Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

It has gotten to the point where I only come to gaming news sites to see how bad that it has gotten.

Anyone else had the "empire march" theme song playing as they read this?

Honestly this man scares me a little, "fall in line or else!".

So the translation is "They'll resist it at first, but when we give them no choice they'll have to fall in line with it."

"Free-to-play games are difficult to do, and you really need to be good at making it feel balanced to the gamers. So it's not too greedy."

Remember kids: it's alright to be greedy, just don't be too greedy.

"If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, 'do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?' And the answer will be yes," he said.

Oh yes, make a game that you'll continue to pay for for years to come, that's how you compensate for shitty replay value. God forbid you just make a game that's so good that players will simply want to replay it over and over. No, don't strive for that level of excellence. Just make a mediocre dime-a-dozen game and keep charging the players.

BASED ON WHAT?

the same kind of logic that decides everything except for COD is suddenly niche?....HA!

kyonshee77:
"He noted that his own game, Candy Crush Saga, is actually able to be fully completed without paying a cent, and that of the players who are on the game's last level, more than half of them didn't pay to get there."

Did he also mention all those people spam their friends on Facebook, begging to give them extra lives? Sure, they completed the game without paying a cent. But not without paying their friends, that they've lost because no one bloody likes those damn game invites every five seconds.

Not only that, but those players are fueling the "whales". King/Zynga style games make the most money when they create a sense of competition among a group of friends. Some people are really driven by a "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality. Games like Candy Crush are specifically designed to create situations where after several attempts and on your last life you are only one move away from victory before losing. But wait! You can get that last move for just $1! A person might ignore that on their own, but when that $1 also allows them to finally beat their good "friend" Joan to the finish line for once the temptation is much stronger.

I actually don't mind "match 3" style games - they're a nice distraction while I listen to a podcast during a break. But the constant manipulation in King/Zynga games ruins the experience. I'd rather just pay $1 for Bejewelled or whatever.

kyonshee77:
"He noted that his own game, Candy Crush Saga, is actually able to be fully completed without paying a cent, and that of the players who are on the game's last level, more than half of them didn't pay to get there."

Did he also mention all those people spam their friends on Facebook, begging to give them extra lives? Sure, they completed the game without paying a cent. But not without paying their friends, that they've lost because no one bloody likes those damn game invites every five seconds.

That's the other problem with mobile/ social games. They function like some kind of nefarious virus. They are manipulative and underhanded and demand you become part of their gaudy, tactless marketing machine; artificially inserting themselves into the popular consciousness by sheer force of psychologically manipulating their players.

If you share Candy Crush or any other shit (and they are all, frankly, worthless shit) social or mobile game in order to get some meager in-game bauble being held hostage you are King.com's bitch. That's the real disgusting culture at the heart of 'social' games; the game part is incidental. It is a means to an end. The user is also incidental; they are either strong-armed into paying, bothered into spamming for the company or captured as 'whales' sinking thousands of dollars into games designed to be devoid of enjoyment aside from filling them with coins like a gambling machine.

Fuck you.

"If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, 'do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?' And the answer will be yes," he said.

He's basically saying that the F2P model for EVERYTHING would work because they'd be holding all of gaming hostage, and that we'd have no choice.

So fuck you.

The way most Free-To-Plays work now... its more likely this is the short-term future of gaming, and nothing more.

It'll die eventually, and it might just take a huge chunk of the industry with it if the industry at large is stupid enough to go along.

That guy is just talking profits and then tries to justify that talk, it shows through and through. And there's an entire widespread branch of the video game business that really begs to differ, especially the indie one, but of course King isn't the kind of company who'd see that. The fact that they assume free to play like it's the only feasible line of revenue, and that everyone WILL ADOPT IT OR ELSE, pretty much shows that they're just spreadsheet-marking their profit assumptions based on "what is trending" rather than "what would be interesting to do".

Why does video games have to be the end getting caught in that kind of a pit? They're taking an entertainment media and treating it like anything but, taking all the attention from the "entertainment" part and pushing it all on the "how do we make quick money" part. Even the "big and evil" music industry knows contemporary pop idols are just one out of thousands of genres people listen to. Pacific Rim and the expansive Avengers series probably weren't funded because marketing said giant mechs, kaijus and superheroes were mainstream hits. Pixar probably doesn't consult profit spreadsheets when plotting their movie ideas. George RR Martin didn't write A Song of Ice and Fire because medieval murder plots were "a thing", nor did people try to adapt it to a TV series because medieval murder plots were "a thing".

So why the hell are companies like King, and so many other proclaimed tops of the game industry, so locked up in that abhorrent frame of mind that "these things appear to be a trend right now, so everyone should do those things"?

It's just silly, and self-destructive. But at least it's giving indie developers plenty of elbow room while some of these big-cheese* blokes are busy being idiots

(*Wanted to say big-budget, but King's entire repertoire could be done without much of a budget at all. The only thing those guys are big on are themselves.)

Oh, blow it out your ass, Tommy!
What a disgusting, greedy mindset.

"Fall in line or die."
If this quote isn't turned into a meme soon with Tommy's stupid smug face all over it, i'll be really disappointed.

On a serious note, I've never wanted to see a company crash and burn and die as much as this one... it was fun with the whole trademarking "Candy" but now these guys have literally become blind, hell I bet they can't even function as humans, by money. So what if some games strive from your crap microtransaction?! Will a fighting game strive for making me pay a dollar JUST TO F***ING AIR COMBO?!
King has officially become the Westbro Baptist Church of the gaming industry.
In short: have fun whining, you're better of dead.

Steven Bogos:
Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games

"If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, 'do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?' And the answer will be yes," he said.

This quote here bothers me. While it will apply to games that rely on servers being hosted by the company or sequels being made for a game (or additional content being added), that quote doesn't work for a lot of games.
It would be like saying the following:
"Hey do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?"
"What, Skyrim? Yeah, I would love to keep playing that for years. In fact I am currently doing that right now"
"Boom! Proof that you support Micro transactions!"
"wait what?"
While Skyrim isn't my favorite game, it is one of my higher ups, and suits the example well.

Steven Bogos:

"If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, 'do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?' And the answer will be yes," he said.

That's funny because that's the point where I'll stop playing.

Can these arrogant pricks please die in a fire already? Seriously.

Oh look! LOOK! Isn't that cute? It's another anti-consumer pipe dream. Sorry, the smell... it's just gagging when you get trapped in a forum with a brain fart like that on the loose.

Keep your filthy mobile models out "real" games you moronic cunt muffin.

I swear to Hesus, if this F2P fad takes over I'm going to quit playing and go into making games. Not only the F2P model is virtually opposed to quality, it even devalues the games for paying customers by demanding you pay multiple times what you would pay for a full price game.

Bought SWTOR at launch, played for a few months and quit.
Come back after a year to be greeted into a F2P game.
Log in, see that I have a ridiculous helmet on.
Go into options to disable it, option greyed out asking me to pay 5$ to disable the helmet visual.

Well thank you very much SWTOR, now if you would kindly step into this line of people who can suck my dick, and while you're waiting please feel free to GO FUCK YOURSELF.

While not all Free To Play is bad, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see it become the standard model.

He's right, I do want to keep playing my favourite games for years to come. So I'm gonna boot up Ratchet and Clank 3 right now and ignore your newer, shittier games, "AAA" industry. I hope you crash like it's 1983.

my wife plays this game like crazy but after reading this she pretty much yelled out a loud fuck you, followed by the middle finger.

************** Dark Souls Summer Sale! **************

$1.00 - Summon a dragon from the depths of your bowels to do battle with you!

$1.00 - Add fire-breathing capabilities to your dragon

$5.00 - Prevents instadeath caused by keeping a fire-breathing dragon in your methane pipe

.....

Um, yeah.

The tone of that self-proclaimed "game guru" (what a joke) is quite disgusting. Thinking that every gamer will fall in line because he and his ilk are going to leave us with no other option? His god complex is showing through.

As pointed out by other people in this thread, there's no way that King's predatory model will infect gaming because there will always be developers who believe, like many of us, that games are art. If big studios want to go down in flames by holding content hostage behind a paywall, then let 'em. Maybe then the indies won't be so indie anymore - they'll be the victors.

In the end, people who want their work and their names to be remembered are going to provide us with the amazing experiences we crave. The best thing about that? They'll profit because of their passion and their connection to the audience.

I'm not buying anything with microtrasactions in it I hope the developers who use those go out of business.

Free to play games I keep coming back to is a small list. WoT, LoL and Planetside2. This is out of probably a 100 I have tried. I think this goes to show, just because you can get people to look in the door doesn't mean they aren't going to turn around and get out in less then an hour of playing.

"X is doing really well right now, so lets forget about all other options and every company just do X."
That is stupid in so many ways, this is not how the economy works mister "Game Guru.", you see companies make differnt products to fulfill the different needs and wants of their customers.
When every corporation follows the same policies and caters exclusively to one type of customers is when the industry crashes happen, see what happened to comic books and even video games at one point.

Sorry King. I was sent back in time from that future to prevent it. The assassination has already been carried out. Mr. Whiskerface has been elimnated, the future has been saved.

Wait, aren't these the guys who successfully patent-trolled another game that came out BEFORE THEIR GAME DID into oblivion?
I'm sorry, but...why should we listen to you, Mr. Guru?

...and now I'm picturing Super Kami Guru saying these things. Dammmit, internet! ><

Guess I'll be playing less games.

I typically avoid games that expect me to pay, after I have already paid.

Especially since I find games like that are a lot less fun anyway since you can tell they're designed to cost money. Simpsons Tapped out is a good example of this. The game was fun, but as it became more profitable, the cost of things became higher (in donuts) and donuts became harder to get. So I noped my way out of that game.

Tommy Palm:
The micro-transaction is so strong and it's definitely a much better model. I think all companies have to transition over to that.

Ahh I love these half-truths: Better for who, Tommy?
Because it sure as fuck isn't better for the gamer.

If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, Do you want to continue playing your favourite game for years to come? And the answer will be yes.

No, Tommy. No we won't.
Not all of us are the gibbering spineless addicts you think we are.

Should gaming ever reach that dark hellish future you envision I will GLADLY leave. I've seen the model you're pushing and the type of game you're peddling and it's one of the greatest voids of nothing I can ever imagine spending money on that's still somehow legal to sell.

I could dissect and refute your claim in so many different ways that you'd look like a pretentious fool stuck so far up your own ass that Tom Six is writing a film inspired by you.

Instead, I'll just remind you of the basic fact of markets:
You, Supply, don't dictate what is acceptable or what the entire market will or must do. That's up to Demand. Supply may innovate and scheme, but for the most part Supply can only respond to what Demand allows.

Just off the top of my head, I can name two big things that the captains of the game industry thought were infallible and the future of games: Motion controls and WoW Clones.
One was a game presentation gimmick, the other an attempt at recreating the success of the most consistently profitable games of all time. Yet for all their planning, neither of them took off as envisioned by the captains of industry.

Palm went on to stress the importance of sensible pricing and making games truly F2P. "I think for companies it is very important to find a good balance. Free-to-play games are difficult to do, and you really need to be good at making it feel balanced to the gamers. So it's not too greedy."

This is a throwaway line so transparently fake and useless he might as well not have bothered.

Though I suppose he had to at least TRY to half-heartedly refute the obvious drawback of F2P games: They cost more to the consumer compared to packaged games (either in waste-time, or money)...which is exactly why he's trying to pitch them as a standard in the first place.

"Why, this here fox is the BEST at guarding hen-houses, Mr. Farmer!"

"At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you're forced to pay. So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn't pay to get there."

Oh bravo. *golf clap*
More than half of your gamers were able to play your Bejeweled clone without spending a dime.

Fantastic achievement brought by the power of F2P; thought it might be undermined a teensy bit by the fact that Bejeweled clones are a not even a dime a dozen on mobile platforms; they're a dime a thousand.

Pain[sic] went on to cite Hearthstone as an example of a great free-to-play title that is resonating with a more traditional gaming audience. "Just looking at Blizzard's Hearthstone - it's a great example of a F2P game that is made really well, it's well balanced, and I don't think many people are complaining about that business model. It's easy to see if there's concept that is close to your heart. It works out really well."

Oh boy! Meaningless cherry picking! I can do that too!
For every good F2P game you can point to, I can point to over a dozen horrible ones; including a sizeable number of electornic CCGs (which came under fire in recent years in Japan and South Korea for teetering on the line as being "gambling" or "gacha")

Nevermind how Hearthstone basically piggybacked off one of the most popular games on the planet.
With that kind of exposure, it was bound to succeed at least in part.

Yeah. No. I'm also gonna need you to come in on saturday, Mr. Palm.

I don't think everyone is going to buy into this particular brand of idiocy, but if it does, then it's okay. Just gives me an excuse to stop buying new games and actually clean out my steam backlog.

And once that's done, Read all those books sitting in my library I've never started.

And write a novel or two.

In Short: Suck it, Palm.

Adam Jensen:
We will fall in line? What a fuckin' dumbass. I hope his company crashes and burns and everyone forgets it existed.

It's inevitable as new generations are born and pick up game pads/keyboards/mobiles and so forth whilst the current generation fades out naturally. Without experience of what is actually decent and normal they take what is given as the norm and fall in line.

Not right, but how can you realistically stop it. It truly is disgusting.

EDIT: Typo

erttheking:
I do enjoy some free to play games with microtransactions, but the idea that ALL games should have them? NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES NO! Please tell me how Dark Souls would be improved by microtransactions.

I hope this guy steps on a lego brick in the middle of the night.

A lego brick is too tame, make it a 4 sided dice, those fuckers can pierce skin.

Steven Bogos:
Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games

Furthermore, Palm added that while hardcore gamers will, naturally, resist the transition at first, that attitude will change as all of their favorite franchises become free-to-play. "If you talk to many hardcore gamers, they're not happy about it right now, but if you asked them about the long term, 'do you want to continue playing your favorite game for years to come?' And the answer will be yes," he said.

No sir, my answer will in fact be:

However, before you get out your torch and pitchfork, Palm did stress the importance of sensible pricing. "I think for companies it is very important to find a good balance. Free-to-play games are difficult to do, and you really need to be good at making it feel balanced to the gamers. So it's not too greedy."

Pitchfork? *chuckles* Oh Steven, don't be silly. This is a job for Tranquilizer darts. This man deservese to be strapped in for Chinese Water Torture. Every hour, on the hour, the torturer offers him a ten minute reprive from the Water Drops bashing his skull, for the low low price of $500,000. If he would like to pay $750,000 instead, he can reduce the rate of Drip for half an hour, and have 1 aspirin.

Uhhh "we will all fall in line"

What is this some type of brainwashing thing?

No I don't see a future where microtransactions are in all games, because fuck that future

I don't mind some F2P games coexisting with Buy to play games but I am not interested in a future where microtransactions are in all games

Also fuck king as a company I hope it crashes and burns

Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

"At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you're forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn't pay to get there."

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

RunicFox:
Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

"At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you're forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn't pay to get there."

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

The only surprise to me, is that you seem OK with this. On the topic of the Very true stats about Candy Crush: Those are what WE call "Smart" people, and what the industry terms "minnows." They are not the target audience, the target audience are those people who can be Gulled (literally) into dropping the full cost of a console on some LIE of a "game."

Also, you will notice that the Bile and Desire to Curb-stomp are DIRECTLY aimed at Tommy for his STUNNINGLY ignorant statements.

If you find Candy Crush in-offensive then I have two words for you: Slippery Slope.

"Oh it's not THAT bad." is fine, right up until somebody cuts the Red Ribbon in front of Auschwitz.

TheDoctor455:
The way most Free-To-Plays work now... its more likely this is the short-term future of gaming, and nothing more.

It'll die eventually, and it might just take a huge chunk of the industry with it if the industry at large is stupid enough to go along.

I don't see it dieing out for MOBA, MMOs or free shooters, as they have had 10+ years to get a working system not built around 1% of the community.

It seems like half the devs who are interviewed have some twisted view on where gaming should go next.

The only change that would be a far bigger improvement than any other suggestion is that the creative artists should be in charge of most of the work, you know, instead of corporate robots trying not to be too greedy. I'm still waiting for them to notice this.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

RunicFox:
Wow. Much hatred.

He did use some pretty poorly chosen words. But I'll be the guy in the room that thinks it's weird a lot of people found this to be, I guess, surprising and also completely evil. Probably one of the most tame interviews I've seen, not to mention how many people are actually out there to steal your money.

"At King, for instance, we took the decision to make our games truly free-to-play, so you will never end up in the position where you're forced to pay."

- Actually true, although there are areas where difficulty will spike and players need to play longer.

"So you can play all the way to the end without having to pay. For instance, in Candy Crush, of the players who are on the last level, more than half of them didn't pay to get there."

Actually real stats. More than 50% of the people who have 'beat' candy crush did so without ever spending a dime. I forget the other metrics they've given out, but of that other 50%, most have only paid the 99 cents here and there to unlock more levels.

While I don't like King as a business, I think Candy Crush itself is pretty inoffensive. Albeit apparently stolen.

The only surprise to me, is that you seem OK with this. On the topic of the Very true stats about Candy Crush: Those are what WE call "Smart" people, and what the industry terms "minnows." They are not the target audience, the target audience are those people who can be Gulled (literally) into dropping the full cost of a console on some LIE of a "game."

Also, you will notice that the Bile and Desire to Curb-stomp are DIRECTLY aimed at Tommy for his STUNNINGLY ignorant statements.

If you find Candy Crush in-offensive then I have two words for you: Slippery Slope.

"Oh it's not THAT bad." is fine, right up until somebody cuts the Red Ribbon in front of Auschwitz.

Please tell me you did not compare this sort of conversation with the Holocaust. Please don't. It's a very disrespectful stance.

On the point of Candy Crush -- I've worked in this industry for awhile now, and what he's saying is 1) Not new 2) giving recognition to those doing it right (companies always credit themselves first) 3) Candy Crush is as close to a game as you can get on the top 10 - 20 grossing charts outside of minecraft and sometimes infinity blade.

Let me point a few things out:
A) I dislike the company for their patenting. All companies do this but they've been aggressive.
B) I'm still not as fluent, but accusations and evidence of copying other people's work to the pixel is a bit terrible
C) They're a one-trick pony company which is why their stock is worthless
D) A lot of people who work with King probably want to make the video games you and I love.

Candy Crush is a better spin on the match-three mechanic than I've seen in awhile. And to be honest, it can be pretty challenging. Their purchases are usually limited to dollars and not, say, 20 - 500 dollars you're seeing in the obviously cash-grab companies. They make their money off of excitement and virality, which I would say is akin to people being excited about their product.

What this guy is saying? Whatever. It's some of the most repeated jargon in the F2P sector. Be upset, if you like, but I just don't see the point. Even if, in this make-believe-world of his, that every thing suddenly went free to play...you'd stop playing games. Or if you did it would be so selective. There's never going to be a point where one type of system will dominate 100%. This is the new trend...and I'm not going to get upset by that. We all still have options of purchase.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here