tens of thousands of $s on a game, especially when you combine it with the low value we place on mobile and PC games and especially virtual goods. And so people jump to explanations like “mental illness” or “evil games manipulating players” when the real explanation is that they are rational, wealthy people who are dedicated fans investing in a particular game."
I personally don't agree with her though. We would have no problem with a person spending $10K on software. The issue isn't virtual vs. physical goods. The issue comes down to if games are a legitimate, healthy hobby or not. I would argue that they are not, at least for most of those who are whales. I don't have time to flesh this argument out tonight though.
> 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 of the game are not a legitimate, healthy hobby. They are preying on people's addictive behavior while providing very little genuine value in return. They are what people like Jonathan Blow (of Braid fame) derides as Skinner Boxes and what Ian Bogost mocked with his game "Cow Clicker" (http://bogost.com/games/cow_clicker/).
I'm a Kongregate player and there are true gems in there, but most F2P games can be safely disregarded. If it has coins you can buy, or you can spend real money to bypass parts of the game, this is a huge red flag. (Another genre that I completely ignore is the overcrowded "Empire Building Strategy Game", which if you pay attention is always the exact same game with a different skin every time -- and most are F2P, while we're at it).
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 of games.
Ian Bogost received death threats for removing Cow Clicker online. Was that a fault of his stunningly addictive gameplay, or a flaw in primate psychology that we as a species can work to correct (genetically, or perhaps through social conditioning eg. teaching people not to gamble)?
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.
Most of the games taht works on this kind of model are usually simply not very good. And seeing that at the beginning, for me it's a very big red flag that will say. Don't waste your time on this.
This is because they don't need that many people to make money, and they will always get at least someone, so the better business model is quantity over quality.
Yep. In particular, if demographically whales are (as subtextually claimed on slide 12) functioning upper-middle-class professionals like business owners, engineers, doctors, and CPAs, then there doesn't seem to be any meaningful harm in it.
My unease about F2P monetization is that my sense of the demographics is that it tilts more towards "people with undiagnosed depression" or "the Vegas slots demographic."
Slide 12 isn't a convincing argument that these people are okay, but of course it doesn't indicate the latter either. But even if these people are upper-middle-class professionals, there's still a chance that their action stem from things like depression/addiction. My hunch would be that the cause of the big spending leans more towards addiction than well-reasoned spending on a health hobby, but without data or evidence that's purely a guess.
It would also be interesting to look at the group of whales in general. Perhaps the very top 20 spenders are all well-balanced, healthy individuals with large incomes. But what about the rest of people who are spending large amounts of money? This might be where struggling individuals are more likely to be found.
I think in the absence of data, people see what they want to see such that it agrees with their worldview. Nobody likes to endure cognitive dissonance. Even in the presence of data people see what they want to see. Me? Well, some of the time the people spending money are sorely addicted; some of the time they have a mental illness like depression / mania / psychosis / schizophrenia / OCD / whatever; some of the time it's credit card fraud; some of the time it's kids spending their parents' money; some of the time it's just some person with access to a lot of cash that decides to throw money at the problem of becoming good at the game. It would be really neat to see some numbers.
Actual F2P developer here. I've spent countless hours interviewing payers. Vast majority of people are normal, hardworking people who just genuinely enjoy games.
You're focused on a problem that doesn't affect 99.964% of people playing the game (Math: Avg 3% of people are payers, 4% of those payers are whales, and a small fraction of those big payers could be recognized as people with issues).
Moreover, even if this problem existed, that doesn't make these games inherently bad. People can develop addictions to whole gamut of things: alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, porn, Facebook, relationships, food, etc. But none of those things are inherently ban. Why is gaming any different? Yes, F2P games optimize for retention/monetization, but how is this any different from any other product in the market?
Other products don't aren't optimized by their creators to extract the maximum revenue from the 0.046% of their market that the creators have determined are vulnerable to remarkably effective psychological manipulation techiniques, and upon whom the creators are dependent for the majority of their revenue.
Next question?
And the next question really shouldn't be "Oh but aren't they really? Other products use advertising too!" If it is, please refer to the answer above, and add reading comprehension.
You don't know much about other industries then. Both gambling, food and drink sectors are optimized to build addiction and maintain it over the longest possible period. They call it "fidelity" but it's the same thing.
I personally think f2p is essentially a branch of the gambling industry and will eventually be recognised as such in law. After all, it was the case for coin-ops (at least here in Europe), which had basically the same business model.
Why do we as a society scrutinize the F2P games industry for its bias against "people with undiagnosed depression" and yet let other industries (which have been in business for ages) slide? A seemingly silly example is knives, for cutting oneself. My concern is that we are looking too closely for patterns and problems when it seems like to me that the capturing of certain types of customers is just plain old marketing.
"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 Emily Greer.
Personally I find that a great argument of why freemium isn't inherently evil. Pay-to-win already exists in physical sports.
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 of non-payment), then i'd say it's not part of their original design. I only want to play the pure, original design of a game, unhampered by business requirements. Freemium games are choking the air out of the market for such games unfortunately, and that's why i hate it.
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".
I just glanced over that link of Emily's ethical rationale for this, and it didn't convince me. But I'll have to go back through it more carefully before I can decide for sure.