Genuine Question: Why do mobile games need to be pay to win?

[Fencers]

But you can't buy that new dress for your virtual waifu for 40$, you have to buy a dresspack with 400 gamebucks. A gamebuck pack costs 10$ and can contain between 1 and 250 gamebucks. And your dresspack can contain one of 5 dresses or 20 totally unique portrait border colors!

My problem are not the 40 bucks. People can spend what they want for their hobbies. But there are not a lot of mobile games where i can just buy something for a set euro price, there always is so much monetization bs.

This is true of most shopping. It's designed that way. Milk and bread are never at the front of the supermarket. They are way in the back. So you have to walk through the entire store and see everything on sale on the way to the milk.

I never went into Nieman Marcus or Nordstrom, bought one thing, and left. They position the blouses or jeans next to each other with one or the other always on sale. All the golden goose shoes are next to the jeans and they always have a special discount. Places like Target and Costco are designed around getting you to buy a bunch of stuff on the way- BOGO, Digital Coupons, discounts that only kick in when you buy #X of product or Match 3 specials.

Ever been to RH? They nickel and dime you for buying an accent chair.

The method digital games use is novel, but the practice and expense of "psychological" tricks for sales are long practiced.

[Elim Garak]

Correct, fear of mission out is a thing with physical products, too. But that is nothing compared to virtual monetization schemes. Plus, as Seinfeld once said : "Limited? Yes it's limited to the number we can sell"

Sir, would you like to get these stickers with your every purchase? Here's a list of items you can get with them at a DISCOUNT. The more stickers the better the item you can get with a DISCOUNT! How would you like this NEW SHINY GRILL at 50% off and just 1000 Sticker points? Amazing deal! Nevermind that its actual price is the discounted price, we just upped it and THEN discounted.

[Ghost of Cow]

The method digital games use is novel, but the practice and expense of "psychological" tricks for sales are long practiced.

This is the part that drives me nuts about this topic. People keep using the term "psychological tricks" in reference to gacha/mobile/etc as if it's a new and unique idea that those games just created. (And that exact term keeps getting used over and over, so you know it's another one of those things sourced to a youtube video or something.)

It's just like...holy crap, where ya'll been all this time?

[m4xc4v413r4]

Because people will pay 70 bucks for a computer game but anything over a couple of bucks on the mobile market is seen as expensive. And sure, many mobile games aren't worth more than a couple of bucks, but there are mobile games that cost literally millions to develop.

Is this a good thing then? No, but it was caused by the consumers, not the industry.
People can cry all they want about p2w and in-game shops, but the reality is industries follow the consumers, not the other way around.

[BeepBoo]

The method digital games use is novel, but the practice and expense of "psychological" tricks for sales are long practiced.

Yes, but the difference in those is: I can still get what I want without having to participate in the bullshit marketing if I'm smart enough/strong enough.

I don't HAVE to buy the sale items or buy more than I want to get what I want. With gachas, due to the nature of gambling, I do. It's not that I can't resist the urge to gamble. It's that there's literally no other way to get the things I want out of the game without engaging the bullshit.

[Elim Garak]

It's just like...holy crap, where ya'll been all this time?

They are probably those people who think ads don't work on them, and that sales guy cannot possibly interest them in anything, and they got a good deal on their car too.
And monetization in f2p games is just that one new thing they see thru so they need to scream about it to prove to themselves that it doesn't work on them anywhere else TOO.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why is there this common thread among people on this topic of, "Get angry, post youtube videos as a proxy for their opinion, call everyone other opinion stupid, fail to really elaborate past what the videos said."

It's like some of you picked up the, "Be mad about video games." starter pack.

Objection, non responsive.

Sometimes it's easier to make a point if it's explained in a video, videos that have already compiled massive amounts of supporting evidence for what is being said. But nothing will ever be good enough for you. If I post facts, you'll just demand sources. If I post sources, you'll call the sources bias. If I post a video that thoroughly explains my opinion with supporting evidence you'll just say I got my opinion from a youtube video. I've known professional reviewers have been shit long before the date of posting of either of those videos, as they were the most recent good examples in a long genre of youtube videos of why professional video game review scores are garbage for scoring a game.

But I'm sorry that you're mad your D3 example proved my point instead of refuted it. It's hilarious that you think game sales determine how good a video game is. I'm sorry you're salty that you were wrong.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Stop being coy and pretending that review bombing isn't a thing.

If people hate a game, the game will get a 0. You'll find hate reviews on EVERY game. If quite a few people hate a game, it will get a lot of hate reviews. If a game is universally terrible and hated, almost everyone will hate review it.

You act like "review bombing" is some big insidious conspiracy when it's simply people expressing their opinion about a game. It is an objective truth that a game with a score of 0.2 from users is almost universally hated by said users. Despite metacritic user scores being unmoderated and uncurated, they tend to be an incredibly accurate measure of how well the game was both received and how it will be remembered. And while not a 1:1 representation of how good a game is, it is often a great indicator of how others would probably feel about the game.

What makes a game "good" or "Bad"? There is NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THIS. It is always subjective. Thus why good and bad are perfectly accurate descriptors for how well a game is received by its playerbase.

As @Fencers said, review bombing isn't real, at least as you're probably imagining it.

- - - Updated - - -

Bro, you are going on with a lot of stuff not even relevant to the thread or my initial post. All subjective stuff using language with ill-defined qualifiers. This is not worth discussing.

Having gone through grad school, I can certainly say I sourced a lot of materials for my thesis that barely had anything to do with the topic of my thesis. But they often contained supporting evidence for a single statement being made.

If you don't want to engage in the user scores vs professional critics discussion, perhaps don't pretend that professional critics are useful and user reviews are useless? I've sufficiently proven my point though, enough so that the two people vehemently disagreeing with me have made terrible excuses as to why they don't want to make the points addressed there within the discussion. I'll take that as a win. I imagine you didn't take time to watch the videos either, probably because you either know that professional critics are paid off, full of shit, and far too self-important. That or you fall into that latter category of much of those within the industry thinking big media critics are more important than they really are.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the part that drives me nuts about this topic. People keep using the term "psychological tricks" in reference to gacha/mobile/etc as if it's a new and unique idea that those games just created. (And that exact term keeps getting used over and over, so you know it's another one of those things sourced to a youtube video or something.)

It's just like...holy crap, where ya'll been all this time?

Because the methods being used are predatory and cause people to often spend when they wouldn't have otherwise. Nearly every consumer advocacy group calls them predatory and manipulative.

Yes, I acknowledge that all of it falls under "marketing". But it is designed to make users buy a product when they would have otherwise passed given more honest business practices, like simply presenting a product and letting a user decide if they want to buy it. No FOMO. No "800% value!". Just the product, its description and a price.




Here's a question for you to honestly consider. Something for you to mull on and respond to, and it's not trying to expose or contradict you. If you can come out of "Contradictory for the sake of contradictory" mode for a few minutes.

If every country in the west passed a law where one may get a refund for mobile game purchases for up to 30 days after making them, with the caveat that they'd lose all things they've gained from that expenditure, do you think these predatory monetization practices would dramatically change? And for the better or for the worse?

Pretty much all companies offer something like a 14 day or 30 day refund policy, for any reason. Why?

[Rockstaar]

I kinda think that these companies should rethink not allowing people to sell their accounts when they've stopped playing. At least allow people to get something back on a game they may have invested thousands into and no longer play. It's only fair. Sure, they may never sell their account because it may no longer be an in demand game but just having the option to recover 5-10% of the amount invested would be the kind thing to do.

[Battlebeard]

It's very simple, they need to be P2W (and I fully support it), and it's becuase they need to make money to survive, just like any company and business on the planet.

There are only a few ways a mobile game CAN make money and most are out of the question for the average gamer. The methods are:

1. One time purchases, however soccer moms and casual "gamers" have no interest in paying for mobile games, they will simply pick another game or app.
2. Microtransactions in Cosmetic items, this won't work either, as mobile gamers don't care about cosmetics at all
3. Subscriptions, not gonna happen either, mobile gamers don't want any commitment to their apps like that
4. P2W microtransactios, it's what the players want, it helps them continue their games at their own pace

P2W is the only method that will ever work

[Itori]

This is a question that has been asked every day. Mobile games have such potential to be something amazing yet companies choose to go down the same tired old gacha, base building, pay to win route. With the creation of game streaming, the backbone and other similar peripherals. Not to mention phones built by gaming hardware companies there's nothing there to really push the boundaries. There was one game back when i got my first smart phone where it played like the old dragon's lair game but had the graphics and looks of dark souls at the time and it completely blew my mind that this could be played on a phone. Now all we have is a app store full of trash with a few good gems buried under it all.

[HitRefresh]

Because 1) Nobody will buy a game at a price tag on mobile, they will play free games. Part of that is that it's a hassle to return or even impossible, and if they don't like it then it's a waste of money. Whereas a free game they will play, and simply stop playing if they don't like it.

2) As a developer, you're missing out on free money. Other devs and people looking at them probably don't give two shits about morality, but when it's a big name like Blizzard they will be judged for it. But in reality it's probably not a big enough amount of people to make the company actually care about what you think. It may be cynical, but why would they? They're making millions. One person can contribute literally hundreds of thousands of dollars while the cap is $60 for standard games.

Simply put, mobile gaming targets a different audience that happens to be much larger.

[Maximus Testiculos]

because most people dont buy games. free to play games are downloaded by millions of people while buyable games are lucky if they reach 50000. these free to play games offer free game and put some barriers during gameplay without people noticing like long build times or low energy and during intense gameplay some people just go for it and buy that 10 dollar diamond pack. So they get more addicted. Next time there is a barrier they go and buy that 100 dollar diamond pack. or they will buy new diamonds to get their favourite char or outfit in gacha game. Since this is all digital images and it is all voluntary, none can complain about this. And still the people that buy are very low percentage like 15 percent at most.

[Yriel]

This is true of most shopping. It's designed that way. Milk and bread are never at the front of the supermarket. They are way in the back. So you have to walk through the entire store and see everything on sale on the way to the milk.

I never went into Nieman Marcus or Nordstrom, bought one thing, and left. They position the blouses or jeans next to each other with one or the other always on sale. All the golden goose shoes are next to the jeans and they always have a special discount. Places like Target and Costco are designed around getting you to buy a bunch of stuff on the way- BOGO, Digital Coupons, discounts that only kick in when you buy #X of product or Match 3 specials.

Ever been to RH? They nickel and dime you for buying an accent chair.

The method digital games use is novel, but the practice and expense of "psychological" tricks for sales are long practiced.

Personally i think milk being in the back of a supermarket and mobile monetization is not the same ballpark, it's not even the same galaxy. Sure every salesman tries to entice you to buy but all that hiding of real prices, all that random shit, all that hidden mechanics that you have to buy through, the absurd high cost... i can't think of a more devious monetization anywhere else. Can you?
Plus it's usually an excercise in frustation for most people except the whales. If a clothing store "tricks" you into buying a jeans you didn't plan to buy you still have that jeans and usually paid a normal price for it. If i buy 20 lootboxes in hope of that big thing they advertise with it i usually just get useless shit. If i want to buy a thing and have to buy much more ingame currency i feel bad about that useless curreny that i have left over and will never use. It's not like those mechanics make for a better game experience, i'd say for the vast majority it's the opposite because it's supposed to be. Because you are supposed to feel bad and buy even more in hope of finally get something useful.

I guess since you work in that area you are ok with that and thats fine. But i really dislike it.
When i hear about people paying 100.000$ to get the best D:I gear or that guy that payed 15.000$ just to get one 5/5 gem, or when i look at genshin where, to get the best equipped waifu, you have to spend around 4500$ every three weeks i wonder who the majority of whales really are. Are they, for the most part, filthy rich people who just don't care about spending five- to six figures every month on one mobile game or are they some schlobs who spend all their money (and probably take loans, too) on cash shops?

[Fencers]

Personally i think milk being in the back of a supermarket and mobile monetization is not the same ballpark, it's not even the same galaxy.

It is though. There is price hiding in food sales too. Such as when my local store has "Buy one, half off" sales they do not list the price of the single item. So one count of that item often costs more than if you bought two of the item non-sale. You would only know this after checkout or if you ask the cashier the price before finalization.

Retailers also have shifty practices such as Macy's bucks, which like much digital currency, doesn't let you fully top off. Amazon does this as well if you ever used an Amazon-branded Prime credit card. Which at check out automatically has payment splits, Amazon wallet, and so on.

Food delivery services do this as well. With minimum orders, subscription discounts (which just give a % off), their own credit systems which are not 1:1 to USD, and so on.

It's just familiarization and habit that makes this stand out in our minds as people who play games. Which has a different culture of sales practices.

I guess since you work in that area you are ok with that and thats fine.

I'm not actually. I think it's scummy. I dislike gambling and do not like monetization that circumvents the gameplay because that is the reason to play games.

To me, buying a power boost is like using a cheat code and makes the experience less interesting & fun. If I use a cheat code, a game is usually less fun for me and I am bored quickly. Buying a power boost is the same experience for me- I just get bored of the game quicker or it becomes less interesting.

[Ripster42]

(Fun Fact: The Whale Shark is closer to Whale, than shark, as it's diet consists of some of the smallest marine life, like a lot of the biggest Whales)

No. Whales are closer to humans than sharks. Whale sharks aren't mammals. Please stick to whatever your lane is, because it's certainly not biology.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Personally i think milk being in the back of a supermarket and mobile monetization is not the same ballpark, it's not even the same galaxy.

This is my thought as well, but then again I'm a person who does their research, shops around, knows the general price of items, etc. Some marketing practices are far more scummy than others. Not all marketing is equally scummy. And I think it's incredibly disingenuous for people to claim that they all hold similar weights in terms of how dishonest and manipulative they are. And as you said, at the end of the day, if you buy something from a supermarket, you're generally going to have something to show for it that will contribute to your life.

I don't shop at big department stores. For one reason, I never did like the big department stores like Macy's and whatnot. The last few times I've gone to one of them in the last decade, I will generally look up the same item online and find that it's 1/3 the price just to order online than it is at the brick and mortar. But again, I do my research.



Another thing on the issue of professional critic scores vs user scores, does everyone remember when the Metacritic professional critics scores were listed near the top of a game's store page? That same spot, at the top of the steam page, has been replaced by user reviews, being overwhelmingly positive, very positive, mixed, etc. The professional critic scores have been relegated to the bottom, where nobody generally looks any more unless they're still reading materials on the game and aren't sold on the game just yet.

And again, those in the know, know that "professional critics" are just another branch of marketing for video games. IGN in particular has been terrible about this, many of their former reviewers outright admitting they got paid to give certain games higher scores, when they didn't believe the game deserved it. The video game publishers have a vested interest in getting a high critic score, so they can plaster it on advertisements for their game. Thus the counter to the statement made earlier in this thread that when publishers advertise their game, they use critic scores. It's all marketing, and dishonest. And has nothing to do with how good a game actually is. Players have been waking up to this reality for years now, and critic reviews have become gradually less and less trusted by the gaming community. Perhaps some "dads who don't have time to play video games for more than an hour a week and thus need pay to win" will fall for such marketing, but gamers at large are rejecting pro critic scores.

[Tentim]

Moblie gamers are a different market mostly addicted to gambling.

They don't really want to play a video game they just want a dopamine hit.

[Kilpi]

why do you hate mobile gaming?the industry has come an insane long way in a very short time,its a perfectly good gaming platform these days,they just need to stop getting kids and bald middle aged men addicted to gambling

Touch screen is the worst currently in wide use method of controlling almost anything, games included.

[Flurryfang]

....Because they CAN.

It gives more money, so why not implement P2W? You get in the whales and most mobile gamers don't take the hobby serious enough to care about it.

They would do this aswell in PC games more, if it weren't because players keeps an eye on that and make such games bomb. Instead we just have lootboxes and predatory game mechanics instead.