@amafi: Obviously, my experience does not mirror yours.

The exact reason these kinds of games cant be "a cost metered out as you go" is because there is no endgame for games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans and whatnot. For there to be a meter there has to be and endpoint, this isn't like buying an episodic game one episode at a time.

You know, some people genuinely enjoy smoking cigarettes, but that doesn't mean they aren't primarily designed to be addictive and create a physiological need in their victims first and foremost.

Edit: Cut down the post to make it sound less like a personal attack.

@president_barackbar: I appreciate the edit. Don't worry, I wouldn't put myself out there like this if I couldn't take criticism.

And from my perspective, we are constantly updating our games and putting out new content. And we sell that content. Games as service is kind of odd when you compare it to a stand alone work. But it really is as simple as we are constantly creating new digital goods, and players are buying those goods. I mean, most games have DLC. Isn't that just the same concept but in larger, stand alone chunks?

They are pretty much designed from the ground up to abuse their players' weakness to psychological dependence. Seems pretty scummy to me. With the majority of these games, people aren't paying and paying because they're having such a fantastic time; they're paying because they are psychologically addicted to the 'hits' designed into the game loop and will pay in order to get them faster. Congrats, you made a Skinner box for humans, which it turns out isn't a difficult thing to do at all.

It is possible to make a non-scummy F2P game, but they're rare and getting rarer. This is simply because it's much easier to profit from abusing a well understood psychological weakness than it is to design a genuinely good game or produce more content. If you are selling funny hats or more actual content or something then that's swell. If you're deliberately breaking / unbalancing / slowing down your deliberately addictive game loop so that you can then sell the 'fix' to your customers then that's insidious as hell and you should feel bad about what you're doing with your life.

There are of course hundreds of ways for stupid people to be parted from their money, so perhaps this one doesn't need to be regulated any more than the others are, but that doesn't mean that you guys should delude yourselves into believing that you're all genius game designers and not just taking advantage of stupid people. You all know exactly what you're doing and you all know exactly how shitty it is.

@jimbo: So... did you read the part where I agreed with you? The part where I said gameplay relevant mircotransactions are a cancer on gaming? From your tone, it doesn't quite feel like you did.

I love when I have a traditional game and build an engaging game loop, it’s called “fun”. But when I’m making free to play games I’m suddenly this psychological mastermind making all these puppets dance on my dopamine strings.

Well, here's the question then: are the microtransactions in the free-to-play games you're making gameplay-relevant or not?

@sinusoidal: Yes. They are gameplay relevant.

But unfortunately, gameplay relevant mircotransactions make so much more money than purely cosmetic ones. I either said in my original post or one of my follow ups that sometimes you have to make hard choices. When I'm the employee of a company, it's my job to look out for the company's interests. Sometimes that alines perfectly with making the "purest" game. Sometimes that does not. And it sucks. But I get a paycheck to do a job. I'd feel like more of a scumbag if I were to accept that money but secretly preform sabotage. If it really bothered me, than I'd quit.

Which is why I did quit! And I'm trying to make an indie game with my own money. No investors. No employees. I don't have to make those hard choices. I can just focus on making the best game possible. We'll see if it works.

EDIT:

If I want to sum up everything I'm trying to say, it's this:

I made Free to Play games for a couple years. In that time, I formed the following opinions.

Generally speaking, Microtransactions are bad for games. They can really make your game design super funky. And affects the relationship the game has with your players in ways that are a little uncomfortable, even if that discomfort is sometimes one sided.

That being said. I don't feel like our practices where immoral or outrageous. They just led to some less than stellar games. I think this section of the industry is viewed more harshly and we get flank for attitudes that most game companies share. And I think there are critiques made that are frankly unfounded or incredibility reaching. And I think we do make generally fun games that people do enjoy, though they could be better without mircotransactions.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you currently getting a paycheck for making reprehensible games or did you quit? Did you quit while you were writing this post?

Wait a min... that's a leading question! But I'll answer anyway. Yes I did quit. Though I still do take some contracts to have income before I start living completely on savings. I mentioned this at the end of my blog, but I'll admit that post is a great wall of words and I don't blame you for missing it.

@koolaid: So when you were working for a free to play company, how did design meetings go in your company? You mention that you think that gameplay relevant microtransactions "are a cancer on gaming," but did anyone in your design meetings actually attempt to find an alternative? Did you explore different monetization schemes to match each individual game according to what the game needed? Or did you just make games with energy bars and boosters and fun bucks that already have a clear design and monetization template? Did your company just not allow you to attempt different design schemes?

I understand that people need to get paid and that many of the people working at free-to-play studios are new game designers who are looking to crack into the industry, but I honestly feel that the lessons you learn at a free-to-play company would not be especially helpful when developing a traditional game. It would be like getting a job working at McDonald's in order to make a living cooking burgers so you can work up to cooking at a 5 star burger restaurant. Though you would be making burgers, the process couldn't be anymore different and the skills required to create a new menu item are not the same as the skills required to cook a pre-constructed burger. Am I wrong about that analogy? Also, why not work a regular programming job and make your own games on the side rather than contribute to the gaming cancer that you see devastating mobile gaming?

@marino: This blog post is a really great companion piece to the interview Patrick put up last week. I think it is a front page candidate!

Making money is the name of the game in life. If it makes a ton of money, who cares if it's gross?

Thanks for taking the time to write this, it was an interesting read. Personally I've largely given up on energy-based games because they don't really bring me enough entertainment and they don't fit into my lifestyle well enough to be a good time-filler either.

On the other hand, I think Mass Effect 3 was one of the most well designed examples of micro-transactions in a full retail game, where the random crate system allowed you to unlock things over time. Crates could be bought with the earned gold at a fast enough rate to feel like you were constantly unlocking things (one round on Gold would get you about enough for the Spectre pack) but the randomness kept it exciting.

In addition, they ensured you wouldn't receive items in crates that you already had, which meant like you were constantly making forward progression. I never felt a need to spend money and consistently felt that I was advancing my gear and unlocks with every mission. At the same time, for someone with plenty of money but not much time on their hands and less interest in the unlock progression versus playing the game itself, there was the option there to spend some money to get things faster if they so chose.

I mean, sure we are always trying to explore different ideas. I said in my blog post that I unsuccessfully attempted to change one game to be friendlier, but I only had that opportunity because the game was floundering. And we try new games a lot. A great thing about mobile is quicker turnaround, so you can experiment more. Also, I'm not in charge by any means. And as I said before, gameplay relevant microtransactions make much more money. I'm not really going to argue for an alternative unless I think it can be at least as successful. Hell, if I was in my CEO's position, I don't think I would change anything. Pretty sure the investors would pull support if I did anyway. I don't envy his position. That's why my strat is no investors!

EDIT: Also, I should point out that while mircotransaction cause problems in both free and full priced games, I think its a bigger problem in the full priced games because you paid with the assumption you are going to get a great experience. I don't feel as bad if the free version of the game is janky because, well, it's free! Still causes a lot of design problems though.

And no, there really isn't some kind of design template we have. Although, taking elements from other games and shoving them into later games without thinking about the ramifications is a tradition as old as games themselves.

Absolutely it is helpful. Creating free to play games is not particularly different. There is just a extra design step where you design microtransactions and a pricing structure ( and design the rest of your game around it). But even if it was super different, the real experience isn't in game design skills. You can learn game design concepts from a book or a class. But the real experience is in makinggames.

Prototyping, design documents, technical documents, working on a budget, working on a schedule, working with people with different disciplines, working with people with different personalities, playtesting, learning how a business works, learning how to make games for otherpeople. These are the real skills that turn your ideas from theories into games.

And to answer 'your games on the side' question, you are describing taking on two full time jobs. Having the one job is already pretty exhausting. Didn't Notch make the Minecraft Alpha on the side and it took him like 7 years or something?

@koolaid:

I mean, sure we are always trying to explore different ideas. I said in my blog post that I unsuccessfully attempted to change one game to be friendlier, but I only had that opportunity because the game was floundering. And we try new games a lot. A great thing about mobile is quicker turnaround, so you can experiment more. Also, I'm not in charge by any means. And as I said before, gameplay relevant microtransactions make much more money. I'm not really going to argue for an alternative unless I think it can be at least as successful. Hell, if I was in my CEO's position, I don't think I would change anything. Pretty sure the investors would pull support if I did anyway. I don't envy his position. That's why my strat is no investors!

But making the monetization scheme on a game that was already floundering "friendlier" is not the same as designing a game with the monetization scheme in mind. One example of how to build the monetization into the gameplay is highlighted by Extra Credits here. You say you can experiment more but, based on what you've said, all of your experiments were with the goal of tricking more people into paying your fun tolls, rather than trying to engineer a payment system that doesn't erect fun barriers in the first place. There are ways to blend payment with gameplay other than stopping gameplay until you get paid. Acquiescing to the status quo for fear of changing is a great way to never progress.

EDIT: Also, I should point out that while mircotransaction cause problems in both free and full priced games, I think its a bigger problem in the full priced games because you paid with the assumption you are going to get a great experience. I don't feel as bad if the free version of the game is janky because, well, it's free! Still causes a lot of design problems though.

But full priced games with micro-transactions tend to at least be fun games without paying! I mean I never even played Mass Effect 3 multiplayer and I had a great time because the main game was fun. Driving in Fortza is still fun even if the progression is messed up. The progression in both of those games is messed up, but the core game is a streamlined and enjoyable experience. The jankey games you don't feel bad about making are all about making clunky and annoying experiences part of the main gamplay loop in the hope that people will pay money to get around that crappy experience. Extra Credits has another great explanation on how the turn and burn model of free to play is killing mobile here.

And no, there really isn't some kind of design template we have. Although, taking elements from other games and shoving them into later games without thinking about the ramifications is a tradition as old as games themselves.

Other games making a mistake does not mean repeating the mistake is smart or ok.

Absolutely it is helpful. Creating free to play games is not particularly different. There is just a extra design step where you design microtransactions and a pricing structure ( and design the rest of your game around it). But even if it was super different, the real experience isn't in game design skills. You can learn game design concepts from a book or a class. But the real experience is in makinggames.

Why the heck would you design the monetization scheme FIRST and then design the game around it! Ideally both should be done in tandem so that the design and the monetization scheme fit together smoothly. Shoehorning a monetization onto a design or vice versa is really inelegant design. (FYI it sounds really shady when you say that you were figuring out how to shake people down for money BEFORE YOU EVEN HAD A GAME CONCEPT).

Prototyping, design documents, technical documents, working on a budget, working on a schedule, working with people with different disciplines, working with people with different personalities, playtesting, learning how a business works, learning how to make games for otherpeople. These are the real skills that turn your ideas from theories into games.

These are essential skills for any programmer and they are not gaming specific. Just working for a tech company would teach you a lot of these skills.

And to answer 'your games on the side' question, you are describing taking on two full time jobs. Having the one job is already pretty exhausting. Didn't Notch make the Minecraft Alpha on the side and it took him like 7 years or something?

Yes doing game work on the side is hard, but you get the benefit of making money while you are working on your game rather than losing. I'm personally doing this right now and it isn't easy, but it is possible.

I just want to say I enjoy F2P games for what they're worth. My son enjoys them for what they're worth too and controlling the money spent is easier then easy. I also understand that these games aren't as easy to make as people like Klepek imply that they are.

@koolaid Makes me sad that you feel gross. Makes me sad that you have to deal with being called evil and lazy by people who have never had any part in making a game. Millions of people (both who know and don't know any better) have gotten billions of hours of entertainment out of these products. I have personally seen and circumvented every issue levied against the genre with next to no effort and have gotten thousands of hours of entertainment for nothing. I say hold yer head up son and fuck all the indies and journalists (for whom almost everything has always been free to play) complaining and politicking to mold gaming into their image.

I think you are picking and choosing what I said. I said we produced a lot of games, with all kinds of structures.

No one is trying to repeat or make mistakes on purpose. That's why they are called mistakes. The conclusion I drew from this video is taking a successful design element from a past game and shoving into a new game without thinking about the ramifications is a common mistake. And I will see F2P concepts that worked in one game get shoehorned into another (like an energy bar) with little success.

No. It won't. EDIT: Also, the question was if the experience was helpful. Not if it was the only place you could learn the skills to make games.

@koolaid: I think you are misunderstanding me. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'extra step' or 'design the game around it' What I am saying is putting mircotransactions in your game is absolutely ingrained in your design and has to be accounted for. You don't just make a fun game and then throw in the ability to buy coins. So making a game with or without microtransactions is not a one to one experience. But for the most part, you are still making games. You still have to make game loops. You still have to balance everything. You have to "find the fun."

Ok I thought you meant that your central idea was the monetization scheme and the rest of the design followed from that. I 100% agree that you have to go into a game with a plan on how to make money, especially in free to play.

Both free to play and full priced games are fully capable of being fun or not fun on their own. The only difference is that one costs nothing to start playing and the other does not. If a game purposely weakens my ability to gather resources with the intent to "starve" me so that I will be temped to pay more, I feel that is much more damning when I paid to start playing in the first place.

This is certainly true. I guess I don't play any games that try to tempt me into spending extra money other than Dota, and I only play that with friends.

No one is trying to repeat or make mistakes on purpose. That's why they are called mistakes. The conclusion I drew from this video is taking a successful design element from a past game and shoving into a new game without thinking about the ramifications is a common mistake. And I will see F2P concepts that worked in one game get shoehorned into another (like an energy bar) with little success

Ok I misunderstood what you meant with that video.

No. It won't.

Some of the specifics definitely change, but working in groups collaboratively, testing, writing design documents, and designing for users that are not yourself are things that are really standard operating procedure in my admittedly limited working experience. I have learned a ton about how I should approach game development from working at a stable tech company.

Well, then it's too hard for me. I don't enjoy the idea of devoting all my waking moments to making games. I'll have to devote enough of my time working on my game full time as it is. I can also take temp contracts to make some cash if I need it. I wish you all the luck in balancing the two, but honestly, to me, that sounds like hell on earth and a fast track to a mental breakdown.

Well I'm a serial multi-tasker so I don't really know any other way to operate. I've always juggled a bunch of disparate things all at once and I haven't had many issues yet.

Totally correct. But for me its one thing if its just cosmetics, and its another if its game mechanics. Maybe that's really it. When you put game mechanics behind a pay wall every x minuets, i would rather just pay a flat fee.

That was the longest case of "different strokes for different folks" I've ever read, and I read it in its entirety. I enjoyed it, and as someone who plays some free-to-play games and thoroughly enjoys them, I can say that I agree on many of your points.

This is also going to be the shortest comment I've probably ever actually written out.

I think we've entered a paradox.

@koolaid: Nice work. I went ahead and put this on the front page of the site.

@koolaid: Here's a question I've always been curious about. You said that like 95% of players don't pay anything in most free-to-pay games, but also that a small group of people will end up spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars. What proportion of the money that free-to-play games make comes from these "high rollers", and what proportion comes from players with more moderate spending habits? Is it lots of people spending a little, or a small handful of people spending a huge amount?

@koolaid: I don't know if you can answer this, but I figured I would ask and see: how much money does the average ftp game earn for a company? I mean I know the Angry Birds people are rolling in it, but for less known games I have no concept of how much the average game makes.

@ares42: Strange read indeed.

The idea that F2P games are sinister because they have the capacity to endlessly charge their users is strange to me.

You do know that Giantbomb also has the "capacity to endlessly charge their users" too, right?? That's not the issue people have with microtransations.

Microtransactions are completely optional.

So that means any questionable practice used to entice users into buying these "optional" items is completely fine?

But it’s really not about trying to deny you an experience, it’s trying to enable users to spend what they want.

Oh please. Why are you trying to feed people this bullshit? You and I both know this is all about the "whales", you know, those people that you make the most money from? An honest translation of the above would read:

But it’s really not about trying to deny you an experience, it’s trying to enable users to spend as much as possible.

You can use words like "their limits" or "comfort zone" all you want, but it's just another way to beat around the bush.

I try not to care about topics like this because I know it's just how the industry works and there's no point in getting upset over it, but the little I've read here has had the complete opposite effect of what was intended. Maybe it's not F2P that people find 'gross', maybe it's the dishonesty and bullshit the developers try to feed us. I also find it ironic that you're trying to educate people on F2P while making wildly inaccurate assumptions about the issues people have with it. I don't think you can make a good argument for something you don't really understand. However, you might actually understand the issues quite well and are only trying to deceive folks here. But it all seems pretty pointless either way, since anyone that thinks these games are 'gross' is either obstinate, hypocritical or both. I can understand that you might take some of these F2P attacks personally, but you need to remember it's nothing personal just business, and the internet is serious business indeed!

@thatpinguino: I'm also interested in this question. Any idea of the profits for web browser games? I'm an American in China currently working on a web browser game, the industry as a whole is completely different over here.

lets talk about your stuttering

But I did work on the game that this game was based was based on!

@immortal_guy So it depends on the game and also I would say that patterns have changed over time. But generally speaking, the majority of your revenue comes from the big spenders. But everyone is important. And designing the game with only the big spenders in mind will put you on the fast track to a bunch of burnt out and fed up users and a dead game.

Also, again keep in mind that we are talking about how much someone pays over time. We aren’t trying to hook crazies who will keep pumping $100s into the machine. These people can spend a few dollars a day. Sure, it adds up to a lot. The point I’m trying to make is that when some people picture the ‘high rollers’ they don’t understand how a normal person can spend that much on a game and they must think they are loaded. But in a lot of cases its the frequency they will put in money, not the amount each time.

@thatpinguino You’re right! I can’t really be specific! And I don’t have access to a the data of the big name companies of course. But I can tell you it’s going up. 3 years ago I think 70K a day would put you around the top 10 in top grossing charts (iOS). Today, 50k a day will put you a little south of top 50. And 100k could be like top 30s maybe? And as for the tippy top? With your Clash of Clans and Candy Crushes? I don’t know. Probably a lot.

But that’s gross revenue vs net. There are always costs.

@marduke1913 Nope. Have not worked in browsers at all.

@icyeyes I find it really funny that you are taking choice quotes out of everything I wrote and furthermore openly admitting that you only read a little of the post. I mean, we all judge people based on incomplete pictures, but you aren’t doing a lot for your arguement when you openly declare that you’ve built a straw man.

Thanks for posting this, really interesting stuff.

@koolaid: Eve Online and World of Warcraft aren't fun games.

@koolaid: Wow... I've been working on f2p for 4 years and I pretty much got the same conclusions as you. Thanks for your post and good luck with your new indie career.

@frodillo: Hey thanks! Keep it real out there.

@koolaid: I'll just say, while I may not agree with all of it, I really enjoyed the well thought-out read.

I think it is understandable that many gamers have a passion to see the industry go in a certain direction (generally away from F2P, micro-transaction-heavy games).

At the same time, I also do not take lightly, the difficulties of making these sorts of games. As koolaid mentioned, businesses exist to benefit their stakeholders, generally in the form of financial gain. To say otherwise, IMO, is probably disingenuous at best (there are always exceptions).

I think faulting koolaid, the OP, for his/her actions is also a little misdirected. People can claim how ideal they might act in fictitious situations, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most people, especially those with little to no decision-making capability, are not going to strongly challenge authority and their superiors, to the point of significantly upending a company's business model. Most people will not do this, be they self-proclaimed super gamer or not (keep in mind, my username is InsiderGamer - I might know a thing or two ;) ).

Wish I had more ideas as to how F2P can progress in a direction where more people 'win' (including the industry at large) than how it is today, but those are some hard questions and realities (especially when you state insights as to the people that are simply playing for free vs those paying for the game) - ones that I may not have known about in quite as much detail before your post.

Thanks.

thanks for the incite

@insidergamer: Cool. It really does sounds like you got the just of what I was trying to say. I don't envy the CEO. I don't think I want that job. To make choices with not just your company on the line, but the livelihoods of all your employees? Harsh.

Fantastic read KoolAid keep it up hopefully there will be more in the future.

Also maybe I read over this but you still doing this as your full time job today?

And if so if the market different then when you started on F2P games for mobile and if so worse/better?

Good read. I agree with most of your points. I have never been on the developer side, but lets say I have gotten heavy into some Free to Play (hahahahahahahahahaha) competitive games, no not Dota or LoL which both make me "lol" in real life. I will say this from my experience. Most of the truly huge F2P games, like Candy Crush for example, do not care about making a good game. They care about making an "addictive" game that is free to play but very expensive to actually make any real progress in. Especially those competitive games I dabbled in.

At one point there was a F2P game I was playing that did regular events once a month where you competed directly against other players and the rewards for ranking well were basically items that made you better than everyone else and made it easier to win next month. Thing is maybe only 500 out of a millon+ players would rank high enough to get these things, and everything below that tier was worthless junk that did nothing to help you at winning these events. Then you realize you have to spend 200+ dollars on in game consumables to have ANY chance of getting one of those 500 and you realize you are in a money trap. Yeah you could play for free, but you will always suck, get beaten by anyone who does pay, and will get to a hard cap of in game progress you can't pass because you won't spend. So you either quit playing, or open your wallet wide.

I would also stress the reason I played the game for as long as I did wasn't because it was fun. It wasn't. It was because I knew other people who did it and it was something you could do in down time on a bus or during slow work days, and once you got to that competitive point there was some bragging rights involved and if you were REALLY SMART you could find a way to make some cash yourself. The longer I stuck with it though the harder that got, and the game was changed and redesigned, and altered more and more and more in ways that made it clear they wanted to make it impossible for the player to make a profit and make it even more expensive to see real success. I was glad I got out when I did, in the end I probably spent over a k on it, maybe even 1.5, but I cashed out in the end for maybe... a hundred or so profit. Hardly worth what I put in, but something is better than nothing.

Because I am a serious gamer (shame face) I follow this stuff. Every time I look at these F2P mobile games though they are going even further down the scumbag route and even further away from the "we just want to make a fun game" path. The companies and investors don't want a fun game, they want a slot machine with really neat graphics and mechanics that are really effective at tricking you into thinking you aren't playing a slot machine. Except on this slot machine you never actually win.

As to how to fix microtransactions, I will say one thing. I find the stat tracking features of DOTA 2, etc. interesting. You pay for a special item, and it is better. But it's better in a way that only affects you. It doesn't make you better than others, it just helps you out by recording your exploits.

If only there were more upgrades of this sort that could be sold we wouldn't have to worry about pay to win so much.

@slayer said:

I still take contracts with them to earn some cash to support myself but my focus is now my own project. Which will have no mircotransactions.

As for your other question, I don't really like to use the words worse or better. It's way too complicated for that. And better for whom? The developers? The customers?

It is very different. There is more money being made and more big players. But there are less jobs, as companies are now running off their revenues instead of investments. There is also tons of competition. That's gonna be better games and more careful, focused development. It will most likely always be dominated by casual games. More serious games will have to be really good, and get some good press behind them. And it seems the best path to success is a branded game: Simpsons, Family Guy, Kardashian, Star Wars etc.

I'd go back if I had to. But honestly, if you want to make games for a living and you are really passionate about it, I think indie is the only way to do what you want. But having the experience of professional game development and having at least a few games shipped is almost invaluable to making indie success.

I like the way you put that. People that ask "better for who?" are asking the right questions IMO.

If you don't mind my asking, koolaid, do you have any tips (say, development-wise) for people looking to experiment with indie game development like yourself? Perhaps a really awesome platform/language to learn that is relatively newbie-friendly and easy to iterate upon? Things like that. (I realize you're relatively new to the indie dev scene too.)

I will say it sounds exciting to have some professional game development skills/experience under your belt, some active contract work on the side, and your own pet project. (Did you incorporate? Sole proprietor?)

I'm sure I can't be alone in that thought. Thanks again.

@insidergamer: I've been told by people with experience using professional grade software, like film editing, or photo software, that they have been able to pick up Unity and make some things happen.

Also, apparently you can make real full games with Game Maker now. When I first started going down this path, Game Maker seemed like it was more 'Baby's first video game.' But I believe some high profile indie games have been released using it, like Hotline Miami.

If you really want to practice making something simple and fun for you and your friends, then Inform 7 is a natural language tool for building text adventures. You can practice the ebb and flow of making something that way, if you are really a beginner.

The money problem is that F2P companies are not respectful and responsible with their consumers. You say you offer microtransactions that are endless, and then say you don't force anyone to keep paying. Well you know what? Neither do casinos. Casinos don't force anyone to keep buying more chips or stuffing more quarters into slot machines. They will take it all though. With absolutely no regard for the well-being if their consumers. That's how that business works. It's designed to suck every penny out of people who are probably mentally ill and have addictive personalities that they should really get therapy for. It's taking advantage of the customer. Hoping they're sick enough to spend thousands of dollars. If your free to play game put a $60-$90 limit on how much the customer could spend, it would be a lot more reasonable. Once you hit the spending limit, you get everything the game has to offer. A full unlimited experience. But that's not good enough because the sad fact is free to play games can't be profitable by doing that. They're only profitable when they hook in "whales" and get them to spend hundred or thousands of dollars on consumable microtransactions. It's quite disturbing.

i am bookmarking this because i too want to make money, and also i hate gamers

@koolaid: Maybe you should, just as a mental exercise, try to separate between insight and opinion. Why does the former equate to "knowledge is power" while the latter stinks.

It seems you use the O-word as a protective shield and an excuse to rehash rationalizations and arguments, hoping that you can't be called out on your BS because it's your Opinion and you're entitled to it.

Would I be interested to hear the opinion of a Philip Morris employee in regards to the dangers of smoking. - Nope. That's not a criticism though it's encouragement. What valuable things could an insider provide to the reader? Best practices, some of the trickery that is used, methods and their ramifications? Interestingly enough the same things that would be valuable to the reader are valuable to you the writer! That's why habitual liars, spouting valueless half-truths do inevitably also deprive themselves (of understanding). That's why one sided rhetorics club style arguments and rationalizations are not helping anyone, if you happen to miss the logical non sequitur in your own spin, you may even convince yourself of some nonsense.

In contrast scientific debaters always strive to be factual, truthful and thorough, because they egoistically use debate as a tool to articulate, form and check their own theories, rather than trying to manipulate, convince or sell others on them.

@eurobum: An interesting take. If I were to be completely truthful, I'd say my blog contains a good deal of both insight and opinion. Though I do relay on the O-Word, my intention is not to shield myself from criticism. In fact, I believe that I encouraged it. Although maybe I did get a little snippy when confronted with an angry tone.

No, I use the o-word because I'm not a know-it-all master of game development, nor do I claim to be. I find that those who state their beliefs as fact, be it in the boardroom or on a forum, are easily accepted when they speak with confidence. But their "truths" tend to fall apart once given deep thought or exposed to the grand depth of human experience. I find it much more worthwhile to flow and discuss, rather than debate.

And since you bring up scientific debate, I'd like to point out that video games are both an art and a science. There are elements that can be proven, and others that cannot, so I don't know if I would want to model game design discussions as completely scientific. Though I will say that I personally strive to be factual, truthful and through. If you don't believe that I was, or am, I don't really know how I can convince you. I'd also point out that since you used the word "trickery", I wonder if you are letting some of your own prejudices color your commentary?

I mean, "trickery" that's kind of a harsh word and yeah. Well...

@koolaid: Thanks for the tips, koolaid, much appreciated.

Also, for the record, I think you're more than on the level. If it were me, I'd say what you're saying now, though maybe not as eloquently as you.