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.'"

Comments

I like this

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

DOTA jerks are the reason I quit HON. I just wonder what the metics involved in figuring if someone is a jerk or not.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a DOTA noob that has spent a little time in the DOTA 2 beta.

This community is not noob friendly at all. DOTA is complicated, and there is *TONS* of stuff that there is no way a noob will know.

Yet it seems like 10 - 25% of the community is verbally abusive towards noobs.

This is a HUGE problem if Valve wants DOTA2 to be a successful game. New people need to be able to come in and learn the game without being abused by assholes that think they are better people because they do nothing but play DOTA.

If every new person quits the game after being yelled at, there won't be much of a "community" left.

Re:I like this

[ArhcAngel]

Maybe something like George Carlin proposed for driving. Give everybody a dart gun when they get their drivers license and when they see somebody driving badly shoot the trunk. When there are enough darts the police pull you over.

Re:I like this

[Artraze]

The problem with any good justice system is that it has to balance a number of factors. Would you suggest that everyone that, I dunno, J-walks get the death penalty? Not only would the punishment be exorbitant, but now you'd be encouraging J-walkers to carry weapons and dispose of witnesses, as doing so doesn't really make the punishment worse, but could let you avoid it entirely.

Valve is trying to make an effective deterrent to being a jerk. The problem with simply banning is that it gives users no ability to reform, and really ups the burden of proof as the ability to appeal a ban is basically nil (and pricy for Valve if it's not). Also, banned players can usually just get a new account and continue to be an ass until they're banned again, but this time around they aren't going to care half as much as they've already lost everything tied to their original account.

So they have to set the punishment at something that is reasonable in the face of unreliable justice and the cost of creating a new account. Allowing players to play on probation (no voice) or charging them $100 seems like a decent balance to me.

> So you think that someone should not have to behave nice if he is a rich?

Rich? lol. I think that if you combine the demographics of "jerk" and "has $100 to blow" you'll find more basement dwelling trolls than rich people, who usually do other things to do with their time besides being a jerk on online games. A hundred dallors just ain't that much in this day... It won't even buy you two new games.

> Does it not make far more sense to charge everyone the same and ban the jerks?
> Is it really worth it to Valve to decrease their multiplayer experience for everyone for as little as $100 jerk tax?

I for one, think it's fine, as you can sit back and laugh at jerks, knowing that they heavily subsidized you copy. Also, I still expect that there will be normal bans if they're really so bad.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

By far the biggest tragedy is that it's obvious that you actually believe the things you're saying. One can only hope that some day you'll get a glimpse of reality.

Re:I like this

[Man On Pink Corner]

This is exactly the same problem that was faced in Ultima Online when it became obvious that some people enjoyed whacking new and otherwise defenseless players. They introduced PvP flags and zones to get around it, and I don't see why a similar approach wouldn't work here.

Each player could start out with their "Protection from assholes" flag set by default. If they either behave abusively (according to whatever flawed metric Valve uses to make that call) or turn the flag off intentionally, they will lose the ability to communicate with people who still have the flag set.

Offering monetary discounts for playing nice is just going to create a metagame, which will be exploited. Valve should instead apply a policy of "strict scrutiny," where only the smallest, least invasive steps necessary are taken to solve the problem.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The terrible thing here is not that he behaves like this, but that he fails to realize that theses are not, as they are in his mind, the kind of behaviors that anyone desires, respects, or tolerates. It's like a criminal telling the judge at trial that if anything he should be paid for committing crimes because he's actually doing society a favor.

Re:I like this

[Vintermann]

I actually prefer to talk to, and be surrounded by, people who are assholes. I think they're more fun, and I couldn't give less of a fuck about being insulted by some random dipshit on the internet.

Well, fuck you and what you want, freak.

Re:I like this

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Each player could start out with their "Protection from assholes" flag set by default. If they either behave abusively (according to whatever flawed metric Valve uses to make that call) or turn the flag off intentionally, they will lose the ability to communicate with people who still have the flag set.

See, now that sounds fine to me. I'd turn that flag off and happily exclude myself from the milquetoast masses. The very first thing I do anywhere it's available is turn off the profanity filter, and turn on the PvP flag.

I'm not out to actually ruin anyone's day. Hell, I don't even want to make dipshits like the post above yours feel bad just because they can't tell the difference between a troll and somebody who prefers a more honest interaction style between their peers. I just want to call you a fucking moron when you do something stupid and have you be mildly embarrassed and have that mild embarrassment be a motivator to fix your behavior in the future instead of going, "uh, gee, golly gosh, you know it's actually more effective..." and then have somebody mash "UNLIKEABLE" because I didn't make them feel like a perfect snowflake.

And I want the same thing back. I don't want language couched in fifteen layers of inoffensiveness, just tell me what I did wrong, feel free to throw a curse or two in for emphasis if you think it's warranted. I'll sort out if I'm actually a dipshit on my own.

Re:I like this

[Pubstar]

As one of the better known 'hackers' of MW2, MW3, BF3, L4D2, etc. etc., I never found a reason to be a total prick to newbie players. Sure, it means I have to play harder to win, but there is something to be said about growing the community. The more good players there are out there, the better of a chance I get to hone my skills.

On the other hand, I can't stand DOTA/DOTA2/LoL due to people smurfing and basically raping people who haven't the slightest clue to play the game. It keeps the community to a select assholes who have nothing better to do than troll newbies and talk shit. To use the car analogy (barely) - its like some professional driver challenging a newbie to a race on open track days, then talking shit to them for not being able to keep up.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this news. I'm going to organize a clan of jerks in DOTA 2. We will flag each other as nice players, and flag everyone else as jerks.
I can easily get 100 people to buy the game and follow me into this project, and with a bit of advertising on the webz I can easily get 1000 people. I'm sure we'll have no trouble becoming a majority of the playerbase or big enough at least that we can control the voting system.

Thanks Valve for making a game where us griefers can have fun. Meta-griefing is also the best griefing! Love you guys xoxox !!!!

Re:I like this

[Elbereth]

If you talk to a real-life sociopath, you'll actually hear this from them, sometimes.

In a normal personal, the psychological gymnastics necessary to rationalize your behavior in this way would be truly amazing. In sociopaths, it seems to come naturally.

Re:I like this

[TimothyDavis]

One system that seen and liked is to mute a person by default when too many others have muted said person. This helps reduce the number of verbal jackasses a player has to deal with.

More Importantly

[eldavojohn]

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?

Re:More Importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time some people can afford games

"NEWSFLASH! Stunning discovery made: poor people have less options! Film at 11."

Save up and pay full price for a few games to build a reputation. Duh.

Re:More Importantly

[Drinking Bleach]

Only Counter-Strike really gets patches, which is still insanely popular. As far as that goes, that really makes sense; they are making significant profit off of it, they better keep the game running as smoothly and secure as possible. I'm sure Half-Life 1 gets a trickle of sales, but nobody plays multiplayer HL1 anymore and the game hasn't had an update since 2006; the single-player experience isn't affected by multiplayer cheats.

Might have the opposite effect?

[wamatt]

"Dude I paid $100 bucks to be a jerk. Did you? No then STFU asshole."

Gaming the system

[capnchicken]

The real jerks will make sure they game whatever reporting tool there is in order to make other people look like jerks.

Re:Good Model

[timeOday]

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.

Were you about to make some argument either way, or is that it?

Re:Freemium model necessarily attracts jerks...

[Luckyo]

I think it's less of an issue with monetization and more of an issue with DOTA format. I've played it in HoN, I played it in SC2 DOTA mods like SOLTS, I played it in LoL. They all suffer from the same problem in spite of being 3 different models. HoN was buy to play, SC2 was buy the main game, play custom games for free and LoL was free to play. LoL is not actually/technically freemium as paying customer doesn't get any gameplay advantages over someone playing for free.

DOTA format just makes people into assholes because someone making mistakes punishes the entire team in a very direct and visible manner. So people become assholes to the "feeders" very quickly, as they directly ruin their gameplay experience.

First Jerk to Fine:

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:First Jerk to Fine:

[tepples]

Apparently "Defense of the Ancients" is a Warcraft III mod, and not everybody owns a copy of Warcraft III.

Re:First Jerk to Fine:

[Necroman]

DOTA = "Defense of the Ancients".

The basics of the game are that you control a single unit (a hero), and you work with a team of people (normally 5 other players). So it becomes a 6 vs 6 battle where you are trying to destroy the other teams base. This game style has been dubbed ARTS (action real time strategy).

  It originally started as a Warcraft 3 mod. Since then, numerous companies have copied the style.

1) You have Blizzard creating a DOTA mod for Starcraft 2.
2) You have Valve creating DOTA 2. (note that Valve and Blizzard are having a trademark war right now over DOTA). Dota 2 is a stand-alone game.
3) LoL (League of Legends) is a DOTA style came released back in 2009. It's a stand-alone game with persistant characters.

personal pronouns are your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone

"Who". A real jerk who annoys everyone.

-- a real jerk who annoys everyone

Re:personal pronouns are your friend

[Shoe Puppet]

That, as opposed to which, can be used for both people and things.

Re:Good Model

[N0Man74]

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.

I see nothing wrong with that, when a small number of unpleasant players can ruin the perception and experience of many people. I have quit subscription games in the past because of briefing and anti-social players. For them to tolerate jerks, just because they are paying customers, is shooting themselves in the foot a lot more than making a small number of people, who are ruining the game pay, extra.

Re:Maybe Valve should concentrate on other things.

[mistermocha]

Can't resist.... Maybe Valve should finally finish the Half-Life series

Re:Discrimination

[Phasma Felis]

Fun Fact! No law actually prohibits discriminating against jerks.

Re:Freemium model necessarily attracts jerks...

[Anubis IV]

It's not just freemium that attracts jerks. Free in general does.

Marco Arment, the developer of Instapaper, talks about his development process and business decisions relatively regularly, and I recall one of his posts regarding his decision to drop the free version of his app. If you scroll down to the "Undesirable customers" heading, you'll see some of his talk about the sorts of stuff he noticed as a trend between the free and paid versions of his app.

Though he doesn't out-and-out say it this way, his point is basically that people attracted to free are cheapskates who tend to have unreasonable demands and a sense of entitlement. I'm inclined to agree as well. Having people pay even a buck or two makes them much more invested and filters out a lot of the riffraff who you'd rather not be dealing with.

So, it's not just in games where you get undesirable types with a free-product business model.

Re:So

[VGPowerlord]

Yes, an furthermore $100 wasn't exactly a figure plucked out of the air... it's the cost of the "Something Special for Someone Special" item in the TF2 store, which when purchased, sends out a message to all players currently playing TF2 that "[Person A] has given a [Renamed Thing] to [Person B]. Congratulations!"

Needless to say, this item is used by jerks with various messages. For $100 a pop.

Did I mention the item's other use is a barely-visible cosmetic item in the game?

Re:Freemium model necessarily attracts jerks...

[skine]

So obviously we should make /. a fee-based service.