I think one of the key points is convincing player about this wait, for example (though I almost never played) Clash of Clans convinces you by making this wait to build something while Candy Crush asks you to wait because you're out of lives which has no logical basis explaining why I have limited lives in a single player game , imo.
Good point Unduli, when game mechanic matches the theme of a game it's easier to understand and remember. It's probably the reason more than one Wait or pay mechanic exists.
Still if we look at Candy crush even if the mechanic isn't explained or works with the theme, it still has the ability to work.
So it doesn't have to work with the theme, but it's better if it does?
I think it _could_ work, but it will almost always be mostly benefitting the developer, and not the game unfortunately.
I agree with this, it was made out of greed so it will always hold the potential of greed. Then there have been things made in the past for crooked reasons and used for the better.
Still it offers a chance to provide players with good content for cheap.
Think about it, we as developers charge a price for our games that we hope the players think it's worth. But in a MMO if you make a asset worth $150 and sell it for $2 hoping that players will buy more than 75 so you can make a profit to keep the game running.
Now with Wait or Pay mechanic players pay depending on how long thy have played or what thy feel it's worth to pay for.
So say 10 cents here and a dollar there, now 3 - 5 % of the players allow the game to stay alive. If the system is refined you could end up with most players paying 5 cents to keep the game running, much better than a 60 dollar subscription.
I believe this is what Peter Molyneux thought too, but it is really hard to sell that idea... Probably would have been easier if he didn't do a kickstarter project out of it though...
Lucky that it wasn't me. The plan still needs a bit more thinking, but there must be some way to do it.
But why do you hate the letter e?
(your usage of "thy" is very confusing. Obviously you mean "they" but "thy" is also an english word (though archaic) with a different meaning from "they", so I kind of stumble in my mind each time I come across it in your texts, since I have to re-map its meaning...)
Thanks for pointing it out, I am not English so I make mistakes like this. Most people don't tell me, how will I ever learn.
I've a hard time of believing, that wait or pay is a game feature. These kind of games have cleary other design goals. Usally a game is designed to be entertaining, like a book or movie, whereas these games are designed to earn money. This sounds equal at first, but all the game mechanism are tailored around making money and not about being entertaining. They are more like one-armed-bandits, designed to trigger certain brain areas with the sole purpose to make it an addiction.
Other then making money, it is pointless to add the neccessarity to wait to this extend. If a player wants to stop playing, just save the game and continue later on. So, if you want to create a one-armed bandit, it is advisable to learn more about psychology than about game design.
True these games are mostly about robing players money, but isn't our fault as developers?
We blame the greedy developers for these games and yet those of us who could make better games from this mechanic shun it, fearing that people will think we are greedy.
I believe that the developers that can use Wait or pay for the better are the ones on sites like this.
Regarding way or pay mechanic, I think there are many games that implement it badly (be it intentionally or not) as the common model I see is game is fast at first with "sessions" lasting over 30m - 1h, but as soon as you achieve higher "tiers" you can fill your orders within 5-10 minutes and have to wait for few hours or days as there is nothing you can really do without paying. I believe Clash of Clans falls to this category as well.
On the "good" side I find "Hay Day" - there are activities that take relatively short time that are also valid regardless of how much you unlocked or how large your farm is. The paid options are there if you want to occasionally boost some order or buy missing materials for upgrades.
TL;DR - I don't mind paying for game I enjoy just as I don't mind paying for beer in pub. However I mind tricking me into "free" game that forces me to pay after I already spent much time.
I think I understand what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong.
So the game needs the long term Wait or pay game, then some thing worth doing when you log in. Clash of clan has it's battles but thy are used to harvest resources, fighting when upgrading or if the stockpiles are full is pointless. So when you log in and set builders to work there is nothing to do, if you are bored you pay to speed things up.
This is probably done so that you pay.
Yes so if you want players to enjoy there playing session you need to provide them with something to do, and for the developer this means more opportunities to get the point of the game across to the player.
I more or less agree with the assessment James makes on Doing Free to Play Wrong, but the caveat is: What he proposes to create is extremely difficult! It's more an art than a science and he sort of off the cuff makes it appear like a thing you "just do."
I love Extra Credits, there style and purpose.
It has to be difficult because nothing worth doing is ever easy, just take making games as a example. However it's time to start, because we are going to fail but if we keep failing we will keep learning.
When you become heavily invested in one of these games, you are a victim of operant conditioning.
These games are very cleverly designed to condition you in such a way that you feel you need to keep coming back. It's it bad per se, just regularly abused.
Edit: partially ninjad by DanglinBob
Conditioning is a important part of games, the primary way games teach skills needed in life or in the game itself, is by conditioning. Skill trees, leveling up and achievements are all based on how our brain understands rewards and the skills needed to get those rewards.
For every good thing there is a bad side and people who exploit it, what I plan on doing is finding a way that both the developer and players can be happy with.
Who knows maybe one day Wait or pay will be just as popular as xp bars and leveling up, but at this moment it has a bad reputation and I am looking for ways to fix it.
It's the "or pay" part that riles me up. It provides the game developer with actual incentive to make the waiting unpleasant for the player.
I was thinking about this. No matter how much we believe that we can say no to money, there is some amount that will break us.
There is a possible solution, the players.
The mobile Dungeon Keeper lost a lot of reputation for misusing Wait or pay. Only because it pushed players to far, offering ridiculous waiting time for things that players didn't think it was worth.
If there was some kind of standard maximum waiting time and maximum price for time, players would in force these lines.
It's the reason AAA games have similar rates, because dramatically increasing the price for profit angers the buyers. Now with so many companies using DLC to earn extra, players are rising against it. There will always be ways around it, at least it will stop the worst of these exploits.
My research showed that nine hours is the best max time for game balance or six but nine worked better, one day is the most players will do with less than ten percent willing to pay in test conditions.
The problem so far is estimating the worth of the players time.
How much would you pay if it meant you didn't have to wait a hour or day, if you had to pay?
What is the most you would ever pay for a game?
)
