The worst example I've seen of this so far is in the iOS port of Majesty, in which you can pay to refill your treasury, which makes the game completely trivial. Somehow this struck me as much worse than the Farmville-style click-and-wait genre.

I was pretty shocked when I was given the option in The Sims Freeplay to buy credits that will shorten the time I spend bathing in a virtual shower. I uninstalled the game immediately but the pricing model wouldn't be there if it wasn't profitable. McMillen is correct, though, that this will surely dissuade many first-time gamers from continuing with our beloved hobby.

I agree. I'm sick of seeing these tactics in games and generally it makes me get bored of the game quicker as I never buy the in app purchases and don't have the motivation to work for them when they can be bought.

I'm irritated by this sort of thing almost as much as when the ads in "free" apps try to look like missed call notifications, Facebook messages, etc. - that shit is just downright crooked.

Exactly!

This is so true it hurts. I'm about to conclude my work as lead designer on a new Facebook game for a small developer. It started off (in my humble opinion) as a fun, unique title, but the amount of subsequent alterations dictated to monetise the game, to get "players" hooked through viral acquisition, to switch off their brains and then tantalise them with financial shortcuts to the goals they have been slowly programmed to crave... it is simultaneously ingenious and saddening.

For a much more in-depth look, I highly recommend reading two beautiful articles by Tim Rogers, focused primarily on The Sims Social, which analyse and rightly attack this cancer of modern video games.

I can't agree more.

I strongly agree. Unfortunately, the company I work for right now is taking this approach since we're just starting to get into mobile development. As much as I stress the quality of the game, all they care about is the $$$'s. I honestly don't see it as a model that will last long. For a company who says they want to make good games, they certainly don't support that idea through the decisions they are making right now.

One of the reasons they use to argue that this will be profitable is with the recent success of Temple Run and how this model worked for it.

Speaking of crappy ways people are monetized in games:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/05/4468510/kompu-gacha-online-games-with.html

"TOKYO -- The Consumer Affairs Agency in Japan has concluded that a system used by some online game operators on social networking service (SNS) websites constitutes a violation of a law that bans certain types of sales methods, according to sources close to the agency.

In such online games, known as "kompu gacha" (complete gacha), players can win a grand prize, a rare virtual item, after purchasing a certain number of required items.

...

The agency also plans to ask companies that offer such games to stop using the questionable sales method. If companies fail to comply with the request, the agency will issue a correction order with punitive measures in line with the law against unjustifiable premiums and misleading representation."

If you can do the game you like and still be able to make money on it, then all the power to you. But in short, WHY are the most profitable games all using this 'tactic' are the players you all crave to have buy your game that stupid, or do they have a different view on this? They are after all choosing to spend money this way, if they all hated it, then these games would all go away no? And they would all be flocking to the 'real' games right. I agree that some of these games seriously lack a good game underneath, but you do have to understand that 80% of all revenue from the app store today comes from In-App purchase, so you better find a way to add those to any game you ship today if you want to make money in the app store.

This article is truth well spoken. +100 Internets.

I can't really say anything else than Well Said!

I have enormous respect for Ed, but am probably going to be the first person in this thread to question the statements. .

Look at Tribes Ascend.

It's a free game, it's awesome. I can play it for long enough to unlock everything, or I can pay a bit to unlock stuff faster. This way the developer can make the game free and still make actual money on sustaining/developing the game further -- while giving it exposure to huge amounts of people.

I strongly believe the same model extends to multiple platforms. You can make your game free, and add a monetization method for those who want a quick cheat.

Definitely NOT saying that the game should be designed around the concept, however if it is possible within the (fun and great) game design, it is a great option to give your game huge exposure and monetize it as well.

What we're doing with some games is unlocking the last "worlds" only if a player has a certain high score (cumulative # of coins) from previous worlds. This will act as the core monetization mechanism -- hardcore users will play through all of them, while those willing to pay will be able to do so to unlock content faster.

What other option is there if we want to maintain the game with it being free? Put annoying ads into users' faces? Nope.

I think this article is poorly targeted. Some games that employ these tactics are manipulative, but others are great. Look at League of Legends and Tribes Ascend. You can put in money or you can put in time; this is essentially the problem illustrated, but I don't find either of those games to be that manipulative. They're actually both fairly up front with telling players they can choose to put in time or money.

I think the difference is how significantly it impacts the core gameplay experience. Tribes and LoL can both be enjoyed without any money/time in, for example, because the gameplay is still fun regardless.

I hate the "pay instead of play" games probably more than anyone on this thread. But I haven't seen any real reason why developers should not be making these games.

Here are the arguments I've seen so far:

1. "It's unethical." The ethical arguments are highly subjective. In fact, I think appealing to ethics in this case is the same as saying "it's against my personal preference". True, but not persuasive.

2. "It's not sustainable in the long run." Where's the evidence? Addiction businesses (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, some types of religion) are doing great thousands of years after they were invented.

3. "Pay-instead-of-play games are of low quality". Why should the quality of the game be judged by a few people? 100 million people playing Farmville would disagree with my rating of 0/10 for that game.

While I agree that there are examples of mobile and/or social games that go too far down the path of "monetize to win", what bothers me about the sentiment of this article and the majority of the comments is that they are coming from a core gaming audience which simply is not the target demographic for the vast majority of the games in question. I would like to see comments from people who actually play these types of games and hear what they think about the "abusive and manipulative" tactics being leveraged against them.

The reality is that "hardcore gamers" no longer have the gaming market cornered. It is only natural that developers try to leverage this new, huge pool of potential customers. Maybe this is making it harder to find the quality games in a diluted pool, but I would argue that many developers have been disrespecting players with the quality of games they have been releasing for far, far longer than the length of time "monetize" has been a buzz word.

"Roahr," said the Dinosaurs. "We don't need to adapt. We'll never be extinct."


Freemium is here to stay because it works for the masses (now 95% of all Top Grossing apps). It is not for most of the hard core gamers on this thread. As others pointed out there are ways to be less evil and still have good gameplay and be successful.

I personally, cannot agree more. And I think the meat of what he's saying is "don't make a crap game just to try and make more money". The add on clause of "don't shorten the experience at all because it cheats gamers" works for me, but I understand a specific purpose for this.

My buddy is a doctor and we play DDO every Sunday. He purchased his (insert some really hard to accumulate item here) instead of running around so that he COULD play the game as he wished. I asked him why, and he said "I've got more money than time and I want to enjoy the game now." Now, DDO is one of the very few games that (at least at first), did FTP properly. It was a game that the DEVS loved passionately and needed to reach a certain level of revenue before the parent would okay the great stuff they wanted to provide. FTP was a perfect answer. It saved the game and made it stronger.
Unfortunately, everyone saw this and said "holy fruit bats! We can ship anything with quests and make millions!"

The real crime in this is something he threw out there as an afterthought. "If it doesn't make as much money as Angry Birds/Modern Borefare/etc.. its not worth our time." That to me is what has led to the darkest period of the gaming industry I've ever seen. Just because you couldn't sell a trillion copies of Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't mean there's not a market sufficient to support it. But, I'm probably a lone voice on that one.

I think most of these F2P game designs are just bland las vegas slot machine designs. What can we do to get the player to cough up their next nickel. These games all feel really grind-ee to me. Not much different than sitting at some nickel slots for 5 hours and pulling the lever every 5 seconds.

All for that momentary cheap thrill.

Yes overpaying for gaming experiences isn't new. This model is much less transparent than in the past. And doomed to more bland design and bilking the consumer. The game is free after all. They can just fall back on that line if they get any complaints.

I think I've made these comment a thousand times already: I really wish the app Store and android market/google play would categorize games into paid, free (real free), and with in app purchases. It would be a lot more fair to consumers.
And when you are selling a reward (items, less waiting etc.) instead of the actual game, you are preying on a strong psychological factor from a cognitive psychology/behaviorism point o f view. It makes games closer to a feeling of a casino, like some people mentioned here.

I wish people would be more careful and realize when they are supporting an item billing game and when they are actually just buying gameplay shortcuts.

Well, this happens when the price of games has dropped to the bottom. Companies need to find a way to make money off of games if they won't pay more than 99 cents for them (or nothing, on Android).

Gamers have brought this on themselves, by choosing mobile games over traditional handhelds in part because of the cheap software, and for falling for this way of payment.

As an applied virtual economist, this is what I do and it makes me sad to see the path the industry is going down now. When I met with a recruiter for Blizzard in 2009 to talk to him about virtual economies and monetization models, he said "I have no idea what you are talking about". In three years about all that has changed is that people know what "monetization" means now, and it has become a dirty word. When I talk to end users (gamers) about monetization, they are immediately on guard and see me as "the enemy".

The hacks doing "monetization" now, especially in the mobile and social network spaces, really have given my art a bad reputation. Even though you can monetize games in a way that actually *increases* player enjoyment, it will be a long time before these models are embraced because right now if you propose anything that doesn't look like Zynga or a Chinese microtransaction model, then "you don't know what you are doing".

I don't think the free-to-play model is inherently bad. When it's made properly and ETHICALLY, it's actually quite convenient and enjoyable, as you can get plenty of time to decide whether or not you want to invest your $$ in a particular F2P title.

Now, the the evil part that makes me want to throw up and punch some greedy suit-wearing scumbags in the face is the completely unethical use of various psychological levers that very few of the average player population is aware of. If you know these psychological manipulation tricks, you can literally sell a big pile of monkey turd to someone and they will walk home smiling, thinking they made a great deal.

There's a difference between selling genuine entertainment and outright psychological exploitation of individuals for profit.

I was actually saying something similar to an old class mate at the ECGC a few weeks ago. The mobile platform is full of these "free apps" and some are not where you pay to achieve everything. I'm all for small cash incentives for something like a re-skin, or something that adds no real change to the game, but for vital items for the game their should be no waiting times of a couple of days, or pay $10 fro 1000 tokens.

Pope Julius II runs into the Sistine Chapel. "Michelangelo! Our MAUs are down, and re-engagement is terrible! Most people only come here once in a lifetime. You'll have to replace Isiah with a hot babe. How about Mary Magdalene? She was a hooker, she'll do nicely. And you're going to have to stay up on that scaffolding and keep changing things once a week or so. Also, cover up Adam's private parts, the Americans are complaining."

Not every game has to be a world-class work of art. But for those who aspire to that lofty eminence, this is not the way to go about it.

I think Mr. McMillen is talking about what Jonathan Blow has mentioned a few time: monetisation should not be put ahead of game design. The goals and 'tread mill' should be, first and foremost, fun in and of itself. Monetisation shouldn't help you bypass parts of a game or make the boring bits more bearable. It boils down to this: if a player has to buy their way to fun, the game has already failed on a fundamental level.

Fact 1: Marketing games in this flood of content is hard.

Fact 2: People are only willing to try new games if they don't have to pay for them.

Result: Selling points are offset to the game's content.

You can't really fight this model, it is here to stay and is soon to be expected by the market.

In the real world, you need to offer value for what you sell, it is basic marketing. The fact that developers are doing exactly that, is a mark of respect towards the player's intelligence. To me selling useless stuff to players in the game is far more offensive.

Using psychology to improve these processes is inevitable since corporations have no ethics.

Hear hear! Well said Mr. McMillen.

"the player sees this carrot, and wants it!"
Isn't it where players should ask themselves: is this worth my time/money/self-respect?

I can't agree more

In my opinion, aggressive monetization in free games is to the games industry what CDO's and CDS's were to banking not that long ago. As long as it's working, the people making mountains of money from these schemes will not allow them to be criticized.

The reality is that in the long run, it's detrimental to the health of the industry. But we are human, and we typically overvalue short-term gain.

As a consumer, you only need to get burned once by a piece of software designed to exploit you, then you to become distrustful of all games.

What applies to used cars salesmen, realtors and plumbers applies to games as well.

This happened in the arcades in the late eighties. Games became money grabbers by making the players lose all of their lives to the game's boss character or some other impossible bullet ridden area. So to see the end of the game they simply had to shove buckets of change into them!
The worse part of the current situation is when a child asks an adult if they can do an in game purchase, and they say of course, probably to shut them up, then they find out later it was £70.00? This is the 'doing as much evil without a jail sentence' scheme I believe.

Playing a game used to be not only fun, but also a very enjoyable and safe way to learn important life lessons. Not only the basic message that taking part is more important than winning, but also that victory derives from attention, work or preparation, and a multitude of ethical lessons.

These lessons were repeated during all evolution of human race, from the ancient mancala gamers in Africa to the postmodern WoW players in Korea. Every game has a lesson. Chess teaches reasoning and patience, Monopoly teaches about investment, even tic-tac-toe teaches that sometimes it is impossible to win.

Although it is common to divide the world in gamers and not gamers, most people play games all their lives. Of course playing is more frequent in childhood, and it is in childhood that the most important lessons are learned: don´t cheat, wait your turn, lose and win with elegance.

Nowadays, new and monetized games are attracting millions of new and old players. Monetization, however, teaches the wrong lesson. It teaches that money can buy anything, including health, and power. It teaches that “work” is not important if you have money. It teaches that the ends justify the means.

This is bad. Actually, this is evil. One could easily invoke a conspiracy theory where a liberal cabal is trying to wash our brains, but it is easier to use Occan´s Razor: it is purely stupid.
Transforming games in a market where you can buy any victory is to destroy games. Games are not about winning; they are about trying, and trying really hard, and harder, to win. Games are not about “having”, but about “conquering”. If it comes easy, it is not fun.

This segment of the game industry is making money, but it is not making games. People will follow the trend, but one day they will notice that clicking with you credit card is not fun, and is expensive. They will look at honest games, sold at an honest price, which provide honest fun and say “I´ve been swindled, those pseudo-games took my money and gave me nothing”.

At that point we will hear a loud crack. Market analysts will say video game market is doomed, since very profitable companies will suddenly see their shares plummet. Don´t be scared. Video games are not a fad. Games have always been there and will continue to be there. Video games is just another way of playing. They will stay. Monetization will not.

http://gamedevtech.wordpress.com/

I have to say Edmund McMillen is very right and very wrong about the F2P model, and mobile platform in general.
On one hand, many devs indeed abuse the F2P, trying to get money off anything that can be purchased in game (like the example of paying so your character takes a faster shower).

On the other hand, him saying that "not only by not manipulating [players], but also by understanding they want a real challenge and they want a real sense of fulfillment (like real games do)" shows that McMillen may understand "hardcore players" but doesn't fully understand the mobile platform and F2P. If he did, he'd know that not every game fits the mobile platform (because many play at home for hours, but many play games that offer quick plays, like Fruit Ninja, which to me is far more compelling that SMB), and not every game can use microtransactions in a way that actually makes sense, and I'm surprised to see him not realize that SMB is not one of them.

So, as many have already said, this model can be good if used in a way that actually makes sense, and some abusing the model doesn't mean it's bad. While he makes good points about such monetizing models, he should read more about it, unless his sole intention was to try to sound cool in front of his players. After all, he also once said he doesn't consider Facebook games "real games," and after what I've read here I wonder if he also considers mobile games "real games" considering the majority of them are not that difficult and don't make you die every 10 seconds.