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?
This statement is so wrong in so many ways.
Sounds more like "milk more cash by abusing gamers addictive personalities" in disguise.
How can paying more cash improve the experience? WTH?
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?
There's pretty much nothing good about micropayments from a players perspective. And even from designers perspective if his main objective is to make a "good game".
If there's even a slightest hint within the game, that the games purpose is to milk cash and not to entertain me, i wont play the game. Even if it's just hats, it still leaves a taste of being girly-barbie game targeted at the stinkin-casuals. It's a huge turn-off.
Lets say i pay a 30$ for a game. And i'd feel like shit if i had to pay some extra money for some extra content. It would feel like i bought a gimped game.
But if you're talking exclusively about "free"-browser based games with microtransactions - then they are shitty non-games for fraken-casuals from my POV.
As far as i know, TIGSource is all about making "good games"(games you would like to make and play) first and make some money of it if it comes along? Right?
You're really better off at indiegamer forums if you cater to the casual audience and are primarily interested in monetization.
Community
