Forums > MobyGames > freemium / free-to-play / pay-to-win
Rola (8483) on 12/30/2012 6:03 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
http://www.mobygames.com/forums/dga,2/dgb,4/dgm,163219/
It was already discussed and the result is that free-to-play games are bundled with regular freeware (in tech-specs).
I guess by now everyone agrees that such business model affects not only players' wallets but also game mechanics/design. Currently we don't differentiate such games - the info is buried in game description (and not always clear: see Farmville).
I request creating a game group collecting all those games which feature in-game currency / consumable items / temporary bonuses that are bought with real money via online microtransactions. I guess this is the defining factor: requirement of constant money investment. This is to distinguish other games with "premium" option, which unlocks extra content (like more levels for Kingdom Rush), but it's a one-time purchase <- note: this is what should be called "freemium". All those World of Tanks games should be called "free-to-play, pay-to-win".
djindio (1612) on 1/29/2013 3:58 AM · Permalink · Report
Q --start Rola wrote--. [/Q --end Rola wrote--]
I thought that games which were in a perpetual Beta Release were not allowed on Moby and/or the the Beta period was not counted when determining the release date..?
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 4:22 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start djindio wrote--]I thought that games which were in a perpetual Beta Release were not allowed on Moby and/or the the Beta period was not counted when determining the release date..? [/Q --end djindio wrote--]For offline games that is someone still applicable. For online games, some developers insist to remain officially alpha or beta indefinitely despite releasing a somewhat stable game that has been in development yet publicly accessible for years. So the alpha/beta release policy is a bit silly when faced with cases such as these.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/29/2013 4:46 AM · Permalink · Report
I think we determined that once they start accepting payment from players, they're sufficiently stable to document.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 4:55 AM · Permalink · Report
What he said.
Rola (8483) on 1/29/2013 5:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
This "beta" status of those games/websites (how long Kongregate had this status?) isn't very honest, as the whole thing is not only publicly accessible, but also advertised and accepting payments. I read this as a screen, excuse: "something wrong? well, we're just beta, so bear with this!".
<hr>Sciere replied that some games later went completely free and assigning them to this group would be problematic. I'd answer that our "business model in tech-info" is just as faulty (I said years ago it should be tied to release info) yet still we use it.
Not sure if Sciere didn't mistake freemium with pay-to-win. Can you give me an example of a game that was first "5$ for 10 magic gems" and then offered those gems for free? (say, reverting to ad revenue only)
Even Wikipedia's definitions aren't clear.
I'd say freemium is something with unlockable features/content. Not that different from the old shareware, when you were getting a product with some features/content not available untill you register it.
Now, the confusing term free-to-play is in wide use as it's just a marketing slogan, not really a business model name. Nicknamed pay-to-win by players for a reason: to make any reasonable progress, you need constant investment of money. P2W offers temporary bonuses/perishable items, each of them costs money. That's the difference from freemium (one-time unlocking).
Sciere suggests that instead of creating this group (easy searching) we only provide that business model info via trivia.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 6:03 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]Freeuim [/Q --end Rola wrote--] That has got to be the lousiest terms since... well, the again, gamers have this habit of coining the most in-eloquent terms in existence. Roguelikes, beat-em-ups, etc., you'd think these people were educated in an abandoned pig farm without access to proper English grammar.
Moving on.
Anyways, any alpha, beta, gamma considerations should be shoved down the toilet permanently. Document everything. No point in being a nerd if information is limited.
Regardless of existing terms used, to my knowledge it's categorized as the following:
- Commercial (Full) - Traditional you buy it, it's all yours.
- Commercial (Time Payment) - Daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly payments required to play.
- Commercial (Conditional) - Buy full version yet they still screw with you. Spend money to buy additional content. Oh, wait. Isn't this called a DLC? -_- .
- Demo - For viewing purposes only. and occasionally content unique. Usually not upgradeable to full version.
- Freeware (Full) - Free. Just free.
- Freeware (Conditional) - Free to play. Pay for additional stuff: content, items, etc. Should include freemium and its ilk
- Open Source - Freeware games created via open source license of original game.
- Shareware - You can play it but it's limited. Pay to unlock for full version.
- Unknown - Freeware games based on a game where the license relation is unclear e.g. abandonware. For those unofficial releases we sneak in now and again.
Among others.
Rola (8483) on 1/29/2013 7:17 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]gamers have this habit of coining...[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]More often it comes from the journalists or "experts": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium
You're right about the need of using more precise distinction than we do now. We only have: freeware (lumped with free-to-play-but-pay-to-win), shareware, commercial, monthly subscription.
Why I insist on marking those games properly? Their gameplay mechanics are devised into forcing players to buy those special items/bonuses, otherwise: "wait 16 hours for the building to be constructed", "you've used up your energy - wait one hour or pay to play right now!".
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 7:44 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--] Why I insist on marking those games properly? Their gameplay mechanics are devised into forcing players to buy those special items/bonuses, otherwise: "wait 16 hours for the building to be constructed", "you've used up your energy - wait one hour or pay to play right now!". [/Q --end Rola wrote--]You sound strangely bitter. Did some time with Facebook games, never really affected me that much...and a multiplayer strategy game where you need to spend to get these gold-type heroes.
Didn't spend a dime. Didn't stop me from leading one of the most powerful guilds either from time to time.
Though admittedly, being cheap requires discipline. Bwahahahaha!
Rola (8483) on 1/29/2013 8:00 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]being cheap requires[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]...insane amounts of time invested into a single shallow game with repetitive gameplay. Believe me, I also tried those games (even added one here!).
Read my replies in "Sins of the Industry" threads - and the articles I linked. Understand the underlying dangers.
When it was still marginal, I thought this new phenomenon could be ignored. But regular game project are being changed into pay-to-win because of this dominating trend. Some weirdos will always be doing stupid things, it gets worse when it becomes the latest fad (see: tattoos, piercings), as it spreads to the common folk (sadly deficient in common sense).
Frankly, I never liked even the paper CCG: I buy the starter deck, OK. Then I buy a booster ...and I'm not supposed to know what's inside? So I have to buy 5, 10... 50 boosters to finally get the rare card I want? That's lottery, gambling, it's for swindlers and gullible people they prey on.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 8:29 PM · Permalink · Report
Can't say I blame their business model though. I know too many people who wouldn't touch a 'real game' but are willing to spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on casual games, just because it's conveniently linked to Facebook.
Probably millions of potential customers lost just because you have to register (I rarely use email now, much less do a confirmation thingy). Hell, I exit a website whenever they ask my age. This is the internet. The more restrictions you have, the less popular it will be.
No time (also why I lost interest in adding new games to MG...too much of a hassle).
Rola (8483) on 1/29/2013 9:00 PM · Permalink · Report
This is similar to the gun debate (think recent events in US). Bad/stupid people will always be doing bad/stupid things... but why we make it easier for them?
Indra, you're an educated & intelligent guy, but you're also a lawyer. Are all legal things OK? What about other considerations, like honesty/morality[?], long time effects etc.?
As I said, I'm worried when dangers formerly affecting only minority creep into majority... I suddenly hate them when they start affecting me. I'm not the kind of person to go on protest on manifestations or waste my time campaigning (like some Don Quichotte) to the dumb masses, yet I will voice my opinion, back it with reasons and try to make at least a couple of people ponder on it.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 9:45 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]Are all legal things OK? What about other considerations, like honesty/morality[?], long time effects etc.? [/Q --end Rola wrote--]Been down that road before, it's exhausting. Being trained in social sciences, especially one that has to do with public policy, you're taught to view the considerations and aspirations of the other guy. Your own personal opinion is irrelevant. Unfortunately, when you're new to the game, the other guy is a false ideal. The public is much more stupid than that and has always been that way.
Hell, you could be the most educated and experienced person in the gun control debate. The dingbats will still scream second amendment and paranoid police state conspiracies at your face. Never was a fan of democracy, especially when the majority consist of jarheads.
Honesty/morality? Too idealistic. The best you can hope for is not to screw the rights of others and for them not to screw yours.
Rola (8483) on 1/29/2013 10:21 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'm old enough to know (I even did know when I was a teen) that I won't change the world for better. I'm not some crazy idealist wasting his life for the sake of others (with the exception of minor follies like contributing to MobyGames, ahem).
I'm not a saint, I did my share of cheating. Yet I have my own moral compass and I won't go below a certain level. Even if other people around me do so. Not because of love/respect to others, but for the sake of myself.
And nobody trained me in this. These are my own thoughts. Even during the philosophy classes I had to endure at the university I had this silly realization "Hey, I thought about this before... so am I so wise as those classic philosophers? or were they as dumb as me?"
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 11:06 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Those classic philosophers were dumb. Though dumber still are individuals who insist on quoting some dead bloke whose been dust for a few hundred years. If you can't think of something better than what some dead guy said, then perhaps natural selection is a lie.
Anyway, you can't really teach philosophy. Same way you can't teach common sense. Just isn't that common.
Rola (8483) on 1/30/2013 12:46 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I always get that nasty feeling that people who hide themselves behind quotes from famous people usually have no wise thoughts of their own, relying on the "Oh, he's quoting Nietzsche, so he must be smart and educated!" effect. [Q --start Indra was here wrote--]you can't really teach philosophy[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]Tell that to them. Those classes weren't optional, I want those hours of my life back!
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 1/30/2013 4:20 AM · Permalink · Report
You can't be a philosopher without being able to quote great classics of that discipline, just as you can't be a composer without studying the music of the past.
Of course you can teach philosophy. There could be dozens of reasons as to why you felt you wasted your time with philosophy classes, but they do not include a general uselessness of teaching it.
Those who quote Nietzsche are displaying their education. Whether they can be considered "smart" or "wise" is another issue, of course.
I'm positive I had this debate with Indra about nine years ago already...
Donatello (466) on 1/30/2013 5:20 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]You can't be a philosopher without being able to quote great classics of that discipline, just as you can't be a composer without studying the music of the past.
Of course you can teach philosophy. There could be dozens of reasons as to why you felt you wasted your time with philosophy classes, but they do not include a general uselessness of teaching it.
Those who quote Nietzsche are displaying their education. Whether they can be considered "smart" or "wise" is another issue, of course.
I'm positive I had this debate with Indra about nine years ago already... [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Well, the problem with Nietzsche is that his humor, self-irony and many other subtleties have been distorted by people who just happen to read bits and pieces of him. I can see the appeal of those quotes, after all, with controversial phrases like "God is dead", it certainly appeals to people due to shock value alone (and yes, I've actually talked to someone who thinks the phrase implies the physical death of God, jeez). But that is something plaguing almost all the philosophers, since their teachings have been dumbed down to mere sentences then to be thrown at people randomly. Unless it's drivel like some continental philosophy. Then it probably adds to the value of the works instead.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 1/30/2013 7:13 AM · Permalink · Report
Yeah, well, I didn't mean just quoting without understanding, of course :)
Indra was here (20755) on 1/30/2013 10:32 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I still haven't read any books on philosophy so wouldn't know if someone was actually quoting Nietzsche or was just being an original emo. Except one comic book who summarized philosophy quite nicely in 20 colored pages.
The thing is, they're not teaching you about philosophy. They're teaching you the biographies of philosophers; thus the same way if you're reading up Alexander the Great, doesn't necessarily mean you become a master in Macedonian phalanx warfare. You're forced to know philosophy however, when you take a Ph.D. Not much, but barely enough for theoretical problem solving.
In gaming, I call it the Diablo paradigm. Not the most favorite example for RPG gamers who know the classics, but admittedly it is one of the most copied style of gameplay in the past 20 years. How hard could it be to just copy paste the whole dang game into a new one and just tweak it up a bit? Apparently, not so easy.
In conclusion, philosophy in its basics is unlike other branch of study. As it's the mother of all knowledge, it practically in nature is like a source code. You cannot teach other people about a source code by teaching people how other people have studied the source code. Each source code for each program is unique. You have to brainwash your entire brain to achieve this unique source code, to the point where it comes part of your own personality.
I've had the privileged to meet an extremely few master philosophers (I'm still better, but hey)...one who excelled in macro economics, another in observing human behavour and becoming a chameleon to fit the masses, many of which never divulge their interest in philosophy because the almost instant subjugation to being an outcast. Hmm. Met less than 5 people in my lifetime it seems.
So few, and never women.
<hr />Well, I'm retired from philosophy...as one day I came to this suspicion, a suspicion which was confirmed by Stephan Hawking: philosophy is obsolete. What is asked by philosophy can now be answered by science.
Donatello (466) on 1/31/2013 1:26 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]What is asked by philosophy can now be answered by science. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]
Science can answer ethics, political philosophy, epistemology etc.? Wow. I do agree it has wiped out metaphysics as such and grand attempts at establishing an unified framework for the world, but many branches of it are very much alive and kicking.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/31/2013 9:47 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Donatello wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra was here wrote--]What is asked by philosophy can now be answered by science. [/Q2 --end Indra was here wrote--] Science can answer ethics, political philosophy, epistemology etc.? Wow. I do agree it has wiped out metaphysics as such and grand attempts at establishing an unified framework for the world, but many branches of it are very much alive and kicking. [/Q --end Donatello wrote--] They are, but even in social studies, questions regarding ethics, politics, etc., require data that needs to compiled and researched (compiled events, opinion polls, etc.). In answering such questions, for the most part, they prefer to use research methodologies not really philosophy to answer those questions.
The problem with philosophy is that its very nature is subjective, whereas statistical data is not (it's interpretation however, is still subjective): when your source code of facts is wrong, your derivative logic will consequently also be wrong (e.g. if you believe in Zeus, you will make rationalizations to Zeus's influence on the world).
Though granted, in social studies philosophy will still be used, either for the sake of grandeur, but for the most part because we still lack the adequate technology to once and for all figure out how this brain works. In the mean time the best way to find answers on various events are survey polls...the most unreliable form of evidence gathering (relying on eye witness accounts), according to the scientific method. Hell, even the legal system incredibly relies on eye witness accounts. Now considering what we know about the scientific method, isn't that just sad?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 1/31/2013 3:04 AM · Permalink · Report
I really want to know which college teaches philosophers' biographies and calls it philosophy. That sounds so ridiculous that I begin to suspect you simply made it up.
Being a unique branch of study doesn't mean it can't be taught. You were describing a religious-mystical approach that is quite different from philosophy.
Science cannot answer philosophical questions because it doesn't deal with ethics at all and only touches metaphysics slightly. Big Bang theory was a big thing in science and yet we still don't know why we live.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/31/2013 10:28 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--][1] I really want to know which college teaches philosophers' biographies and calls it philosophy. That sounds so ridiculous that I begin to suspect you simply made it up.
[2] Being a unique branch of study doesn't mean it can't be taught. You were describing a religious-mystical approach that is quite different from philosophy.
[3] Science cannot answer philosophical questions because it doesn't deal with ethics at all and only touches metaphysics slightly. Big Bang theory was a big thing in science and yet we still don't know why we live. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] [1] What you're telling me that they don't teach the lives of the philosophers involved? You could just read the mentioned philosopher's book, since practically that's all there is to it. So why a philosophy class? To learn more on how the philosopher's think, by understanding their behavior, the era they live in, practically their biography. Admittedly it kinda works to a certain extent. Marxist probably wouldn't have gone drama queen on socialism if he didn't have a bourgeois wife.
Didn't pay attention during class, eh?
[2] Sure you can attempt to teach it, as any other subject. I didn't understand a single thing during legal philosophy classes back then. Bloody waste of time, as Rola said. Only because they don't teach you how to think and question, for the most part. Just the opinions if some bloke whose been dead, and the interpretations of that by some other bloke, and some other bloke whose been trying to implement the dead bloke and the later soon to be dead in his own hypothesis of whatever paradigm he's trying to fool himself in. No wonder philosophy graduates tend to be brain dead zombies.
oh, no he's quoting Socrates again
[3] In science, it's never about cannot. It's about not yet. The big bang? Seriously. To even attempt to theorize of that possibility once upon a time, yet alone able to indirectly observe its existence is astounding. And you're implying that's an under achievement? o_O
GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 1/31/2013 2:14 PM · Permalink · Report
My two cents on philosophy. I think existentialism sums it up rather nicely that there is no point in life. It does no good to act like that though. I like the idea that there is no great force determining what I do with my life. I'm still bound by being human, but I can choose whatever I want to do in the realm of human possibilities, succeed of fail. My life doesn't really mean anything to the universe, but I can ascribe some personal meaning to it myself.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/29/2013 7:40 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cavalary wrote--]That sounds good, perhaps with the exception of open source. That's not a payment model, that's an IP model, I think it should be different. [/Q --end Cavalary wrote--]Yeah. Probably was stretching it a bit too far if the premise was business model.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/29/2013 9:20 PM · Permalink · Report
There are a lot of similar but different open source licenses. Probably the same reason we do not support arcade games.
j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (95187) on 1/30/2013 1:56 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Shareware - You can play it but it's limited. Pay to unlock for full version.[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--] So every game ever released on XBLA is actually shareware, then? Mind. Blown.
Rola (8483) on 1/30/2013 6:41 AM · Permalink · Report
Actually I believe many old terms simply went out of fashion, replaced with what's popular in the moment. I hate the new terms coined just for the novelty value.
Think freemium itself. You get a working program, but it has some features/content available only if you pay. Isn't that just like 20-year-old Wolfenstein 3D shareware?
GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 1/30/2013 2:12 PM · Permalink · Report
In Wolfenstein, you paid for more levels. In a "freemium", you pay for in game items or extra functionality.
GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 1/31/2013 2:16 PM · Permalink · Report
Yeah. That's pretty much where "freemium" games got their model, right?
Rola (8483) on 1/31/2013 7:47 PM · Permalink · Report
How about this: let's skip freemium (one-time unlockable content/features) games for now.
What if we changed the proposed group to something like: Games with microtransaction paid virtual currency?
Can you see the difference? While Kingdom Rush is "Freemium", Evony is "Microtransactions+Virtual Currency".
The latter model means there is no limit of how much money a gamer can invest in the game. This is because those virtual goods are consumable or time-limited (contrast this with one-time activation of permanent premium content). Games are designed from the ground-up with this in mind: player actions use up energy (want to play more? pay!), construction/training takes several hours (don't want to wait? pay!), best items cost special currency (don't want to grind for weeks? pay!).
This business model can be identified fairly quickly. While a free (yet ad-revenue based) game can suddenly offer premium content with web re-release or mobile conversion (I think Sciere tried to avoid these confusing cases), I can't think of any "Microtransactions+Virtual Currency" title switching to solely ad-revenue based model.