unforum

[thegreatpablo]

Hrm, perhaps that's part of the problem. Rather than trying to find a solution for how to do it, perhaps we need to define what we're doing first?

[Agent Lex]

[catherwood]

[Agent Lex]

I knew it was one of those companies that disappeared off the face of the earth.

[vpisteve]

Actually, it was TerraQuest I think you're thinking of. You could indeed pay to get clues processed quickly, thereby giving you an edge.

If I remember correctly, you could also get accused of cheating if you posted the answers you got. Ah, good times.

[vpisteve]

[LadyBirdK]

two ideas

[Karensa]

Round and Round She Goes

[Agent Lex]

Re: Round and Round She Goes

[Karensa]

an option

[vpisteve]

Re: Round and Round She Goes

[Karensa]

Yep I've read it...

I wasn't venting, don't personalize, it's just words

My point though is about the ideas being posed getting valid, helpful feedback of possible snags...versus the kneejerk paranoid reaction of "don't bother, it won't work"...that's the part that troubles me.


Solutions are there, but it seems that there is mostly discussion over actually trying and doing and testing and experimenting, suggestions automatically get rebutted as some sort of impossible challenge that will likely never be overcome...and even your comment above that

[rowan]

I'm trying to figure out why there are only two groups of players: "those who want the experience *will* pay to play if they're financially able, and those who are skittish and paranoid won't." Personally, I think you're oversimplifying the matter and misinterpreting the notion of 'trust' between a player and a PM.

I've spoken a lot about trust issues in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if you threw me into the 'skittish and paranoid' category. Yet, I've paid-to-play a couple of times now, which could put me in the '*will*' category.

Both of the games I paid for were run by well-known and (at the time) respected PMs. The first game was so bad I still feel utterly awful that I recommended that others shell out cash to play. The second I ended up not playing at all due to time constraints and the fact that the gaming style ended up not appealing to me as much as I thought it would. The first PM completely broke my trust by having such an appalling experience that I would never play one of their games again. The second PM I still respect, and I have played another one of their games since then.

In the end, both experiences ended with less than ideal results, leaving me with the feeling that I doubt if I ever would pay-to-play again. It's not because I'm paranoid or skittish that some evil PM is gonna get my information and try to ruin my life (although there are people that I don't just want to hand my contact information out to on a silver platter). It's mostly that I don't want to pay-to-play a crap game or a game that I'm not going to find entertaining.

It's part of the same reason I've never put my contact information in the interaction thread (and never will). I don't want crappy AIM/email trailheads for games that play out over AIM, email, ad-filled websites. I don't want to participate in a game for a PM that hacked it out out over the weekend because it 'seemed like a cool thing to do'. Plus, I have enough spam in my ARG-only email account that I don't need it coming as part of a 'new game'. The 'trust' issue isn't just about what these fly-by-night PMs do with my contact information. It's also about trusting them to giving me a game that's worthy of my time. I've seen way too many PMs decide that 'oops! this is too hard' and just kill a game off. That ruins a players trust in both the PM and the genre than anything else.

I believe vpisteve is completely right that "the ARG playerbase simply isn't large enough to financially sustain these games solely by means of contributions." Despite the fact that there are over 20,000 registered users, only a fraction are active on UF at any one time. If the sole source of payment came just from active UF members, only the smallest games would have a chance at being able to cover production costs. Larger games would have to have either a larger player base (which is limited to begin with) or charge more per person (which would then decrease the active player base). You end up with a self-defeating method. Large games can only truly thrive if they bring in outside blood and if it's hard to get players who know what ARGs are to pay, think of how much harder it will be to get John Doe from off the street to pay for something he's never heard of.

Despite all this though, I think that my greatest issue with the pay-to-play issue is the assumption that my main value as a player is how much I have in my wallet. There are a ton of players who have never shelled out one penny who have provided more game assistance than has ever been truly recognized. Do you really think that a large game can survive without the players who keep all the facts straight? The players who run the wikis and the guides, who moderate boards and the chats, who welcome newcomers into the fold and help them navigate a new world. You can't put a price on that type of help, and if you could you'd end up finding your game budget rocketing out of control.

I stated at the beginning of this that I only ever paid-to-play twice. Technically, that was a lie. I've actually paid for games several times: I Love Bees, Last Call Poker, Monster Hunter Club, Year Zero (off the top of my head). The only difference is that I paid for these games afterwards because I bought what I was being marketed. Maybe that makes me a marketing sap. Or maybe I just enjoyed the experience that I had during the game that I wanted it to continue. Either way, in the end, I did end up contributing monetarily. Not because I was forced to, but because I wanted to. You really want my money in order to finance your game? Give me an amazing experience that will make me want to continuing living in that universe even after it's done. And then give me a way to do that.

[vpisteve]

[krystyn]

Also, never underestimate the power of the lurker.

Talk is cheap, when all is said and done.

*insert metaphor about icebergs here*

As a developer, it's also valuable to consider what's NOT being said, or where other stats are helpful in ascertaining the true temperature/nature of your player base.

People like to complain, sometimes. Even I sometimes spend a significant amount of energy in verbalizing criticism of something -- but that doesn't mean I hate it and want it to die. It very often means that I am feeling passionately about it, and see the potential for something greater to be happening with it. It's a fine line, that difference, but it's there.