next »

[Zaratustra]

This is a sketch of a manifesto. Feel free to point out inconsistencies and hypochrisies.

THE WORTHWARE MANIFESTO

1. I am a game designer and not a casino manager.

2. The player's money is a precious thing to them and I should respect it.

3. Provided everyone has purchased the game, players with money and players without money should be on equal grounds.

4. If I get money for the time period, I will not pad my game for length.

5. If I get money for the page hit, I will not make my players visit the game daily.

6. If I get money for number of players, I will not start pyramid schemes.

7. Game designers have players. Marketers and drug dealers have users.

8. Once the player has purchased the game, I will not try to sell him more things from within it.

9. I will appeal to the player, not to the advertiser.

10. If I wanted to scam people out of their money, there is a variety of other fields much better at it than goddamn game design.

[gimymblert]

11. i don't need to pay a bill 

But actually i pretty much agree by heart, now i'm struggling because n°11 is still important even if i don't care. 

[Zaratustra]

A manifesto is, essentially, a statement on why you can't pay the bills.

[J. Kyle Pittman]

I can appreciate the intent, but as long as you're already trying to monetize your games (as indicated by #3 and #8), I don't see why you wouldn't want to monetize them to their fullest extent, or at least up to the point where the business model actively begins to hamper the game experience.  And I don't necessarily think that charging players for extra content does hamper the experience.  Of course, it largely depends on what sort of game you're making, but for some players, I think micropayments, etc. can create a perception of value or appeal to some addictive aspect of their personality...and granted, that probably is a step in the casino direction, but hey, if that's what players want, why not give it to 'em?

Or, the more snarky version:

12. I will shoot my business in the foot because of arbitrary ethical lines I have drawn for myself.

[gimymblert]

But as state in statement 11.A. "A manifesto is, essentially, a statement on why you can't pay the bills."
Statement 12 make sense as "uncompromising art making"

[klembot]

I feel like you're conflating a lot of separate things you hate under the casual banner. I mean, wouldn't you call Orisinal casual?

SEMANTIC PEDANTRY ASIDE... I wonder how you feel about strategy guides, the original add-on purchase. I think in general there's nothing wrong with selling those kind of things that enrich an experience in the sense that through them, you know more about the world, or you learn some secrets you might not already, but to me they crossed the line when they started to be considered mandatory buys.

This is going off-topic a bit, but I'm fascinated by things like Radiohead's In Rainbows deluxe packaging, where you could buy the mp3s for $0 (or whatever you wanted), but you could also buy a well-produced box set for $80. It's two different experiences, but the essence is the same, right? Devil's advocate argument: how is that different from selling in-game items?

[dspencer]

.
6. If I get money for number of players, I will start pyramid schemes.

Oops! But nice otherwise.

[Zaratustra]

I feel like you're conflating a lot of separate things you hate under the casual banner. I mean, wouldn't you call Orisinal casual?

I've taken a page from Scratchware and named this WORTHWARE so you can stamp it on whatever you want.

SEMANTIC PEDANTRY ASIDE... I wonder how you feel about strategy guides, the original add-on purchase. I think in general there's nothing wrong with selling those kind of things that enrich an experience in the sense that through them, you know more about the world, or you learn some secrets you might not already, but to me they crossed the line when they started to be considered mandatory buys.

Remember those items in games that nobody could ever possibly have found without a strategy guide? Remember how you hated that? Yeah.

This is going off-topic a bit, but I'm fascinated by things like Radiohead's In Rainbows deluxe packaging, where you could buy the mp3s for $0 (or whatever you wanted), but you could also buy a well-produced box set for $80. It's two different experiences, but the essence is the same, right? Devil's advocate argument: how is that different from selling in-game items?

Because the moment you start selling in-game items you stop being a game maker and start being a game item merchant. You will design your next game having in mind how to maximize the sales from in-game items. And then you start giving speeches on monetization and virality and then you are part of the problem.

[Zaratustra]

I can appreciate the intent, but as long as you're already trying to monetize your games (as indicated by #3 and #8), I don't see why you wouldn't want to monetize them to their fullest extent, or at least up to the point where the business model actively begins to hamper the game experience. 

How will you know when the business model is hampering the game experience? Will you even care or will you just rationalize your position?

And I don't necessarily think that charging players for extra content does hamper the experience.  Of course, it largely depends on what sort of game you're making, but for some players, I think micropayments, etc. can create a perception of value or appeal to some addictive aspect of their personality...and granted, that probably is a step in the casino direction, but hey, if that's what players want, why not give it to 'em?

If it's what players want why don't I pack crack cocaine in the game box and a free ticket for blowjobs on the corner of 7th and Main?

[J. Kyle Pittman]

I can appreciate the intent, but as long as you're already trying to monetize your games (as indicated by #3 and #8), I don't see why you wouldn't want to monetize them to their fullest extent, or at least up to the point where the business model actively begins to hamper the game experience. 

How will you know when the business model is hampering the game experience? Will you even care or will you just rationalize your position?

Intuition as a designer or feedback from players, I suppose.  But I understand what you're getting at: when you're wearing both hats (designer/developer and publisher/advertiser/merchant), it could be tempting to shift your focus to whatever makes you the most money, at the expense of quality, respect for the players and their money, and so on.

But my point is this: let's say inspiration strikes and I come up with a game design which lends itself perfectly to, say, a micropayment model, such that it would not compromise the design in any way to incorporate it and might even improve the experience by playing off gamers' addictive personalities.  (The key point in this example is that I'm not actively trying to design a game to fit this model, nor am I trying to wedge this model in on top of an existing design.)  Barring a personal dislike for the model, why would I not want to implement it?  Should I revise or scrap this design simply because it doesn't adhere to a set of rules I made for myself?

To me, this manifesto reads like, "I don't like X, so I won't do it," which is fine, I guess, but...all other things being equal, why not?

[klembot]

Would you consider adding "Monetization is not a word" to this manifesto? Every time I see it used, it's like a tiny blinding pain. Anyway, to further probe your belief system: is Magic the Gathering a bad game? It seems like real-world scarcity (and the attendant flow of money) is bound up inextricably with the gameplay. I'm ok with it myself -- there's obviously a significant amount of strategy once you've actually assembled your deck -- but it feels a little akin to poker. Without real money in play, it isn't quite the same.

[LemonScented]

Not that I particularly disagree with any of your points in particular, or bedgrudge you your right to draw up a manifesto and live by it, but my devil's advocate gland just kicked in big time.

1. But if I make a game in which players compete with each other, it's my duty to ensure, as far as possible, a level playing field unhampered by cheating, much like a casino manager has to.

2. But I am not Batman, bequeathed a fortune by my murdered parents, so however much I respect their money, I want some of it in exchange for my work, in order to pay the bills.

3. But if I don't want to make a game purely based on luck, like Snakes & Ladders, then I want players to feel that their time spent invested in developing their skills within the game will set them in good stead when competing with players who have put less time or effort into the game. Otherwise, why would they want to play at all?

4. But I reserve the right to choose a fixed price for my game regardless of how long players spend playing it, and to not offer partial refunds to speedrunners who complete the game more quickly than other players.

5. But I can't make my players do anything; certainly if I can make them WANT to visit more often, or to tell their friends to visit, then I will try to do that. Ultimately, it's the players' call.

6. But I will try to make the game more fun if larger numbers of players are involved, and try to encourage players to play together.

7. Game designers have clients, often either someone who is paying the bills, or at the very least their own gut instincts. My goal is to make games to the best of my ability, but you know what? Sometimes I DO know better than the players, and I reserve the right to make the games that I want to make.

8. Unless the players are clamouring for more content, which I can readily sell to them at a price that appeals to both parties and reflects the value of the content.

9. But if I WERE to appeal to the advertiser, I could only make my game attractive to them by making it attractive to players anyway. Advertisers pay for eyeballs, and I want eyeballs on my game as much as they do.

10. If I wanted to make money honestly, there is a variety of other fields much better at it than goddamn game design.

[Falmil]

What if I just take money from all the saps who like buying game power and awful grinding mechanics so I can use it to make better games for people who appreciate good gameplay?

Seriously though, there are a lot of people who actual like grinding and cash shops for instant power ups and that sort of thing.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think in-game items to buy are okay as long as they don't affect gameplay at all. for instance, the hats you can buy in dino run. other than that, i agree with this manifesto.

p.s. reading the replies here i had to check twice to be sure i was on tigsource.com and not indiegamer.com

[alspal]

Yeah they did seem like indiegamer replies.

[Zaratustra]

see it's good to do this sort of thing sometimes to see where you stand

[moi]

i think in-game items to buy are okay as long as they don't affect gameplay at all. for instance, the hats you can buy in dino run. other than that, i agree with this manifesto.

I had this same opinion, but it's already an opinion of the past. Premium competition gameplay is now coming in full force, first on facebook games (whatever it is) then flash mmos, then xbla/console downloadables, etc...

[RandyO]

So what if we've only finally unveiled the variety and power of the purchasing options available to us.  IN THE BEGINNING everything was one big purchase, right?  And then they started adding subscriptions.  And now we've got microtransactions.

I agree most with the sentiment that you should consider purchasing as you design.  I am sure most of us right off the bat decide if we are going to make a free game or something we want to sell.  So I think the decision beyond that of how we're going to sell our product is certainly important.  I think it's another facet of design.  One in which I am not very well versed, but another important thing to think about nonetheless. 

What if I make crosswords?  I spend all my time making them.  I want people to play my crosswords, can I charge for crosswords?  It's presumably one web-program, right?  Maybe I offer 5 of them for free, and then people decide if my work is worth it.  Should I sell all the rest for one lump sum?  Or split it up?  Do those then become microtransactions?

But I totally agree that the core experience of the game must be unhampered by purchasing decisions.  Advertising within the experience of the game is terrible.  A free game to a paid game is one thing, but spending $20 should be 99% as fun as the guy spending $25.

In the end, it seems like an issue of incredible subtlety to me. 

[Jason Bakker]

12. I will shoot my business in the foot because of arbitrary ethical lines I have drawn for myself.

Isn't any ethical line you draw arbitrary, at least from some points of view?

[Ben_Hurr]

I think I can sum up this manifesto with one rule:

0. I will not be a douchebag/design misery inducing game mechanics/exploit my customers psychology/swindle my customers to theoretically receive more money. 

Because what it comes down to is designers/publishers doing all the things we dislike in videogames to squeeze an ounce more profit out of it.