Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The problem with this is that games designed to be monetized this way are going to build their progression, reward-systems, cosmetic systems, grind balance, etc. around it.

So the players who are "paying what they want (mostly zero)" aren't getting a normal but free Diablo game, they are getting version of that game balanced and prioritized around the whales that /will/ be spending the money. The actual customers.

I'd rather pay than "free-ride", because I don't want incessant popups telling me how how I can skip the grind (that is tuned to irritate me) by buying a gems with my credit card.

I'm not as valuable to Blizzard/Activision/NetEase with my one-time-purchase though, and they know it.




That's why I don't play these games. But other people have different preferences and that's okay by me. I don't see a need to judge the company(ies), the users, or the system. Not saying you are, but it seems to be the flavor of this article and much of the sentiment in these comments. Why?


I think there's a point where it feels like it's gone beyond simple price discrimination to leveraging hundreds of employees and millions of dollars to actively manipulate and exploit a player base that is often substantially comprised of children. I've watched developer presentations on how best to implement Skinner boxes and other gambling mechanics to help condition users and obscure exactly how much they are spending. That may be fair to judge a company poorly for.

For me personally, it represents the fact that the company is actively working against my best interests, and that feels bad. Additionally, completely selfishly, it makes me sad to see games that I would otherwise enjoy be distorted by this sort of monetization.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: