unforum

[sherpa]

[META] Would you pay to play this ARG?

[Alzheimers]

Depends.

If the question is: "Would you pay to participate in an ARG with a rich storyline, fairly quick updates, interesting puzzles, and a satisfying conclusion?" Then the answer is Yes. I buy more Dreamcatcher and Adventure Company games than any other brand, so I'm used to paying for adventure and puzzle games. Making it online, available anywhere, and distributed throughout an active community -- ie, making it seriously MMO -- that's good enough for me.

If the question is "Would you pay to participate in what's essentially a glorified advertisement, with everything above included?" The answer becomes No. If there is an alternate agenda to the game (ie, "Be sure to drink your ovaltine!") then I have a serious problem being asked to shell out a couple bucks to participate for what's essentially targeted marketing. If the product itself is good, I'll pay for it -- that'll be their reward. Asking me to make a direct donation to their marketing department, however, is insulting.

[Varin]

I don't think I would pay to play. Maybe if a bunch of others here did and reviewed it as completely and totally outstanding, the BEST ARG EVER, I would consider it.

[sherpa]

[clamatius]

I think that part of the problem in paying for a game like this is that once it's done, it's done. So when you get to read the review saying "this is really good", it's already too late. I suppose that this problem could partially be resoolved by the PM team having a good reputation from previous ARGs (e.g. the Hive over at MS, who did the Beast ARG).

[Varin]

[Kagehi Kossori]

From my own experience, pay to play usually means they have a crew of people dedicated to get out a story line who really don't have the imagination or dedication to do it right. The story points will be spoon feed, as will passwords, etc. If someone cracks the game too early, then the lack of dedication to the idea will derail it, since no one will be willing to up the ante and expand the story. This is of course why spoon feeding was done in Majestic. If you never had enough clues to figure out the entire story from day one, the developers didn't need to worry about having to completely rewrite the script to deal with the fact that every player already knew everything that was going to happen.

It presents a complicated mess and only the free ARGs have gotten it right, mostly since they don't have a long term agenda to make money off it month after month. If players break it in a week, who cares... If someone breaks open a pay to play in a week, you have lost even the slightest possibility of profit. It isn't a risk companies are going to take, unless they invent ways to insure it doesn't happen, which ruins the flow of the game. A non-company 'may' be able to, but if you don't do a superb job and are not willing to spend a lot of sleepless nights shifting the story to deal with every suprise a player pulls on you, then it still isn't going to work. You would need to be extremely clever to find a way around this problem and even text based muds, which are not too disimilar a concept, at least when they first open and everything it unsolved, can't successfully sustain it unless they leave everything, including the story in the hands of the players themselves, only providing the stage, props and lighting as it where. ARGs though provide stage, lighting, props, actors and story. This complicates things 'a lot'.

I would say, good luck and, hmm what would be appropriate.., 'break a server' perhaps? lol

[Dorkmaster]

I would pay a monthly fee only if it was as such:

An "ARG Channel". I mean it like this: You pay for content on a monthly basis, whether you progress with the game or leave it alone. Your call, which does make it less attractive, I suppose, if you're casual, but you're also not limited to ONE game... there'd be at least two games going on (like UH & ILB), and you could participate in one, the other, or both, if you wanted for the one fee paid... and when one game ended, you would wait about a week for a new rabbithole and a new game (if you caught it, or you could cruise the "main" forum to see what quicker eyes saw...)

Anyway, it would be a subscription-like service, but without the crappy one-game aspect. This way you avoid "simple" solves like Majestic, and plot doesn't have to be updated for all time to keep the value. You just go to another game when one ends, essentially. You would have downtime if you wanted, and if there were more than two games, they could be these adverts like Haunted Apiary, but those would be beyond the standard two. What do you think?

Edit - not to mention, it would be cool, cuz I would only imagine that the PMs would be temporary (for one game only, and come back as "management" saw worthy) and we would see original content often, and also would give a lot of creative people a venue to try their puzzle ideas/acting talent/web skillz, etc...How cool would it be to work for the ARG Channel!!!

[Tru7h]

I agree with dorkmaster- an ARG channel would be cool. And I'd agree with the pay-per-month model as well. But it would only work with, as Dorkmaster said, multiple ARGs going on at the same time.

[missphinx]

I wouldn't pay for this game itself (unless it turns into some kind of overwhelming life-changing mega-experience at some point (you never know)), but I kicked in some cash to help support unfiction (http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4849) (thank you spacebass et al. for providing this place for playing the games) and would give more if asked.

[miss_seph]

I wouldn't pay to play the game, if a game was pay per user I'd just follow it on the various forums that are covering it.

[hamatoyoshi]

The problem with pay-to-play...

[subatomicsatan]

there'd have to be far more structure and a much better way of communicating information...it gets discouraging if everything one posts is trouted (or simply ignored) and if you SPEC something that others think is absurd or post it in what the moderator thinks is the wrong thread, you get told the rules which can, in a newbie's view, be subjective...and discouraging.

having said that, i completely understand the necessity for it...so, i see this as a very niche market--meaning, only an elite few would be able and willing to jump in and spend the money when all the "glory" will go to those who have the time to spend on it--or those who are more familiar with this type of game.

i see no way around this in a "live" game as we are playing now, but i do have a number of ideas for a more individual or team-based approach...but that probably gets into another genre of game...of course, this all a sort of interactive fiction.

if you do plan to have a pay-for-play game, i would recommend a free "audit" mode where a person could view the progress, but not take part in the game--this would allow people to become acquainted with the style of game play as well as to get involved in the excitement, but be unable to contribute their ideas which would make them more likely to play for real in the future.

just my views on the subject,
james

[sherpa]

Actually, yeah; there would be nothing as infuriating as being able to watch but not contribute -- rather like screaming at the TV when the Crystal Maze,Knightmare etc are on (and despite having lived in the US I have no idea what your equivalents are, I'm afraid. Hm. Fictional fantasy based game and puzzle shows; Big Brother? )

Thanks for your comments so far, folks. Enlightening

[Genesis11]

Well, I'm not sure what those shows are, but I suppose the closest thing to a game like this is "The Amazing Race"... Americans seem to be stuck on the whole "Reality TV" thing, but this show is probably the best puzzle game of them all. It involves a bunch of people going all over the world on a scavenger hunt- but to keep people watching they include "challenges" like rappeling down a skyscraper and stuff. It's pretty cool, but right now it's not on.