I wouldn't describe it as a "shit" game as the production values and craftsmanship are quite high. On the other hand, it is clearly exploiting a bug in my wiring.

I've spent over $400 on Clash of Clans. I can afford to, but I don't feel that it's a good use of my money. This game design is definitely on the intrusive / addictive end of the spectrum. The obviously wouldn't be making so much money if it were a flat-rate game like Minecraft.

I guess we've known for a while (at least since EverQuest or World of Warcraft at the very latest) that when you combine "polish" with content designed to scratch some addiction-seeking itch in our brains, bad things can happen. At least with those you know the flat rate you're going to be paying over the course of the coming year? I'm sure there's an argument that can be made about you getting "your money's worth" for that $400 of entertainment... but jeez... $400? That's an awful lot of money for a video game. If you knew back when you first installed the game that you'd end up spending so much money on it again, do you think you'd still go ahead and install it?

I've spent thousands of dollars on Magic: the Gathering cards and stuff (across 15 years).

I think it's way more than I should have, and I'll never get it back. It does have the addicting part (packs and drafts are addictive as hell), and a "collectible" part for rationalization.

I have some kind of personal problem that leads me into these time sinks, because I've mostly quit, only to replace it with other time wasters (League of Legends and others).

edit: omonra, your post is dead.

> I have some kind of personal problem that leads me into these time sinks

Your personal problem is that you're a higher animal. Out of the reinforcement schedule patterns that maximise conditioning, the "Variable Interval Reinforcement Ratio" or VIRR is the most powerful.

That is: systems with random payoff schedules are the most addictive to higher animals. Pigeons, rats, humans: if good stuff happens at random we quickly become shackled to whatever it was we were doing.

Gambling: random payoffs. Addictive.

Buying MtG booster packs: random payoffs. Addictive.

Many, many computer games: random payoffs. Addictive.

> If you knew back when you first installed the game that you'd end up spending so much money on it again, do you think you'd still go ahead and install it?

No. I expected to spend about $20. I'd have bought a drill-press or cheap logic analyzer instead.

Ha, that's a great answer. I want to be clear I wasn't intending to be critical or chiding you with my "jeez $400 is a lot of money!" comment. I'm not sure if it came off that way or not.

I've got my own mobile gaming addiction -- I'm just fortunate that the game I'm addicted to (Civilization Revolution) didn't have microtransactions for a long time, and what they've added recently, I've been able to avoid.

I tend to get to a point that I just delete the game. I used to play Tiny Towers and did some small in-app purchases but nothing big.

The biggest issue I have with these games is that they can be great time wasters.

At some point, I just deleted the game as I realized my addictive side was taking over.

It would be great to have an app that you can selectively pick apps that you want auto-deleted after a certain time depending on how much time you have spent in the app.

Would a less exploitative model for freemium games be to allow in-app purchases up to a pre-set maximum? I.e. you can play this game for free, and also be assured that you'll never spend more than $80 on it.

I think this would definitely help in some situations. I don't think it would make sense to set up a hard limit though.

Imagine that once the user starts the game for the first time, they are asked if the app should track how much they spent on in-app purchases and let them know if they are at that limit.

If they are about to make another purchase and it will go over the limit, the user is shown a message with the total amount spent so far and that this purchase will push them over the limit.

This would stop the "trigger finger" effect. It would cause the person to break from the heat of the moment with the game and instead of making the question one of - "I want to buy this so I can get ahead in the game.", it becomes - "I already spent X amount on this game, do I want to spend another xx amount.".

I think if someone has a lack of self control, there isn't too much that can be done from blowing a lot of money in this in-app purchases. But I do believe that for the average person, having that second level of intervention (ie. the message with how much they have spent) provides enough pause to really decide if they want to make the purchase.

Does this make good business sense to add this feature? As a game developer, likely not. I don't know how this would benefit a game developer aside from "doing the right thing".

As a game developer, I would welcome industry standards that force games to have labels indicating the maximum amount of money a player can spend in the game.

Saying a game is "free" and then charging for in-game goods is disingenuous. Saying it's $1.99 and then having $100s of shit to buy inside the game is also disingenuous. It should say the game is "free" with "no limit".

If you have a free game with a single expansion pack, then it should say "free", "up to $5" for the expansion pack.

This kind of information is magnitudes more important than the stupid ESRB ratings we have for console titles.

I would personally try many more games if they had these labels. I would also be more comfortable developing "real", one-time fee games, if the competitive landscape were straightened out like this. As it stands, freemium games make boatloads of money and the industry will continue to shift in that direction until something is done about it. The only thing I can think of is to make the consumer more aware in advance.

I suspect we're exploring well-trodden ground here, but perhaps one-time unlockables would be better than consumables because there's a natural limit (you can't unlock the same thing twice). IIRC AoEO mostly worked this way.

That's no reason they couldn't be an interesting case study, though. I mean, these days everybody in the gaming business is chasing those same suckers, from EA on down. So what these people are doing that makes them so successful at catching them is an interesting question.