Support NeoGAF

Seraphis Cain · Sep 22, 2016

Richard Garfield is the creator of Magic: The Gathering. A couple days ago, he posted an essay on Facebook detailing his thoughts on "skinnerware", as he calls it.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/richard-garfield/a-game-players-manifesto/1049168888532667

Opening excerpt (full essay at the above link, of course):

I believe that in recent years, while looking for revenue models that work for electronic games, game designers and publishers have stumbled upon some formulae that work only because they abuse segments of their player population. Games can have addictive properties and these abusive games are created intentionally or not to exploit players who are subject to certain addictive behavior.

One reason it has been possible for this to happen is that the resulting product is inexpensive, or free for most players, since most of the burden of cost has been put upon the players who become addicted to the game.

I am going to refer to these games as skinnerware. Skinnerware has a large overlap with freemium games, but not all freemium games are skinnerware, and skinnerware exists that isnt freemium.

The distinguishing feature of skinnerware is that purchases are set up to trigger an addictive response in vulnerable players, and they are open ended in nature the players can pay an essentially unlimited amount to get the reward they are after. Not all people are vulnerable to skinnerware, though they will probably be more susceptible at difficult times in their lives. This describes slot machines as well but outside gambling games, companies being able to set up a direct conduit from an addicts bank account are pretty rare before this era.

A very interesting take on this sort of game by someone who's been in the game (albeit not video game, largely) industry for years. Thoughts, GAF?

Stranya · Sep 22, 2016

Looks interesting, will read. Thanks for posting this. Gambling-type features absolutely abuse vulnerable players of a certain disposition. I am amazed it's not more heavily regulated.

valkillmore · Sep 22, 2016

Half way through and it's an amazing read thanks OP.

bernardobri · Sep 22, 2016

Imagine a world where bars dont charge for the first two drinks a day but charge crazy fees for subsequent drinks. This would be using a sickness, alcoholism, to subsidize moderate drinking for everyone else. Distributing the cost more equitably doesnt cure alcoholism, but it does probably reduce it since less people would put themselves in a position to be exploited. Also, if they are afflicted, they are not also immediately financially crippled.

This is spot-on.

oni-link · Sep 22, 2016

bernardobri said:
This is spot-on.

Yeah that's such a great example

It will lead to worse games. Ultimately games are designed for the people who are paying for them. Design decisions that make the game reach more addictive players, or exploit existing players a little more will be considered even if they make the game play a little worse.

This is why I always roll my eyes at people who say this kind of thing in AAA games is fine because they're optional and they don't have an impact on game design

firehawk12 · Sep 22, 2016

I mean, not for nothing, but isn't Magic itself a version of this? CCGs are basically there to trigger the same addictive impulses in order to get people to buy more packs of cards.

Teeth · Sep 22, 2016

It's strange that he gives an exception to CCG style games because they have a supposed cap their potential payment model, as desire for individual cards (virtual or otherwise) runs out upon obtaining them all.

But this completely sidesteps the faults of the lottery model of buying randomized packages with a set number of rare cards (subsidized by a large number of commons per purchase) as a slot-machine model of generalized payouts based on randomized purchases. It preys on psychological weaknesses in humans as well.

Additionally, CCGs constantly put out new cards to keep players buying. They generally also change the meta and diminish the value of old cards to keep players buying new stuff or get stomped (MtG is a little different in that the oldest cards are broken, so they tend to have high utility...then Ice Age and Mirage started in with weaker, more balanced cards, then the newer sets went back to the casting cost of the original pre-4th gen and rendered multiple generations of cards worthless).

Stranya · Sep 22, 2016

firehawk12 said:
I mean, not for nothing, but isn't Magic itself a version of this? CCGs are basically there to trigger the same addictive impulses in order to get people to buy more packs of cards.

Absolutely it's the same. It's gambling. If loot boxes never had duplicates, then it would still be bad, but more tolerable.

As it stands, a lot of addictive loot-box systems can result in the player spending money in return for literally nothing. Just because it's digital goods doesn't mean it's not gambling.

firehawk12 · Sep 22, 2016

Teeth said:
It's strange that he gives an exception to CCG style games because they have a supposed cap their potential payment model, as desire for individual cards (virtual or otherwise) runs out upon obtaining them all.

But this completely sidesteps the faults of the lottery model of buying randomized packages with a set number of rare cards (subsidized by a large number of commons per purchase) as a slot-machine model of generalized payouts based on randomized purchases. It preys on psychological weaknesses in humans as well.

Additionally, CCGs constantly put out new cards to keep players buying. They generally also change the meta and diminish the value of old cards to keep players buying new stuff or get stomped (MtG is a little different in that the oldest cards are broken, so they tend to have high utility...then Ice Age and Mirage started in with weaker, more balanced cards, then the newer sets went back to the casting cost of the original pre-4th gen and rendered multiple generations of cards worthless).

Yeah, if anything, those Deck Building games like Ascension showed that you can make a card game that doesn't rely on buying pack after pack to chase rare cards or constantly need to keep buying expansions in order to keep relevant with the game.

I guess digital CCGs make it easier to convert cards so that you can theoretically trade in your crap for something you want, but there's still the same impulse.

Necrophage · Sep 22, 2016

firehawk12 said:
I mean, not for nothing, but isn't Magic itself a version of this? CCGs are basically there to trigger the same addictive impulses in order to get people to buy more packs of cards.

A factor that comes into play is that there is a market for individual cards. You are purchasing a physical product, therefore you can resell it. Many of my friends who have been playing Magic for 15+ years would buy boxes then sell cards that are overpriced and make their money back on the box.

With a virtual product you don't have that option.

Maledict · Sep 22, 2016

firehawk12 said:
I mean, not for nothing, but isn't Magic itself a version of this? CCGs are basically there to trigger the same addictive impulses in order to get people to buy more packs of cards.

Yes, but it's not exactly the same. CCGs are basically using the old model of trading cards, which has been around for a century now. A few things separate them:

1) level of rarety. The rarest card in a ccg doesn't come close to the rarety of the ultra rare items in these type of games

2) ability to trade cards - there are no secondary markets in these games, so the only way for me to get the overpowered unit is to spend and spend and spend and hope I get lucky.

3) power not linked to rarety - there have been plenty of insanely powerful magic cards that aren't rare. Compare that to skinnerware where the basic stuff is utterly worthless.

4) lack of the free intro. As highlighted in his article, skinnerwar games use a whole host of psychological tricks to make you play more, after giving you your first hit for free. Magic doesn't have anything like that (including the 'daily login' and social aspect where you feel guilty for not logging in to send friends gifts etc).

Ultimately, magic does tap into that same well of using the of endorphins you get from opening something up and getting a surprise - many things do. Skinnerware games go a lot, lot further than that though, and use many manipulative and abusive practices which no-one else touches.

Teeth · Sep 22, 2016

firehawk12 said:
I guess digital CCGs make it easier to convert cards so that you can theoretically trade in your crap for something you want, but there's still the same impulse.

If a CCG makes it easy to trade in your crap for something you want, it shouldn't have a randomized payout in the first place. You should just be able to buy directly what you want. If it's using some kind of currency trade in, it likely has diminishing value and is just another tool to obfuscate the purchase price and maintain an value economy.

It's the same shit in a different package.

Maledict said:
3) power not linked to rarety - there have been plenty of insanely powerful magic cards that aren't rare. Compare that to skinnerware where the basic stuff is utterly worthless.

Any powerful common card doesn't apply to the cost of entry or competition as every player will have and use it. The only way these things get stratified is by having powerful (situational or otherwise) cards be useful at all. Throwing garbage rares into the mix (like Animate Wall) just drives up the overall cost, as it increases the rarity of getting an actually useful rare.

Deleted member 231381 · Sep 22, 2016

Maledict said:
Yes, but it's not exactly the same. CCGs are basically using the old model of trading cards, which has been around for a century now. A few things separate them:

1) level of rarety. The rarest card in a ccg doesn't come close to the rarety of the ultra rare items in these type of games

I feel like intuitively like this isn't true. I mean, look at Black Lotus. There are what, 4,100? It goes for $30,000 on the secondary market.

3) power not linked to rarety - there have been plenty of insanely powerful magic cards that aren't rare. Compare that to skinnerware where the basic stuff is utterly worthless.

I also think this isn't quite true. There's no perfect correlation and some goods cards are very common, but I don't think it's unfair at all to say that on average, the best MtG cards are rarer than the most middling MtG cards.

TCGs definitely whale-mine, I just think it's a bit harder for them to hook people because they don't have the 10-second instant gratification gameplay reel. I've seen someone I'd definitely consider to have an MtG "problem", though, if we're considering expenditure vs. means.

firehawk12 · Sep 22, 2016

Lowrys said:
Absolutely it's the same. It's gambling. If loot boxes never had duplicates, then it would still be bad, but more tolerable.

As it stands, a lot of addictive loot-box systems can result in the player spending money in return for literally nothing. Just because it's digital goods doesn't mean it's not gambling.

Heh, I was thinking Hearthstone but I'm sure even in non-CCG games like Overwatch there have been people who dropped money on lootboxes and didn't get the skin they wanted.

Necrophage said:
A factor that comes into play is that there is a market for individual cards. You are purchasing a physical product, therefore you can resell it. Many of my friends who have been playing Magic for 15+ years would buy boxes then sell cards that are overpriced and make their money back on the box.

With a virtual product you don't have that option.

Theoretically there's an aftermarket for digital accounts as well. At least for Japanese games, I've seen people basically create accounts in order to get a super rare card so that they can put that account on eBay.

Maledict said:
Yes, but it's not exactly the same. CCGs are basically using the old model of trading cards, which has been around for a century now. A few things separate them:

1) level of rarety. The rarest card in a ccg doesn't come close to the rarety of the ultra rare items in these type of games

2) ability to trade cards - there are no secondary markets in these games, so the only way for me to get the overpowered unit is to spend and spend and spend and hope I get lucky.

3) power not linked to rarety - there have been plenty of insanely powerful magic cards that aren't rare. Compare that to skinnerware where the basic stuff is utterly worthless.

4) lack of the free intro. As highlighted in his article, skinnerwar games use a whole host of psychological tricks to make you play more, after giving you your first hit for free. Magic doesn't have anything like that (including the 'daily login' and social aspect where you feel guilty for not logging in to send friends gifts etc).

Ultimately, magic does tap into that same well of using the of endorphins you get from opening something up and getting a surprise - many things do. Skinnerware games go a lot, lot further than that though, and use many manipulative and abusive practices which no-one else touches.

I think as Teeth explained better than I ever could, the fact that CCGs constantly evolve by changing rules or introducing new cards that break the meta means that they are always an "on going" service, much like the event-based freemium games.

I do understand that there are specific ways to set up games so that you're not spending lots of money to compete like sealed deck tournaments, but I'm assuming you have to pay for those decks yourself and that you have to buy one every time you participate in a tournament... so in the end, they're still making money off you. Yeah, you're not "whaling" in those cases, but there's still that aspect of creating circumstances that encourage you to be a repeat customer in order to continue to play the game.

I'll agree it's not as bad as some of the behaviours I've seen being encouraged in mobile games, where you can spend an infinite amount of money and not get the card you want (I recently saw someone on reddit ragequit a game after spending a thousand bucks and not getting the card they wanted), but I think CCGs do come from the same family of these types of game. It's the more benign version.

Candescence · Sep 22, 2016

I do think the industry needs to eventually regulate itself when it comes to these sorts of games, otherwise governments will, and we know that could turn out poorly since said governments rarely have a proper understanding of games. That being said, 'skinnerware' makes a terrifying amount of money for makers of certain games, and the mobile craze means that not that many developers are going to willingly refuse to use a business model that can make them a lot of money.

Really, I'm not fond of gambling elements involving real money in any game, though physical card games mitigate this a bit since you are getting a physical product that can be sold to other people. This goes doubly for 'limited' stuff that becomes completely unavailable after a certain amount of time, fuck that shit.

Cosmo Clock 21 · Sep 22, 2016

Crab said:
I feel like intuitively like this isn't true. I mean, look at Black Lotus. There are what, 4,100? It goes for $30,000 on the secondary market.

I also think this isn't quite true. There's no perfect correlation and some goods cards are very common, but I don't think it's unfair at all to say that on average, the best MtG cards are rarer than the most middling MtG cards.

TCGs definitely whale-mine, I just think it's a bit harder for them to hook people because they don't have the 10-second instant gratification gameplay reel. I've seen someone I'd definitely consider to have an MtG "problem", though, if we're considering expenditure vs. means.

There are a fixed number of Black Lotuses in the world, and the secondary market value (why are you using secondary market value as an indicator of rarity when it's purely a function of supply and demand?) is indicative of that.

MTG decks have increasingly become top heavy in rarity composition in recent years but almost always players build decks by purchasing the necessary cards on the secondary market. It is simply cheaper to do so than cracking boxes of booster packs, and MTG being tradeable enables that. The people who have problems with MTG don't really fall into the same category as the ones targeted by skinnerware because of that.

Illucio · Sep 22, 2016

I'm still addicted to a "skinnerware" game. I have spent a amount of money that I'm not comfortable telling people about.

This is a definite problem, even in the livestream for the game I play the members of the community who go on it once in a while admit to their problems and the gamemakers always say "Just don't go overboard" or "Be careful".

America needs Gacha laws and regulation in the mobile gaming field. It's terrible that the only way to get a refund for a in-game purchase is by saying your 17 year old or younger kid made the purchase without your consent. But if you say accidentally made a purchase you won't get a refund period. You're told to contact the developer for a refund, but 95% of the time they refuse all refunds because they know your addicted and want to keep you there.

Once you spend a decent amount of money (let's say $60) you feel more hooked to said game because you're now invested and it makes it hard mentally to leave. And the more you spend after that the harder it is to justify to yourself to go. But newer and shinier content comes out and you want it and your always chasing for the best content you can get, which makes you spend more money, which makes you feel invested to stay longer, and the cycle continues.

Everyone looks at this issue and go "we must protect our kids" but we forget that these games are not targeting kids, but young adults.

We are long past the point where self regulation is viable in my opinion, game companies have long had that chance but failed and created a monstrosity of a model that we have now. The courts need to step in and I don't know any other way to stress this. It's easy to say "Just quit" but this addiction is beyond the typical World of Warcraft addict.

M.J. Doja · Sep 22, 2016

Illucio said:
It's easy to say "Just quit" but this addiction is beyond the typical World of Warcraft addict.

Definitely. WoW was actually fun. More like drug addiction.

This reinforces gambling addiction. Not fun, but just as bad as drugs.

TheRedSnifit · Sep 22, 2016

He makes some good points, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

This would be like Gabe Newell coming out against loot boxes.

RMI · Sep 22, 2016

Yeah Magic is a great game but the business model is anything but.

TheRedSnifit · Sep 22, 2016

Cosmo Clock 21 said:
There are a fixed number of Black Lotuses in the world, and the secondary market value (why are you using secondary market value as an indicator of rarity when it's purely a function of supply and demand?) is indicative of that.

MTG decks have increasingly become top heavy in rarity composition in recent years but almost always players build decks by purchasing the necessary cards on the secondary market. It is simply cheaper to do so than cracking boxes of booster packs, and MTG being tradeable enables that. The people who have problems with MTG don't really fall into the same category as the ones targeted by skinnerware because of that.

What's your opinion on CS:GO skins?

Water · Sep 22, 2016

Seraphis Cain said:
A very interesting take on this sort of game by someone who's been in the game (albeit not video game, largely) industry for years. Thoughts, GAF?

Good timing, I can use this as material in a mobile game design workshop I'm running in a week. Thanks for posting it!

Very level-headed, concise, easy-to-read breakdown of some of the problems and decisions we're facing now. Nothing I haven't thought about, but having it all written down in one place is very valuable, and the alcohol sales model comparison is great.

Despite his warning about selling competitive advantage in multiplayer games, I think he's still understating. Whatever ethics or quality issues "traditional" F2P games have, they are no threat to game culture the same way McDonalds is not a threat to gourmet food culture. They are so different they essentially sit in their own genres and thus can't replace other games. But now we have this stuff showing up in AAA games that have a pricetag and would traditionally have fair multiplayer. And a number of designers aren't even trying to quietly get away with it, but based on their statements, at least appear to think they aren't doing anything harmful. And they are largely going unchallenged by visible professional critics.

gatti-man · Sep 22, 2016

This is something I've been posting about here for a while but the majority of responses are well we get free maps so who gives a crap. I think gamers have this false notion that the "whales" out there are just rich people with tons of money not some teenager or young adult giving his rent money to buy stupid skins.

I personally know two people who are flat broke that spend stupid money on overwatch boxes. One of them even knows he has a problem but still does it.

stan423321 · Sep 22, 2016

Necrophage said:
A factor that comes into play is that there is a market for individual cards. You are purchasing a physical product, therefore you can resell it. Many of my friends who have been playing Magic for 15+ years would buy boxes then sell cards that are overpriced and make their money back on the box.

With a virtual product you don't have that option.

Basically this. One of the reasons Valve gets typically ignored in freemium pounding (and one of the reasons they got themselves a gambling affair) is that they GAVE people some resemblance of this option. This doesn't make their behaviour entirely unproblematic but it does help.

Pez · Sep 22, 2016

oni-link said:
Yeah that's such a great example

This is why I always roll my eyes at people who say this kind of thing in AAA games is fine because they're optional and they don't have an impact on game design

I'm still disgusted with Halo 5's addition of rec packs. A feature designed to bleed money from their fan base.

stan423321 · Sep 22, 2016

TheRedSnifit said:
He makes some good points, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

This would be like Gabe Newell coming out against loot boxes.

Actually there's a specific mention of Heartstone as something different since there's "effectively a cap" due to limited tool set, even though it's high. So he's not senile, that's a given.

espher · Sep 22, 2016

Yeah, there was a part of me that went "but, M:tG" reading this. Really, though, M:tG errs on the side of the monetization model he favours.

It's not open ended spending, necessarily. You can spend tons of money over the years (I played for about a decade before I got out), but once you build the deck you want, you're done. There's nothing in the way of match-to-match powerups, paying for raw advancement/advantages over other players, etc., that just compels you to keep spending over and over.
It's a trading card model game with physical product. You aren't playing roulette for goods only you can use, which may be trash. You can exchange these with or sell these to other players. I liquidated my collection, which did include a ton of junk, for enough money to more or less pay off my line of credit (which was basically the downpayment on my house at the time). Yeah, I had a lot of stuff that had depreciated, but I had a few cards that had appreciated significantly. Considering what I put into the game, I probably sold my collection at a loss of only the rate of inflation (which is admittedly not insignificant).
If you're putting money into M:tG, you're probably playing at a competitive level, which means you're looking at playing for cash pots/prize support. It's not necessarily just for gratification.
If you start playing the game, you know exactly what you're getting into, and if you start playing Standard (which is the Skinner boxiest format), you know exactly what you're getting into. Lots of other relatively inexpensive formats exist, and you can (or, through 2006 when I stopped playing at least, could) make decently competitive decks for relatively low prices - though that depends on how hyper-competitive your local meta is.

Still, I mean, it is kind of interesting to read this from Garfield knowing how his biggest success makes its money today. Stuff like Ascension is an interesting counterpoint for a fun game, but it's not a head-to-head game like M:tG that is intended to be highly competitive and played for $$$. The LCG format is clearly successful, though, and proves you can have a profitable game with a less 'random' deckbuilding format... but I'm really not sure how M:tG would do as an LCG.

Toadthemushroom · Sep 22, 2016

SkinnerWare! Yes! Why didn't I think of this term???

You see people and the media claim that video games are slowly becoming a mainstream form of entertainment, yet for the past three months I've been thinking "interactive skinner boxes have, actually".

Before, last gen, the masses were actually playing games that you could win or lose, that had mechanics which the player could get their head around, that didn't utilise Skinner's Techniques to try and appear more compelling and make players feel psychologically good. Games that weren't designed as a business science.

You know, stuff like Tetris DS, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Just Dance, and so on. Those were the games that were played by the masses before SkinnerWare took over. Or the purest iPhone games back when the entire market for iPhone games were "pay once and play".

Anyway, it disappoints me whenever I realise there is a new generation of people, and new generations of people playing games, growing up on SkinnerWare, and thinking that these incredibly opaque "games", which you can't actually win or lose at in a fair manner, are what makes up the entertainment medium.

And it's not just about mobile or free-to-play, Skinner mechanics are becoming a pervasive part of so many games, particularly when coupled with the games-as-a-service model. Look at how Overwatch utilises random rewards. Look at how a rhythm game like Hatsune Miku: Project Diva X, now adds Skinner Mechanics to engage the player to grind instead of relying on its own, already compelling, game mechanics.

It's ironic that the key appeal/features of SkinnerWare are that it's both unbeatable and has a lack of inherent worth. Sigh...

Illucio · Sep 22, 2016

Toadthemushroom said:
SkinnerWare! Yes! Why didn't I think of this term???

You see people and the media claim that video games are slowly becoming a mainstream form of entertainment, yet for the past three months I've been thinking "interactive skinner boxes have, actually".

Before, last gen, the masses were actually playing games that you could win or lose, that had mechanics which the player could get their head around, that didn't utilise Skinner's Techniques to try and appear more compelling and make players feel psychologically good. Games that weren't designed as a business science.

You know, stuff like Tetris DS, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Just Dance, and so on. Those were the games that were played by the masses before SkinnerWare took over. Or the purest iPhone games back when the entire market for iPhone games were "pay once and play".

Anyway, it disappoints me whenever I realise there is a new generation of people, and new generations of people playing games, growing up on SkinnerWare, and thinking that these incredibly opaque "games", which you can't actually win or lose at in a fair manner, are what makes up the entertainment medium.

And it's not just about mobile or free-to-play, Skinner mechanics are becoming a pervasive part of so many games, particularly when coupled with the games-as-a-service model. Look at how Overwatch utilises random rewards. Look at how a rhythm game like Hatsune Miku: Project Diva X, now adds Skinner Mechanics to engage the player to grind instead of relying on its own, already compelling, game mechanics.

There is a old app store game series called Zenonia that used to be a cheap $3-7 dollar game. With each game being that of a handheld Legend of Zelda game. Then after the 3rd or 4th game they implemented the skinnerware model, the game was free but you had to pay for lives and items. Then they went back to the original games and made them free but added the skinnerware mechanics to those games as well once they realized they made more money this way.

It's very sad, it was a very good game series that was ruined by greed.

Toxi · Sep 22, 2016

Crab said:
I feel like intuitively like this isn't true. I mean, look at Black Lotus. There are what, 4,100? It goes for $30,000 on the secondary market.

Black Lotus is a terrible example. The main reason the card is so expensive is because it's a collector's item. It's illegal in every format except Vintage (which nobody plays) where it's restricted to a 1-of, so there's almost no reason to want the card for in-game usage. Black Lotus's scarcity is due to only being printed in the first few Magic sets, which had an extremely limited print run because the game wasn't nearly as popular. It literally can't be reprinted today because Hasbro fears legal action from certain collectors.

Toadthemushroom · Sep 22, 2016

Illucio said:
There is a old app store game series called Zenonia that used to be a cheap $3-7 dollar game. With each game being that of a handheld Legend of Zelda game. Then after the 3rd or 4th game they implemented the skinnerware model, the game was free but you had to pay for lives and items. Then they went back to the original games and made them free but added the skinnerware mechanics to those games as well once they realized they made more money this way.

It's very sad, it was a very good game series that was ruined by greed.

Ah yes, I remember those. I miss the days when everyone was playing either a really good, polished short experience (like Beat Sneak Bandit) or the equivalent of a simple flash game (Angry Birds) on their commute, instead of prodding away at whatever Skinner Box is on the top of the charts (Pokémon Go is a big offender for this).

Bandai Namco did a similar thing to what you mention - they ported Tales of Phantasia to iOS. Great port from a technical perspective, it ran at 60fps, the pixel art was crisp. But they retooled the game mechanics around free-to-play. Though at least it wasn't really a Skinner Box as a result - I doubt anyone actually got addicted to iOS Tales of Phantasia, but it did turn into a game where the mechanics are stacked against the player in ways that forces them to pay up.

RMI · Sep 22, 2016

Toxi said:
Black Lotus is a terrible example. The main reason the card is so expensive is because it's a collector's item. It's illegal in every format except Vintage (which nobody plays) where it's restricted to a 1-of, so there's almost no reason to want the card for in-game usage. Black Lotus's scarcity is due to only being printed in the first few Magic sets, which had an extremely limited print run because the game wasn't nearly as popular. It literally can't be reprinted today because Hasbro fears legal action from certain collectors.

I didn't know about this aspect of cards that won't be reprinted. what about a functional reprint? Is there anything stopping Hasbro from making a "new" card that is a functional reprint of black lotus, besides the fact that it would be pointless (for the aforementioned restricted use of the card to a format that nobody cares about)?

Water · Sep 22, 2016

stan423321 said:
Actually there's a specific mention of Heartstone as something different since there's "effectively a cap" due to limited tool set, even though it's high. So he's not senile, that's a given.

Hearthstone strikes an interesting balance of fairness and value to player. Outright buying every single card would cost something in the neighborhood of 1.5k euros, I believe, but it's a mostly irrelevant number since there's no reason to do so. You can play the game completely free from day one at even footing with paying players, if you stick to the Arena game mode (and now also the Tavern Brawl mode roughly every other week). And then you can very quickly put together a single high level competitive deck - just not every competitive deck, you have to settle for the ones that happen to contain mostly common cards. So you have a flexible path to get into the game and choose to possibly start paying real money at your own pace - something that many F2P peddlers claim to offer, but don't actually deliver.

Toxi · Sep 22, 2016

RMI said:
I didn't know about this aspect of cards that won't be reprinted. what about a functional reprint? Is there anything stopping Hasbro from making a "new" card that is a functional reprint of black lotus, besides the fact that it would be pointless (for the aforementioned restricted use of the card to a format that nobody cares about)?

Black Lotus is on the Reserved List, a list of old cards Wizards of the Coast promised not to reprint so they wouldn't drop in value. The Reserved List prevents both reprints and functional reprints.

The Reserved List sucks, and basically everyone including Wizards of the Coast agrees it was a bad idea in hindsight, but nothing on the Reserved List is getting reprinted because of the fear of lawsuit from certain parties.

Black Lotus is one of the most pointless cards to worry about on the Reserved List anyway, because it's banned or restricted everywhere due to its absurd power level. In contrast, the presence of cards like the original dual-lands on the Reserved List is killing the once popular Legacy format, and there's nothing that can be done about it. It's not a result of intentional scarcity to make money though, it's a result of making a decision to appease angry collectors that had bad long-term consequences.

Cosmo Clock 21 · Sep 22, 2016

RMI said:
I didn't know about this aspect of cards that won't be reprinted. what about a functional reprint? Is there anything stopping Hasbro from making a "new" card that is a functional reprint of black lotus, besides the fact that it would be pointless (for the aforementioned restricted use of the card to a format that nobody cares about)?

The Reserved List also covers functional reprints. It really sucks cause there's cards on the list (Thunder Spirit is the popular example) that kind of need functional reprints in modern sets and have no business being on the list

PnCIa · Sep 22, 2016

Skinnerware...that encapsulates it pretty well.

DeviantBoi · Sep 22, 2016

Finally! Someone is suggesting putting a cap on player expenditure!

One possible solution for publishers who claim their games dont rely on exposing addictive personalities to open ended spending, or who wish to end it, is to put a cap on player expenditure after which a player gets everything. This could be a one-time cap or a monthly cap and it could be set wherever the publisher wants provided it is visible to the player.

Aesnath · Sep 22, 2016

I think he hits on a lot of important points, but he's missing one of the problems with operant conditioning: variable reinforcement. Paying for an incentive, reliably, is very different from paying for the possibility of an incentive. People (and animals) tend to respond more frequently and more vigorously to reinforcement schedules that are unpredictable. This feeds into problems with gambling.

While he hits on the idea that "slot machines" are exploitative, he gives CCGs a pass. I find the idea of pay caps a good one; but I suspect lack of randomization would better for more people.

MTG is a terrible offender with regard to randomization. Really, it revolutionized the idea by tying randomization to gameplay competitiveness. It is such an effective method that the company has been gradually adding additional levels of scarcity over the last few years.

Garfield is a strange person to be leading this charge.

LurkerPrime · Sep 22, 2016

Really good piece. The skeevy business models have only gotten worse over the years as they've become entrenched in public consciousness, being seen as increasingly normal, all while they hone their business models to a fine edge. The calls for spending caps make the most sense out of everything he said, because it would cut the problem off at its root, forcing developers to focus on something other than exploiting those that are the most vulnerable... but of course, they will never do that because it's their entire business model, whether they say so or not.

...Which is why I think it's ong past time for some regulations on in-game gambling, and by extention in-game microtransactions (which often take the form of gambling due to varying degrees of RNG). It will lead to a better game industry making better products.

Never forget.

Aesnath said:
I think he hits on a lot of important points, but he's missing one of the problems with operant conditioning: variable reinforcement. Paying for an incentive, reliably, is very different from paying for the possibility of an incentive. People (and animals) tend to respond more frequently and more vigorously to reinforcement schedules that are unpredictable. This feeds into problems with gambling.

While he hits on the idea that "slot machines" are exploitative, he gives CCGs a pass. I find the idea of pay caps a good one; but I suspect lack of randomization would better for more people.

MTG is a terrible offender with regard to randomization. Really, it revolutionized the idea by tying randomization to gameplay competitiveness. It is such an effective method that the company has been gradually adding additional levels of scarcity over the last few years.

Garfield is a strange person to be leading this charge.

Yeah, that's a good point. He gives a pass to anything with a limited library, which would include TCGs, Overwatch, and, I think, Valve's free-to-play games, but they absolutely shouldn't be overlooked--that kind of open-ended microtransaction is the exact issue here, as it's really just gambling. Like, the total amount someone can spend is theoretically lower, but the encouragement of whale-like tendancies still endures.

Alcotholic · Sep 22, 2016

I have a lot of respect for his game design philosophies, plus I'm a huge fan of his board games.
He did a tour around colleges discussing luck vs strategy in gaming.
I'll have to give this a read through when I get the chance.

Yoshi · Sep 22, 2016

Well, as the creator of Magic the Gathering he would know.

inky · Sep 22, 2016

It's a very good article, and mimics a lot of my thoughts on exploitative monetization schemes. Some companies are pushing it too far.

oni-link said:
It will lead to worse games. Ultimately games are designed for the people who are paying for them. Design decisions that make the game reach more addictive players, or exploit existing players a little more will be considered even if they make the game play a little worse.

Click to expand...

This is why I always roll my eyes at people who say this kind of thing in AAA games is fine because they're optional and they don't have an impact on game design

Absolutely.

M3d10n · Sep 22, 2016

This is why I'm working into moving from the mobile market into the PC/console market. If that fails, I'm going to search for a software development job.

JABEE · Sep 22, 2016

I will give this a read when I get home. It's also interesting because games still target children. Which makes the explotative nature of these designs even worse.

Ultimadrago · Sep 22, 2016

Granblue Fantasy, is that you?

oni-link · Sep 22, 2016

JABEE said:
I will give this a read when I get home. It's also interesting because games still target children. Which makes the explotative nature of these designs even worse.

I think it's a shame we will probably see a generation of children grow up with this type of game being the norm

If you grew up in the 80s or 90s you would more often than not end up playing at least a few games we look back on as being classic examples of game design

Hero · Sep 22, 2016

All you guys trying to discredit him because he created Magic are a bit off mark. While it is true he designed the original game back in the 90's, he had no idea it was going to be as big as it was and it would last this long. What the game has evolved into today is not the same thing he designed.

SciencePilot · Sep 22, 2016

Interesting read.

It makes me think about the internet itself, too. Free websites funded by ads. I imagine that the vast majority of people never click on ads, and many even don't see them. That means the internet is essentially funded by just a few people, just the kinds of people that click on ads.

Pure conjecture at this point, but I wonder if this partially explains the poor state of internet media and journalism -- the fact that it must target the kind of people that click ads, not the majority of internet users.

Purple Cheeto · Sep 22, 2016

I read this and realized it applied to every non premium mobile game I'm playing.

V_Arnold · Sep 22, 2016

Why do people feel the need to jump in, saying "magic is the same?"?

1) Does it diminish his argument against these games? Does it make ANY of his points less true? NOPE:

2) Does magic actually rely on whales? No. Is magic an intelligent, deep, ever-changing, well-oiled HOBBY, rather than a f2p match3 game, designed to eat up whales? Yes.

3) Were I able to cash out of my magic purchases with more(!) money than I inititially spent on the cards? Twice? Yes. Okay, it required luck, I give you that (3 Tezzerets, 2 mox opals), and I was not that deep in, but hey. Do you cash out and sell those energy powerups once you bought them from RandomCompany24's game: Love and Life and Puzzles, with Dragons and Cute Girls? Of course you cant.

Do Magic offers an option to win games if you spend money? OR can an experienced player with a cheap deck just outsmart you easily? Yeah.

Support NeoGAF

"A Game Player's Manifesto" by Richard Garfield (essay on freemium/"whales")

bad gameplay lol

Member

Member

Steve, the dog with no powers that we let hang out with us all for some reason

Member

Subete no aware

Member

Member

Subete no aware

Member

Member

Member

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member

Subete no aware

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads