While I think it should be acknowledged that not all free-to-play games are exploitative, recognising the reduced autonomy that can be inherent to addiction is certainly praiseworthy. Despite very few of our players having complained, it felt wrong when we started doing it and it still feels wrong now. People can make their own decisions, right? But it just doesn't sit well with me. Everyone in the industry seems to rationalize it by shifting the blame, assuming way too much cognizance on the part of their victims. And that's what a large part of free-to-play gaming is all about. We really don't like making money off players who are in denial of their addiction. While Playsaurus say that they're happy to offer refunds, they're aware that those most in need of one might not be prepared to ask. While they note that this is obviously ok if those people happen to be rich, they suspect that probably wasn't true in most cases. Despite designing the first game so that you never had to spend rubies, a currency that could mostly only be attained with real money, the devs still found that some people spent thousands of dollars on the game. The a blog post by developers Playsaurus argues that "Games are inherently addictive," and details the ethical and game design reasons behind the shift. Clicker Heroes 2, the sequel to the idle game that Graham describes as "Diablo’s metagame with the participative act of exploration and combat removed", will have an upfront cost of $29.99 rather than in-game purchases. Can you hear the people click? Clicking the song of angry men? The Clicker Heroes devs couldn't, but they're nonetheless changing their business model so that the studio can have a "cleaner conscience".
0 kommentar(er)
