The "micro-payment" kool-aid is delicious, I know; the idea of "free" games which still manage to bring in actual cash is a tempting one. However, there is a right way to do it, and the way the game developers on Armor Games is doing it.
Compare a successful model -- TF2, for example -- with, say, the most recent Phage Wars game. Valve has gone to great pains to ensure that TF2 has many interesting and fun things to pay real money for, without ever breaking gameplay so that TF2 becomes "ay to win".
Phage Wars Live, on the other hand, explicitly advertises "never lose again" in its "Level 100" paid offering. Sure, a player could TECHNICALLY level up to 100 without paying, but until they manage to grind their way to that point, 5 xp at a time, the appearance of someone who forked out cash is a virtual guarantee that they will lose.
So in essence, the paid "bonus content" is really mandatory, and the game is, for non-playing players, crippled -- defective. Intentionally crippling a supposedly-free game in order to wring cash out of players who invested their time into one's game on the premise that the game was free, is deceptive and borderline extortionistic -- nobody likes investing time into something that turns out to be a lemon, and making paid content for a free game mandatory, sounds an awful lot like, "Hey kid -- first one's free."
While Phage Wars Live is the example I used, most of the highly-anticipated sequels seem to be doing something very similar; Phage Wars is just the most brazen case I've encountered.
Until I can trust that Armor Games truly means "free games", I'd rather browse Steampowered.com, which is in every way a superior venue for paid content, and that way I know precisely what I'm getting (although the appearance of things like Spiral Knights is making me begin to doubt Steam's credibility, too).
So for now, I'm only really coming on here to see if anything has changed. Since I would LIKE to see positive change occur, and because this IS a suggestions forum, here are my suggestions:
1. Implement tools to filter games by the presence of paid content. Even in a well-balanced game, the presence of in-game ads for paid content can be distracting, and an unwelcome disruption to casual gamers who specifically come here for games which are supposedly free.
2. Educate game developers on the difference between "fair" and "unfair" paid content, on how to integrate their paid content into a game without it being obtrusive, and how to accept that not every game is going to make money -- the market owes the developer NOTHING -- it's up to the game developer to cater to the market successfully, not the other way around.
Techdirt.com is a good place to read about the nuances of making money without annoying consumers, and their "step 2" platform is a good place to drum up ideas and get feedback on potential money-making schemes.
Anyway, that's it -- I hope this isn't too negative in tone, but I really do miss enjoying my visits to AG, and I'm trying to draw attention to this problem so that it can be remedied.
Welcome to a world where the developers need to earn money to survive to make more games since that's their job. Welcome to the real world where money has always been important and central. Welcome to the real gaming world which has always centered around cash, welcome back to the likes of Runescape.
The devs are not deceptive or extorting money; they're not forcing you to fork out cash. The market owes the dev something; you want a good, you pay for it, it has never been the other way round. If sections of the market refuses to pay the supplier has always just switched to people who want and are willing to pay for it. Just a little concept called allocative efficiency in economics.
If the devs want to make money by making it easier and more enjoyable for people to actually pay for the game, instead of a financial model that revolves around just selling extras that have no real game value, they are perfectly fine in doing so.
Instead of educating the devs who have put their time, sweat and blood into the games, seeing they spend years in college studying programming, I propose courses for people to learn that they're not going to have things their way all the time in life, especially for free.
As for the more short term solution, introduce worlds that segregate paying and non paying customers. Voila, viva la compromise.
If you think one data point points towards a correlation you do not understand statistics.
Correct, so Soltis is most likely one of the following:
1) An idiot. 2) Attacking this site. 3) Advertising another site.
The first case is most likely.
If you're incapable of responding to what I actually said, don't reply.
If you're incapable of understanding how markets actually work, maybe you should find another line of enquiry to pursue.
What you're doing is white-knighting yourself. White-knighting is defending what is clearly wrong, and you are wrong in thinking that a single example proves a point when it doesn't. While I'm not disproving your point, I'm pointing out that you have failed to prove your point. So, you should either find a way to prove your point using more than just examples or stop white-knighting yourself and your unproven point. Also, I think I can narrow you down to three types of people, which I will post as a comment on your profile.
