As someone who played a lot of that game I can tell you it was not luck dependent at all. Entirely skill based, there was even a daily practice mode which would net you free plays. If the claw grabbed the piece it wouldn't drop it unless it got to the end. Most boards could easily be done with 5 plays.
Nintendo has kept scummy micro transactions to a minimum for as long as I can remember. Even Pokemon Picross had a maximum spend on micro transactions (after $40, any further premium currency was free)
This is not just the gacha component. Take Candy Crush, Simon's Cat, Pokémon Go, etc. You know what the prizes are, but the gameplay is still subject to various degrees of randomness, and it's statistically calculated and adjusted to cause just the right tresshold of repetition and frustration to maximize microtransaction revenue.
Most games are generic crap. I've seen crap games make money, but I haven't seen a great game fail. People see Flappy Bird and want to imitate it because it's easy. Those who work hard don't rely on luck can still build a sustainable business. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=45&v=1BCg31KVJok
"Another comment, more on-topic: it may surprise some to learn that the ‘crane’ or ‘claw’ games in arcades and rest stops are also games of chance, not games of skill. They are programmed with the value of their prizes, the cost to play, and the operating margin the operator would like to have. The machine handles the decision of who wins, when."
It wouldn't surprise me a little bit if it was true, since it's almost impossible to get any prize using those cranes, but if it is in fact true, it should definitely be illegal. When I see a game in the style of these crane games, I and pretty much everyone believes it is a "game of skill", and if you just get the crane in the right position, it would be able to get your prize. Down here in Brazil those machines are everywhere.
But there is a lot of strategy also. It is possible to think 2 (some rare times 3) moves ahead. But sure, a lot of it is luck.
As I don't connected it to FB, I don't even use the social aspect of the game. So recognizing this is just to pass some time, and with no competition with friends, pay money to buy time doesn't make sense to me. I play it when I want to spend time (not buy it)
Also, with the reward feeling of passing a tough phase (the were phases which I played much more than a hundred times) being so big! Actually I would be paying to diminish my pleasure.
Funny you should mention those old arcade cabinets.
Their "pay to try again" model created the perverse incentive to kill the player off quickly in unpredictable ways to give the impression that it wasn't really their fault. Coin eating machines.
They're great examples of how business models color the nature of a game deeply.
Some of the tricks in the article are unbelievable.
>At this point the user must choose to either spend about $1 or lose their rewards, lose their stamina (which they could get back for another $1), and lose their progress.
I can't imagine playing a game that threatened to take away my items if I didn't give them money.
The game's popularity is sort of ironic. It was designed to be unfair, in order to demonstrate the harmful power that monopolists accrue. That it results in the situations you describe could also be said to be by design.
So, if I can IAP to get an extra 5 moves in a puzzle game, or infinitely replay the same level and get stuck, never playing the game again, that's a sham?
What about currencies/powerups that I can either get via IAP vs social obligation? I'd rather pay than bug my friends.
(Of course, one argument is that none of these mechanics should exist in the first place. But they do.)
I was thinking more about the late 80s to the early 90s.
Games usually were designed with an easy first level and a big ramp-up in difficulty, and yes, you could pay for continues.
No free tier of course, arcade owners certainly didn't want their machines being squatted by non-paying players, but the easy start was definitely a hook, and they definitely played the sunk cost fallacy. After you put in so many coin, you don't want to stop there right? You can put in lots of coins if you are not careful. They clearly solved the "play for hours" issue too, all games I knew had an ending after less than an hour, and you had to be really good to get there without continues.
And sure, the games were meant to be enjoyable, but so are the mobile games. The only significant difference is that you own your phone, so you running the game costs the publisher nothing. Arcade cabinets are expensive machines and owners don't want you to keep playing if you are not paying, so they have to balance their settings so that you don't stay too long on a single credit, but at the same time, make sure you want to come back for more. Mobile games only have the second requirement.
Of course, only talking about video games, arcades often have prize games that are borderline gambling too.
The trend in modern arcades seems less predatory though. You can get 10 minutes of game play for a credit no matter how skilled you are, as long as you select the right difficulty. There is less of the "get hooked on the first level and spend all your coins" attitude. The counterpart is that you won't play for much longer if you are really good.
video game arcades were skill-based gameplay, if you were good at gyruss you could play a LONG time on your quarter; yes, it was expensive while you were learning, but that promoted skill acquisition, the better pattern recognition, memory and hand-eye coordination you developed, the more you could play with the same amount of money.
IAP and coin-based gameplay is not skill based, it's addiction based, which is NOT something you should encourage: the reward loop is completely different, fear-of-missing-out and scarcity-based gameplay do not create any positive effects, save maybe training your child to be a future patron of casinos and similar establishments
Also, in the early/mid days of coin-up games, a skilled player could win a game with a single coin while having fun in the process and using their skills instead of simply waiting for stuff to happen.
You do have a point. I have little trouble recognizing that micro-transactions and coin-op difficulty creep are both profit driven modifications made to games, and also that I'd be better served by the life of a hermit than a time machine to the 1980s if I wanted to escape the effects of human greed, particularly on much more important things than video games.
I think it's important too to distinguish between a micro-transaction for something like a skin or a hat that has a cosmetic effect, versus "pay to win/pay to not grind", versus "pay every 5 minutes regardless of whether you win or lose" etc. My remarks on micro-transactions and difficulty creep is less about how profitable they are, but rather how the changes feel to me.
In writing my first post, I had a thought to compromise between the old school approach and the current paradigm: what if every game loop cost 1 credit if you win, 2 credits if you lose, and 100 yen buys 2 credits? If the challenge fits into my flow state so that it's at the upper limit of my competence, I would have an explicit 50 yen incentive to win in an engaging challenge. The game devs and proprieter would still make some guaranteed income on my play time. If no one has ever posited this idea before (and I'd bet someone has, and probably tested it, and maybe it doesn't work well for them), I feel like calling it "win to save".
It could even be an interesting study - players of games often won't keep playing if they feel they can't win, so the designer would have to be careful not to nickle and dime the player by setting them up for expensive failures. On the other hand, an engaging way to keep players paying could be to set them up for challenging victories that are very quick and efficient, to get them into the next loop faster... There's a lot of dimensions to this, more than I'm willing let alone able to put into one comment.
I agree arcades are a fantastic place for rhythm and dancing games. I hope you have a great day.
The levels I'm thinking of are the ones that require 200 green or multiple combos of special candies. Add in the chocolate things and the tornadoes and it just gets worse.
I don't know if it was poor design or purposeful to get more money out of people, but I tend to think the latter because of just how many places it begs to buy things.
People probably do get frustrated and quit. I know that's what I end up doing. Especially when my gaming habits are 30 minutes here and there. I just want a short session, not play for 5 minutes and have to pay more or wait 30 minutes to play more.
>It seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time. And it's executed almost to the point of perfection.
Like an arcade game? It costs $0.99 for a fresh set of lives in Candy Crush Saga. $0.25 cents in 1984, adjusted for inflation, is $0.54 today, so an extra set of five lives in the game is about double what an arcade game cost in 1984. So what's the big deal?
My biggest gripe is that the game is designed in a way to extract as much money as possible to the detriment of the game itself.
There are several levels you'll play where you have absolutely zero chance of winning (particularly the later levels where you need X of this and Y of that) because the colors just don't come up. Yeah, that's down to randomness, but it's one of those things that could be resolved. Also, when playing if you receive a call or switch to some other app in the middle of a game you lose your game and that life. Yet another way to pluck more money out of people. Then you have the arbitrary play limits (3 days to unlock another pack via bonus levels, 30 minute waits for lives, etc).
I'd have much less of a problem with the game if each level had a solvable method to it. Then you can make it pay to pass or skill to win.
Nintendo has kept scummy micro transactions to a minimum for as long as I can remember. Even Pokemon Picross had a maximum spend on micro transactions (after $40, any further premium currency was free)
reply