Thought he no longer worked for EA, home of the 'DLC'? VideoGamer:
Quote:
An iron chisel will cost 59p, offering ten times the power of regular tapping, whilst a one off diamond chisel, providing 100,000 times the power, will be sold for £50,000.
"It's an insane amount of money," says Molyneux. "This is not a money-making exercise; it is a test about the psychology of monetisation."
Not a money making exercise, really with an item for $50k?!
I think Molyneux became disconnected with what makes games fun long ago. In my opinion, he hasn't done anything great since Dungeon Keeper. The funniest thong that so many companies seem to forget is that you can respect your fans (as exemplified by Valve and quite a few Indie developers) and still make money. I think microstransactions are the wave ofthe future. But this... this is just fucking stupid.
Agreed he's not produced anything worthwhile in many years imo..
His presentations are the only thing but thats many for the alan Partridge
level of funny chringeworthyness ;P
Interesting he says its not about making money.. guess he will be donating
the money to charity then ?
The lowest level of microtransation already exists - its cvirtual clothing for virtual avatars so
the the results of this experiment are already know ..
.... people are really F£$%^&* stupid.
I think it would actually be cool to hand the ability to control a DLC pricing structure over to a psychology department at a university and see what experiments they can come up with. Just how much *are* people willing to pay for that simple stuff, especially when it affects gameplay?
My thoughts on this: There will be some sort of public campaign from a big industry/blog name to raise the money to buy one of these, just to say they did. Anyone with that sort of money that's so disposable doesn't play games.
I think it would actually be cool to hand the ability to control a DLC pricing structure over to a psychology department at a university and see what experiments they can come up with. Just how much *are* people willing to pay for that simple stuff, especially when it affects gameplay?
My thoughts on this: There will be some sort of public campaign from a big industry/blog name to raise the money to buy one of these, just to say they did. Anyone with that sort of money that's so disposable doesn't play games.
Agreed. I love games. LOVE games. However, if I had enough money to be able to blow 50k on something this ridiculous, I wouldn't be playing games. I would be traveling the world in style, buying yachts, and possibly doing drugs.
It took a minute, but I figured out what was wrong with his line of thinking.
Gameplay.
No one pays $50k for a single in-game item unless the game is so amazing that they want the advantage that item gives them. Unless his game is amazing, people won't even pay the $.50 for an in-game item.
When was the last time Moyneux made a game good enough that you would pay for extra items???
He is just another corporate idiot that thinks gamers are nothing more than a gamepad with a wallet attached.
__________________ Everything is true. God's an Astronaut. Oz is Over the Rainbow, and Midian is where the monsters live.
The problem with these social games is that the main customer they target is called by insiders a "white whale". and Its _not_ the customer that chooses to laugh away $50 on some pink cows.
While the average spend of all players combined in social games is $1.90 there is actually NO customer that pays exactly $1.90. The players that are really targeted by these games are spenders between $500 and $10,000. THESE are the white whales.
And when you really think about the kind of person that is willing to part with $500 to have a better virtual Farm, you come to realize that its a person who doesn't understand money and is compelled by the loop mechanics to continue. I don't mean doesnt understand money in a broad sense at all. I mean it in a very literal sense.
And when you think about the categories of people whom literally do not understand currency - children (which don't have access to large sums of money) and special needs adults (some with trust funds) you realize these games are exploiting people whom need that money for support services and care.
So this "experiment" to charge someone $50k for an item is really just immoral: Its not a challenge to find the person willing to part from $50k to open the box. Its the challenge to find someone without adequate oversight by a Trust Manager and take his nest egg from him.
The problem with these social games is that the main customer they target is called by insiders a "white whale". and Its _not_ the customer that chooses to laugh away $50 on some pink cows.
While the average spend of all players combined in social games is $1.90 there is actually NO customer that pays exactly $1.90. The players that are really targeted by these games are spenders between $500 and $10,000. THESE are the white whales.
And when you really think about the kind of person that is willing to part with $500 to have a better virtual Farm, you come to realize that its a person who doesn't understand money and is compelled by the loop mechanics to continue. I don't mean doesnt understand money in a broad sense at all. I mean it in a very literal sense.
And when you think about the categories of people whom literally do not understand currency - children (which don't have access to large sums of money) and special needs adults (some with trust funds) you realize these games are exploiting people whom need that money for support services and care.
So this "experiment" to charge someone $50k for an item is really just immoral: Its not a challenge to find the person willing to part from $50k to open the box. Its the challenge to find someone without adequate oversight by a Trust Manager and take his nest egg from him.
White Whales are no secret, that's why kickstarter is so popular. It gives the "whales" a way to show off by seeing themselves as the top contributors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzsfrk
Dude, you would have been, like, the coolest older brother ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbishfoo
EA executives should drive Star Destroyers. Its somehow fitting.
