Indie-Resource.com

Long thread title is long. But anyway.

Is it ethical to make levels really hard, near impossible even, in an effort to get people to buy add-ons to make it easier? IE with Candy Crush, alot of my friends play not I, there are certain levels that are much harder than the rest of the game and the player is normally 1-3 moves away from winning, so they think they buy the extra moves and boom, they're good. Another example in say an RPG is say you have a large ledge to jump, but can't to all your abilities. So you buy bonus points to put into your jumping skill. Stuff like that. Is it unethical to do that, or is it fair game?

I personally don't like it, but it is actually the players that are pushing this new trend. We had a discussion about this fairly recently. The mobile gaming explosion has changed gaming. People expect games to be extremely cheap or even free, but are more willing to pay for virtual goods or advantages in the games. They also want games that are nearly on par with console and PC games, but when you look at the $50+ for PC and console games, and the $5 at the most for a mobile game, you see there is a problem there. Studios have to put guaranteed money-makers into their free or very cheap games, since $1.99 doesn't come close to covering the development costs.

So really it is the players wanting more technical, cheaper games and being more willing to spend money inside the game that has pushed this trend. Publishers trying to release more traditional handheld console style games for more money (such as $15 - $25) have repeatedly been met with poor sales. Square-Enix saw it when they tried to release some of their Nintendo DS games on the system. Now they just make garbage like Final Fantasy: All The Bravest.

Are you talking a full on block - you can never make that ledge jump? Or are you talking about putting in a grind, so either A: if you grind you can eventually make that ledge jump or B: You can just pay for the upgrade right now.

I'm okay with the shareware concept because it tells you you only get part of the game. When a game says you get the whole game, but then you are blocked at the ledge with a paywall, that's just a lie. A fraudulent one, I think, if pressed at court.

The grind, however, as annoying as it is, seems valid to me - the people who pay to skip the grind are paying for convenience - and we all do that when we buy fast food.

Callan S. wrote:Are you talking a full on block - you can never make that ledge jump? Or are you talking about putting in a grind, so either A: if you grind you can eventually make that ledge jump or B: You can just pay for the upgrade right now.

I'm okay with the shareware concept because it tells you you only get part of the game. When a game says you get the whole game, but then you are blocked at the ledge with a paywall, that's just a lie. A fraudulent one, I think, if pressed at court.

The grind, however, as annoying as it is, seems valid to me - the people who pay to skip the grind are paying for convenience - and we all do that when we buy fast food.

Not so much a "grind" thing, more like a 'its really hard, and it'll take you 5000 attempts, but eventually you'll get it or pay for it' kinda thing

I think that just falls into missleading advertising - it's not functional gameplay (like predictably grinding points is boring yet functional gameplay). It essentially is making a game that doesn't work properly, until you pay. That's not giving a free game - it's missleading.

Having a predictable grind element doesn't appeal? Heck, if you're making a game that uses a server, you can even make only a small amount of grinding can be done each day, thus making the 'pay to skip' option even more attractive.