Mobile games... How many times have we read on the news of children 'accidentally' spending a fortune on a 'free' game to the shock of their parents? Considering that cases that come to light probably involve a significant the sum of money, how many cases of 'accidental' spending are there in reality?
Make no mistake, apps are designed to make money. Most free apps make money either through advertising, option to purchase for added features, or, as in this case, micro-transactions, and it is this monetization model that can be an issue.
Micro-transactions, or the option to buy perks, cheats, or speed boosts to get through the game faster, are becoming extremely popular, especially with Farmville-like games, for example, Smurf Village. These games, commonly referred to as cow clickers, tend to give the players very limited activities each game session and the player has to wait, possibly for hours as you get further into the game, before they get more activities to participate in. In order to speed things up, there are options to pay to instantly build stuff, or buy game currency so a player does not have to spend the time to earn it.
Patience is not a common trait among gamers, especially younger ones with more time on their hands. And if parents do not have the proper measures on place, they can spend a lot of money to get through to the next objective, not knowing the value nor the amount of money they are truly spending. Given how the app stores work and the safety measurements in place, these cases should be rare, but people somehow trust their children with the passwords to their accounts with their credit card details attached. And even if that's not the case, a child can be tempted to cry and whine to his parents to buy it for him. And who's to say that it's not actually the parent himself who spends, regrets and then blames it on his child to get a refund?
These games are designed and tweaked to a point where players are tempted to spend money to get ahead, yet are not put off by the slow pace of progression. And therein lies the problem. It's arguably exploitative, especially to certain vulnerable people. Considering the fact that free-to-play games tend to make the most from a very small percentage of its players, this could quite possibly be true.
And it's not just cow clickers. Any free-to-play game, or any game with micro-transactions built in, for that matter, can potentially be exploitative, locking content behind 'energy levels', whereby you need to wait or pay before the next level, or currency walls, i.e. you slowly save up in-game currency or, you guessed it, pay, to unlock the next level or upgrade your character. Game difficulty can even be tweaked such that it's impossible to complete without paying for upgrades. How often have I played a game with micro-transactions and have that nagging feeling that I'll never complete the game because I'm not going to pay.
As parents, it is our responsibility to police our children and educate them on their gaming and spending habits (duh). As gamers, we need to realize what and where we're spending on as well. Quite often, the amount spent on a free-to-play game in order to make decent progress can easily cost more than buying a retail game outright. Of course, it's hard to determine if a phone app is worth our time, but perhaps by not spending time and money in exploitative ones the moment we are sure, we can bring down it's popularity? Well, we can dream, can't we? Perhaps we can start by letting people know of such exploitative games and avoiding them.
If you know of any app with detestable business practices, especially the famous ones, feel free to post in the comments. And thanks for reading!
Showing posts with label micro-transactions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label micro-transactions. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Pay to Beta Test?
Once upon a time, the purpose of beta tests was to detect and iron out bugs before games were released. Betas were free and sometimes, testers were even paid specially to search for bugs that normally wouldn't be detected in a casual play through.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Monday, January 27, 2014
iGaming, playDroid
Mobile phones and tablets are all the rage this generation, so it's no surprise that game publishers are putting more and more focus into making games that will reach the masses. EA, Square Enix and Capcom are just a few companies that have produced pretty decent games on the mobile platform. Because free-to-play is so popular on mobile, plus, you can pretty much get away with all sorts of horrible business practices there due to the large amount of horrible games which are pretty much cash-grabs already present, it's pretty attractive. Square Enix has some of the most expensive games on mobile, even if they are horrible ports; EA has free-to-play and one-off purchase games which are doing pretty well; Capcom already has some good games there, and recently, are investing profits from Monster Hunter into mobile gaming development.
Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.
Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.
This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?
Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.
Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...
Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.
Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.
This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?
Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.
Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Free Lunch? Really?
Free-to-play is getting really popular with publishers, especially with MOBAs (and really, who isn't making a MOBA these days?). Gamers are getting more choices for nothing, and that's great! Gone are the days when 'free' means 'it sucks' and developers are wise to move (or, as we'll see, try to move) away from buying power. Even consoles are getting into the free-to-play market. But no, mobile free-to-play doesn't count - it's still pretty much exploitative of gamers over there.
One issue with free-to-play, however, is that some companies just don't get it. Though some of the examples I'm giving might be from iOS and Android, (and we know how clueless developers are on that platform) and might be games from companies like EA, things are just slightly better on PC and consoles. Unlocking weapons are not done very well for the most part for FPS (paying to unlock more powerful weapons), and the one real strategy game, Age Of Empires Online, locks up so much content and items that you can get but not use without paying, that it might as well be a long demo.
Worse, games may be designed with the payment model in mind and are made to be as grindy as possible so people are tempted to pay to skip. The new Plants Vs Zombies 2 is so lacking in content when compared to the first game, and reuses maps by locking levels behind 'stars' that you have to collect by replaying levels. Some levels are extremely hard, making you wonder if it's to make you pay for the power ups to get through them. And speaking of power ups, these are so insanely broken that the game becomes extremely easy if you do use them. Talk about greed damaging the integrity of the game. Even the Injustice game on iOS by NetherRealms, a company that is pretty respectable in it's monetization models, is designed to be almost impossible to complete unless you spend money, or lots and lots of time.
And money, oh how they love thee. Free-to-play games, even if they almost do not require that you spend money on them, can cost a ton for the simplest of items. Path of Exile, a game whom the dev have made it so well that you can experience the game to its fullest without spending a dime, has a pet that actually costs $55 worth of points (though I can understand since they won't probably make any money at all since the game is so fair to its customers). And you'll be surprised how much these games can add up to just by paying for a bit of these extras - it could easily cost multiple full priced games. Understandably, the studio has to make a lot of money from the few that pay so others can play for free. It would be nice if we can pay for, let's say the price of a boxed game and get everything, just like buying a normal retail game. Then again, if you pay to unlock everything, is the game still worth playing, since you just took the progression out of it?
Publishers also have to worry about committing too much into free-to-play games. These games, by nature, have to be addictive with a lot of content, much like MMOs, and gamers can't afford to sink too much time into too many of them. This means competition is high and with so many games already in the market from the various genres, it'll be tough to capture an audience for new free-to-play games since gamers can't 'complete' the existing ones and move on to new ones, especially if they have sank money into them. There are still genres that do not have successful free-to-play modeled games though, like RTS and Turn-based-Strategy, so there's money to be made for the studio who makes a good game with a successful payment model. I personally can't see how it can be done effectively, but then again, I didn't expect and action RPG like Path of Exile to do it, but Grinding Gear Games pulled it off pretty well.
At the end of the day, whether it's a free-to-play, a subscription based, or a buy once plus DLC model, each model has its merits, and it is good that as gamers, we get games from these different models along with the pros and cons from each. Be warned though, that there are a lot of us who aren't happy when you combine all these payment models into a game to milk consumers and compromise your game as a result of your greed...
One issue with free-to-play, however, is that some companies just don't get it. Though some of the examples I'm giving might be from iOS and Android, (and we know how clueless developers are on that platform) and might be games from companies like EA, things are just slightly better on PC and consoles. Unlocking weapons are not done very well for the most part for FPS (paying to unlock more powerful weapons), and the one real strategy game, Age Of Empires Online, locks up so much content and items that you can get but not use without paying, that it might as well be a long demo.
Worse, games may be designed with the payment model in mind and are made to be as grindy as possible so people are tempted to pay to skip. The new Plants Vs Zombies 2 is so lacking in content when compared to the first game, and reuses maps by locking levels behind 'stars' that you have to collect by replaying levels. Some levels are extremely hard, making you wonder if it's to make you pay for the power ups to get through them. And speaking of power ups, these are so insanely broken that the game becomes extremely easy if you do use them. Talk about greed damaging the integrity of the game. Even the Injustice game on iOS by NetherRealms, a company that is pretty respectable in it's monetization models, is designed to be almost impossible to complete unless you spend money, or lots and lots of time.
And money, oh how they love thee. Free-to-play games, even if they almost do not require that you spend money on them, can cost a ton for the simplest of items. Path of Exile, a game whom the dev have made it so well that you can experience the game to its fullest without spending a dime, has a pet that actually costs $55 worth of points (though I can understand since they won't probably make any money at all since the game is so fair to its customers). And you'll be surprised how much these games can add up to just by paying for a bit of these extras - it could easily cost multiple full priced games. Understandably, the studio has to make a lot of money from the few that pay so others can play for free. It would be nice if we can pay for, let's say the price of a boxed game and get everything, just like buying a normal retail game. Then again, if you pay to unlock everything, is the game still worth playing, since you just took the progression out of it?
Publishers also have to worry about committing too much into free-to-play games. These games, by nature, have to be addictive with a lot of content, much like MMOs, and gamers can't afford to sink too much time into too many of them. This means competition is high and with so many games already in the market from the various genres, it'll be tough to capture an audience for new free-to-play games since gamers can't 'complete' the existing ones and move on to new ones, especially if they have sank money into them. There are still genres that do not have successful free-to-play modeled games though, like RTS and Turn-based-Strategy, so there's money to be made for the studio who makes a good game with a successful payment model. I personally can't see how it can be done effectively, but then again, I didn't expect and action RPG like Path of Exile to do it, but Grinding Gear Games pulled it off pretty well.
At the end of the day, whether it's a free-to-play, a subscription based, or a buy once plus DLC model, each model has its merits, and it is good that as gamers, we get games from these different models along with the pros and cons from each. Be warned though, that there are a lot of us who aren't happy when you combine all these payment models into a game to milk consumers and compromise your game as a result of your greed...
Saturday, February 2, 2013
More 'disturbing' DLC for Dead Space 3
Though I have resolved to no longer buy games published by EA, being a fan of survival horror, I'm still pretty interested in Dead Space 3.
However, it was announced today that there will be 11 day-one DLC for the game and this has caused a major uproar among the gaming community.
Though I'm not really happy with this news, I have to sit down and properly consider the nature of this news. Don't get me wrong, I'm still not buying this game because of the micro-transactions but some of the announced DLC doesn't actually seem that bad. There are things like personality for helper bots and capacity. These are for single player and are not crucial to the story and in fact, can make the game easier so people who buy them are actually kind of stupid.
We'll have to wait and see what the rest of the DLCs are before deciding, but one thing is for sure, if gamers let it slide, or worse, support this DLC practice, we will see this crap in almost every game published.
(Dead Space 3 is a survival horror game so what smart gamer would buy DLC and pay money for micro-transactions to make it easier? And why make a horror game co-op? I'm sure Capcom is proud of its decision to make Resident Evil co-op and not turning back and saying that they will return to its roots. Good luck EA, you'll NEED it.)
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Lessons that should have been learnt by Blizzard?
Most gamers have gotten their hands on Diablo 3 (D3) are and are spending a lot of time fighting the minions of hell. The release has been troubling, but nevertheless, the great gameplay of Blizzard games still hold up to the flaws of the DRM.
The server crashes on the first day was surprising, considering Blizzard held a stress test that worked (i.e. stressed the server enough to crash it), and that, with the number of pre-orders they received, should have given them enough information to determine how much server resources they would require. The only unknown is that of online purchases made on release day, or shortly before that.
There have been cases of hacking, and that is hardly surprising with the Real Money Auction House and character data saves been made on the Blizzard server instead of the client's machine. But interestingly, unlike World of Warcraft (WoW), when Blizzard restores your items after you report a hacking, your character is rolled back to a much earlier state, potentially losing levels and the latest acquired gear.
The last I checked, Blizzard made WoW, and like WoW, D3 has persistent online DRM, characters stored on Blizzard servers, and has gameplay that's heavily gear dependent. Also, WoW faced all the problems currently plaguing D3, like poor server stability launch-day and hacking, so why isn't Blizzard doing what WoW did?
(The later part of this post is going to devolve into a Real Money Auction House [RMAH] rant.)
The fact that we have to be always online to play is not purely for fighting piracy, but also because Blizzard needs to have the characters on their servers to prevent people from hacking to get better items. Items equals money with the RMAH, and having a surplus of items in the market will push costs down, making items not worth selling, dropping sales and thus Blizzard will earn less money from it. Players who prefer to play single player are thus forced to be online all the time.
The restoration system likely works for the same reason. You don't get back your most recent gear because they are not going to make another copy of it. The hacker has it, and giving returning to gear to the player increases the number of copies of the item. Granted, the player might not sell it immediately, but in future he may, and if Blizzard rolls back the items on the character so easily, players can easily fake a hack, passing expensive items to another account and then reporting to get more items to sell.
A lot of problems of D3 are there simply because of the RMAH, which aggravatingly, isn't even ready yet. I am against the RMAH, but very keen to see how it will affect the economy. Will gold be rendered useless? Will the gold auction house still have high quality items? It would make sense to sell it for real money if I'm honest. Of course, you could sell gold for money and then use the money to get items from the RMAH, and Blizzard will happily take a cut from both sales.
The server crashes on the first day was surprising, considering Blizzard held a stress test that worked (i.e. stressed the server enough to crash it), and that, with the number of pre-orders they received, should have given them enough information to determine how much server resources they would require. The only unknown is that of online purchases made on release day, or shortly before that.
There have been cases of hacking, and that is hardly surprising with the Real Money Auction House and character data saves been made on the Blizzard server instead of the client's machine. But interestingly, unlike World of Warcraft (WoW), when Blizzard restores your items after you report a hacking, your character is rolled back to a much earlier state, potentially losing levels and the latest acquired gear.
The last I checked, Blizzard made WoW, and like WoW, D3 has persistent online DRM, characters stored on Blizzard servers, and has gameplay that's heavily gear dependent. Also, WoW faced all the problems currently plaguing D3, like poor server stability launch-day and hacking, so why isn't Blizzard doing what WoW did?
(The later part of this post is going to devolve into a Real Money Auction House [RMAH] rant.)
The fact that we have to be always online to play is not purely for fighting piracy, but also because Blizzard needs to have the characters on their servers to prevent people from hacking to get better items. Items equals money with the RMAH, and having a surplus of items in the market will push costs down, making items not worth selling, dropping sales and thus Blizzard will earn less money from it. Players who prefer to play single player are thus forced to be online all the time.
The restoration system likely works for the same reason. You don't get back your most recent gear because they are not going to make another copy of it. The hacker has it, and giving returning to gear to the player increases the number of copies of the item. Granted, the player might not sell it immediately, but in future he may, and if Blizzard rolls back the items on the character so easily, players can easily fake a hack, passing expensive items to another account and then reporting to get more items to sell.
A lot of problems of D3 are there simply because of the RMAH, which aggravatingly, isn't even ready yet. I am against the RMAH, but very keen to see how it will affect the economy. Will gold be rendered useless? Will the gold auction house still have high quality items? It would make sense to sell it for real money if I'm honest. Of course, you could sell gold for money and then use the money to get items from the RMAH, and Blizzard will happily take a cut from both sales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)