Insert Credit

This has been going on for more than a decade. I recommend to read at least the opening chapter: https://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-stor… Yep, I've pasted that link in the past. It's now a proper classic.

I cannot speak with much authority on either game because I have played neither of them. At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to. Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do. This is quite a good read. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story…

This reminds me of an insider's-view feature written by Tim Rogers back in 2011 titled Who killed videogames? (a ghost story) [1]. Some find his writing style objectionable but it's worth a read even if you do. Page 4 of the article in particular, which somewhat confusing leads you to "chapter three: engagement wheels and compulsion traps", can serve as a pretty good introduction to F2P mechanics and their dark patterns. The following quote more or less summarizes the piece: >[...] “The players will come for the cute characters, and stay for the cruel mathematics.” There is also an accompanying review of The Sims Social [2]. [1] http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story… [2] http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076.

The following article by Patrick Miller "The educated gentlepersons fighting game primer" presents quite well the challenges and mechanics of a fighting game, if you wish to understand a bit more why designing a character is so expensive: http://www.scribd.com/doc/127524225/The-Educated-Gentleperson-s-Fighti… I uploaded it to scribd without the writer's permission, because insert credit hasn't solved their recurrent problem with malware on wordpress. The original article is at: http://insertcredit.com/2013/01/14/the-educated-gentlepersons-fighting…

I've found actionbutton to be a step below the old reviews, perhaps for similar reasons that Tim now finds his honeymoon in Japan souring. The reviews there tend to be a lot more about being entertaining than enlightening, and their stated goal of having the average score being 1/4 stars has been thrown to the wayside. I also don't really play games anymore. There are a few potentially "important" things that I hope escapes IC and its graduates and becomes more mainstream. Reviews that explain the context of their creation, and reviews that examine the philosophy of the game design. Unfortunately these are hard, require work, and don't look any better on the glossy page. Some examples: Rogers wrote a fantastic review[1] of Romancing Saga: Minstrel Song that starts off by chronicling the entire career of its designer (Kawazu) and reviewing some of his earlier games with depth and insight. There are clear patterns evident in his early games, which are then used to give context to and explain the current game under review. The second is probably my favorite video game review, which is of Windwaker by Eric-Jon Rossel Waugh[2]. EJRW is a better and more insightful (but less colorful) writer than Rogers, but perhaps not as colorful. He made an old forum post I distinctly remember lamenting the laziness of linear game design, which is something of a cliche. When challenged for an alternative, he backed it up with a very interesting review of the use of "danger" rather…

Actually, the effect is much more exaggerated than you are suggesting. According to Tim Rogers, the mythical average player pays $1.70, but it's really made of 95% of people who spend $0, and a power-law-esque distribution of people who spend >$0 to hundreds or thousands of dollars.[1] Most of the money is made off of "whales." Technically he's talking about social games and not mobile games, but it would be surprising if the economics were significantly different given that the mechanic (pay to make things go faster) is identical. 1: http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story…

I never noticed those before. As far as trying to help, I would think it's a bit beyond the capacity of a well-intentioned stranger. From my untrained perspective, I'd worry about doing more harm than good. It reminds me of the story of Craig George (http://insertcredit.com/2011/07/25/the-madness-of-craig-george): sad and unnerving.

Not surprising. Also, if you haven't read the article/story/blog "Who killed videogames: a ghost story", then you should check it out: http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story… It talks a lot about the behavior mindsets of social video games.

The aesthetic and ethical concerns with Farmville-style games are well documented. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story… And HN discussion of above: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3114239 Although yes, working for cIQ is worse, and working for BAE is much worse still.

Found it! http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story…