Let's Have a Discussion on 'Fun Pain'.

[Admiral_Karasu]

A lot of times we've touched on the issue of built in game frustration and how it connects with the idea instant gratification. Technically what I means is that when you feel bad you go for something that will cheer you up. It can be a feel good purchase, or it can be a snack, dark chocolate, whatever you fancy. This is a psychological mechanism and it's also something that can be re-purposed for making money.

It's call 'fun pain', and in terms of game development it means that the developer has two choices. Than can develop a relationship with a dedicated fan base and have the game cater to them, or they can go for the quick profits and screw their fan base while they go laughing to the bank. Quite possibly to a bank in Cyprus...

In other words, they can build the game into a good solid title or they can ruin it for quarterly profits. It's an either or choice, not a both and, as th

I ran across a thoughtful blog post by Josh Bycer, and some additional background material that is referenced in his blog post written by Ramin Shokrizade (you may remember that name from before), links below to each.

Feeling the Frustration of "Fun Pain" Game Design

The Price of Frustration

If you already haven't watched this podcast, it is in parts related to the topic and worth watching anyway as it tells us a lot of inside information about the game development aspects of Wargaming and Lesta.

The Dark Side of Wargaming.net | Perceptive Podcast, Wargaming.net controversy

Discuss.

 

[BOBTHEBALL]

19 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

A lot of times we've touched on the issue of built in game frustration and how it connects with the idea instant gratification. Technically what I means is that when you feel bad you go for something that will cheer you up. It can be a feel good purchase, or it can be a snack, dark chocolate, whatever you fancy. This is a psychological mechanism and it's also something that can be re-purposed for making money.

It's call 'fun pain', and in terms of game development it means that the developer has two choices. Than can develop a relationship with a dedicated fan base and have the game cater to them, or they can go for the quick profits and screw their fan base while they go laughing to the bank. Quite possibly to a bank in Cyprus...

In other words, they can build the game into a good solid title or they can ruin it for quarterly profits. It's an either or choice, not a both and, as th

I ran across a thoughtful blog post by Josh Bycer, and some additional background material that is referenced in his blog post written by Ramin Shokrizade (you may remember that name from before), links below to each.

Feeling the Frustration of "Fun Pain" Game Design

The Price of Frustration

If you already haven't watched this podcast, it is in parts related to the topic and worth watching anyway as it tells us a lot of inside information about the game development aspects of Wargaming and Lesta.

The Dark Side of Wargaming.net | Perceptive Podcast, Wargaming.net controversy

Discuss.

 

Very interesting tbh

[Type_93]

When I’ve had a bad day it does bring me joy to log on and play a ship like Kamikaze and just start clubbing me some seals. It makes me feel even better when someone I sink starts going off in chat about “seal clubbers in OP ships”. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

9 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

When I’ve had a bad day it does bring me joy to log on and play a ship like Kamikaze and just start clubbing me some seals. It makes me feel even better when someone I sink starts going off in chat about “seal clubbers in OP ships”. 

Sounds like you've beaten them in their own game, then, no pun intended. Or perhaps it was.

[Paladin1954]

WeeGee's hypeword. Fun and engaging, fair and balanced. lol. Sign in the lobby of WeeGee HQ in Nicosia, "Never admit any mistakes and lets make a lot of money." I can't get any enjoyment in randoms anymore. Last time I tried it during weekend Naval Battles, 7 attempts, 7 losses, reported 3 times. I'm strictly coop now unless I'm running out of time for bxp missions and then it's cringeworthy.

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 minutes ago, Paladin1954 said:

WeeGee's hypeword. Fun and engaging, fair and balanced. lol. Sign in the lobby of WeeGee HQ in Nicosia, "Never admit any mistakes and lets make a lot of money." I can't get any enjoyment in randoms anymore. Last time I tried it during weekend Naval Battles, 7 attempts, 7 losses, reported 3 times. I'm strictly coop now unless I'm running out of time for bxp missions and then it's cringeworthy.

The important thing here is to avoid the pitfall of reaching for your wallet. IMO, it's best to analyze why you aren't having fun and work towards a non-monetary solution from there.

I play a lot less than I used to. Overall, but in particular when it comes to Wargaming titles having now seen two of them go downhill over the years. It's theoretically easier to counter the monetizing issues, as long as you are aware of the psychology of frustration, and aware that you may not fully understand the complex mechanics of game economy and monetization, like multiple overlapping currencies and mission rewards, for one thing. Straightforward transactions are easier to understand, even though overspending is still possible due to the psychological element.

I pay a lot less too!

What I do currently is I hover around the 95+ % FTP mark, and most of the battles I play are exclusively random operations. I do some randoms, some coop as well, when the situation warrants. I detest time gated non-recurring content, and most missions I no longer bother with, if I spot something I am really interested in rewardwise and the effort needed seems within reason, time and skillwise, I will make the effort to complete the mission.

[Type_93]

14 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The important thing here is to avoid the pitfall of reaching for your wallet. IMO, it's best to analyze why you aren't having fun and work towards a non-monetary solution from there.

That pretty solid advice for some.  I tend to lean the other way. I enjoy spending money. Casinos, buying the newest ship with the newest gimmick. To each their own I guess. It’s ultimately the responsibility of the player to know when to shut their wallet. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The important thing here is to avoid the pitfall of reaching for your wallet.

If everyone stopped reaching for their wallets, the game would die very quickly.

Is that what you want?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

If everyone stopped reaching for their wallets, the game would die very quickly.

Is that what you want?

It's not what we want...

...but what we want doesn't matter.

The key question is actually, is this what WG wants?

I've trained myself at this point that when I start feeling frustrated with this game, I go play another game. Is that what WG wants? Because that is what they are getting.

Just got out of a yet another short MM randoms game. Only 4 people a side. The silent majority seems certainly to be playing less.

Is that what WG want? Because that's what they and we are getting.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

If everyone stopped reaching for their wallets, the game would die very quickly.

Is that what you want?

You pose an ethical and moral dilemma. Should I be glad that the poor sods who fall for the psychological trickery of 'fun pain', reach for their wallets are financing the my luxyry of playing this game as F2P? Or should I feel sorry for them? My absolution is that I've, to a large extent, been there myself and I've paid my dues as it were.

The only responsible answer to that dilemma is that the players should pay for what they want, and what they can afford, if and as long as they like the gameplay in WoWS. Otherwise... they should not pay, and perhaps not even play when it comes to that.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

15 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Should I be glad that the poor sods who fall for the psychological trickery of 'fun pain',

Maybe you should consider that the Fun Pain thesis is flawed, and that the majority of paying customers aren't falling for anything. 

16 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

My absolution

Oh spare me the violin concerto.

18 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The only responsible answer to that dilemma is that the players should pay for what they want, and what they can afford, if and as long as they like the gameplay in WoWS.

There is no dilemma. This is just plain common sense. I was an FTP customer for nine months before I opened my wallet, because I wanted to be absolutely sure that I was putting my money into something I was going to stick with.

The important thing is to be discerning. I'm completely on board with Wargaming doing anything it wants in order to make money from this game; but just as I'm going to defend their right to be rampant capitalists, I'm also going to defend my right to say that this or that thing is not a good deal and won't get my money... and also to defend my motivation to win every bit of permanent content* that I can get without paying.

 

 

* = yes, I know it's all pixels and will all go away someday, but I'm distinguishing here between expendables like flags and bonuses that are one-shot-and-gone vs. ships, commanders, permaskins and perma-econ bonuses that will be there for as long as the game is.

[Chysagon]

One thing to consider if you are play wows, as free to play its not.You help fill the server as a simple given-you are spending time you could use elsewhere.

It takes either your money or your time.

This is why they employ tactics like stretching content by lowering drop rates, then selling drop chance boosters for people to purchase to farm for that item they wanted.

Firstly... Money.

Giving them money helps to pay for servers and future updates, among other things. They create this incentive by giving subscribers, their money source, a boost in-game.

From cosmetics to gameplay access passes, in most cases, playing for a long time will get you through the paywall.

Which brings me to my next point. Time.

If you had an infinite amount of time, you could technically obtain whatever you wish whenever you wanted to through the various methods of collecting items. MMORPGs are amazing at lengthening this time period to keep you farming for months.

The more you play, the more people you’d attract and retain in the game. Having a lively community can help keep a game running, even if it has already been deemed ‘dead’. This is especially true for MMO games, whose communities are what makes most of the game what it is.

So that’s why true free-to-play games (that don’t have an insane playtime) are hard to find.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Chysagon said:

One thing to consider if you are play wows, as free to play its not.You help fill the server as a simple given-you are spending time you could use elsewhere.

It takes either your money or your time.

This is why they employ tactics like stretching content by lowering drop rates, then selling drop chance boosters for people to purchase to farm for that item they wanted.

Firstly... Money.

Giving them money helps to pay for servers and future updates, among other things. They create this incentive by giving subscribers, their money source, a boost in-game.

From cosmetics to gameplay access passes, in most cases, playing for a long time will get you through the paywall.

Which brings me to my next point. Time.

If you had an infinite amount of time, you could technically obtain whatever you wish whenever you wanted to through the various methods of collecting items. MMORPGs are amazing at lengthening this time period to keep you farming for months.

The more you play, the more people you’d attract and retain in the game. Having a lively community can help keep a game running, even if it has already been deemed ‘dead’. This is especially true for MMO games, whose communities are what makes most of the game what it is.

So that’s why true free-to-play games (that don’t have an insane playtime) are hard to find.

It's still easier to just walk away if you haven't spent a penny on the game.

@Ensign Cthulhu Yes, it's a sound approach to start as a F2P and only maybe start spending later on. Still, it doesn't mean you won't be making a mistake that will cost you further down the road.

[Asym]

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

If everyone stopped reaching for their wallets, the game would die very quickly.

Is that what you want?

Ow...!  

If the game doesn't contribute to the cost of treating medical issues related to the use of this product:  yes ! 

There is no such thing as "individual responsibility" is some medical systems....  And, the real costs of the ICD's that identify videogame treatable conditions, need to be offset culturally somehow....  Technology created this mess and corporate greed has made it a serious issue. 

So, taxing games is coming.  It's the cost of gaming globally and paying their fair share of all that could go wrong....

Just my opinion........ 

[Type_93]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I've trained myself at this point that when I start feeling frustrated with this game, I go play another game. Is that what WG wants? Because that is what they are getting.

 

I can only play 3 or 4 matches before I swap games no matter what. My ex said I have Adult adhd, I said she had a lumpy butt, now back to,……. OH! Something shiny over there.  

[WES_HoundDog]

This is how stupid gamming companies have become.   They pay a Phd to tell them "what went wrong".

[Andrewbassg]

5 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

....to be rampant capitalists...

 That part just make me lulz, coz they were very, VERY bad at it . Quite arguably they are .... "rednecks" from  game development pov .....

[majmac]

8 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

f everyone stopped reaching for their wallets, the game would die very quickly.

Is that what you want?

Sounds like you are saying we are hostage to WG.

"Give us more money or we delete your account/shut down the game."

[Ensign Cthulhu]

4 hours ago, Asym said:

And, the real costs of the ICD's that identify videogame treatable conditions,

Which are garbage, made up by grifters looking for a grift.

4 hours ago, Asym said:

So, taxing games is coming. 

Cold day in hell. 

4 hours ago, Asym said:

It's the cost of gaming globally and paying their fair share of all that could go wrong....

I never took you for a top-down statist, but there we are.

13 minutes ago, majmac said:

"Give us more money or we delete your account/shut down the game."

IF WARGAMING'S INCOME STREAM STOPS, THERE IS NO MONEY TO RUN THE SERVERS.

(I hate to shout, but this cannot be emphasized enough because it seems some people simply don't understand it.)

Edited October 24, 2023 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

IF WARGAMING'S INCOME STREAM STOPS, THERE IS NO MONEY TO RUN THE SERVERS.

If the income stream stops, that means the game is not good enough to earn money.

The servers shutting down at that point would not be a bad thing.

WG isn't the only source of gaming joy in the world.

[Admiral_Karasu]

18 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

IF WARGAMING'S INCOME STREAM STOPS, THERE IS NO MONEY TO RUN THE SERVERS.

(I hate to shout, but this cannot be emphasized enough because it seems some people simply don't understand it.)

I think we all understand this. How will understanding this make things better?

[NMA101]

4 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

IF WARGAMING'S INCOME STREAM STOPS, THERE IS NO MONEY TO RUN THE SERVERS.

I think we all understand this. How will understanding this make things better?

First, let's dispel this notion that WoWs needs a massive amount of cash flow to sustain itself. 

World of Warplanes is basically on life support, averaging only a few thousand players per day. Yet the servers are still running smoothly after all these years. https://old.reddit.com/r/WorldofWarplanes/comments/17c8mu0/na_vs_asia_population/k5oc2nk/

So if WoWs declines in both population and revenue, the game will not die. It will simply stagnate (like WoWP) and receive updates very infrequently. Which many players would be perfectly fine with, as evident by the complaints about too many events being crammed into one update cycle and the ensuing burnout. And as seen with all the bugs and glitches, WG is prone to forcing "change for the sake of change", which brings me to the next point. 

The only reason WoWs "needs" a massive amount of cash generation is greed. Apparently there is a lot of sunk-cost fallacy going around WG (they reportedly spent a ton on developing CVs and submarines) so they need the profits to justify the expenses. This is not a problem exclusive to WG, history is filled with so many companies who believed their "new products" would be gold and doubled down on trying to cash in on the one-trick pony when they should have focused on diversifying their offerings. 

Also, World of Tanks is doing well enough. Clearly the profits are enough to subsidize any losses from WoWP (and WoWs eventually). 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

12 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I think we all understand this.

I'm not all that sure it really sinks in for some people.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, NMA101 said:

First, let's dispel this notion that WoWs needs a massive amount of cash flow to sustain itself. 

World of Warplanes is basically on life support, averaging only a few thousand players per day. Yet the servers are still running smoothly after all these years. https://old.reddit.com/r/WorldofWarplanes/comments/17c8mu0/na_vs_asia_population/k5oc2nk/

So if WoWs declines in both population and revenue, the game will not die. It will simply stagnate (like WoWP) and receive updates very infrequently. Which many players would be perfectly fine with, as evident by the complaints about too many events being crammed into one update cycle and the ensuing burnout. And as seen with all the bugs and glitches, WG is prone to forcing "change for the sake of change", which brings me to the next point. 

The only reason WoWs "needs" a massive amount of cash generation is greed. Apparently there is a lot of sunk-cost fallacy going around WG (they reportedly spent a ton on developing CVs and submarines) so they need the profits to justify the expenses. This is not a problem exclusive to WG, history is filled with so many companies who believed their "new products" would be gold and doubled down on trying to cash in on the one-trick pony when they should have focused on diversifying their offerings. 

Also, World of Tanks is doing well enough. Clearly the profits are enough to subsidize any losses from WoWP (and WoWs eventually). 

Perhaps some lessons in basic economics are needed. 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

How will understanding this make things better?

Doesn't. That was the main reason for criticising Wedgie, out of concern for the well being of the game. People predicted what will be the result of their so called "development" ..."ideas". Well... except they don't listen, coz monke likes banana and Wedgie da dollar.

We know that they are full of it and they know that we know. Voila WOWS 2023.