Who Killed Videogames?

jjp9999 writes "Video game developer and novelist Tim Rogers exposes the underbelly of free-to-play games that use real-world currency. They're not trying to entertain you — they're trying to get you hooked. Every minute you play is being analyzed by men in suits reeling you into a cycle of addiction so they can keep you coming for more, and hopefully opening your wallet to buy premium points here and there. To do this, they intentionally give you an hour's worth of gameplay dragged out over the course of a week to keep it on your mind, dropping coins here and there for you to pick up, and playing on your own sense of work and profit to keep you coming back."

Re:I haven't read the article, but hear me out her

[sonicmerlin]

I was actually about to comment on how surprising it is that it took this long for the games industry to mutate to this model. Games have always been ripe for psychological manipulation of the customer, but for the most part until recently game developers had focused solely on the "pure" goal of providing a great experience. Eventually this led to publishers milking franchises to maximize profits, but usually those sequels (like the Elder Scrolls and Fallout) were actually quite good. Now we have "achievements" and "trophies" and other bizarre and meaningless "rewards" mostly unrelated to the actual game experience.

FUD in light of industry history

[otaku244]

I think what is lost in this conversation is that the game industry HAS been here before. Does anyone remember arcade games? Play Time Crisis and try to tell me with a straight face that that series was a well made, complex strategy shooter that you could play for more than 5 minutes on less than $1 of coins. I agree to an extent that the pay-as-you-go model is getting pretty pervasive and it should be implemented in more moderation. Just don't try to sell me that this will take over the WHOLE industry. It might fill the niche market of mobile apps, but I don't see this being the model of choice for console and PC markets. They are different audiences. And, even if you're right, the likely result is that history will repeat itself like it did with arcades and the model will collapse in some measurable amount of time.

Re:same as with everything else

[PopeRatzo]

The funny thing is that it's pretty much direct result of piracy.

That is purely bullshit.

Piracy has not reduced the profitability of games one bit. There is no evidence that the people who are pirating games would otherwise buy them.

The F2P debacle is simply the direct result of the entitlement mentality of corporations who feel that any money that is in your pocket that is not destined for their pocket is some sort of existential affront to the corporation's very existence. They HATE the idea that anybody might not be giving them money.

Last week we had an admission from an industry group that "lost profits" was not really what was driving their efforts with the MPAA and worldwide lobbying efforts to create local police states, but rather it was their loss of control. I see you're new to Slashdot, so I'll explain: "Profits" means money. "Control" means "The power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events".

The only "direct result of piracy" is groups of corporations fear that a day may come when human beings will realize that they, corporations, are not people and thus should not control everything in the world. And the terror that notion strikes into their hearts has induced them to set out on one last big all-or-nothing effort to lock down the fucking world through bribery, thuggery and dishonesty.

I guess it never occurred to them to try just making high-quality games and charging fair, reasonable prices for them. The experience of Valve's Steam, that people will gladly pay instead of pirate a game if it's $25 instead of $60 and that many people won't lay out $60 for a game after having been burned by the last time they paid $60 for a buggy console port that ended up with only 5 hours of gameplay and needed several patches just to be playable. just never made an impact on the primitive corporate brainstem.

If you listen carefully, TechLA, you can almost hear the sound of the world changing. People are starting, though slowly (and a little late) to figure out that corporations have not been performing on their side of the social contract. How funny that with all their wealth and alleged technical prowess that the corporations themselves are going to be the last to realize what's happening.

Here, let me leave you with a little something. I saw this in the Salt Lake Tribune today:

A Time poll released Thursday morning found that 54 percent of those surveyed view the Wall Street protests favorably, compared with 23 percent who think the opposite. Interestingly, only 23 percent say they donâ(TM)t have an opinion, which suggests that the protests have succeeded in reaching the mainstream.

Also: The most populist positions espoused by Occupy Wall Street â" that the gap between rich and poor has grown too large; that taxes should be raised on the rich; that executives responsible for the meltdown should be prosecuted â" all have strong support.

Meanwhile, the poll found that 27 percent of respondents have a favorable view of the tea party. My handy calculator tells me that this is half the number of those who view Occupy Wall Street favorably.

In a little over a week, an anti-corporate movement went from complete obscurity, known only to a very few online activists, to a popular, global movement that even a significant number of self-described Republicans are getting behind.

The only corporations that are going to win in this new climate are the ones that get a clue. And it may be time for corporate apologists to take note, too, my very high-UID friend. You might want to pass the message up the line. There might be a gold star in it for you.

Re:same as with everything else

[Gadget_Guy]

People play less these days (lack of time - damn, we get older!), and those who play the most (teenagers) usually pirate, so they want it free.

The only problem with that theory is that it does not match the evidence. The games industry keeps making more and more money every year [wikia.com]. A lot of that increase is due to games costing way more than they used to, but it shows that there are still a lot of people paying for games.

Re:same as with everything else

[Luckyo]

Usually competition in capitalism is bought out or killed off. Capitalism's end game is always in fascism (or as those who dislike nazi links from WW2 to that name call it, "corporatism") where large capital-based industrial monopolies take over the government through buying out those in power.

It happened many times over the course of history.