Re:U.S. adults are spending big on video games, playing most...
by derefr on Thursday May 09, 2019 @06:08PM
(#19872930)
> but ultimately, they were microtransaction games nonetheless.
I would argue that "casual game with microtransactions" is a particular design philosophy, and arcade games don't actually share this philosophy. Sure, both games have you constantly paying small amounts, but consider:
In an arcade game, if you get really good, one quarter can let you play for hours. Arcade games effectively charge bad players more for their time, with time-cost trending toward zero as skill increases. So there's effectively a finite amount of money any given player will ever have to spend on the game (unless they hit a skill ceiling, get stuck not making any progress, but continue to find the game fun nevertheless—which is rare); and skill at many types of games are "portable", such that money you spend learning one arcade game is money you don't then have to spend learning another similar game.
In a modern casual F2P game, skill at the game's mechanics is entirely orthogonal to the thing you're paying for. Sometimes this means that the thing you're paying for doesn't affect the mechanics, e.g. skins. But other times this means that both good and bad players can "pay to win", and that there's no point at which you're so good that it would no longer make sense to give the game money.
Imagine a competitive arcade game with a point-based leaderboard on its attract screen (e.g. most racing games, games like Donkey Kong or Pac-Man, etc.) But imagine that, instead of needing to pay to play and quarters equalling continues, instead, anyone can play for free, but quarters increase your score by 1000 points (with no indication that this was done.) Even the top players would need to take advantage of this to show up on the leaderboard, because if they didn't, they wouldn't rank, since all the other top players had.
I would argue that "casual game with microtransactions" is a particular design philosophy, and arcade games don't actually share this philosophy. Sure, both games have you constantly paying small amounts, but consider:
In an arcade game, if you get really good, one quarter can let you play for hours. Arcade games effectively charge bad players more for their time, with time-cost trending toward zero as skill increases. So there's effectively a finite amount of money any given player will ever have to spend on the game (unless they hit a skill ceiling, get stuck not making any progress, but continue to find the game fun nevertheless—which is rare); and skill at many types of games are "portable", such that money you spend learning one arcade game is money you don't then have to spend learning another similar game.
In a modern casual F2P game, skill at the game's mechanics is entirely orthogonal to the thing you're paying for. Sometimes this means that the thing you're paying for doesn't affect the mechanics, e.g. skins. But other times this means that both good and bad players can "pay to win", and that there's no point at which you're so good that it would no longer make sense to give the game money.
Imagine a competitive arcade game with a point-based leaderboard on its attract screen (e.g. most racing games, games like Donkey Kong or Pac-Man, etc.) But imagine that, instead of needing to pay to play and quarters equalling continues, instead, anyone can play for free, but quarters increase your score by 1000 points (with no indication that this was done.) Even the top players would need to take advantage of this to show up on the leaderboard, because if they didn't, they wouldn't rank, since all the other top players had.