- they want repeat players (users)
- they repeat a formula that sells
- when it doesn’t, they look to “adjust” it with something new and preferably cheap
- they give free samples to spread word of mouth
- they try to lock people into their environment
- they always want people to chase the next high
- looking for ways to keep you hooked on something for as long as possible
- they try to use their formula in all their products
Reminds me of GTA online
That is probably one of the more famous examples, yeah. They pivoted resources from the single player experience once they saw how much money they were making with their shark cards (I believe it was called). Developed an ecosystem that encouraged spending money to enjoy the game (but not forced) and I guess it was an equivalent experience of getting players to “micro-dose” with a payment to bypass elements of grind to get the best stuff and have an overall smoother experience.
Agreed. I would add that when they noticed that GTA online got stale, they would add a dlc or some new vehicles and weapons. Some updates were good, but I bowed out the year they introduced the casino and the MX mrk 2. The mrk 2 was game breaking and so over powered that they had to nerf it later. The casino felt like they had stooped to the parts of society they had always made fun of. Its sad to think that the amazing single player studio has become just a cash in now.
I also hate that they have a terrible launcher that they make you use for all of their games.
That sounds depressing, it is like they commoditised cheat codes. Sad to see it fall into the trappings that the game makes fun of. I can almost imagine what the GTA 6 version might become if they decide to intergrate that level of “hooks” into its shiny game environment.
I think that was the 2K launcher, if I recall, I remember they were doing something with their games (was playing XCOM 2 at the time) and promptly made use of a workaround
Didn’t like the extra steps just to get into a game - like they were reminding you that you only pay for the license to play the game and the property is theirs to do with as they please. I mean, it is, but still doesn’t help feeling like I am being constantly reminded.
The better comparison is online service games and casinos. They both pull all the psychological tricks in the book to suck you dry.
Yeah, they are more apt comparisons where the target market is built upon consistent small (or large) payments that are in a business’ best interests - like in-game currencies (chips in gambling sense) are used to obfuscate the value of what a player is spending money on (which falls into one of the many psychological tricks you mentioned)
Your list could be applied to any business.
deleted by creator
How is that different from, say, movie studios? All of your points fit for them too. In fact most of your points are just how companies work under capitalism:
- Acquire repeat customers
- Repeat successful strategy
- Adjust strategy to make it more successful
- Inspire free advertising with good will campaign
- Try to get people to your business and not your competition’s
- Continue to provide new products and services to grow your business
- Find ways to keep people coming back for as long as possible
- Apply successful strategy to your entire operation
I will be say I wasn’t thinking too hard into it but, (and not direct response more how a lot of the bad elements feel like they are being pushed)
- Was thinking how the idea of games-as-a-service and subscriptions are considered a priority
- how samey a lot of AAA games seems to feel (like it is consoldated on a “formula”)
- a desire to manipulate towards the idea to spend more on the original product
- supply enough of a product to get a player invested and once hooked - try to maintain that investment over a period of time
- the product is seldom as good as advertised
- the quality of the product, in general, feels like it is being degraded in an effort to more easily manipulate
- games are seen as something as means to an end - and in that vein, it is targeted to be able to draw in people according to metrics and less a expression of creativity
By and large - yes, the idea can be applied to capitalism and I think the idea I was thinking of is that AAA games lean into the more exploitative area of it.
Doesn’t mean it is the only one or even the worst, but I was thinking in the headspace at how the “big games companies” are trying to lean into being more manipulative (directly or subversively) and how it feels more like “drug dealers” trying to sell their brand of high, trying to dictate how to enjoy those highs, they try to lock players into a “brand” of gaming and once they can “control” what people will enjoy, attempt to exploit value from it.
It’s OK. This is a shower thought. It doesn’t need to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.
Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.
It is like they are trying to find that “magic addictive formula” and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.
Have you heard of “engagement optimised match making”? Have a look on YouTube.
Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the “magic addictive formula”
They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to “addictive habits” and attempts to “encourage” a habit that leans towards an addiction.
Again most of your points also fit movie studios and their streaming platforms
More like mobile game companies are like drug cartels
