Pay Less If You're a Nice Person: Valve's Freemium Model For DOTA 2
Canazza writes "In a podcast interview with Seven Day Cooldown, summarized by Develop, Valve Boss Gabe Newell discusses the payment model for upcoming strategy game DOTA 2. 'The issue that we're struggling with quite a bit is something I've kind of talked about before, which is: how do you properly value people's contributions to a community? ... An example is – and this is something as an industry we should be doing better – is charging customers based on how much fun they are to play with. ... “So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get DOTA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2. Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice.'"
DOTA jerks are the reason I quit HON. I just wonder what the metics involved in figuring if someone is a jerk or not.
God spoke to me
Basically, Valve is going to tell a paying customer that he is a jerk (indirectly by offering him a higher price than others). Great business model.
Next release, they can tell a paying customer if he is a moron or not - i.e. if a customer paid for a valve game even after being indirectly being told by Valve that he is a jerk, that means he is a moron.
More importantly, why wouldn't the jerks just start new accounts and buy the game at the entry level pricing instead of the jerk pricing?
My work here is dung.
...If the League of Legends community is any indication.
Seriously, those guys suck.
Good luck selling that in Europe. I don't think it will pass the fair trading :)
"Dude I paid $100 bucks to be a jerk. Did you? No then STFU asshole."
The real jerks will make sure they game whatever reporting tool there is in order to make other people look like jerks.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
I can't even fathom what Chozo will need to pay if this payment model is implemented.
Search Youtube for "Chozo Team Fortress 2" if you're lost.
Whoever posted this summary without spelling out exactly what DOTA is.
Second asshole to be fired from the cannon would be the article writer who did the same fucking thing.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Valve thinks it is OK to be a jerk if you are rich enough to afford $100?
And they think that it is a good idea to game the multiplayer experience of everyone to make as little as $100?
This problem has already been solved. charge everyone the same and ban the jerks.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How much does it cost me if they have no data because I don't play much PVP FPSes?
Here's a cookie... *psst* it's MAGIC
“So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get DOTA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2. Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice.'"
Like stopping cheaters in nearly every multiplayer game there. Or maybe giving players a monthly cash deposit to their bank for each and every cheater they run across. Then they can concentrate on their shitty customer service and perhaps smooth it out and make it more professional.
They live in a pretty big glass house and those stones might become dangerous.
"Who". A real jerk who annoys everyone.
-- a real jerk who annoys everyone
Mind Control!
Seriously, who decides what is "acceptable" behavior? Valve? Players acting as moderators? GROUPS of players acting as moderators? PAID GROUPS? (see where I'm going with this?)
The moment you start applying anything other then peer pressure is the moment where distrust SHOULD come into play. Some people should never be allowed such control over others, in-game or out. Sure, some people are dicks, but handing out baseball bats (excuse me, Ban-Hammers) to the disgruntled is not the solution.
"The Disgruntled Ones is now recruiting for Scalper positions, as well as Guild Attorney. Must have Moderation Points!"
In a way, he has a point though. Besides the specifics of how you'd go and deal with this monetary-wise, multiplayer games can thrive if they have a community of friendly and open players that are encountered often. These people do add to the atmosphere and enjoyment of a game, inducing new players and giving extra pull to an online game.
Sure, no gaming company can get away with including "asshole tax" on games, but they can work in the other way, creating strata of assholes that play together while the nice and new people stick together. Or even reward players in-game (achievements, honor, whatnot) for adding to a community.
Fun Fact! No law actually prohibits discriminating against jerks.
undoing wrong moderation... actually thought this was what DOTA stood for. (my bad)
Defense of the Ancients
Discrimination against whom?
Discriminating against jerks is completely legal in most places.
Should give some interesting social results.
I've been playing TF2 since it came out. I often help new players with tips and advice and I've received a few gifts for my efforts, making me think I'd be high up on Gabe's "Don't be a jerk" scale...
But I have no interest in DOTA2! Waaaahh!!
>should get DOTA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2.
??? because someone is nice in one game doesn't mean they will be nice in the next (or even want to play the other game). I for one love TF, have played it for the past 15 years, but I have yet to play a single game of DOTA (isn't it a War3 mod? -- I do have War3, somewhere, collecting dust). Anyway I can see this statement working better - should get TF3 for free, because of past behavior in TF2 - that makes much more sense.
Everyone who sucks at the game will get it for free, and everyone who's good at it will have to pay full price.
Face it, it's more fun for most people to play with target dummies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I play games and try to be a pretty cool guy to play with. Saying that I almost never go to the same server twice and don't have much of a reputation built up anywhere. Will I be penalized for not having anyone to report my "not a jerk" status?
Of course, if they do implement this, the Valve developers and admins will be forced to pay higher rates than some of their customers. Won't that be a shame.
If a similar model was brought to slashdot's comment section, Khyber and roman_mir would probably have to pay 10$ per post. APK would require the GDP of a medium sized nation to post at his usual rate.
(btw apk, hosts files suck and linux is the better server os)
Look, we've all been chosen last for some sport. Doesn't matter if we were good or not, we were the nerds. That why we play video games now and not pickup b-ball with the other over-40 guys. Don't make us feel like we've been picked last (pay $200 for voice) or we won't play. Without those guys paying $200, no one will get to play for free (or now marginally annoying guys get targeted to cough up the dough).
How it works is this:
If you've played TF2:
(Medic hours + Soldier hours + Heavy hours) / (Spy hours + Sniper hours + Pyro hours). The higher the number, the less you pay.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
My League of legends account has been banned like 6 times.
Those sound like good metrics to me.
I won't stop being a bad person online though
Because I'm such a good person in real life it's infuriating.
This sounds like a terrible idea.
I got banned from DOTA when I first started playing because.. I didn't know how to play and was trying to learn. Apparently that can get you banned in a little under 3 hours. Under that sort of an arrangement, would that also get me labeled as a jerk/noob/banned for counter strike, day of defeat, team fortress, and the other valve games?
... it can't be community moderated directly.
See what happens is that you get a bunch of buddies or hire some chinese robo-fleshbags to steal accounts and rank you higher.
But, tt's roughly the gaming equivalent of Ladies Night at the classy local sports bar.
and that is why i play singleplayer games since a couple of years.
People are idiots. ....also thats why im single i guess ^_^
I don't think charging extra or penalizing annoying players will ever work--it's too easy to game that into an offensive weapon--and I do think manipulation of any new system should be expected as an eventuality. But that's no different from any other rules of the game.
The fundamental idea, to crowdsource who is a 'fun' player from other players and then give them discounts or incentives sounds great. (voice chat?) Good crowdsourcing models are out there, but the real trick is to figure out ways to enable true 'fun' players to to spread their influence that don't cut both ways. It does no good if it can be readily manipulated to empower and enable bad behavior.
Starting with the goal of making the game free to play for the most 'fun' players seems like a reasonable thing. Maybe WoW could not charge your next monthly fee if everybody thought you were among the awesomest 1% of users. Some would game the system, but bad in-game behavior would not be directly magnified, and users who are good influences would get public support.
Glad I'm not the only one clueless on what DOTA is short for. Would be nice to have it spelled out somewhere in the article description if its not ubiquitous on here like HTTP or SOPA.
BTW... DOA is the acronym for Dead on Arrival.
ur mum's face is a jerk
Wouldn't it be a better idea to include it into the matchmaking rather then into the price?
If you are an asshole, you will play against other assholes a lot more often then if you are an awesome person.
I can see it from their point however. For multiplayer games, fun people to play with do actually give the game a lot more value. Thus its nice being able to attract those more easily.
Cater to the hardcore 24-hour gamers with their heads up their own asses. Be punished financially for being a 'noob'.
Great way to make sure your game only appeals to an ever-dwindling set of aspies.
Gabe Newell has gotten fat. If we pick on him, we have to pay more for DOTA 2.
Nothing to see.
Sorry, but once Valve gets the game to 2 thats when they no longer make games in the series, with Counter Strike being the exception. Once they make Counter Strike 2 then its will be the last game in the series.
1. Half-Life 2: Episode 2
2. Left 4 Dead 2
3. Portal 2
4. Dota 2
5. Team Fortress 2
After all, it's their parents' credit cards they're using, isn't it?
Just for those of us who don't play all the new shiny games that come out, or who have professions that keep us pretty shackled to work, or who are just plain ignorant, could the summary PLEASE SPELL OUT wtf DOTA is? It's sounds really stupid when I say it in my head or out loud, like "Dote" only said in a baby's voice. Doesn't make me want to play it.
rest of the discussion is great, but please please please provide enough information for people to know what the heck is going on, submitters?
-
EVE already perfected this model. If you're a carebear you can play for free by earning in game money from mining and PvE and using it to buy plex. If you're a griefer who goes around destroying things you'll need to pay with real money.
As a Dota 2 player with lots of commends, this makes me a little bit happy. I work hard for those commends. Buuuut ... because I have so many "teaching" commends, I OFTEN get matched with new people. And this really makes me mad. The matchmaker sees that I have tons of "forgiving" and "teaching" commends, and it constantly puts me with players with 0-20 wins, even though I have over 100 wins.
In short, I like getting a discount, but I don't like getting a competitive disadvantage. I would rather pay full price, and get fair matchups.
burrocrisy
and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
... Wow. Did Valve just monetise Internet dickishness?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
My biggest fear about this model is that I will be limited in the gameplay elements I have available. For instance, when the game comes out, I was really hoping to pay a flat fee so that all heroes/items are available. I don't care about hats and skins, those should cost exorbitant money to the player so valve can keep up their profitable business model. If it's based on how "nice" a player is(however that's determined), I'll still have to play a few games before I can unlock items at a reasonable price. And I'll have to make sure I play support classes, help people out, buy wards, give compliments, and upvote other friendly people to increase my ranking (I'm guessing criteria here) This being said, I've played the beta extensively. I am a friendly player, and I do help noobs. I did the same in TF2...so I'm sure this model will benefit me more than others, I just don't want to have limited content (or pay super high prices) when the game comes out.
I don't see how this can be a true, honest viable metric to make decisions by. First is the major issue at hand - does "Good for the community" mean "Nice guy who generally is a cordial player" or does it mean the more marketing-centric decision of "Is likely to/already has demonstrated the ability to - buy lots of DLC, get lots of other people to buy DLC, refer people to the game in exchange for content, have a well known social media/blog presence, sell one's concept of privacy for a free hat, participate or be involved in the "esports" streamcasting world, get lots of people to vote for them and/or a particular game-related bit of info etc..."?
Despite the fact we usually consider Valve a "good guy", this is a serious issue and I am unwilling to give anyone a free pass when it comes to a monetization scheme in gaming these days. A perfectly affable player who is friendly to newbies, plays well with others, and generally brightens the server but only plays occasionally for shorter bursts of time is far too easy to write off instead of picking the more financially-direct rewarding option. Someone who's a jerk but is worth it to advertisers or spends a lot of money and time on the game is more valuable than X number of casual friendly players. There are all sorts of ways to bend "Its good for the community" to suit your worldview if you wish to justify it. MOBA type games like DOTA have basically proven an extreme example of this - they all pretty much subsist nearly entirely on "serious" gamers who are outright cuntbaskets in their interactions with others; verbal insults at the slightest wrong move is par for the course and there is to date little if anything developers or communities choose to do to change this. Rather, it is embraced because to eliminate these abrasive players is to cut their revenue stream immensely at this point. The very same attitudes pervade the competitive fighting game scene and "E-Sports" play as a whole. "Good for the community" or "likable to play with" doesn't have to mean an affable, respectful person and it is far too easy to overlook all but the most egregious behavior so long as the perpetrator provides a revenue stream.
Secondly, even if it is implemented in an idyllic manner, there is a huge potential for corruption innate in the system because it is either 1) Putting decisions in the hands of fellow players and/or 2) provides known benchmarks and milestones that can then be purposefully achieved/exploited while. "Likable to play with" is completely subjective. Some would rather a top notch player on their team who is a trash-talking, abrasive asshole than a less skilled but friendly player because for them winning makes for a more enjoyable play session regardless of their teammate's attitude. For others, its the reverse. If I piss off someone with enough guild/clan/messageboard/socialnetwork friends and time on their hands, I may be down-voted to oblivion needlessly. If I have a virtual "army" of my own, I can convince them to up-vote myself, which also renders anyone legitimately down-voting me nearly moot as I have to many upvotes to cancel them out, providing a certain amount of buffer. Bribery and threats will be commonplace, as will the formation of webs and networks of players for the purpose of protection, aggression, or just to game the system. If fellow players are at all involved in someone's status, there is little potential for it to work well. If the "achievements" necessary to attain lower priced games and other bonus content are made public, then anyone with the time an inclination will work to game the system. This may end up harming the very community they were put in place to protect. For instance, players may keep more to private servers and well known friends, because the wildcard notion of playing with others could jeopardize their status, which leads to less of an overall community but instead forms tribal groups who hold dominion over small islands.
I cannot see any good coming from such a system as either a perversion of
... game developers. Game developers never learn that if you have a game based on player vs player you're naturally going to get people angry. People don't like to lose. All competitive games had this problem going back to the beginning. If you want a game where people don't get angry then you have to change the goals for winning and make game modes that don't penalize you heavily for having bad players. i.e. where only 1 or 2 people can carry a whole team of newbies, or a fundamental change in goals where newbies dying has little effect on the overall game.
Games like DOTA naturally heavily penalize you for having bad players, in games like first person shooters you usually have these people just change to the winning team.
Also many newbies while I can understand not wanting to be harassed by assholes often just can't play competitively even with a lot of practice and learning. Competitive games are natural breeding grounds for hostility because no one likes sucking and no one likes losing but most people who play competitive games aren't very good.
This will only incentivize those who want to be jerks. Previously, you had a jerk who was aware of the reporting system so maybe he didn't go full crazy. Now, when the jerk has paid, he feels entitled and even challenged to be a jerk. He'll crank the dial to 11 and never think twice. Additionally, I hope if they're charging people for this, they won't be banning them for being a jerk, that seems entirely unfair even if they are a jerk.
So trolls will report you for being a terrible person if you are a n00b.
that votes a certain way, that will never understand this, and destroys so much of the country economically, socially, and politically, and really really believes their antisocial cruelty is a good thing
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Doesn't matter what the sticker says, even the ribbons, they all read: "Warning!"
I had never played Dota but ended up getting a beta key for Dota 2 a few months ago. I love the game, but this pricing idea is just whack. Most of the time people just freak out on anyone new. You are expected to be a decade old vet and the game isn't even out of beta. I think this model forces people to conform and act the way you want. Obviously my karma here suggests that in such a model I'd be paying cash. I am not a conformist and if you think I'd pay you more money to alienate me, hah. I'd see it as a huge insult. I rarely even post here because of it. I'm sure most of you could care less but I don't bother anyone I'm just being myself. It's nice to know that some guy like Gabe agrees with this kind of thing. Don't expect me to say a word if they charge you for an entire row of seats on an airline Gabe. I know it's a cheap shot to go there buddy but you started it.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
This kind of "free game" from a company in exchange of a "work you do" can be considered as taxable income. Taxation officials can estimate the value of the payment for the work and ask you to pay tax for it. Nice!
It's not a real proposal; it was taken out of context (this Q&A happened months ago). He was just throwing things out there.
In Holland a child molestor is currently on trial. His major griefance? That people don't appreciate the camera work he put into his video's of him raping kids that he then put on the internet. Serious.
In dutch http://nos.nl/artikel/357245-robert-m-toont-twee-gezichten.html but hey, all the cool kids speak dutch!
Hij vindt ook dat sommigen met wie hij het materiaal deelde, hem niet genoeg waardeerden voor zijn 'werk'.
He finds that some of who he shared the material with, didn't appreciate him enough for his 'work'.
As the commenter below says, this is how sociopath thinks, see the complete mind fuck of Breivik's testimony this week in Norway. People can get some really strange idea's in their head. Like software wants to be free! Mwahahahaha! I am not insane, the voices tell me I am not!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It speaks badly of gamers that so many are so totally opposed to the idea of referees and club rules. Every sport has them. Oh wait, what do FPS multiplayer gamers do the moment they got a tiny bit of resources to spend? Oh yeah, set up private servers.
Don't want to play by anyone's rules? Then play alone. Anytime you are in a group, there are rules and if you break them, you are soon kicked out of that group. Doesn't matter whether it is the rule of society, law, a relationship or the soccer association. People need rules. Those who don't are either totally unaware of how life works or complete and utter sociopaths.
Mind you, I am not surprised that a lot of people in this sector don't get it. One of things about Autism is that the victims just don't get social interaction. An autist, functional or not who breaks the rules of society isn't being an asshole, he/she (mostly he because it affects males far more often) just doesn't get the rules or even that their are rules and how they sometimes apply and sometimes do not. Why is it okay to turn the music on hard on friday but not on monday? Why not when someone else in the office is on the phone? Why during a personal call but not a call with an angry client?
"Normal" people get this. Some don't. Some don't because they don't think the rules apply to them and some because they don't "see" the rules.
BUT the rest, when they are trying to do something, just don't want to hassle of dealing with others. We live increadibly close to each other and the only way to cope for most is to pass each other by with the minimum of hassle which means the minimum of interaction. Cause no hassle, suffer no hassle.
Who REALLY wants to share an office with a Touret patient? A train with a loud speaker on the phone? A flight with a crying baby? Would you, if the option exists limit your "group" to people that follow the rules, rules you agree with?
It isn't even really about being an asshole or not. I was once part of a group that exercised together. But we weren't fanatics about it. Nobody watched calories for instance, if only because what is the point in counting how much you burned when you celebrate with a "health" drink that is double the calories? And you need a burger to give you some energy! I have been known to run... walk briskly... stroll... gasping for breath on those running machines with a milkshake in one hand and a burger in the other. But hey, I was of my fat ass. Which counts for something right? But then another co-worker wanted to join for the fun but she was a fanatic about it. She actually followed a strategy instead of picking whatever machine looked the least taxing... not so much in effort in doing the routine as in getting to it from the bar. It didn't work. Our rules, didn't match hers.
I have been in MMORPG guilds as raid leader where I knew if X wanted to come, not to invite Y. Depending on my own mood and those who signed up early, I knew it was going to be either a noob run (actually a lot more fun as leader) or a speed run. And taking along a speed only player on a noob run is hell on earth so, you don't.
People who are incapable of playing outside their own rule set often call others who have their own rule set elitist or assholes. They never see that the problem really is with them. The answer is for the finicky to just play amongst themselves. Don't want rules, then play on an unregulated server. Nobody wants to play there or pay for them? Well, that says something doesn't it? Run your own then, advertise it as a no rules server and enjoy! I guarantee you that within a day, you will have crafted more rules then the UN.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.