Of Meta-games and F2P, and all the walls of text.
Starting from the freemium thread @BlackShipsFilltheSky made a post which I couldn't really respond to while still feeling in the spirit of the thread.
So drawing from the url=http://chrishecker.com/Achievements_Considered_Harmful?]Chris Hecker talk[/url] (which I get to post again yay!)
The two sides of psychologists who disagree agree on two points.
This is not to say that one should avoid long-term game loop, or extrinsic rewards, but that there should be a firm understanding of what you intrinsic fun is, or the beauty of your gameplay, and look at how does what you are adding add to that beauty. It is often that I have heard older developer espouse such wisdom as ask not what can be added, but what can be removed.
When it comes to the monetization in FTP games. I find that, in general, these games take what would be a compelling long-term gameplay loop, and take that flow and alter it so it is often too boring or too anxious without the aid of a purchase. And that is just ugly design.
When I look at something like Ridiculous Fishing, especially when we have Ninja Fishing to compare it to, I find it extraordinarily hard to see how a FTP can be predominant. I don't think it is possible to argue that making Ridiculous Fishing FTP would make it a better game, and Vlambeer are kings when it comes to making great games.
Yes game design is a young art, and FTP even younger: which is why I feel so hesitant about it. Without a holistic view of games design how can one expect to make elegant games? Especially with something which has been seen as so exploitative that there are multiple government interventions against it.
I'm not saying FTP doesn't work, but the current scheme of it's mass application seems flawed to me. Game dev seem to go through these cycles: OMG everything needs multiplayer, OMG everything needs to be an MMO, OMG everything needs to be a social game, OMG everything needs to be a mobile FTP game. Eventually the fad will die down, and there will be traces of what works left. I mean there are still people playing counter-strike, there are still people playing WoW and EVE, I assume there are still people playing some form of social game, and eventually there will still be people playing FTP games when the industry has moved onto the next big thing.
---
While I know I'm coming off really negatively here I think I am doing it to provide the opposite to your argument, to give a sense of balance. What I really want to do is advocate caution, especially for people who are starting to get into game dev. I know anyone would really advise against someone starting out going I really want to design an MMO: we would tell them here is game maker go make tetris. If someone wanted to code an engine from scratch because they think that that is a good way to get into game dev: we would tell them here is game maker go make tetris. If someone wanted to be an artist and posted a model and said it took 16 hours to render: @Elyaradine would have the thoughtful artist equivalent of here is something you deem simple, go do something simple with it to make them realize how difficult things are.
So when it comes to doing something I think we need to approach it with a healthy view of skepticism. And not put all our eggs into one basket. Should one try a FTP game at one point? Sure why not — I would actually love to see what @retroFuture could come up with because it wouldn't be what we see right now — but it shouldn't be the only thing we do. I remember Dan Cook's talk from GDC last year that Spryfox normally has something like 3 games in development at any given time because things may not work out, and you always want a way to get the money to work on your next game.
Well I could argue that Triple Town doesn't have a long compelling loop, and is still successful enough that it is funding Spryfox's current development endeavours.@BlackShipsFilltheSky said:As I see it. Successful FTP games are almost all games that have long and compelling gameplay loops. I can't think of one successful FTP game that doesn't have a fat meta-game.
I don't think anyone on these forums is practising such skills. And while game design might be a rather new field. We draw A LOT from psychology. So I think looking into psychology can provide some guidance until the proper studies can be done. Though psychologists don't seem to agree on much.@BlackShipsFilltheSky said:And people on these forums aren't really working at getting those skills (please correct me if I'm wrong). A lot of the focus of game design learning here seems to be to do with the shorter, more fun orientated gameplay loops.
So I'd be a bit weary of recommending to any South African developer right now that they pursue FTP. Or rather, I'd recommend that anyone thinking of going that route practice their meta-game design skills with a few prototypes, and prove that they can create a compelling game, before they worry about in-app-purchases. It really doesn't matter what you're planning on selling as in-app-purchases unless you've got the skills to get people playing your game for 10+ hours and to get people to being covetous of your virtual stuff.
Does that make sense? I'm definitely pro FTP where applicable, but it's a big game design challenge. Like @AngryMoose says, it's a new field of game design. Presuming that our boxed model game design knowledge will translate well is going to end in tears.
(I'm hoping that a few people here seriously consider practicing their meta-game/long compulsion loops/interlocking loops design. I see that as the first step for designers towards developing successful FTP games in South Africa)
So drawing from the url=http://chrishecker.com/Achievements_Considered_Harmful?]Chris Hecker talk[/url] (which I get to post again yay!)
The two sides of psychologists who disagree agree on two points.
So using this I kind of question that if (a) you take a game which is inherently fun and add an extrinsic reward structure to it, do you diminish the fun of the inherent fun. For me this question was answered when I played Jetpack Joyride, after play a substantial amount of Canabalt I played Jetpack in much the same way. Over time I started focusing more on the in game tasks and no longer found just running to the right to be that fun.Chris Hecker said:1 Tangible, expected, contingent rewards reduce free-choice intrinsic motivation, and
2 Verbal, unexpected, informational feedback, increases free-choice and self-reported intrinsic motivation.
This is not to say that one should avoid long-term game loop, or extrinsic rewards, but that there should be a firm understanding of what you intrinsic fun is, or the beauty of your gameplay, and look at how does what you are adding add to that beauty. It is often that I have heard older developer espouse such wisdom as ask not what can be added, but what can be removed.
When it comes to the monetization in FTP games. I find that, in general, these games take what would be a compelling long-term gameplay loop, and take that flow and alter it so it is often too boring or too anxious without the aid of a purchase. And that is just ugly design.
When I look at something like Ridiculous Fishing, especially when we have Ninja Fishing to compare it to, I find it extraordinarily hard to see how a FTP can be predominant. I don't think it is possible to argue that making Ridiculous Fishing FTP would make it a better game, and Vlambeer are kings when it comes to making great games.
Yes game design is a young art, and FTP even younger: which is why I feel so hesitant about it. Without a holistic view of games design how can one expect to make elegant games? Especially with something which has been seen as so exploitative that there are multiple government interventions against it.
I'm not saying FTP doesn't work, but the current scheme of it's mass application seems flawed to me. Game dev seem to go through these cycles: OMG everything needs multiplayer, OMG everything needs to be an MMO, OMG everything needs to be a social game, OMG everything needs to be a mobile FTP game. Eventually the fad will die down, and there will be traces of what works left. I mean there are still people playing counter-strike, there are still people playing WoW and EVE, I assume there are still people playing some form of social game, and eventually there will still be people playing FTP games when the industry has moved onto the next big thing.
---
While I know I'm coming off really negatively here I think I am doing it to provide the opposite to your argument, to give a sense of balance. What I really want to do is advocate caution, especially for people who are starting to get into game dev. I know anyone would really advise against someone starting out going I really want to design an MMO: we would tell them here is game maker go make tetris. If someone wanted to code an engine from scratch because they think that that is a good way to get into game dev: we would tell them here is game maker go make tetris. If someone wanted to be an artist and posted a model and said it took 16 hours to render: @Elyaradine would have the thoughtful artist equivalent of here is something you deem simple, go do something simple with it to make them realize how difficult things are.
So when it comes to doing something I think we need to approach it with a healthy view of skepticism. And not put all our eggs into one basket. Should one try a FTP game at one point? Sure why not — I would actually love to see what @retroFuture could come up with because it wouldn't be what we see right now — but it shouldn't be the only thing we do. I remember Dan Cook's talk from GDC last year that Spryfox normally has something like 3 games in development at any given time because things may not work out, and you always want a way to get the money to work on your next game.
Comments
From Rock Paper Shotgun: And that was the impact of our metagame over a year ago. We've been working on what it feels like for players every day since.
TBH I don't really understand what this discussion is supposed to be about. It seems like @Karuji is saying that people shouldn't only try to make F2P games (please can we stop using FTP, that means File Transfer Protocol and I have enough randomly odd ideas for strange places to play games already, ok) like all the time because OMG F2P is teh new buzzword. I don't know who has been arguing that F2P games are the only thing people should build, only that @BlackShipsFilltheSky has been talking about focusing on metagame design skills should you want to get better at making compelling games.
Also I was initially using F2P but when reading @BlackShipsFilltheSky text I switched to FTP it left a weird feeling but then again using 2 as a replacement for 'to' also bugs me.
DD is a masterful game which is masterfully made. What I am, and have been, saying is that 'metagame' mechanics can cause a game to lose it's intrinsic fun. And that F2P games are perhaps worse so at this because they try to monetize this unfunness. Also that metagame design is a more advanced form of design and isn't really something that someone who is starting out should be worrying about — this comes in is because I was disagreeing with a talk proposed for the JHB community night titled: "Why you must have In-App Purchase in your games". @BSFtS responded to my response of this. The JHB community is mostly hobbyists so I felt such a talk would possibly be confusing to them, so my stance is still coming from the "people new to game design really shouldn't be looking at this stuff yet"
While @BlackShipsFilltheSky is advocating creating metagames, and practising getting good at it (because well derp you can't get good at something unless you practise it) which I agree with. I find that when this is applied to F2P games this tightness doesn't really hold up.
---
Hmm after leaving this post for a bit and coming back to it. I kinda realize that @BlackShipsFilltheSky are kinda saying the same thing, or at least trying to. I feel he is saying he is saying practise these skills so you make stuff that isn't shit, and then you might be able to apply these skills to this style of selling your game. Where as I am going this style of game is often shit and here is why so you better be careful of what is the potential underlying causes.
It's just really that we were looking at the issue from two very different angles. @dislekcia but as you say when it comes to forums people are going to yell and argue with each other until they realize until they realize hey there is this common ground. And I think I have reached that with @BlackShipsFilltheSky and would like to give him a hug, he might want to punch me in the face, but I still would give him a hug :D
Firstly. I was trying very hard to be compulsion agnostic, I've stated this now several times. I don't want to talk about whether or not "meta-games" are necessary for Freemium games because that's a dumb discussion (as a meta-game is just system that can work for freemium games).
But I am saying that some type of long compulsion loop is de-facto necessary for freemium to really work (a meta-game would be one type of long compulsion loop that suits certain games).
Like @mattbenic pointed out, Triple Town didn't really work that well (despite it being a great game that tons of people played). It didn't have much in the way of strong long compulsion loops.
What I'd really like to know is: @Karuji What do you envision as this possible (meta-game lacking, compulsion free) theoretical Freemium game.
I really can't imagine the game type you're imagining that proves that long compulsion loops aren't necessary for freemium. So you're going to have to describe it so that we can discuss it constructively.
(which I'd like to do, I'd love to have THAT discussion... how do we do freemium without compulsion... if that is what you're advocating????)
But I haven't heard of this working outside of competitive multiplayer games with tons of gameplay hours and MASSIVE player bases. Hats (etc) only really get bought after 50 - 100 hours of play time (because it takes that long before they become worth something to the player), and I think it only becomes profitable because these are some of the most played competitive multiplayer games in the world. It seems to me to be a strategy that can only work if you're willing to invest a metric BUTTLOAD of money in the game and make something truly excellent that becomes terrifically popular.
i.e. Well out of the reach of anyone in South Africa by my estimation.
---
@BlackShipsFilltheSky feel kind of weird picking this discussion up now since I agree with your initial point. But on the other hand you're kind of the only person I really have fun discussing things with on the forums so I would also feel bad if I didn't talk about what I think the ideal situation is.
So to start off. With most game that employ this model they are generally 'fun games' they are the kind of art games like Dear Esther or the horror bliss that is Amnesia. So I kind of have to ask what about these games inhibits the F2P model in these games. To me the answer is that these games have a well structured and tempered flow.
F2P in the single player games alters the flow so that you are either so bored that you will pay, or so frustrated that you will pay.
To me the ideal is that you will pay because you are happy, and having fun, and you would like to be happier and have more fun. Not because the game puts an arbitrary goal in front of you, and then puts a wall so high that you cannot climb it without buying a grappling hook or spending the time it requires to become Bear Grylls.
---
Though a game that is free and lacking a long term loop.
Hmm. It's hard to think of something exactly the best ideas I have come up with are: a sims type game where a non-player can send a player an item (so like a husband sending his wife a rose), I kind of really like the idea of a kind of digital altruism, but I can see this being contorted into something I really wouldn't like.
A cellphone Alternate Reality Game (ARG) where you can 'fund research' which benefits all players. So it supports the company and progresses the gameplay experience while creating value for all the players.
Though those both require some form of social persistence to be viable.
Hmm I seem to recall Telltale putting Ep 1 of the Walking Dead out for free. So it is a free initial play and paying for more of the story.
---
I'm not really advocating long loopless gameplay. I mean any game needs a loop long enough to keep you playing for the duration of the game. What I am advocating is that we make games that create value for the player. Most F2P games copy from one and other techniques best for extracting the optimal amount of money from the player: this is what I am against.
So when you say people need to practise this kind of design I have to agree. Since without practising and prototyping games that if they decide that F2P is a way to monetize their game then they will have a deeper understand of the structure and hopefully not fuck it up. Since I don't think there is some kind of generic monetization route that will lead to success, and simply looking at what people have done and assuming that will work for you just sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Also your statement assumes that people don't enjoy freemium games, which is just false. YOU don't like freemium games, and you don't have to, you've spent most of a lifetime playing games of another type of business model. The Sims already have very strong compulsion loops. And Sims has gifting. Sims already works as freemium. In fact both Zynga and EA both already did this (I believe?). Though they're probably games you don't like. That's called loss leading.
No one here is against creating value for the player. But we have to learn from past mistakes and successes (and you appear to be rejecting the evidence). And we can't just transpose our current skillsets and values and expect excellent results, which is why I'm stressing lets learn to make compelling games first.
Really what I was trying to say to begin with is that we need to learn to make GOOD games (that could work as freemium) before this kind of conversation becomes constructive at all. No point talking about our ideal theoretical freemium game if we don't have the skills to come anywhere close to designing it.
I mean, why not have a discussion about a Sky Eagles vs Ground Bears MMORPG while we're at it.
Seriously, the game comes first, THEN the concerns about monetization.
But with that example I meant I can buy a new medigun in TF2 because I have fun in TF2, and I know I will have fun with the new medigun. Also I bought more character slots in GW2 because now I have more characters to play which is more fun.
I mean it applies to DLC stuff as well, but I think there are instances where it works well in F2P. I was kind of thinking that a non-player could gift a completely non-useful item to a player. So instead of buying a normal rose buy a digital one in a game that they play. I kinda just thought it would be a novel idea for social interactions.
I'm kinda disappointed you didn't have anything to say about the ARG since I thought that was the coolest of all the ideas.
---
Thanks for the loss leading mention. I know Amazon did it with the Harry Potter books, but I really didn't follow up much on the concept.
Though when I look at some F2P games it is kind of like loss leading with The Walking Dead. That you can play for free, and eventually to progress in a reasonable manner you will need to put some money into the game. So it's like giving a coupon for $2 at the arcade or something like that where you have an initial hook and then people pay to play.
I'm not saying that they are exactly equal but they feel close enough that I am comfortable with what I said. Completely fucking agree but I kind of said that when I replied to dis's post (the second part which you didn't reply to 'cause I still totally want to give you a hug at A MAZE for being cool and stuff :< )
So ye kinda wanted to have a theory debate with you but so seem to not want that so all I can say is #TeamSkyEagle
EA and folks often describe it something like that. Or more like they say: People can play for free, and if they like it they can invest more into their enjoyment. And the advantage is that folks know what they're getting when they pay for it (unlike the boxed model where anything can be in the box).
Of course that kind of statement (the kind EA are prone to make) assumes people behave as rational responsible consumers, and that there is no way to trick players into wanting something kind of worth far less than they're spending on it.
In the worst freemium games this can get quite abusive. But I don't think freemium is necessarily that way. From what I understand, Realm of the Mad God did well despite offering a lot of value and never gating play with paywalls. http://www.techhive.com/article/251294/gdc_realm_of_the_mad_god_developers_talk_success_amidst_change.html
(and it didn't have to be one of the most played games in the world, like DOTA 2, to make money).
Of course, Realm of the Mad God does this by giving the player desirable goals (like unlocking a cool new character or defeating the Mad God) and makes those late game goals super challenging. It does a few clever things like being able to pay to retain more of your loot between runs, which doesn't feel like pay to win but is still a definite advantage.
The purchasing of keys for chests in Dota2 is basically structured like this (pay to retain your earnings), although I feel in Dota2 it is a lot less fair to the consumer with its variable reward prize drops from the chests.