Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rng_civ 1239 days ago
> Only bit I disagree with is that the big spenders are doing it purely because of addiction or gambling.

People spend big in games because:

* The spending is very stimulating visually and audibly (think lootbox openings)

* The gains from their spending translates directly to game-social prestige, game power, or both (i.e. an Advantage)

* This Advantage allows them to lord over the players who have spent less (or 0 in the case for F2P players)

Whether that manifests into addiction depends entirely on the rest of the game's design (but you know, games that introduce the Advantage tend to want to make a lot of money by getting you hooked on spending...)

> Second, games provide a sense of community. A lot of game revenue is monetizing people's desire to not be alone. Calling these players addicted is I think reductive.

Yes, these games do provide a sense of community because they are purposefully designed to do so. Without an incentive to play while getting lorded over by whales, the fish will leave. Without a bunch of fish to lord over, the whales will leave. Again, this depends on the game's design, but the vast majority of them encourage addiction to the Advantage and its use against others.

Maybe you can extend this analysis to IRL stuff. I don't know because I don't participate in any of it.

Source: [Let’s go whaling: Tricks for monetising mobile game players with free-to-play](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4&t=0s)

2 comments

I think game monetization is over-scrutinized for a couple of reasons.

One, it's fresh - games had a fixed cost for about 25 years. Notice I didn't say it's new, because games had similar monetization tactics if you go back far enough to arcade tokens.

Two, the most vocal players are not yet in the income-earning years of their life which makes them incredibly price sensitive. Once they get older and have a better grasp of time and money, they may decide spending $200/month on a game you enjoy daily from the toilet is on par with other hobbies they could have, and more convenient.

From another angle, consider grocery stores which purposely arrange their stock inefficiently to make you walk deeper into the store. And force you into data collection price clubs by withholding competitive prices. This stuff is just as 'exploitative' as dark patterns, but with only a fraction the digital ink spilled over it. (I'm doing my part!)

> One, it's fresh - games had a fixed cost for about 25 years. Notice I didn't say it's new, because games had similar monetization tactics if you go back far enough to arcade tokens.

Monetization schemes lay on a spectrum, but even arcade tokens lie on the tamer end in comparison to modern schemes. The biggest difference: the only Advantage most arcade tokens would give you is an extra life (i.e. a skilled player can get away with minimal pay). I am aware of 0 arcade games that give you extra speed, damage, or max HP just because you put in another coin while that is INCREDIBLY common with modern monetization schemes.

> Once they get older and have a better grasp of time and money, they may decide spending $200/month on a game you enjoy daily from the toilet is on par with other hobbies they could have, and more convenient.

Sure and I won't argue against continually spending money on games. I think its a really good thing that helps develop content and keeps the game alive (I think $60 for modern AAA games is absolutely ludicrous; it was $60 back in the 90s or 80s and it certainly hasn't kept up with inflation and dev-costs).

> I think game monetization is over-scrutinized for a couple of reasons.

My stance:

* The stuff most people spend money on (i.e. in-app-purchases for lootbox/gambling opportunities) is bad for gaming because they encourage BS game designs that artificially restricts progress and incentivizes psycologically manipulative tactics

* These BS game designs make the games worse (as a "pure" game) 99% of the time

I basically haven't touched a modern AAA game in 5+ years because of this. In terms of gameplay, indie games have been way more interesting and diverse. And I give 0 shits about graphics.

> The spending is very stimulating visually and audibly (think lootbox openings)

This reminds me of an article (which I can't find again) talking about "the toy in the interface". A good game will be fun to simply interact with on a user interface level.

Has anyone built a lootbox simulator yet? Skip the game and just do lootboxes. Give people a way to scratch their lootbox itch for free.

If done well enough, with a good toy in the interface, this could actually draw attention and profits away from those who exploit.

The best lootbox sim I found is the CSGO Case Simulator [1] mostly because it keeps tabs on how much it'd cost to buy the case, buy the key, and how much you'd be able to sell your won item for. Obviously it isn't the exact same as the Valve system of odds, etc, but it's fun to let it auto spin for a while and see just how much you've lost.

[1]: https://convars.com/case/en

> Has anyone built a lootbox simulator yet? Skip the game and just do lootboxes. Give people a way to scratch their lootbox itch for free.

Kinda reminds me of progress-quest. A level grinding RPG that grinds for you automatically.

Casino apps are exactly that, and highly profitable
> scratch their lootbox itch *for free*