Candy Crush Dev: Microtransactions Are The Future of Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

*looks up from Fire Emblem*

Oh, someone let the loonies out and gave them a megaphone again.

I don't even know why we're condemning him. His very words already show that he's basically ignorant to anything we'll say, and will probably just crash and burn under his own idiocy than anything.

I say give Candy Crush Saga two more years and we can laugh as we remember such a childish relic.

RunicFox:

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.

Alright, look: If I gave offense by mentioning the Holocaust I apologize. Substitute it for whichever disgusting end result of people not speaking up before it's too late of your own choice. Iron Curtain, Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing, the list goes on.

Yes all of those are [/b]propper[/b] tragedies, with results infinitely worse than the ruination of our hobby by Blind Greedy Bastards. They do SHARE however, some asshole or Organization thereof, with a vision of the Future which the rest of the world need "Fall in line" behind.

Lastly, I am whole heartedly trying to give offense, but to the Offensive asshole in the article.

I have no problems at all when free to play games are done well, when there's real fun to be had away from the paying aspect. the problem comes when the micro-transactions ARE the game, or wall off the game until you pay. it really should be against some kind of law to call a game free to play if it can't be enjoyed without paying.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

Alright, look: If I gave offense by mentioning the Holocaust I apologize. Substitute it for whichever disgusting end result of people not speaking up before it's too late of your own choice. Iron Curtain, Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing, the list goes on.

Yes all of those are [/b]propper[/b] tragedies, with results infinitely worse than the ruination of our hobby by Blind Greedy Bastards. They do SHARE however, some asshole or Organization thereof, with a vision of the Future which the rest of the world need "Fall in line" behind.

Lastly, I am whole heartedly trying to give offense, but to the Offensive asshole in the article.

None of my points were to go against speaking up -- but there's a lot more that you can do than 'speak up' in a forum if that's the case.

I did, in all honesty, want to have this conversation with you, but I can't if the way we're going to continue discourse is to compare tragedy to entertainment.

Eternal Visitor:
I have no problems at all when free to play games are done well, when there's real fun to be had away from the paying aspect. the problem comes when the micro-transactions ARE the game, or wall off the game until you pay. it really should be against some kind of law to call a game free to play if it can't be enjoyed without paying.

@Eternal Visitor

I don't disagree with the feelings but it's this that I think is the hardest for most people to discern:

Eternal Visitor:
I have no problems at all when free to play games are done well, when there's real fun to be had away from the paying aspect.

A lot of people like a lot of different things. I think it's easy to find the most heinous offenders, but I bet there are a group of people out there is LIVID that hearthstone is even a thing.

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.

The man openly stated that he believes every HARDCORE GAMER will eventually "fall in line" with F2P, presumably with sufficient market pressure and/or out of necessity. While there are several interpretations of his statement, from the perspective of a core gamer none of them are remotely good because all them require discarding many existing models and design philosophy hardcore gamers want.

I really must emphasize how important it is to realize that he is *NOT* addressing the casual-mobile demographic that feeds his business; he probably feels he has them in his pocket already. But in order to push F2P as a universal gaming standard, he needs to convince prospective producers to fly directly in opposition to the protests of hardcore gamers.

This is a market-equivalent version of "You can practice religion, as long as it's mine."
So yeah, I'd say the hatred is actually pretty justified in this case.

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.

Likewise I enjoy some free to play games, and spend money if I see the purchase worth it.

But I hope he steps on a few thousand lego bricks too. Considering what he did recently, his words have no meaning.

Atmos Duality:

The man openly stated that he believes every HARDCORE GAMER will eventually "fall in line" with F2P, presumably with sufficient market pressure and/or out of necessity. While there are several interpretations of his statement, from the perspective of a core gamer none of them are remotely good because all them require discarding many existing models and design philosophy hardcore gamers want.

I really must emphasize how important it is to realize that he is *NOT* addressing the casual-mobile demographic that feeds his business; he probably feels he has them in his pocket already. But in order to push F2P as a universal gaming standard, he needs to convince prospective producers to fly directly in opposition to the protests of hardcore gamers.

This is a market-equivalent version of "You can practice religion, as long as it's mine."
So yeah, I'd say the hatred is actually pretty justified in this case.

He believes. But a lot of what he has been saying is proving to be substantially difficult for companies. I can pick up a lot of examples of 'core' games that are free to play and are successful. It's happening at a decent pace. But they're also not hitting 'revenue' the same way as boxed releases can. Their secret is longevity, which is about respecting and orienting to your player base.

This is something that mobile lacks. This is why he has very little clout in my mind. He's not saying anything you haven't heard in much worse terms from people way more detached. My original comment was surprise that THIS man gains the heat. I think it's just a triggered response to "Candy Crush" and selected title for the article.

That said, I agree 100% with you. If it were me, I would have been entirely careful about my words. He's not addressing an accepting audience and chose things that, quite frankly, confuse me.

Coming from someone who works in IT from a project perspective:

"guru" is an adjective that means "person that doesn't know anything about it". They're raving lunatics only kept around so that you can recognize a bad idea simply because they're convinced it would work. The fact that they're letting him speak at all means that the whole company originates from a mirror universe where everyone wears goatees.

RunicFox:

SilverStuddedSquirre:

Alright, look: If I gave offense by mentioning the Holocaust I apologize. Substitute it for whichever disgusting end result of people not speaking up before it's too late of your own choice. Iron Curtain, Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing, the list goes on.

Yes all of those are [/b]propper[/b] tragedies, with results infinitely worse than the ruination of our hobby by Blind Greedy Bastards. They do SHARE however, some asshole or Organization thereof, with a vision of the Future which the rest of the world need "Fall in line" behind.

Lastly, I am whole heartedly trying to give offense, but to the Offensive asshole in the article.

None of my points were to go against speaking up -- but there's a lot more that you can do than 'speak up' in a forum if that's the case.

I did, in all honesty, want to have this conversation with you, but I can't if the way we're going to continue discourse is to compare tragedy to entertainment.

A single comparison was made: King.co = Dictator shoving unwanted things down a populace's throat until the very nature of what was has been perverted. I am sorry if you took that to mean we the gamers are supposed to be the Jews in that comparison. Perhaps it was a poor choice of situations, I can admit to making a derp.

As far as more effective choices than sounding off in a Forum, you are correct and I employ them. However, it has been demonstrated by content creators on this site, that the only Data these companies analyze is the money they receive from whales. NOT the money they DONT receive from you and I, the discerning customers. So while it is not the only method, it definitely helps for all of us to discuss such things in a forum. It is my hope that one day people will take a stand and simply not even download this offal. In order for that day to come, there needs to be enough public outcry and derision of what we, the consumers most emphatically DO NOT WANT. There needs to be understanding that the reason for DO NOT WANT isn't some hardcore elitism, but a sincere desire to see that A) games continue actually be games and B) people like our parents and less tech-savvy family such as grandparents don't get ripped off for hundreds of dollars playing a game that is worth $0.10, and can probably be emulated on a Texas-Instruments Graphing Calculator.

FTP is essentially not a bad* thing BUT

"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 where 99.99% of all FTP games FAIL!

*It is emperically proven bad, not conceptually.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

As far as more effective choices than sounding off in a Forum, you are correct and I employ them. However, it has been demonstrated by content creators on this site, that the only Data these companies analyze is the money they receive from whales. NOT the money they DONT receive from you and I, the discerning customers. So while it is not the only method, it definitely helps for all of us to discuss such things in a forum. It is my hope that one day people will take a stand and simply not even download this offal. In order for that day to come, there needs to be enough public outcry and derision of what we, the consumers most emphatically DO NOT WANT. There needs to be understanding that the reason for DO NOT WANT isn't some hardcore elitism, but a sincere desire to see that A) games continue actually be games and B) people like our parents and less tech-savvy family such as grandparents don't get ripped off for hundreds of dollars playing a game that is worth $0.10, and can probably be emulated on a Texas-Instruments Graphing Calculator.

Not all companies just look at revenue. I concede that bad ones exclusively look at their revenue. From personal experience, Valve does not look exclusively at revenue, and it shows in their F2P.

On the point of protecting the old or unwise I think it's noble but Candy Crush is still the not an offender in my mind. However, I think having this same conversation with others is key. Stick to facts, stick to money. Challenge them to play their games completely free -- it will become apparent which ones force you and which ones don't. And in that...those people will stop playing those games :)

I'm very honestly glad you work outside of Forums to push this information. The issue I've had with this topic as a whole is that a lot of people are saying the same thing. I felt the need to stimulate that conversation. I hope everyone does the same to talk about the issue, objectively.

Didn't we HAVE micro-transactions way before this? The arcades before home consoles became a thing. Games that were hard or cheap and just kept eating our quarters for hours on end. I think that's the mentality they've got when they come to think on it.

"Well if they were happy enough to spend 20 bucks and 2 hours on an arcade game and not even blink, they'll do it again"

Am I the only one that sees that similarity?

As for them being the future of gaming:

FUCK YOU KING!

I am *REALLY* getting sick of hearing devs go 'oh, this is the future. We want it, we said so, and you customers are just going to have to deal with it.' This is the third or fourth time it's been touted about...the last time was in Diablo 3, as I recall.

otakon17:
Didn't we HAVE micro-transactions way before this? The arcades before home consoles became a thing. Games that were hard or cheap and just kept eating our quarters for hours on end. I think that's the mentality they've got when they come to think on it.

"Well if they were happy enough to spend 20 bucks and 2 hours on an arcade game and not even blink, they'll do it again"

Am I the only one that sees that similarity?

As for them being the future of gaming:

FUCK YOU KING!

Yeah I can see it, but at least there you can make the argument that you're paying to use the facility you're playing in, the machine you're using, and the electricity/"renting" the game for that time. Whereas with these models... I don't know, I can't defend 99.999% of FTP games, I've played quite a few, none of them retained my interest (unless you count RuneScape when I was younger but I was a Member).

That being said, I'm certain this isn't the future of gaming, so many people would simply REFUSE to play these games. I also certainly would never let a child of mine spend money on microtransactions as long as they're under my roof.

if this is to be the future of gaming then I'd rather there not be a single game ever again.

There will always be an audience for complete games sold at a single price. For the longest time, that was the only option with boxed games, but now there's the 'Free to Play' model, more people are playing games. Thing is, while new models can be brought to the table, old models simply cannot be removed and saying only one model can exist and all others must be destroyed is foolish.

So, a representative from a patent troll company of a crappy match-3 game company is making sweeping statements about a specific medium?

Yeah, no.

Fuck off mate, if we could trust companies with micro-transactions then it'd be less of a problem, but you lot just cannot resist nickle and dime-ing people, can't you?

Christ, and companies like Activision and EA look upon these people with envy at their success.

how cute he thinks hes an actual game developer, this idiot won the lottery with his stupid ripoff casual game, and now wants to spend all the money on more lottery tickets thinking hell make more money

F2P doesnt fit all platforms or all genres thats a simple fact

It sounds more reasonable as he said it than the "fall in line" mentioned in the headline (which sounds like something a backwater dictator would spout shortly before finding himself being burned in effigy.)

But the source (King) certainly doesn't help, nor does the fact that in most genres, F2P and its pay-to-play cousins have been handled with about the tact and consideration of a clown trying to drum up business at a funeral.

I think people are unhappy with the standard pay-once-and-own model only in as much as they feel that they're paying more for less fulfilling experiences, frequently experiences that are stretched thin (must develop singleplayer, multiplayer, minigames, bonus missions, achievements, online prequel spin-off, AR tie-in, all in the same amount of time and with the same number of people and across three platforms... Ah, crap, when is the deadline?) or quasi-intentionally abbreviated (buy the rest of the game as DLC for three payments of...)

Too much of the Free-To-Play market (and worse, the "pay now and later market) right now feels like a timeshare presentation; no matter how nice they might be to you initially, you're just waiting for the hammer to fall and the experience to become so hellish that you'd pay to leave.

RunicFox:

He believes. But a lot of what he has been saying is proving to be substantially difficult for companies. I can pick up a lot of examples of 'core' games that are free to play and are successful.

While there are successful "core F2P" games (I've even played a few), the F2P model is not going to work for every core game. Yet, Mr. Palm either thinks that they can work, or that "core" games should be changed to fit the F2P model just because "it's better".

In either case, he is making a grave error, since "standardization" by requires discouraging and eventually eliminating competing models. Standardization of something should only be done when commonality is absolutely practical for everyone involve, not just because you made a mint exploiting that something.

Games like Dark Souls, The Binding of Isaac, Risk of Rain...none of those would survive a transition to F2P without losing what gives them their appeal.

And to presume that hardcore gamers will "fall in line" suggests to me an attitude of complete arrogance, if not contempt.

Which is why I honestly cannot interpret his spiel in any nice way; either he thinks core gamers will give in because they will have no choice (oppressive approach), or that they will "see the light" as if they didn't know what they wanted, which is dismissive and insulting (pretentious approach; bonus points for the irony of flying in the face of "hardcore")

It's happening at a decent pace. But they're also not hitting 'revenue' the same way as boxed releases can. Their secret is longevity, which is about respecting and orienting to your player base.

I agree that is how F2P, or any "service-centric" kind of game should approach their customers.
If there's any sort of persistence past install or during play, they need to give it some value.

My original comment was surprise that THIS man gains the heat. I think it's just a triggered response to "Candy Crush" and selected title for the article.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I want to be clear that my opposition isn't based on some pre-conditioned response to Candy Crush; if you (or anyone) likes the game, whatever. I won't take that away from you (or them).

But I'm always wary anytime some industry bigwig comes out and starts trying to dictate how I will spend my money.

Nice bubble you have there.
Would be a shame if it popped.

Atmos Duality:

While there are successful "core F2P" games (I've even played a few), the F2P model is not going to work for every core game. Yet, Mr. Palm either thinks that they can work, or that "core" games should be changed to fit the F2P model just because "it's better".

In either case, he is making a grave error, since "standardization" by requires discouraging and eventually eliminating competing models. Standardization of something should only be done when commonality is absolutely practical for everyone involve, not just because you made a mint exploiting that something.

Games like Dark Souls, The Binding of Isaac, Risk of Rain...none of those would survive a transition to F2P without losing what gives them their appeal.

And to presume that hardcore gamers will "fall in line" suggests to me an attitude of complete arrogance, if not contempt.

Which is why I honestly cannot interpret his spiel in any nice way; either he thinks core gamers will give in because they will have no choice (oppressive approach), or that they will "see the light" as if they didn't know what they wanted, which is dismissive and insulting (pretentious approach; bonus points for the irony of flying in the face of "hardcore")

I agree that is how F2P, or any "service-centric" kind of game should approach their customers.
If there's any sort of persistence past install or during play, they need to give it some value.

Sounds like we pretty much agree.

Atmos Duality:

I won't speak for anyone else, but I want to be clear that my opposition isn't based on some pre-conditioned response to Candy Crush; if you (or anyone) likes the game, whatever. I won't take that away from you (or them).

But I'm always wary anytime some industry bigwig comes out and starts trying to dictate how I will spend my money.

I apologize for the statement. It was broad. Most of my recent time on any community forum has been about candy crush or free to play lately, and a lot of people's initial reaction being knee-jerk.

I think these last few sentences of yours are your best. Always be wary, and try to understand why someone is enjoying something.

Maybe I should send out applications for the position of a 'game guru' at a big company. It seems you are qualified as long as you master the art of talking out of your posterior.

King: We need all the money and rip off people
Adult Swim Games: Yah, some of them are free. Some of them only work through a purchase. We'll put some of them on Steam if they feel like good PC games

One of these studios earn several million dollars a day...
...
!@#$ I hate mobile

Well...I have been meaning to learn to play the piano. I guess the day I stop playing games cos they're all F2P is as good a time as any.

Charging for the demo of your game, sounds good too!
Ah, the future is bright, suits!

King as a company might be a pack of smashed assholes but really is this guy wrong? Microtransactions are creeping into AAA games. And before that there was the DLC. It's happening. Want to play multi on CoD with all of your friends? Better buy all of the map packs so you can be on the same games as them. Sure the multiplayer might be free but when you have to buy the right to use the various playgrounds, that is a form of microtransaction.

Dead Space 3 has the whole trade time for money mechanic. it's happening already. Gamers are in fact already falling in line. I don't have to like it, but when we get right down to it, whether we like what the guy has to say or not, it's happening. Almost everything ships these days with small little cosmetic bits you can pay real money for. no real gameplay added but you pay for it. Squadmate armor sets for Mass Effect 2? Horse armor for oblivion anyone? That was from some folk's beloved Bethsoft. Not even the evil EA or Activision.

SO it may be more true to say not only is it here, but it has been here for a good long time. It will continue to be here as long as people keep feeding quarters into the machine.

Odious? Sure, but don't disregard the truth of the message because you don't like it or it's messenger.

RunicFox:

Sounds like we pretty much agree.

Aye.

I apologize for the statement. It was broad. Most of my recent time on any community forum has been about candy crush or free to play lately, and a lot of people's initial reaction being knee-jerk.

S'alright.
To be fair, with the growing sense of overt distrust between producers and consumers in the game market comes more polarized responses. The Internet is an easy place to say something absolutely terrible and stupid, which goes for producers just as much as the "vocal minority".

I don't know if I should laugh really loud or be really pissed off about this bullshit.

What the fuck had this guy been snorting?

What was that? I can't hear over Zynga's continuing catastrophic implosion.

How much of a money grabber can one hope to be?! Everyone should start with micro-transactions so there would be no consumer friendly products anymore in the gaming industry??

The greatest threat for King is that people start to realize that a packaged deals are better deals than "free to play".

Free to play translates in my mind as "free to try" (also known as a demo) and if you happen to like the game you will have to keep paying for it. SERIOUSLY you pay more because you like the game.

Imagine Skyrim as free to play... I think I would be indebted for life.

I doubt Blizzard is doing a killing with Heartstone. They are likely more interested in keeping their level of service up to par, so people are comfortable buying their other products at full price (they have very seldom any sales).

I find it disgusting that they try to compare themselves with a big company that still tries to be consumer friendly.

Please God can nobody start an ad campaign to combat this crappy business practice. "You like candy crush why not try these games that only cost 5$ and you can try the demo for free. Why pay more when you can get better product for less?"

Micro-transactions, free to play... *shivering in disgust*

There are Free to play games that support a decent microtransaction model, but they don't even compare on the scale to the ones that are just preying on the wallets of their customers.

I have been talking at my gym with someone who has been playing Silkroad for 10 years and doesn't want to play something else.

I've heard they charge for premium plus account to be able to "have a spot" in the server, buying "silk" currency to add insane stats to your character, lowering the XP gain to force people to buy XP boosts etc. It was disgusting to hear that some people actually are that gullible to buy into that.

So this guy wants to force us to adopt to this system?
He's not even attempting to justify it?
Or pretend it has some benefit to us?
His entire attitude is "Yeah we know it's crap but it's what all the cool kids are doing these days so just get with the program"?

May his crops be riddled with disease and his spouse be unfaithful to him. That's all I got. Fuck everything about this statement and attitude, I cannot find any redeeming factors.

Johnny Novgorod:
What the fuck had this guy been snorting?

oh i think we probably both know the answer to that...

"God's way of telling you you are making too much money"

 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