Would you buy a game with "perma-permadeath feature"?

Apparently, there is a game in the wild called "One Life" (originally named "Cyclop") which appeared on Steam Greenlight quite recently. To put it simple:

Yes, you heard right: If you die, you won't be able to play this game anymore. Never.

What are your thoughts on this? Let's discuss (if allowed)!

 

Since reducing your customer base is really not good business, My guess is that actually getting permanently dead will be pretty difficult to have happen. However just the threat of that possibility could end up working for them. But I do think it turns the uphill slog of marketing into a bloodbath.

 

If the game was very cheap, and I knew that it had a solid tutorial BEFORE you cross the point of no return (where death becomes permanent), then yes - I'd be tempted to try it. One of the key elements in storytelling and in gameplay (when specifically discussing video games) is the concept of the "Stakes", and really this game takes that to the most extreme level. Surviving in a game like this would give players an incredible sense of accomplishment. It would also invoke some very real-world emotions... I'd be nervous as hell every time I logged in, and the game's value would just increase the longer you survived.

I think this is a great idea, but I don't think it will succeed as a commercial product. I think it's unlikely that people would be willing to gamble their money on purchasing it. If it were F2P? Absolutely, I could see it being a huge success.

 

Sometimes you die because of lag or a glitch. So it's a very tricky business.

 

It's also be hard to maintain a customer base. Every time a player logs in there's a risk that you'll be the one to break off the relationship.

I like the concept from a game point of view, though. I think that personally I'd lock out characters rather than players, and maybe put a long cooldown on the creation of new characters (so that people don't spam kamikaze starter characters).

You could make actual death very difficult to achieve. Injury could be common, as could incapacitation. From memory of games like Dungeons and Dragons death is generally considered permanent or at least very significant, but campaigns can still go on for months of weekly sessions with frequent combat because there's so many steps on the path to death - from memory you become "incapacitated" first, and then your party (or passers by C.O. your DM) get plenty of opportunities to do something about it.

 

dying and starting again is one thing.

locking a player out of a game is another altogether (and a stupid gimmick IMO)

 

Never?? That is sort of silly, in my opinion. I am all for perma-death in games, but it is the character that dies, not the player. At the very least allow the player to respawn as another character.

 

I can just imagine a troll group of elite players going around killing everyone off and destroying the entire player base... that can't end well.

You know, given how much control and power is given to the players judging by the descriptions.

 

There will be a very small niche market for this. But expect it to stay small and niche.

But those players who jump on it will probably be very dedicated.

 

Very bad idea from my perspective. If I buy a game then I want to be able to play it. If I'm in there for 30 mins and get killed then that's it game gone. I'd be putting in for a refund on steam.

I could see this working with your character dying permanently (as happens in many games) and there's a timer before you can create another one. Possibly even make people wait a week, or have "seasons" where everyone can spawn once, once they die they're out for the season.

Would need alternate game modes so people can continue to play when they're waiting a week or more to create another character to avoid them losing interest and just quitting the game. Any game with a focus on multiplayer has to keep an active community participating or the game will tank.

 

Its marketing. Some people will hack it.

 

What I expect, is they will do a complete u-turn when their numbers literally die off.

 

People could assume what customer base or blah blah blah. I could assume too. I won't. Instead I'm stealing the idea and I'm going to design it to work with in-app purchases.

You can create a custom player when you first start off. If that player dies that's the end of him/her. You will then be given the opportunity to purchase a new character which is in fact a totally new character. Until you do purchase a new character the app will sit on your device or whatever its installed on and do absolutely feck all.

When you purchase a credit via in-app purchases you are then able to play.

It stinks of psychological manipulation, well, if you design it like that.

You could goad people to purchasing a new character with phrases like "Are you sure you don't want to purchase a new character to see what comes up next?" or "Damn, it's a shame your player died especially when the good parts were coming up. If you bought a credit for a new character.........".

 

It will become pay for more lives, like every other game these days.

 

This was always going to exist, and now it does.

 

Well it got people talking about the game -- otherwise this game would have been a dime a dozen

 

I saw that game on Greenlight, and I am curious to see what happens with it. The perma-death that prevents you from playing the game again if you die in the game seems like a stupid (and possibly temporary) gimmick, but it might provide a perfect experience to a certain type of player. It is possible that some people might savor the experience even if it ends up being cut short. Some people really want a simulator where everything is like real life including perma-death.

I definitely won't buy the game myself. I have no interest in playing a game that locks me out if I die in game, and I have no interest in urinating on other players or torturing people in game. I do plan to check YouTube periodically to see gameplay videos. I am curious to see if players will play cautiously and really savor the moment instead of hurling themselves at bullets every chance they get in most FPS games. I did Yes vote it on Steam Greenlight, since I am very curious to see what happens with it.

Regardless of what ultimately happens with the game, the game definitely got everybody talking about it. It is going to sail through Steam much faster than most games. So strictly from a buzz building point of view, I have massive respect for this. This will be Greenlit in a matter of days instead of the typical months required for many games. Will that translate into sales? How many of those sales get quickly refunded? It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. No matter what happens, congratulations to the developers for generating so much buzz and absolutely blazing through Steam Greenlight.

 

Makes me wonder if it's just a marketing tactic to get people talking about it. And then they'll "listen to feedback" and change how it works at some point so that it won't be truly game over when you die.

 

It would not shock me to see that happen. But either way, they got a lot of people talking about their game, and that is really hard to do these days. I put my game on Greenlight only a couple days after they put their game on there, and yet they have 30 times as many comments on Greenlight regarding their game. Even if One Life's perma-death is only a temporary marketing ploy, it worked awesome for getting tons of buzz for their game.

What I am guessing they will actually do is include a single player campaign that takes significantly longer to complete than Steam's time limit for refunds. That way, they could still have the perma-death feature in their multiplayer mode if they wanted to. Most gamers would play the single player mode before diving into the multiplayer mode, so they could get familiar with the gameplay mechanics before risking their One Life in multiplayer.

 

It's going to be interesting to watch what happens, but there's no way I'm paying $10 to wander around for half an hour then get shot in the back.

 

The old arcade machines kind of had this feature back then. Insert coins to continue.

 

15 years ago i already planned to use a "permadeath" , mainly to make the player be more cautious about what he's doing ingame, choose different tactics to avoid lethal confrontation and bring more tension in the gameplay.
but i found it can really be frustrating because, sometimers, the player must experiment some failures to progress, so a definitive death would be counter-productive.
instead, i think that this can be achieved through warnings, health issues, death being the very last option after that.
so, yes, the idea is interesting but it must IMO be carefully implemented closely with a well designed gameplay.

 

I like the idea of being punished hard when dying, such as in DayZ where you start a new character each time. It makes me play more realistically and take less chances doing stupid moves. But as some mentioned already, it's your character that dies, not the player!

What will happen in One Life:

1. Pay 10$
2. Play 30 to 120 minutes
3. Get shot in the back by some kid that only life goal is to KOS players
4. Game over

If I was the creator, I would be more inclined to find another way to punish the player that does not involve money or preventing the player to play the game.

The concept is good in theory, but horrible in practice.

Essentially we are only talking about this game because of this "permadeath" feature, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the last game with this feature.


That said: Permadeath would be an interesting feature with a more mature players base only. (never going to happen)

I'm also mostly looking to read those steam reviews!

 

No matter how I look at it, I just don't like it. Not even if it was a PVE game. In multiplayer lots of things other than players can kill you. Lag, glitches, other guy having slightly better internet, or the most common, faulty controller. lol

I'd love games with permadeath optional tho. Not perma-permadeath. Games like Dark Souls, or anything that can be taken slow paced and careful. Its a nice optional feature that can give replay value. And youtubers trying the challenge.

 

I dont like it for paid games, and I think there are better ways you can make an unforgiving death mechanic. What about a temporary perma-permadeath, where your locked out for 24 hours for example

 

Interesting concept but you could never make money off a game like this.

This would be a quirky side project that gets released for free rather than a dedicated paid game. If people get locked out of something they paid for, they will not like it, and they will get rather angry with you.

 

Stupid.

Might as well just make it free with paid respawns.

 

It already got the press talking about the game.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=YZInVuGiD4zB8gfo1abICQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=one+life&tbm=nws

The flock already tried something like this, where after x-number of players died the game would shutdown forever, it did get at least total biscuit to talk about it, but didnt really translate into that many sales - according to steamspy.

 

on another note, a FPS with plenty of lethal weapons is IMO completely against the idea of a permadeath feature.
there should be a better balance between weapons lethality/damage

 

This is completely different from "The Flock". In The Flock, there were over 200 million deaths allowed total for all of the gamers that wanted to play. Each gamer could die many times. When all of the community deaths ran out, then the game would forever for everybody. And honestly, I don't suspect The Flock will ever run out of of lives. With One Life, each gamer is only allowed to die one time and the game continues for other gamers after that gamer dies.

 

I just noticed an announcement by the "One Life" devs saying it is currently the Top-1 game on Greenlight, and there are over 1200 comments for this game on Greenlight. This is marketing at its best. It is really hard for most developers to get noticed on Steam Greenlight and these guys made it look really easy. Congratulations to the developers on the awesome buzz building.

 

Heh, it's gonna be screwed on steam. I guess everyone forgot the refunds.

 

If it's low cost of entry and you can re-buy to be unblocked I can see it being a sort-of clever marketing strategy. If you're actually banned for good then what's the point? My reflection of that game sounds like how depressed people feel about living.

Maybe the game will only ban you for a 'season', which lets everyone back on once everyone is dead / a time limit is reached. It would be like that dayz mode if it was only 1 super server lol. Or even if the idea was stupid, the 'season' idea might tempt people to keep the game until they're beyond the refund point.

 

Game looks nice though.

If in some way I could be guaranteed a fair experience, the idea of perma-death is a nice thrill. Sadly that's nearly impossible.

 

Man, you guys are wusses. I would totally play this game (based on the one life premise alone, I don't even know what genre it is).

It offers a unique experience. It's not just marketing. Perhaps it is a niche group of players, but I think that niche may be larger than you expect. The stakes in this game are higher than any game ever made, that alone will produce unique experiences.

Every other game is like playing poker for imaginary chips. It's boring, people do dumb S*** like all in every hand. When there's real money on the table, the game entirely changes.

PS: they absolutely cannot offer pay for more lives directly. It would entirely undermine the experience. You can find a way to buy another copy, but it has to be 'illicit' the game cannot explicitly encourage that.

 

It's all fun and games until you're killed by hackers

It's a terrible and pointless gimmick that only works for marketing and inspiring the buy. Here's an idea. Instead of trying to innovate with gimmicks to patch up piss poor gameplay and lack of content, by actually making a good game.

Here's the thing:

Good games don't need gimmicks.

 

I haven't seen the game play, so I can't comment on the overall quality of the game. The idea that you can only die once in a game will have a potentially profound impact on how people play the game. That's not a gimmick if it's having a meaningful effect on the community and how the game is played.

You may see it as cynical, hell, it may be cynical - but it certainly has the potential to offer some really interesting game play and some very unique experiences. That may not be what some gamers are looking for and that's fine. If the game sucks, then yeah, it will end up being a gimmick. If the game is good, then it can offer some amazing gameplay.

 

Ok, I just watched the trailer...

Nevermind, it's a gimmick.

 

It's a gimmick because you're relying on a one shot attempt to create fear outside of actual game development. There's a number of ways to create genuine pressure and fear in a game, and roguelikes do it perfectly well.

This is marketing and people are buying into the idea. Unless it's just being kicked for a period, this isn't ending well. The dev looks really smug like he's thought up a genius plan but I don't buy into it at all. And if I don't, odds on a lot of other people smarter than myself won't either.

I'm pretty sure they'll U-turn and say it's just destroyed your account and you can make a new one ingame and keep playing, which basically means it's just roguelike and a bunch of marketing nonsense.

VR is not a gimmick. If you have the headset then you want VR content. Experiencing VR is a very exciting thing, and the fear from that, far exceeds something like this game.

 

If this game ends up using the mechanic as a gimmick or not is somewhat besides the point.

The reality is that adding stakes to a game really does change it at a fundamental level. Roguelikes cannot produce the same level of 'genuine pressure and fear' as - let's say a real life close encounter with death does. Right? The emotional response level in "real life near death" and 'my guy almost died in a roguelike' is kinda different. Stakes can have a profound impact in how we feel and the emotional response that it brings. It also has dramatic effects on how we behave. You look at peoples behaviour in real life compared to anonymous video game communities and you see big differences in how they act. This is because there is a lack of stakes in virtual games when compared to the consequences of actions in real life.

That the stakes involved fundamentally change peoples behaviour should not be shocking or surprising. It's really a basic element of human psychology. Maybe one of the most base elements.

Increasing the stakes in a game increases the emotional response in a way that is simply different from all other things. It may not be what you look for in a game, but don't think that you speak for all gamers when you say that adding stakes to a game is fundamentally a gimmick.

 

As much as people hate perma-death, there is a place for it. We have plans for perma-death in our game, as mentioned a while ago in some other thread that touched upon the subject.

It can be done, and done in a way that makes it fair as well as add realism to a game. Hippo is right. This guy's game uses perma-death as a gimmick and to create fear. Instead, it can be used as in any tabletop rpg game as a way to make you think about what you do before you do it. It should cause players to make better decisions based on risk vs outcome rather than just willy nilly "attack everything in sight" without any consequences at all. It does have to be well researched and well thought out and yes, some folks will never play a game with perma-death.

This game looks like a basic survival game, nothing special, other than your playing time might be limited it to 30 minutes or less, depending on who you meet in the game.

 

I'm not sure this is more scary than a classic roguelike.

Because the formula for fear is based on investment of time, it's not actually money. See, if you earn 10 an hour, then the fear is the same for you losing that hour in cash (which might be nothing to some people) or playing an hour in a roguelike and being terrified of the wrong move sending you back to the start.

So I don't buy it, no.

 

I agree...but the guy who is making the game may not. I don't even think fear is the correct word..more like a timer, anxiety maybe, or tension. Some folks thrive on tension. My guess is those are the people who will buy the game.

 

How this all works depends on how the game turns out. It's also why they cannot offer micro transactions or make it just an account reset. It deeply undermines how people evaluate the game's stakes. The more that people treat the game's stakes as being higher, the more intense the game becomes.

If there is a button that says "$10 extra life" then people make the money association too strongly and the stakes diminish. If people take the "you can only play this game once" thing seriously, then yes, it can have a profound impact in how they play. In a roguelike the only potential loss is time. This game also offers that, only ratchets it up significantly through the 'one life' premise.

How much or how little the game delivers really depends on ... the game. Watching the trailer makes me think the game will probably suck, and that the potential for interesting interaction will probably be lost. The overall presentation just seems too much like an action game. The 'pee' command makes me think that most of the interaction will be degenerate. That's kind of a shame.

My guess is that largely - this game will come down to basically making it so that in general you are not trying to kill other people, as much as incapacitate them and capture them.

DayZ had some similar, and often pretty interesting developments - there are some interesting articles written about hostage situations and one guy who admits experiencing elements of stockholm syndrome while under captivity. The problem with this game is the art and approach seems to make it feel more like a generic action shooter, rather than more of a simulation of real life. The art style is very disappointing, the 'pee' command, the fact that seem to have actually implemented cages.

My guess is that this game will just sort of be more appealing to the sadist gamer than anything else. But that's just based on the trailer. Have to wait and see what the actual game is before passing full judgement.

 

Someone should start a discussion in the game design thread about gimmicks vs cohesive & complete design

 

We like permadeath games, we just don't like perma-permadeath games.
If I had a good idea how to execute it in a fun way, I'd implement permadeath in my game too. But I'd also add a casual option maybe with checkpoints or something. I'm not looking to make a gimmick out of it. xD

 

I respect other people's points of view, but this game simply turns me off at every possible opportunity with the premise I can only live once on it before I have to buy it again. What if windows update / pee break / dinner / whatever unfair real life issue occurs? I can see this failing hard for so many reasons, and I'm not interested in setting $10 alight for no reason. That's not fear for me, it's merely mildly insulting and very annoying.

Having money as the pressure point to invoke suspense is simply the wrong concept entirely in my view.

 

If you've upgraded to windows 10 you've already agreed to a ToS that says they can interrupt you anytime to force download & installation of updates. This is a valid concern now for perma-death in games in general. Funny to see such a blunder come from the platform that holds the vast majority of the pc gaming market

 

The difference between "gimmick" and "cohesive design" really comes down to "is this game fun for me".

It's not about 'fear', maybe that's how you personally experience the sensation, which would explain why you really dislike the premise. I'm a gamer (and there are many like me) that tends to prefer when games up the stakes. For me, that feeling isn't 'fear' it's 'excitement', and it's an enjoyable experience.

Let's take an example scenario... let's imagine this game (that looks pretty bad) really delivers on all the potential of a high stakes pvp game driven by permadeath...

Let's say that you and your allies have decided to start a war with some other faction. Maybe you want to take ownership of the area where the most med kits spawn... You and your allies have been playing the game with these characters for maybe a month. You're seriously invested in the game and your characters at this point.

There's a moment before you and your guys are about to roll out and attack. There's a sense of very real anxiety. Your palms are sweating. There's a real nervousness in the voice comm, a kind of unusual silence. Who knows if you're going to win or not, maybe all your characters are about to die. Someone makes a dumb joke. Awkward laughter. Your hand is shaking a little on the mouse. You can feel your heart racing in your chest.

That is a killer gaming moment. It's also very hard to come by, and it requires a game provide meaningful stakes. I personally think this game will offer degenerate versions of that moment and won't deliver on it, but who knows - the trailer could just be really crappy.

Let's say that a game used much larger amounts of real money as a tool to provide a sense of higher stakes more reliably. What if the game didn't cost $10, what if it cost $1,000? If a higher up front cost raised the chance and frequency of those high intensity moments, then I'm all for it.

 

Yes, you can point out specific situations that assume the game actually works as intended and show how that would be some great experience.

You forgot to consider that it likely won't work as intended, as has been said. Hackers. Troll groups. Lag/glitches. Real life issues/emergencies.

Personally, I think all that "sweaty palms", "anxiety", "nervousness", etc. stuff happens perfectly well in a game where you have to start over entirely after losing. Like others have said, there's no reason to go the extra step in making you unable to play the game at ALL...

Other than, you know, a way to get attention (marketing tactic). That's all I think it is.