Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

The games are being destroyed by IAP to please 1.5% of players.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sisso, May 27, 2014.

?

You know what this thread is about?

Poll closed Jun 2, 2014.
  1. New rage thread agains f2p, IAP and mobile.

    62.5%
  2. Games are being designed for only 1.5% of players that paid 50% of revenue.

    37.5%
  1. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    I agree.

    Generalizing everyone into a certain group is always wrong. I did not mean to say every one of them is bad. In fact, bad decisions do not equal the person is bad. Their job is to maximize profits. They might believe they are doing a terrific job and making it better for everyone without fully realizing the impact of their decisions on the overall game. My point was that game industry should be run by gamers. If you put in charge someone who doesn't like or play games things are bound to go wrong. They don't understand what the audience wants or appreciates and can't tell good from bad design. So naturally, they choose maximizing the profits.
     
  2. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    So car simulators should be made by drivers? Planes should be made by pilots and/or passengers? Graphics cards should be made by gamers? So on and so forth?

    The users of a thing should certainly be involved in its design, but they're often the wrong people to directly design or drive the design of the thing. Enjoying something is not the same as understanding it, or being able to build and run an effective business around it.
     
  3. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Just to add, no matter the background any "entity" who understands business knows what a moral duty is to their customers and anyone in their right mind knows that charging additions and segmenting complete products for additional fiscal gain is morally questionable.

    In short, they should know when they're ripping people off.
     
  4. BrainMelter

    BrainMelter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Posts:
    572
    $homer2.jpg
     
  5. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    What is the first thing you get asked when applying for a game industry job?

    "Do you like games? What are your favorite games?"

    Game industry is the only industry that does this. And we do it for a reason. Imagine a vegetarian cook trying to cook meat dish. He might be able to learn how to cook a great meat steak. But a non vegetarian cook will be able to learn how to do it much faster - because he can try it out and tell right away if it is too salty, too raw, etc. The same thing applies for game developers. A game developer who hates FPS games can make a great FPS game. But a developer who loves FPS games is a much better choice because he understands what the audience likes.
    The first principle of good game design is - "You must love your game".
    I will not go into details why this is the most important thing, you can find more details about it in game design books (I recommend The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses).

    Sadly, while this is mostly true for the actual developers. Soft skills people often don't feel the same way. Thus the problem.

    And yet they still do it all the time.
    Just google "Why are games more expensive in Australia". It is sad, really.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  6. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Yeah, but I'm not sure that reason is what you think it is. Remember what I said about the pay often being lower in games than the same skills might get elsewhere? Then there's another phenomenon often associated with "AAA" studios called "crunch time"...

    What I'm saying is, if you weren't passionate about games you probably wouldn't stick around long and would thus be a bad investment. (Hiring people is expensive even when you get it right the first time.)
     
  7. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    I'm fully aware that they do it, you should backtrack to some of my posts earlier in this thread.. I quote myself:

    I'd have to be pretty blind as a consumer / business man and developer not to notice what's going on.
     
  8. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Pay is lower in games because of the demand. Everyone wants to work in games. Most people decide they want to develop games because they love games and then apply for the job. Finding great people among many many applicants is much harder than in other fields. Many great people, when they realize the situation leave the industry for a better job elsewhere.
    So game industry is left with many wannabes.

    If sticking around was the true reason we would be asking pilots if they liked flying, adobe engineers if they liked photography and soldiers if they liked killing people. Hiring new people is expensive in every industry. :)
    Game industry isn't the only industry with crunch times, though we do have the worst crunch times.
    But if they really were worried about sticking with them they would offer a better pay and working conditions.
     
  9. im

    im

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Posts:
    1,408
    dont forget oversupply

    plus isn't always the case that the 1% are always causing all the worlds troubles and always making it harder for the rest of the 99% ;)
     
  10. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Aye
     
  11. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Er... People at other jobs DO get asked if they like their jobs. The game industry isn't special in that regard. You're not going to get hired as a pilot if you go into an interview and start talking about how much you hate piloting.
     
  12. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    PLAYING games is not the job of game developers. It is MAKING games. Yet we get asked if we like PLAYING games.
    In your analogy it is like asking a pilot if he loves planes and which models he loves. Pilot doesn't need to love planes, it is enough that he likes flying.
     
  13. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    It would be more like asking a painter if he likes paintings or a musician if he likes music. Of course they do, and no one would hire a musician who hates music or a painter who hates painting. And of course pilots like planes. No one would hire a pilot who went into an interview saying he hated planes.
     
  14. Sisso

    Sisso

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    196
    If this was for me. I already have a game with f2p version with IAP and Preimum (fatured today by hardcore android :D). I think that both models are working because both are give us almost same revenue (with different amounts of downloads, obvious).
     
  15. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Seriously? You are currently selling your own IAP game and yet complaining that IAP is ruining the universe and begging other developers to not do what you're doing?
     
  16. Sisso

    Sisso

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    196
    I never said that or that IAP is wrong.

    My problem is that even more the games are being designed for small portion of players that pay2win. That was truly not what our game was designed.

    But almost everybody think so, my poll show 70% for rage thread hehe
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  17. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    May I add in hard-working, passionate, and always learning? Though your name says Angry, I like the way you think ;).
    Gigi
     
  18. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Well when you say that IAP is "destroying" games, it sounds like you are saying it's bad. Unless you mean that destroying games is good, which is doubtful.

    Also, you are not unique in saying "Yeah my game has IAP but I'M ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS". Everyone says that. Almost no one actually literally goes out trying to make a game that they hate in a cynical attempt to steal money from people. It happens occasionally, but it's not "almost all IAP games" or "every IAP game except mine". Most mobile devs are actually trying to make games that people will like.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  19. Sisso

    Sisso

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    196
    I choose a strong subject, but after I saw that was giving wrong understand I discover that I can't change it anymore (sorry).

    But is not a wrong title. IAP is a tool, and is the tool that was being used to please theses 1.5%, and this is what is destroying the industry. If you write in different order you have my subject.
     
  20. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,182
    Well Zynga was getting close. And having 'Farmville' innocent content doesn't make you a good guy on that alone.

    I worked on a game that was straight up gambling (maybe - betting real life sporting events is closer to that) but you knew that going in and some players quickly to get advantage spent so much you couldn't compete so then you ask, hmmm, this is not so much like gambling. It's more like collecting. Coin collecting or such. I have old cheap metal coins used so much they are loosing legibility while everyone else has old gold coins in mint condition.
     
  21. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Naturally.
    There is a great difference between loving something and hating it. There is also a great difference between liking what you do and liking "using" the end result.

    For example, an artist designing stuff for a McDonalds that thinks "I don't really eat at McDonalds. I prefer KFC". Or a musician singing at special events that doesn't really like large events, but he likes singing!

    It's not uncommon at all. When McDonalds looks for a designer there is no "Passion for McDonalds food" in the job description. Or when you look for a musician to sing at your wedding. There is no "Passion for Weddings" in the description.

    Artists are making art, programmers are writing code, musicians are writing music. And naturally they should like what they do. But when you look for them to work on a game suddenly you are not just interested in them liking painting, coding or writing music. Suddenly you want them to like games they are working on.
    When you hire a special effect artist to work on your movie, naturally you want him to love special effects and his job. But you don't ask him if he likes action movies.

    Pilots don't need to love planes to love their job. Or to do their jobs right. Of course, hating something you are working often with or on is a no go. But I am not talking about hate. I am talking about indifference.

    Now if you compare two different singers singing at a wedding, one of them loving weddings other not really loving weddings. Both of them like singing and music, and you wouldn't really notice a big difference in their performance, or care for their personal like of weddings.
    But if you compare two different musicians working on a game, one of them loving the game he is making and other not. You would see a great difference. The one that loves the game would come up with ideas how to improve his music and have a strong inner feeling of how the music should "feel" like. The end result would be quite noticeable. When you don't quite like or understand your target audience your product can't be on the par to someone of the same ability who does. That is true for every job but is much more pronounced in some areas such as game development.

    Anyway, this discussion went completely off topic.

    They don't go out trying to make something they hate in an attempt to steal money. They set out making something that will get them the most profit. They don't care about what majority of their users think. They care about their resulting profit and they are trying to maximize it regardless of the tactic they have to take.
    It doesn't take much to turn a great game into a money sucking horror. Just shift the balance, limit resources, use a few proven manipulation techniques and viola. Players will start playing liking the game at first until the dark side starts showing it's ugly face ruining the experience entirely. Than they will be angry and disappointed because the game had great potential, but was ruined by the money making strategy.
    The developers surely will try to make a great game. But because they are trying to push players into a certain behavior the game experience changes completely and turns a game that would have been great had they not tried to extort money from players into what we see today.
    There are successful games out there that do it right. Where the concentration was on the game play, regardless of whether the user was a paying or non paying one.
     
  22. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,240
  23. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Really?

    I think a lot of people miss the fact that the people who complain about these things aren't the target audience. Just because it's a "game" and you're a "gamer" doesn't mean that you're their target audience.

    First, you're correct that they don't care what you think, but you're not one of their users and probably wouldn't ever be, and you're not a part of their target audience. So why should they care about you?

    Secondly, caring about the resulting profit certainly means caring very much about what the people who are actually interested in playing their games think. Who pays for something they don't like? They're just targeting a set of people and preferences and tastes that are almost completely different to our own.

    We don't like it, but it certainly appears that a whole lot of people out there are at the very least ok with it to the point where they're willing to pay for it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2014
  24. Aiursrage2k

    Aiursrage2k

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    4,835
    I dont think there is "1.5%" of all players paying that, its 1.5% of the people playing that game, so different users will like different games, the idea of a "1% ruining games" seems bunk to me, its probably people who have alot of disposable income, these players have to become deeply committed to the game to pay that type of money, the more players you have the more of those type you will have.

    Look at kickstarter you will see like 1600 people and they fund the game for like 40k. Look at it and you can see the top 20% paid over 50% of the money for the game.
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1829034266/volgarr-the-viking
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2014
  25. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    But I could have been the target audience. If the game was not designed to be money sucking abomination, it could have been a great game that I would most definitely play and even purchase if it wasn't free.

    The entire problem is that the target audience are "rich" people who are going to waste a lot of cash while everyone else feels left out because they can't enjoy a game that they would have liked had it been designed around a different purchase model.

    And if you ask those people wo spend a lot of money on the game, who ARE the target audience, "Would you like the game more if you had to spend less money to actually enjoy it?" I bet all of them would say "Yes!!". Which means, like I stated, that they don't care about their customers. What they care about it maximizing profit.
     
  26. sootie8

    sootie8

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Posts:
    233
    Welcome to capitalism.
     
  27. Lypheus

    Lypheus

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Posts:
    664
    Has anyone considered a close analogy to the question of IAP?

    Consider Google & Search Engines. Google provides a free service - searching over a vast library of indexed hyperlinks to find information. Most of us use this service freely, maybe what, 1.5% actually pay into the system by buying click through data, google ads, services, etc....

    I'm not sure that F2P is any different. It provides a base service in the form of a video game and offers premium services/content to build revenue off the game. The average user pays little or no money but in return lends a community or supporting demographic to make the game more interesting for those that do.

    What precisely is the issue here?

    Games are not being destroyed by capitalism, they are just evolving to suit a changing revenue model. There will always be games you buy up front but now there are games you can try before you invest $ into them.

    I don't know about you guys but I have time in probably 50% of the games I've bought on Steam, let alone dusty old boxes sitting on the shelves. If i'd had the option of trying them for free many would likely have passed out of fancy quick enough to avoid the $ investment.

    To me its all in how you handle equalization for competition. If the complaint is that Player A can 'buy' an advantage by paying $35 for a "better" weapon in a FPS PvP game, then so what? Think about it this way, I have a family of 4, single income, work for a living, develop games on the side, a son in hockey and daughter in band, contracts on the side and still try to find time for the wife and I.

    Maybe you have none of that (maybe a lot more), but how is it any different for Player B to spend 50hrs+ per week grinding and questing to gain an in-game advantage vs me having potentially more disposable income? Anyone with half a brain should have realized by now that all that time you're sitting at a game *is lost potential revenue*, aka "Time IS Money".

    So in the end there really is no "pay to win", its just another side of the same coin.

    If you want to truly equalize a game to ensure that skill is the only differentiating factor, you'll want to reduce any exposure to the game to the lowest common denominator to ensure fair and equal access.

    But that's not what we're all really after is it?
     
  28. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Your analogy with google is flawed.
    Google provides the same search service to everyone. A correct analogy would be if google returned only 5 results for free and if you wanted to see more you have to pay for extra results. Eg. $1.99 for 10 searches, $9.99 for 30 searches.
    It would be severely limiting and controlling. It would even go as far as include only 5 or 4 sponsored results in those 5 free results. No one would want that kind of service but because everyone is used to google and there aren't many other options (only bing comes to mind), you'd be forced to pay for it. Google would make billions more than it does now. But is it right? Would it be right for them to use their technology that way?
    With time everyone would move to Bing so in the long run google would collapse. The only reason why it works with games is because they have such a short lifespam to begin with.
     
  29. Lypheus

    Lypheus

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Posts:
    664
    I'm not so sure, you have a bit of a straw man fallacy going on there depending on the game. Maybe we need some context, but in my experience most of the F2P games seem to use cosmetic enhancements to draw out money. Just for a point of reference, I'm playing SMITE a fair bit these days, in SMITE you have access to most of the alternate skins from an earned in game currency, there are some items (voice packs) that are only achievable AFAIK via real currency. There are no restrictions on game play however, you can play in leagues, participate in clans, etc... all of that is accessible the same if you pay or not.

    The only restriction that would compare in this case is that they have something like 50+ gods on tap, maybe 8 of which are on "free" rotation. So you'll have to play the free gods to earn some in game currency to "rent" the others which are not on rotation. However, you still have full access to the game and typically plenty of in game currency to rent gods ad nauseam, there is no 'real' currency ceiling here at all.

    Maybe a better analogy would be to compare IAP based revenue with something like LinkedIn - which really is very much a direct correlation. I suspect there are so many different forms of IAP that we could run circles all day long though, so really it comes down to identifying the specifics of an IAP implementation that bother us rather than the IAP R Evil argument.

    To bring it back to the OP's comment - do we have any evidence that the games industry is being destroyed by IAP or is this more of a subjective "I don't like it" thing? Seems to me googling it reveals opinions from both sides and that's just the first 5 hits too ;) !
     
  30. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    If you read my previous posts you would have realized that I am saying that IAP aren't destroying the game industry, bad money sucking game design is.
    You are trying to defend IAPs that I am clearly saying can be turned into something great. The problem is not in IAP themselves but how they are used, and in most cases they are abused.

    The creator of the thread wanted to change the title of the thread later on into something along the lines off "games are being made for 1.5% of their audience which is degrading game industry" but apparently was unable to do so.
    We've already somewhat established in these 7 pages that IAP aren't destroying the game industry.
     
  31. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    I suggest you show all of us that you care about us by writing the games we want and not charging us any money. If you don't, it's because you don't care about your customers and only care about money. Why haven't you made my game yet?!
     
  32. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Why are you twisting my words to the extreme?
    I never said we shouldn't charge for our product. It's one thing to charge for a product, it is another to rip off your customers with high prices and still provide a bad product.
     
  33. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    There's no twisting. You said that if you ask your customers "Would you like to spend less" and they say "Yes", and you don't lower your price, then you don't care about them, and only care about profit. So, I'm just telling you that I want to pay less. Specifically, zero. Now get to work!
     
  34. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    And if Sesame Street was only aimed at adults I'd be their target audience, too! ;)

    You're missing the fundamental purpose of having a target audience. If you expand it to include everyone then it's not a target any more. The entire point is to identify, research and design for a clear subset of the market to maximise performance within that subset. There is simply no way you or I fit into the subset they're targeting without seriously diluting their focus.
     
  35. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    No, what I said was "Would you like the game more if you had to spend less money to actually enjoy it?"

    The emphasis here is on the word enjoy. If a game is not enjoyable unless you continuously spend money on it then it is a poorly designed game. Game being enjoyable without having to pay all the time does not make it free or not profitable. On the contrary, if the game is good it will attract more players and in the end the profit will rival or exceed the "bad" game.

    The point of that statement was that poor games are being made just for the purpose of earning a lot of money which is unethical and wrong.

    I am sorry if my posts are unclear for you and you feel the need to simplify them and twist them into something else.
     
  36. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Real world evidence doesn't match up with this. Go tell King, makers of Candy Crush Saga, that they could make even more money if they only did things the same way as every other Match 3 game before them did.

    But before you do that, check out how many people play their game and how much money they're making, and compare that to those previous Match 3 games, and see which model works best.

    I agree with you in so far as money leech games aren't my cup of tea. But arguing that they're less profitable than other approaches just doesn't stack up. It really does come entirely down to the target audience thing. The people who play those games probably wouldn't usually be interested in a) paying significant money up front or b) playing the kind of game you and I mostly like playing.
     
  37. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    If someone tried to sell you ketchup for $200 you'd call him a fraud. If someone tried to sell you a banana for $300, you'd call it a fraud.

    But if someone gave you a one small slice of the banana for free and then asked you to pay $300 to get the rest of it, that would be ok?

    Do you really want to go into lengthy discussion about why CCS is making that much money?
    And do you truly believe that they would be making poor money if they allowed the players to collect points with which they can purchase boosts?

    How come there are many profitable games that are not addictive money draining junk? Should I now state examples of many games that are very profitable AND do the IAP right?

    Do you truly believe that the only way to make a lot of money is by making addictive money sucking games?

    Just because something is very profitable doesn't mean we should be doing it.
    And the reason why all those games you are thinking off are making that much money has roots in psychology and conditioning. It is not because they are money sucking abominations.

    The whole problem nowadays is because some of those type of games make a lot of money, everyone has started making games for rich people. Why don't we all stop making regular games that target lovers of the genre and target the rich part of the audience only?
    It is profitable!

    Let's make Diablo 3 lives cost money. Imagine how much more money Blizzard would make out of that!
     
  38. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Fraud has a very specific meaning, and that is not it.

    You're going off on a whole bunch of tangents there that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. I didn't say anything about what is the only/right/best way to do things. All I pointed out is that there are both examples and counter examples of your suggestions, and that real world evidence offers no support whatsoever to your concrete claims about how people can necessarily do things better.

    We could both cherry pick single examples and argue how they support our positions alone, but that's a useless waste of time because there's no One Right Answer for either of us to find or prove and cherry picked "evidence" devoid of context is meaningless. It still all comes down to target audiences.

    Candy Crush Saga (for one example on one side of the coin) is highly successful because King absolutely nailed it for their target audience (after many, many less successful attempts in their prior games). GTA V (for one example on the other side of the coin) is highly successful because Rockstar absolutely nailed it for their target audience (after many years of experience and cumulative successes).

    They both took different paths to success because they were both succeeding with different audiences.

    Clearly, both approaches can work. You don't like money leech games. That's cool, they aren't my thing either. But clearly plenty of people clearly do like them, so what's wrong with also having them? It's not as if they're the only games that cost money to play, and they're not detracting from GTA style games because they're made by and targeted at different people.
     
  39. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Money leeching game is not a genre. No one specifically goes looking to play a money leeching game.
    We play games because of their core gameplay, not because they are money leeching.

    People don't like "money leeching games", if they like a money leeching game they like it for the gameplay and would like it even if it weren't money leeching.

    That is the entire point. Being money leeching is not a positive and enjoyable thing.
    So why wouldn't we just take out the "money leeching" part? We'd adjust the game a bit, it would still be profitable, it would still have IAPs, but it would have a larger audience and it wouldn't be money leeching.
    When people talk about your game they would talk about it as a great game, a work of art, not another money sucking scheme.

    But instead, we design games that are clearly trying to condition and manipulate the players into spending their money. And use an excuse "People play it so that must mean they like it! Let's make all our games just like this one!"

    P.S. If King nailed it then they should have been able to reproduce the success with their future games. Which is not the case. The large part of Candy Crush success was pure luck.
    For example of a company that truly did nail it and continues to nail it every single time: Blizzard.
    Take an example of Hearthstone. It is a successful game that millions play. It has IAPs and it is not money leeching. It is a great game and a great example of how to do IAPs right.
    Perhaps Blizzard could have made all of their games more successful by turning them into money leeching games but they didn't. Why? Because their games are profitable, their games are enjoyable, their games are great! Why would they sacrifice their ideals, a large part of their audience and the quality of their games for a few more "pennies"?
     
  40. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Correct. What's that got to do with anything? Did anyone say it is?

    Sure. But consider that the same can be said for any payment model:
    As such, I'll jump on board with makeshiftwings (I think it was) and point out that the logical conclusion of this is that you don't think games should be charged for at all. Charging our players for access to our work doesn't improve the experience*, so we shouldn't do it.



    And yeah, a large part of Candy Crush's success probably was indeed luck. That doesn't mean they "nailed it" any less. Just because they don't know exactly how they did it doesn't mean they did it any less.

    Is this a generalisation or is it directed at me?

    * Actually, while I'm happy to leave it aside for this conversation, there's the distinct possibility that it might. Psychologically people tend to value and enjoy things more if they had to work towards or pay for it in some manner.
     
  41. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Remiel, I think you are making the mistake that many people make when confronted by the popularity of something they don't like: assuming that every single person who likes something you don't is a completely brainless zombie who would like the same things you like if they just stopped being dumb. The fact is, different people like different things. Some people like Clash of Clans and don't mind paying for it. You hate Clash of Clans and don't want to pay for it. Get over it. You're not going to convince any Clash of Clans fans to stop liking the game by shouting that they are stupid over and over again. You're definitely not going to convince anyone to buy your games instead by saying that the only reason they're not buying your game is because they're really stupid. Well, you might be able to convince a FEW people to buy your game that way, but let's face it, those people would be really stupid.
     
  42. Remiel

    Remiel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Posts:
    105
    Wow. Just wow.
    How did you get that out of the things I said? Why would I consider someone stupid for liking different things than me? That's incredibly arrogant and immature.
    Are you projecting your own personality flaws onto me?
    You don't seem to get what I am saying at all even though I tried my best to explain it so I'll stop "spamming" this thread and instead concentrate on what I do best - make games.
    One day, a few years from now, perhaps I will be able to put concrete numbers and examples to my claims that might make you understand it better.
    Good luck on your future games. Be it a money sucking game or something else.
     
  43. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    You mean, discuss the psychology, mechanics, and game elements that make great products great? Look for a few nuggets that might improve my own products. Yes please!

    I'd like to hear your idea for the perfect MOBILE monetization scheme. New ideas come in all shapes and sizes.

    Gigi