The top free-to-play monetization tricks | Hacker News Reader

The top free-to-play monetization tricks

gamasutra.com

152 pointswayprogramming108 comments

This is disgusting to me. I'll give you that there's a fine line between pain & pleasure in a game (it takes some pain to feel the pleasure), but this just feels dirty. I've said it before: it reminds me of an abusive relationship.

It starts off great: treat the girlfriend well, give her flowers, treat her like a queen. As time goes by, slowly needle away at her confidence, until she feels dependent on you. Do this so slowly that she doesn't even realize what you're doing. Eventually she is essentially dependent on you, and even if you treat her like garbage, she keeps coming back for more. In fact, she even blames herself for things going wrong.

It's terrible. I refuse to play games that do this. I get that they're incredibly successful, and rake in tons of money, but this is not something I want any part of.

Your relationship example is more about dependency or addiction which you see in game reward techniques to keep players leveling up. Standard fare where there's a subscription model.

This is the other side; more fraudulent than evil. He summed it up in the first paragraph; make it so the player has insufficient information to make an informed [investment] decision.

From Wayne's World (1992):

		Kids know dick.
		I watch 'em in my arcades.


		They stand like lab rats hitting
		the feeder bar to get food pellets.


		As long as they pump in quarters,
		who gives a shit?


		Let me ask you.


		What's your single biggest problem
		in the arcade business?


		Well, uh, keeping the customer
		informed of new product.


		Like our new game called Zantar.


		Zantar is a gelatinous cube
		that eats warriors in a village.


		If you eat a chieftain,
		you go up a level.


		Beauty is, you can't
		get to the next level,


		kids keep coughing up quarters.


		Gelatinous cube eats village.
		It's terrific.

Reminds me of playing games like R-Type in the arcade as a kid. When you died you had about 5 seconds to decide whether to continue or not.

Continuing was always the wrong choice as you would find yourself on the hard level with level 1 weaponry.

There is one verbal thing that i don't see people do in these types of discussions. Nobody ever boils it down to the very simple fact, this being:

    Some games are built to sell the player cheats.

I do not know if this is because many people discussing this aren't old enough to remember magazines with cheat code sections, or a few years later, the time spent on websites accumulating collections of cheat codes and easter eggs.

Once upon a time things were build into the game to ease testing, or allow players to dick around in the game if they didn't feel like hunting after extra lives, usually used after the game was beaten.

Nowadays some games put these into a New Game + mode, or make them unlockable with achievements.

Other games, especially in the mobile realm however make games that can't be completed sicne they are playable ad infinitum, but are designed so the tediousness ratchets up over time. And then they employ the master stroke:

   They sell the player one-time cheat codes.

But the worst examples build in things that increase the need for cheats.

Spending 2 units to enter a dungeon, and having those units replenish through a timer or buy an never ending supply via IAP adds nothing to game play but takes money from the player.

It feels a bit like "you enjoy playing this game? Here's a poke with a sharp stick."

Or in other words:

>Games are built to make players feel powerful. Players understand that money is as much a currency as their time is, and some would rather trade their money to feel powerful than spend their time to build up to feeling powerful.

But what if the game knows if you buy the cheats, and it makes you feel more powerful in the short term before hobbling you extra hard in the medium term so you buy more cheats?

So that you buy a token to increase your power but the transaction actually decreases your power, but is cleverly disguised so you don't realise?

The weaker you get, the more "power-ups" you buy, which only makes you weaker and more dependent on power ups.

That's what is particularly evil about some of these mechanisms.

This is part of the problem--but it isn't making the player weaker in the long term, it reduces the growth of player skill. Which amounts to the same thing as what you're describing, but a little more indirectly.

The bigger issue for me is that IAP pushers are not selling something the user decides they want, they're selling something that the pusher has manipulated the user into deciding that they need by changing the environment around them. It's not even in the same bucket as marketing (which sucks), but rather the outright control of the player's experience to drive them towards consumable IAP. There's no way that's not malicious.

If you spend $60 on a AAA game which makes you feel powerful is it less evil than spending once $2 in a F2P game which also makes you feel equally powerful? Is it only more evil once the user has spent more than $60 to feel powerful, or is it only the fact that the user can spend a little at a time to feel powerful that makes it evil compared to the one off $60 purchase?

Depends if the game is a competitive game or not and if you can continue to spend 2 dollars or not.

Consider a competitive game where someone who normally sucks buys a game which is awesome. He is able to have fun with all of the free players who are just good, and doesn't always win because he sucks. He's suddenly like a mini-boss to the players who don't pay, and they feel awesome when they manage to defeat them, because even though that other player had paid power they still won. And players who are both good and pay are set to fight against other players who are good and pay.

Everyone is happy. It's not evil.

Skill-based matchmaking is better. Furthemore, pay-to-win elements cannot be justified, even as a boost for weaker players in games that revolve around PVP competition. Skilled players will exploit them and create havoc in the overall balance.

Should all people in real sports be forced to use the same exact equipment because having a pay to win advance is unjustifiable there too?

If a game is premium only, meaning it cannot be play for free, if people win in the game is that unjustifiable for those who cannot afford to play at all?

If people play and enjoy pay to win games (even though I have yet to find a game which is actually pay to win instead of pay to gain a small advantage which doesn't guarantee victory) do those who do not deserve to have their wishes met and those who are enjoying it losing what they like?

>Skill-based matchmaking is better.

There is a thing called smurfing.

The competitive games I have first-hand experience with(LoL, DOTA2, World of Tanks) have no pay-to-win elements and the different heroes/items/tanks/ are all balanced.

And this whole discussion is about f2p games with microtransactions and this thread on whether microtransactions should give an advantage. Please don't confuse the issue.

Do you see that the problem is with people who deliberately use state of the art manipulation methods, backed by tons of cognitive science research, to milk people for their cash?

There's selling, and then there's just stealing from people. Many F2P border on the second one.

So if I'm a gifted salesman who's hit upon those methods by chance and paying attention, that's fine, as long as there's no Science?

This is irrelevant.

It's fine if you use Science as long as you sell me something of real value, so the transaction is win-win for both of us. It's not fine if you trick me into buying things that have little or no value for me. Also, if you had something valuable to sell, you wouldn't need manipulation tricks.

It's not a devastating rebuttal to everything you were saying, but it is highly relavent as a pompt for you to clarify your point - which this is a good start at. I don't think we're quite to somewhere cogent, though; real value is subjective, so I'm not sure exactly how we draw that line - particularly when it comes to entertainment. If a salesman convinces me to buy the pricier golf clubs, maybe I will have a "better" experience out playing golf, but under what conditions is that "real value" when I would have had fun and got exercise either way?

It's a balance between making a cool app and making a living. The zines are another part of building the cool and business too.

The reason you don't see it is that "cheat" is the wrong word. Cheating means breaking the rules. The shortsighted view you've presented disregards the entire premise of the Gamasutra article, which is that these are money games, not skill games. If you buy an advantage in a skill game, you are cheating, but if you buy an advantage in a money game, you are just playing by the rules.

I was reading a review of a game. The game was a clearly labelled demo, and had a single IAP to unlock the full game. The reviewer called this unsavoury.

That's a great shame because it means people offering demos with honestly priced games are called unsavoury and people offering these scummy monetization tricks get more money and cash.

You cannot win. All of the self righteous people here calling monetization evil... There are people who legitimately think you are evil if you charge any money. Have ads? You're evil. Charge more than $1? Scumbag! Free game with with no ads and no monetization? Either.. Wow, you're such a nice guy for making this game! It's too bad you don't have any money to make more! Or... it's probably a shit game that's why it's free. No matter what you do there will be people calling for your head.

Let people make their own choices. If people "fall" for "tactics" and say they are "happy" then who is anyone to tell them that can't like and support what they like.

That's not a helpful attitude. I'm of the opinion that the current state of IAP is terrible, and as a gamer I hope that it dies.

What would I like to see change? Keep IAP, but limit IAP to things that you can only buy once, and limit the # of IAP items to some reasonable number (say, 10, with permission to increase with human oversight). This retains the ability for developers to offer add-ons and demo play, but removes the capability for freemium developers to milk customers.

Does it destroy the freemium game model? Sure, that's the point.

I still trying to understand how IAP are bad when I am obviously millions of others saw no need to make them. Its not a forced purchase.

Now I am all for not being able to obfuscate the actual costs of IAP. This method is used a lot by supposedly free to play MMOs. You don't buy items/upgrades/boosts with real money, you buy another currency to buy these IAPs. Worst, most purchase quantities are set to purposefully keep you from getting the exact amount you need.

Apps are merely doing what has been happening in full on computer games for years. The difference is that many purchases are made by children because insufficient parent oversight. So instead of putting the blame where it belongs we go after those who sell it?

> I still trying to understand how IAP are bad when I am obviously millions of others saw no need to make them. Its not a forced purchase.

They are bad because someone is purposefully exploiting known cognitive biases to trick a significant part of players to give out their money. On an individual level it might feel that you have a freedom of choice, but it's an illusion - game authors still know very well that a calculated percentage of players will fall for their tricks, they just don't know (and don't care) who in particular.

Why can't you accept that some people like what you don't like and they are not just dumb fools getting tricked into giving their money away?

I accept that, but were the producers targeting such people, they wouldn't have to resort to methods that are designed to tricking people into giving their money away.

For the same reason I wouldn't accept the rationalizations about the victim in any other kind of abusive relationship.

Is every situation where money exchanges hands an abusive relationship? If the same gameplay mechanics existed but there was zero way to pay money and instead only spend time is it suddenly no longer abusive?

I doubt there would be games like that (same as now, but where spending time is the only option). The whole mechanic of spending a long time waiting is there to encourage paying to not wait.

But yes, it would not be abusive if there is no way to pay. If the mechanic exists solely for gameplay reasons, rather than for manipulating the player, it's not taking advantage of anyone.

People's time is worth nothing and money is the only thing which matters and people who value their time more than some small amount of money don't deserve to be able to enjoy any games?

>If the mechanic exists solely for gameplay reasons, rather than for manipulating the player, it's not taking advantage of anyone.

If a person spends 100 hours in a game which requires ridiculous grind that's less evil than if they spend 5 hours in a game and spend $2 to unlock extra turns sooner than just waiting while having equal amounts of enjoyment?

Time is money. You may not value your own time but I and others do. Even in "pure" experiences if elements of play are there for gameplay reasons (every game having different goals) it can cost a person a lot of money just by playing it for a long time.

The point is that games require you to spend 100 hours for "ridiculous grind" for no other reason than to motivate you to pay to not grind. If paying was not an option, the game would be designed to not require any non-enjoyable grinding/waiting (even if there is grinding, it would be an enjoyable part of the gameplay, not just "wait 5 minutes and you can click something again").

Imagine a game where you build a village. You need gold to build something. The game gives you X gold every 5 minutes, and you can pay to get more. Sounds reasonable, right? Except that there is no gameplay reason for you to wait 5 minutes to get more gold. They could just as well give you more every 30 seconds and the gameplay would became 10 times faster and more enjoyable.

If there is no option to pay with money, there would not be any need to pay with time either.

> Apps are merely doing what has been happening in full on computer games for years.

[Citation Needed]

I have never seen IAP in any computer game until the rise of micro-transactions. Even then IAP has been restricted to MMOs and other niches. The prevalence of IAP on mobile is several, several orders magnitude different than on PC.

> The difference is that many purchases are made by children because insufficient parent oversight. So instead of putting the blame where it belongs we go after those who sell it?

Saying "the user is to blame" again is not helpful. To be clear I would like my platform of preference to be free of "bad IAP" altogether, because it encourages a style of game design that is distasteful to me.

I'm cognizant that some people love this type of game. That's fine with me, I'd just rather they go somewhere else.

> I have never seen IAP in any computer game until the rise of micro-transactions.

IAP is, arguably, no different than "expansion pack" + "purchase online". But for the online purchase part, computer games have been doing that before most people had even heard of the internet. Even the "free-2-play (but play for full experience)" model goes back to at least the 1980s (in the form of shareware).

Sure, the reduction in transaction processing costs and latency of the modern online world have facilitated adapting those models to ones with more, smaller, and more frequent purchases, but the essential characteristics of the models are, in computing terms, ancient.

Maybe we have to agree to disagree on this point, but where IAP is different today is the existence of consumable IAP.

Only until recently was it possible to spend money on a game and, at some point later, have game content and state be identical to before you spent that money.

"Paying for the full version of Doom" vs "buying some gems in Dungeon Keeper" may be conceptually the same, but the long term result is vastly different.

I'd argue that the value you receive from the former utterly blows away the latter, but customer and developer trends are sadly proving me wrong.

> where IAP is different today is the existence of consumable IAP.

Sure, consumable IAP is a different thing than mini-expansion style IAP. I think that its at least as old as the MMO world an may have earlier precedents, but its certainly taken off.

> I'd argue that the value you receive from the former utterly blows away the latter, but customer and developer trends are sadly proving me wrong.

Consumable IAP is, in a sense, a highly efficient rental scheme that takes from each user according to their willingness to pay.

This is way off base. We have seen that games with pure ad revenue models can become extremely popular just like games that are pay to win via lots of IAPs. We have also seen that some games do well with simple pay once models, whether its on the store directly or via a single IAP.

The fact of the matter is some forms of monetization are unethical and sacrifice gameplay and enjoyment in order to make more money from players. There are true dark patterns for game design and development. Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads.

>There are true dark patterns

Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others.

> some forms of monetization are unethical

Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal.

>Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads.

Yes, actually plenty of people are. Subscriptions are dark. Premium games are dark. Skill games are dark. Gambling games are dark. Ads are dark. Freemium is dark. Everyone can call anything dark.

> Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal.

There are plenty of things that are legal but unethical. It's impractical to ban every unethical thing, and it would generally not be a good idea to try. Therefore some people can get away with being nasty, but the fact that they are not violating the laws of some particular nation isn't really a defense.

An alternative is to lobby your Congressperson to ban these unethical strategies, or otherwise regulate them. The EU is taking an in-between step by discussing whether false-advertising statutes should apply to labeling games "free" when they're actually designed to pull money out of you within the game. That has pros and cons too.

> Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others.

Not true. Some of them can have proven statistical effectiveness, which is why they are using them in the first place.

That they are effective doesn't make them dark or evil!

Makeup is effective at making people look more attractive than they would look without it that doesn't make makeup evil or dark.

> Which can only be defined subjectively. Something dark to you is not to others.

Dark patterns aren't patterns that you don't personally like, they are those that are designed to have a significant effect in getting users to take actions or behaviors that the users did not intend to have in the first place, such as leaking personal information or making unintended purchases.

> Only ones which are fraud, which is illegal.

Fraud is certainly unethical, but there are things that are legal and also unethical, this is just being obtuse.

> Yes, actually plenty of people are. Subscriptions are dark. Premium games are dark. Skill games are dark. Gambling games are dark. Ads are dark. Freemium is dark. Everyone can call anything dark.

You are diluting what is even meant by a dark pattern here to make it meet a definition of "I don't like it". Calling a skill game dark is absurd, a user playing a game would wholly expect that their playing skill may affect their gaming outcomes.

I don't see that in the article at all. At what point does he decry the shareware model as abusive in that article?

He doesn't. I don't think it is. Here's a review where they call a demo version with paid upgrade to the full version with no other IAPs "tacky".

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Glyph+Quest/review.asp...

Ah, i didn't realize that you were referring to a completely different article. I read that one and have to say i think you're not seeing the subtle differentiation he is making. He is not against shareware altogether.

He's slightly annoyed that the game doesn't outright explain that it's a shareware/demo/whatever, which is a reasonable complaint when you keep in mind that many other games do this by having their demos labeled "Lite" or similar.

DanBC was referring to shareware/demo model as being called unsavory because some people don't like IAP in anything at all ever. "This game would be great except after the first few level it asks me to spend money to buy the full version. It should be free! 1 star, and I'll maybe give 4 stars if the developer makes it free like it should be!" Is a common review.

You could check if the player has left such reviews and if they have deactivate IAPs from the start and run ads instead. This could improve your reviews and revenue (but in the long run it might incentivize players to leave bad reviews if widely used and known). Would it be disrespectful of the player's privacy?

reread parent comment. reconsider post.

I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The mechanics to make you pay absolutely feel contrived and scummy; the game strongly limits how much you can play in a given time period (stamina), and playing more than that requires the equivalent of $1. Dungeons also have strange difficulty levels, where the boss is significantly more challenging than the levels leading to it, so after you've invested the time to get there, you have the choice of "paying" $1 each time you are about to lose, or leaving the dungeon and potentially having to "pay" $1 to play more -- especially since the harder dungeons eat up a larger portion of your stamina. The worst, though, is that obtaining better monsters requires a slot-machine style gamble, and each try costs around $5. There's such a high chance of getting a mediocre monster instead, that there's actually a term called "Gung-trolled."

That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1.

Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.

Why do you choose to play the game then? Who is forcing your hand?

I enjoy it enough that I consider it an expensive way to pass time during my commute. I still dislike the IAP model, though.

If you dislike the IAP model you should not pay to play the game, despite liking the game.

But that's the whole point of IAPs; it's exactly what JonFish85's top-level comment says: this is an abusive relationship. It hurts you, but you keep coming back for more.

No. I'm fully capable of ignoring games based on my principles. He chooses to be in that "relationship" despite not liking it. It's his own problem, his own responsibility. He supports it despite his own reasoning, which is stupid, but it's his choice.

You don't see this from the right perspective. You might be the special snowflake that is invulnerable to manipulation and has the ability to always choose rationally. But many people don't. It's abusive by definition, because the game makers are deliberately using proven methods of tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do.

You wouldn't call something a manipulation method if it was effective only if the target wanted it to be. Brains are imperfect machines, and people making those games are malicious hackers exploiting cognitive bugs for profit.

>tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do

Look at all of these people getting tricked into playing stupid match three games! Stupid sheep liking trash - that's a bug! They should like what I like! I have actual taste and plays real games and not this shit no one would play. They would pay for power? Bah! No one pays to have advantages. Sports competitors don't spend thousands of dollars to give themselves slight advantages in physical events. Why would anyone do that. Speaking of which, why would anyone support Duck Dynasty??? It must be a glitch in those human brains again.. so easily manipulated! They are obviously being tricked into liking that stupid show.

I'm not so arrogant that I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I think it's the simple case of me liking what I like and them liking what they like. If they like to spend their money on things I see as wasteful that's their choice. They probably feel the same way with how I spend my money.

Which is exactly why I've said it should be regulated like gambling; You hear the exact same dysfunctional, illogical reasoning from compulsive gamblers.

We have regulation to protect children from this with old-fashioned gambling, but none for F2P/IAP.

I've absolutely no problem with adults letting themselves in for it, but there needs to be more effort to reduce the harm to children - and ultimately their parents wallets!

>compulsive gamblers

Very small percentage of the population. Please don't try to take away my liberties when you think you are smarter than everyone else.

>think of the children

>but there needs to be more effort to reduce the harm to children

It's called parenting.

So you disagree with laws banning children from casinos and other gambling venues? That's all I'm proposing the equivalent of. Not new regulation, but placing certain categories of F2P/IAP games within the existing gambling laws.

PS: Please don't use a thread quote mark for something I didn't say.

You are using "think of the children" argument were you not.

Parents are the ones who should keep kids out of casinos not the state. There are parents who buy their kids scratch tickets. Even with the laws, you can't stop bad parenting, and when you start to legislate things to save the children you ruin things for everyone. Right now the new South Park game is less available in Australia and Germany because they think of the children so much, they want to censor and protect so much, that adults can't have what they want. What effect does this have? Kids want what they can't have more. In states where alcohol is more restricted kids try to get it more, because it's cool. In states where alcohol is less of a big deal instead of idealizing getting drunk people apologize for their friends who do drink too much. Better parenting, better families is the solution not more laws!!!!!

>F2P/IAP games within the existing gambling laws

No. If there is no monetary gain possible then it's not gambling (pretend things are not real, things owned by other people are not your property). If you care then spend your own time and money to help to get parents to understand that it's their job to protect and educate their own children and not any problem of the rest of us. Don't try to give states more power to steal more liberties just so you can build up another fantasy of doing something.

You're basically asserting a hardline-principle ethic for them. However, as someone once said, "principles are what people die for," so you might agree that the relationship between IAP and desirability of play is a little more nuanced than, "well why don't you murder it out of your life, then?"

As long as you keep doing that, you are supporting that type of IAP behavior.

You have no one to blame but yourself.

You should try Puzzle Quest for DS, a used DS and cart should not be that bad, plus you can sell it all if you get bored later for not much loss and you won't have that feeling of guilt as you spend money. The game is great for short trips, basically just close the DS and it sleeps until the next time you open it, then almost instantly you are right back where you were. Charge the DS when you get home, and you might not even ever have to power it off.

Thanks for the suggestion - that looks fun! I already have a DS but loathe the idea of having to carry it around with me. It's definitely a very nice system, and can actually sleep for a few days unlike the 3DS.

I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation?

The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back!

We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?

What sort of regulation are you envisioning?

I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced pain on the player, rather than to increase the fun.

So maybe just a hard limit on total IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s.

Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons.

The trickiest part about it would be defining what is an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena.

EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist at all. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.

I can't imagine a set of regulations that would be reasonable. I have friends who have completed all the levels of Candy Crush Saga without spending any money, yet it's probably the most successful example of this ever. According to the article 80% never paid.

For the example you cite I completely agree, taking a casino game and making it IAP is horrible and should be regulated like that. However you word that though, you're going to have horrible developers find a way around it. Anything short of banning IAPs is going to be worked around, and banning IAPs doesn't sound like a reasonable idea.

The other thing is 18+ as regulation, I'd be staggered if that was pulled off successfully. Lots of things on the internet are 18+ and not used exclusively by adults. That's an unworkable regulation by any precedent.

This is really horrible, but I don't see any way to regulate it successfully.

God, this is devious. While reading it I was thinking, "where does the sarcasm part end?" but it never did. I mean, as an aspiring indy dev I can understand the need to make a living, but this is in the same league with casino money. I really hope this is just a phase, and people would collectively understand that these games are designed to take your money, and that they're not worth it.

Hehe yes, obviously totally not worth it and it will go away (just like the casinos did)!

I'm relieved to see we didn't use any of these tricks with our F2P game. We have an in-game currency, but all purchases are with regular currencies and there is no way to buy power or even in-game money.

Sure, there is a place for in-app purchases. But there has to be some moral code involved. I think that in general, paying for consumables is bad, but paying for extra (permanent) features is fine. There may be exceptions to this. There's this website, http://honestandroidgames.com/, that has its own moral code but it is quite restrictive (must have no ads, must be either free, paid or free with a single IAP that unlocks the full game.) I wonder if it is possible to come up with a more flexible moral code for game monetization.

But there has to be some moral code involved.

No, there absolutely does not. The only way to filter your game usage through a moral filter is to subscribe only to things like honestandroidgames.com, which is akin to programming out all non-Christian TV channels in every TV in your house.

There already is a moral code for app content required for store submission.

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

Whether or not these guidelines should extend to IAP implementation is up for debate, I'm of the opinion that consumable IAP should be a blocker.

Those aren't a moral code, they're editorial policies. Even if they were moralistic, the only thing that is summarily prohibited is "Bum Fights Video Library" type apps, which is a nearly-nonexistent bar.

> I wonder if it is possible to come up with a more flexible moral code for game monetization.

Sure: come up with your own moral preferences and (1) as a producer, don't make games that violate them, and (2) as a consumer, don't pay for games (or IAPs within games) that violate them.

This is a complete hypothetical, but how do you feel about consumable hats?

I'm thinking something like you spend real dollars on a hat (or other item) that does nothing but change cosmetics, but disappears after a week/month/quarter/year.

That doesn't sound too bad... It's definitely not the same as using psychological tricks to coax people to pay. As long as the game is not designed around getting your money, it should be okay, I think.

This is the voice of a high-functioning sociopath. It's shocking because we usually don't hear these things spoken out loud, although by now it's pretty well known, or at least widely suspected, that the top management of many of the most successful corporations are largely sociopathic.

Look hard at the advertising and sales techniques that we are awash in: this is the style of thinking that animates them. Why does a car commercial have music? To trick the brain into making a major financial decision based on emotion, bypassing the rational process. Good for Toyota, bad for you.

One of Steve Jobs' proudest moments, in one of his last keynotes, was announcing an alliance with Zynga. This is the man who spoke derisively of others' "taste".

Ramin is criticizing the practices of the big free to play companies by explaining their practices in plain english, he's not saying you should do this (I'm sure some money hungry devs will read this as a guide though).

I understand, and I saw his comment at the end, which makes this clear. I meant that he's adopting the voice of the sociopath to expose their reasoning.

At the end of the article, in the first comment, he says:

"Note that as a rule I do not publish my F2P monetization models. In this case, I am publishing the methods used by others to make money games, and since I only make skill games, I'm not creating any competition for myself. While the information I have provided here should lower the barrier to entry for commercially effective money games, I hope the discussion will lead some of you to consider making skill games instead."

I know. Please read the reply to hatu I left 15 minutes before your comment. In case it's still not clear: "this is the voice" means the author is letting us hear this voice, not that he personally is one of them

Why would it be a phase? This has been happening since the very first video games were created. It's exactly what an arcade is. We like to look back at games like Pac-Man with nostalgia. And it's easy, since you get to play that game for free anytime you want today. But that game was efficient at separating you from your quarters back in the '80s.

and look at well arcades are doing now.

In arcades, the money was still not inside of the game design. In IAP centric games, dollars are inside of the game mechanics.

King.com was generous enough to point out that their target demographic for CCS is middle aged women. 80% of their players are women, only 34% of their players are under the age of 30, and only 9% are under the age of 21.

The crux of the article is that people under 25 are particularly susceptible to tricks used to get people to pay for in-game items. To refute that, King would have to say something along the lines of, "x% of our revenue comes from middle aged women". To say, "x% of our players are middle aged women" doesn't at all address the point brought up in the article.

For example, it could be possible that only 34% of CCS players are under 30 but still be responsible for 90% of CCS revenue.

I think this comment, and the article's assertion about age ranges, show that neither you nor the author know any middle aged women addicted to candy crush.

Yeah, I seem to remember that Zynga targeted bored, middle-aged housewives from the midwest more than anybody else.

18-25 year olds have probably moved on from Candy Crush. Once they hit the wall, they probably just throw it away for something new.

Also regarding the same quote, how many of those plays are from young children using someone else's phone/tablet? anecdotal evidence: my son, and nephew are always using my moms ipad to play games when they're at her house.

I've long thought that this boils down to trust.

The strong reaction against IAP from many people (including me) comes from counter-aligned goals between the designer and the player in games with IAPs.

In a traditional game, I trust that the designer wants me to finish the game and if I'm stuck, I just need to play a little more or retrace my steps and look for the correct method of continuation.

With IAP-based games, when I'm stuck, I don't know if additional effort is going to be helpful or if I just need to pay the bribe to continue. As a result, I feel like I'm being coerced any time I have difficulty with the game.

The enjoyable tension of well-designed traditional game becomes a constant feeling of coercion to spend more money. It's just not fun.

As background for some of the techniques used in F2P, there's a classic reference on behavioral psychology applied to games from 2001, way before the whole F2P phenomenon: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_d...

The only redeeming thing I can find in all of this is that _some_ game makers actually have a semblance of morals and provide what I call a decent (in both senses of the word) F2P experience.

NimbleBit is (or at least was when I played) one of those studios. I played (and LOVED) Tiny Tower a few years ago. I'd say that game gave me a solid 6 months of casual gaming enjoyment.

It was, in my view, a perfectly fair F2P experience -- you could play the entire game casually - and get to the end - without ever spending a penny. It took a bit longer, sure, but it never got to the point of absurdity. You'd play a bit and know that a new level would be ready in a few days, but there was plenty to do in the meantime.

You could buy Towerbux, though, if you were impatient. They never crossed the line -- it was truly targeted at the impatient. Towerbux could be earned, but that took time, and spending real money was simply something for those that wanted instant gratification.

I think that's a perfectly fair division of players -- almost like sin punishing sin ;) Those that have patience could enjoy the game for free. Those that lacked it could get a quick fix with some real $.

I spent a total of $20 on the game eventually - partially because I too wanted a bit of a speedup, but mostly because I felt so good about the developer's genuineness that I wanted to reward them with some revenue.

HalfBrick studios did this with Jetpack Joyride.

Everything could be done with what was there in game, but if you wanted to do it faster, you could pay. Thats it.

This is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. I think many game developers (myself included) struggle with monetization in a market that largely demands F2P games. Using tricks like these is a constant temptation and it's important to see how devious these methods are in their manipulation of gamers. Kudos to Ramin for writing such an informative summary.

The thing that I find so disturbing about all this is that it does away with the notion of providing value for value. These game companies are not trying to make the best game possible for their customers, they are trying to manipulate and deceive their customers.

How do you reconcile earning money with giving them "the best game possible" for free? Donationware never worked, so you have to hold something back from them that you monetize. And you have to make sure that thing is desirable.

Of course some developers are going to be gross when doing that, but it is absurd to extrapolate that all F2P games are manipulative and deceiving. If even in the most visible, sophisticated and successful examples of the genre, a huge percentage of people are playing for months without paying a dime, you can't honestly say that the primary element that defines the game is "deceiving and manipulative".

No matter how much technique is put into the monetization design of a game, NOBODY is going to pay if they are not having a good time and being entertained.

Reminiscent of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

Perhaps a disclaimer on F2P games might help:

"Knowledge of the presence of persuasive mechanisms in a technology may sensitize users to them and decrease their efficacy. Therefore, in some cases, such knowledge might diminish the effectiveness of a generally positive persuasion. This reasoning led us to our design principle: The creators of a persuasive technology should disclose their motivations, methods, and intended outcomes, except when such disclosure would significantly undermine an otherwise ethical goal." [1]

I like the idea of transparency into a company's motivations beyond corporate doublespeak, although not sure how one can enforce transparency.

[1] Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology. Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E., 1999.

I avoid F2P games just like

I just wish Apple would give me a way to bypass all F2P games in the App Store search (not all IAP games are F2P, e.g.: Carcassonne). Right now, I have to click through and see if any IAP has a "coin" feel to it, and if so, I simply ignore the game.

Wow, this made me feel really naive. I know game developers want to make cool games and make good money doing it, but I didn't know about the devs who didn't care about the former. Again, I guess I'm just naive/unaware about this scene.

Casinos have known for decades on how to get people to pay for flashing lights and loud sounds with slot machines. These "games" are taking the same principles and going further with them.

This article would have been way better with visuals for each example.

"You've read the fun introduction! Wait X minutes, or pay 1 article-gem to continue reading now?"

It's weird to me how many free (just as in beer) tools and games I have installed on my PC over the last couple decades when everything in app stores seems monetized.

What happened?

If one runs AdSense on ones site, are ads for these type of games likely to appear if Google knows the user has been making game-related search queries?

"As mentioned in my paper 'How to mention my own papers as often as possible in a single article'..."

The cited papers do seem a bit narrowly authored...

Here's a paper by different authors I found interesting, "Dark Patterns in the Design of Games", http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com