Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: