Title: Coercive Pay-2-Play techniques

Coercive monetization models are used by many of the large corporations that dom
inate the "Pay to play" (P2P) charts in retail, console and mobile.
They employ carefully engineered psychological traps intended to defraud ignoran
t players of their money. This shocking expose shines a light on their dark, inh
umane practices. Be forewarned: Despite extensive examinations of opinions simi
lar to my own, I am intentionally unaware of any company that manages to use the
se systems of coercion in a positive manner.
1. Purchasing sight unseen
The primary method is to get a player to purchase something without ever playing
it. If you can get players excited about a new game, most will buy it with li
ttle more to go on than a box shot and a video. Many secondary techniques tie i
nto this basic strategy of deceit.
Companies intentionally avoid releasing demos or providing free trials in order
to increase the number of purchases independent of whether or not a player might
enjoy the actual game.
2. Use of propaganda to artificially increase excitement
P2P publishers feed players videos, paid end caps, advertisements and canned pre
views. Often the marketing spend for a title is greater than the development bu
dget. It is cynically assumed that if you shout targeted propaganda at an audie
nce, they will buy in increased numbers.
3. Limiting information to prevent alternate opinions
Since no one can play the game, the publishers are able to keep any information
about the game tightly focused on the most effective message that drives purchas
es. Heavy use of the captive fan press ensures that press releases are repeate
d verbatim.
4. Distorted game design
Since all that matters in order to make the sale is the initial propaganda, the
actual game design is sacrificed. You make money by having a catchy theme, pret
ty graphics and the ability to turn out short sequential games rapidly. As a re
sult, P2P encourages developers to short, consumable interactive sequences with
shallow, low risk, well-worn mechanics. I hesitate to call them "games". Most a
re little more than a collection of puzzles or QTE that can be clicked through i
n 5 to 10 hours.
Also because all that matters is if someone buys the box, game designers need no
t worry much about retention or engagement. Most P2P games are built with littl
e care given to the final few levels. It is common that 50-70% of players never
complete a P2P game.
5. Targeting those least able to understand modern sales techniques
Though it might be a stereotype, most P2P titles target poorly socialized teenag
e males. Unlike women, an educated demographic that makes the majority of purch
asing decisions in Western markets, these younger males are likely to naively bu
y into the pre-sales propaganda without critically questioning its actual purpos
e. Now if these were shopping savvy 40-50 year old women, you might be willing
to say "Let the buyer beware", but can we really expect an audience that has dif
ficulty buying fresh boxers on a regular basis to purchase games responsibly?
6. Bundling and time-limited sales
One of the more effective methods of psychological manipulation is to bundle mul
tiple products together and offer them at an apparent discount. Players perceiv
e they are getting a massive value when in fact they are just accumulating more
games that they are unlikely to play or even enjoy.
This also preys upon those damaged individuals that possess strong hoarding incl
inations. How many times have you seen players with vast collections of hundred
s of uncompleted games? This is an obvious sign of mental illness which P2P dev
elopers are all too willing to exploit.
7. Skinner Boxes
Players end up treating game purchases like a slot machine. They may buy dozens
of games in a year, but only one or two will be worth their time. This creates
a random reinforcement schedule that sets up a form of psychological addiction.
Players find themselves stalking the latest game sale in the hopes of getting
a new hit of gaming goodness. Of course the system is rigged so that it is near
ly impossible to know upfront whether the game in question is worth their money.
So they press the 'buy game button' and spin the wheel.
In the process a few 'whales' spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a mont
h on games. Some even purchase meaningless, ostentatious 'arcade cabinets' or i
nordinately expensive peripherals that retail dealers call 'consoles'. Most of t
hese claim their purchases are part of a healthy hobby and have no regrets. How
ever, I've gone out of my way to find adults with poor spending habits that have
stripped their meager bank accounts to 'collect 'em all'. Some young men holdi
ng down minimum wage part time jobs were forced to eat ramen in order to continu
e their spending spree. This deceptive form of capitalist gambling, aka 'shoppin
g', ruins ruined lives.
Other means of manipulation
This small sampling of techniques points to the deep corruption inherent in both
making and selling P2P games. There are numerous other other manipulative prac
tices:
Use of fake tribalism: "Genesis does what Nintendon't"
Collector's editions: Use of socially questionable materialism to artificially i
ncrease ARPU.
DRM: The pay before you play model leads directly to DRM as a means of artifici
ally blocking non-paying users from trying the game and seeing if they might lik
e it. Piracy becomes meaningless if you provide a long term service or hobby, b
ut that is not the optimal strategy for money-grabbing P2P firms.
$60 price tags: If you are selling a fantasy product, you might as well take an
y willing mark for as much as possible.
False console cycles: With a mere billion dollars on fresh propaganda, P2P comp
anies know that they can artificially stimulate a mass of people to invest in a
new console and then repurchase their old games all over again.
DLC: Since P2P is essentially about churning out cheap, consumable content, the
se "games" only get upgraded if the expansions take the form of cheesy modular D
LC. Mechanical upgrades that improve the core gameplay or social systems are ra
re since there is little financial incentive.
Overemphasis of reviews instead of actual player behavior: Good reviews are jus
t another form of message control and propaganda. This is why dev bonuses are ti
ed to Metacritic scores instead of statistically valid player metrics.
There is a substantial human cost to these shenanigans. Through I have zero han
ds-on experience making P2P games (and honestly have no interest in them), sever
al inexperienced indie friends attempted to make a P2P game. After one attempt,
they failed to buy a Tesla in a crowded and competitive market. Since I persona
lly enjoyed the prototype they showed me at a game jam, I think it is clear that
all the blame for their game's failure (and subsequent public emotional turmoil
) can be laid at the feet of the P2P business model. This is not the silver bul
let you are looking for.
In closing
In the end, P2P hurts gamers and the game industry as a whole. I urge you as an
ethical designer to reject this immoral practice. The egregious abuse of playe
rs by popular pay-2-play practitioners makes any use of P2P invalid. I question
if it is even possible to make a moral P2P title. (Indies should especially dist
ance themselves from this culture that is little better than legalized gambling.
)
What we really need is to make great games where players can try the games for f
ree and then make an informed decision on whether or not the game is worth their
money. In an ideal world, games should be meaningful long term hobbies that en
rich a player's life, not some cynical scam job reliant on engineered propaganda
spam, sexed up artwork, forced sequels and a captive press.
Imagine games where players only pay their hard earned cash if they find the gam
eplay meaningful. They can try any and all of a game for free as long as they w
ant. If they don't feel the game is adding to their life, then they can leave a
t any time.
Sadly, such an honorable course seems unlikely. No doubt that we'd see overblow
n rhetoric and misappropriated science denouncing such an idealistic experiment
by those deeply involved in coercive, yet highly profitable, P2P businesses.
Yours truly,
Monsieur Troll
Original Article: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielCookGameDesign/posts/Cyi2Am
8gqGq