Pay Less If You're a Nice Person: Valve's Freemium Model For DOTA 2 316
Canazza writes "In a podcast interview with Seven Day Cooldown, summarized by Develop, Valve Boss Gabe Newell discusses the payment model for upcoming strategy game DOTA 2. 'The issue that we're struggling with quite a bit is something I've kind of talked about before, which is: how do you properly value people's contributions to a community? ... An example is – and this is something as an industry we should be doing better – is charging customers based on how much fun they are to play with. ... “So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get DOTA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2. Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice.'"
I like this (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind Control! (Score:3, Interesting)
Mind Control!
Seriously, who decides what is "acceptable" behavior? Valve? Players acting as moderators? GROUPS of players acting as moderators? PAID GROUPS? (see where I'm going with this?)
The moment you start applying anything other then peer pressure is the moment where distrust SHOULD come into play. Some people should never be allowed such control over others, in-game or out. Sure, some people are dicks, but handing out baseball bats (excuse me, Ban-Hammers) to the disgruntled is not the solution.
"The Disgruntled Ones is now recruiting for Scalper positions, as well as Guild Attorney. Must have Moderation Points!"
Re:I like this (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't like this. What if I want to surround myself with jerks?
That's a completely serious question. I actually prefer to talk to, and be surrounded by, people who are assholes. I think they're more fun, and I couldn't give less of a fuck about being insulted by some random dipshit on the internet. Or in person, really. Hell, I feel slightly uncomfortable when somebody doesn't take a shot at me that I know they could have. A community of "nice" people? Gag me with a spoon, that sounds like an incredibly dull place, and stressful too, where you have to worry every second about hurting somebody's feelings. Verbally knocking people around (and being knocked around) is half the fun, making this community sound like a great place if you like playing football with a bunch of grandmothers with osteoporosis.
Besides which, the true assholes out there are the ones that make the "community" turning on their target just another part of the making-them-feel-like-shit process. Can't wait to see what the trolls do with the new game (that game being the new pricing model, not DotA).
Re:I like this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I like this (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly the same problem that was faced in Ultima Online when it became obvious that some people enjoyed whacking new and otherwise defenseless players. They introduced PvP flags and zones to get around it, and I don't see why a similar approach wouldn't work here.
Each player could start out with their "Protection from assholes" flag set by default. If they either behave abusively (according to whatever flawed metric Valve uses to make that call) or turn the flag off intentionally, they will lose the ability to communicate with people who still have the flag set.
Offering monetary discounts for playing nice is just going to create a metagame, which will be exploited. Valve should instead apply a policy of "strict scrutiny," where only the smallest, least invasive steps necessary are taken to solve the problem.
Re:I like this (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. The terrible thing here is not that he behaves like this, but that he fails to realize that theses are not, as they are in his mind, the kind of behaviors that anyone desires, respects, or tolerates. It's like a criminal telling the judge at trial that if anything he should be paid for committing crimes because he's actually doing society a favor.
Re:I like this (Score:5, Interesting)
Each player could start out with their "Protection from assholes" flag set by default. If they either behave abusively (according to whatever flawed metric Valve uses to make that call) or turn the flag off intentionally, they will lose the ability to communicate with people who still have the flag set.
See, now that sounds fine to me. I'd turn that flag off and happily exclude myself from the milquetoast masses. The very first thing I do anywhere it's available is turn off the profanity filter, and turn on the PvP flag.
I'm not out to actually ruin anyone's day. Hell, I don't even want to make dipshits like the post above yours feel bad just because they can't tell the difference between a troll and somebody who prefers a more honest interaction style between their peers. I just want to call you a fucking moron when you do something stupid and have you be mildly embarrassed and have that mild embarrassment be a motivator to fix your behavior in the future instead of going, "uh, gee, golly gosh, you know it's actually more effective..." and then have somebody mash "UNLIKEABLE" because I didn't make them feel like a perfect snowflake.
And I want the same thing back. I don't want language couched in fifteen layers of inoffensiveness, just tell me what I did wrong, feel free to throw a curse or two in for emphasis if you think it's warranted. I'll sort out if I'm actually a dipshit on my own.
Re:I like this (Score:2, Interesting)
I vote for the "ribbon" stickers. People with little ribbon decals all over their rear bumper are automatically considered assholes. I don't care how worthy of support the charity is, if you have a ribbon, what you're really saying is "look at me, I'm a charitable person!" which makes you an asshole.
I've been watching carefully lately, and I'm pretty sure I've got that right. Oh, and "I support the troops" ribbons are especially foul if the owner of the car is in their 20's and healthy. You might as well have a sticker that says, "I am such a good person".
Dad taught me to never, ever look for recognition when you do something good, or it wipes out the heavenly coupons you would have gotten. The old man wouldn't even take a tax write-off for charitable donation, saying, "I don't need the government to subsidize my generosity".