The Game Player's Manifesto

[Abe Sargent]

Richard Garfield, PhD in math, former professor, and designer fo Magic TG posted what he calls the Game Players' manifesto, about having ethical games that aren't exploitative. I thought you would enjoy it. Thoughts?


https://www.facebook.com/notes/richa...49168888532667

[JonInMiddleGA]

Largely overblown based on what I see here. Or at least overwrought?

I think no farther than a couple of guys I know (or that my kid knows) who spent well into four figures playing Clash of Clans over a few months. They're people who also spent 4-5 figures on their kid's 17th birthday party and own cars worth more than my house.

While I'm sure there are people who have maxxed out their cards & taken a 3rd mortgage to play Farmville, I strongly suspect that a) those addictive behaviors would have simply been played out in some other form if not for Farmville, quite possibly on something more destructive, and b) that the majority of overspenders are like the anecdote I mentioned, people for whom literally thousands (or even tens of thousands) are really basically expendible pocket change.

[Warhammer]

I agree with some of the posters, it is a bit ironic that the designer of MTG was the one who posted the Manifesto.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Largely overblown based on what I see here. Or at least overwrought?

I think no farther than a couple of guys I know (or that my kid knows) who spent well into four figures playing Clash of Clans over a few months. They're people who also spent 4-5 figures on their kid's 17th birthday party and own cars worth more than my house.

While I'm sure there are people who have maxxed out their cards & taken a 3rd mortgage to play Farmville, I strongly suspect that a) those addictive behaviors would have simply been played out in some other form if not for Farmville, quite possibly on something more destructive, and b) that the majority of overspenders are like the anecdote I mentioned, people for whom literally thousands (or even tens of thousands) are really basically expendible pocket change.

Yeah, I hear you. I think most game designers want a game with wide, broad appeal where everybody spends a little that scales up, rather than a few whales at the top spending a lot, because those games are, by definition, hard to sustain, and may have flaws in their game design.


PopCap Games discovered that Bejeweled Blitz, a f2p successful game they had made, was more of a whale game, and then did some investigation, and found that some of the whales, a minority, but not an insignificant one of older retirees that were giving way too much money. Uncomfortable with that, they actually interviewed those people and more, with the intention to remove the overly addictive elements for those people, while also broadening it for everyone.

So no, you are right, not a majority. Most of the big spenders that kept the game afloat were people with serious disposable income, sure. But there were others out there too, you know? Enough to cause PC Games to rethink its gaming model. Again, I think broad is better for that stuff. I have never paid to play games like PvZ 2 or such, and really, the only exception to that is Pokemon: Go, and each month I put in another $10, for egg incubators and mroe space upggrades and such, because I play it so much.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I agree with some of the posters, it is a bit ironic that the designer of MTG was the one who posted the Manifesto.

I hear ya!

But where I think Richard would want to draw the line, ethically, is that a game that provides real benefits for buy in, with real upgrades, of fungible assets, is going to be different than a f2p game that forces you to pay to continue to experience the same equilibrium point you already have.

Take a board game as a good example. Let's say a new board game came out, and it's called Happiness Manifested. I buy it and enjoy it. A few months later, an expansion for HN arrives at the store, Blissful Redolence. I can buy it for $25.

Why would I buy Blissful Redolence? What value does it bring? Wel, if I am enjoying the base game, the expansion would give me new stuff. Or perhaps I played the base when it first came out and loved it, but after playing ti awhile, I figured it out, so the idea of a new set of things to do with it and to respark my interest would be wonderful. And, if I spend the $25 on Blissful Redolence, and later I decide to move on to other games, I can resell it to return some of my money, so that's a nice boon too.

But if instead I have to keep spending $5 a week on HN to keep playing it at the level I already reached, then that is different. Magic the Gathering has real, collectible, fungible resources you acquire when you buy packs, and you can resell them later. There are even people who are professional magic financiers, who sell cards low and move them when they spike into tournaments and such. People who buyout collections of cards on the cheap and then flip them on eBay or something piecemeal. There's a level of real investment with Magic that the latest f2p software doesn't have. I bought four sealed booster boxes of a product called Modern Masters back in 2013 for $200 a box. I am about to sell them for $1800 total to some local players, and I flipped $800 into $1800. And the reason why? To draft them, first. The draft experience from that set is considered the best ever printed. And secondly? Th singles in that set are worth, so much money. There are like five or six commons that are worth 2 or 3 or 5 dollars each, and rares worth 70 or 80 because of how much people want them. And we knew going in just how big this set was about to be, it was marketed that way, and so forth. So the assets are real, and you can make good money with your investments. And you can always sell out. Who doesn;t know someone who sold their collection?

Anyways, obviously, it's up to you to decide if Richard's distinction makes sense, and is one that really exists or not.

[Marc Vaughan]

As a game designer I think its a very real problem and this sort of moral dilemma is one I think about a lot, along with 'how addictive' do you want to make your games?

I've always designed my handheld games to have a logical limit in terms of what you spend on in-app purchases and (1) ensure that those items don't inhibit gameplay at all (ie. they're not required), (2) to allow people access the vast majority of those items without purchase (ie. that they're unlockable).

Its entirely possible that one day I'll do a 'true' freemium product (I've a few 'designed' which haven't been implemented yet) - however when/if I do I'll be creating it in a manner which will put an upper limit on the spending within it ...yes, this might prevent it from maximizing its revenue in the short-term, but whenever I create a franchise my hope is that it'll still be present and enjoyed by people in a decades time.