I used to play <i>way too many</i> video games. I broke the habit by refusing to buy games that didn't fit a very particular set of criteria:<p>They have to be...<p>- single-player,<p>- story-based campaigns<p>- with a target completion time under 30 hours<p>- and a Metacritic score above 85%.<p>This way, I can play 5 to 10 games per calendar year without a dramatic dent on my social or professional lives. I've been doing this for the last 3 years and my annual gameplay time is probably somewhere around 100 hours.<p>Some tricks:<p>Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things to do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way too much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits & then when you get there, stick the game back in its case and put it on the shelf. Don't leave it in your console.<p>Don't even try the multiplayer versus modes. Just don't do it. Pretend that menu option isn't even there. Those modes are intentionally addicting.<p>And if you really prefer multiplayer, or if you simply can't avoid that attractive menu option... then set an alarm before you start playing. Press snooze when it goes off, finish your round, and then STOP PLAYING. If the snooze alarm goes off, turn the console off mid-round.<p>Try to find great co-op games & schedule time with a friend to play them. This lets you overlap human-contact time & gaming time.
I have to wonder when this whole trend is going to come crashing to a halt. When, if ever, the social-gaming population will wake up one day and think, perhaps aloud, and perhaps at great volume, "What the <i>fuck</i> am I doing with my life? <i>Why</i> do I need more virtual corn patches?" And, perhaps, "You know what? I'm not accepting the Facebook invitation into little Mikey's mafia family. Fuck that noise. I'm out."<p>By this, what I really mean is: when someone finally gets sick of Farmville, is he going to move on to the next Farmville, or is he burned out on the genre for good? Seems like there should be a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" dynamic at work with players of these games. Which would mean that the genre is destined for oversaturation and burnout, and that there will be diminishing returns awaiting any marginal entrants into the field.<p>I'm sure the genre, as a whole, is still growing by leaps and bounds. But do we have any leading indicators about the playerbase? Such as their likelihood to be investing in more than one time-sinkey social game at a time? Or their likelihood to pick up another after quitting the first?<p>I'm not wishing for the demise of the genre, but rather, am hoping that it'll hit a plateau from which it will be forced to innovate, experiment, and evolve. Seems to me that the cold, reductionist design philosophy of addiction-by-the-numbers should eventually dig its own grave in the form of mass player burnout on games produced as such. Then again, that's never happened with casinos. So this may be woefully naive thinking on my part.
Probably off topic, but hooey on that:<p>If you want to play an absolute gem of a game, go grab Cave Story. It's free, and it's "fun", in the most distilled form.<p><a href="http://www.cavestory.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cavestory.org/</a><p>It's one of those games that makes you wish you could wipe your memory --- just to re-play it again for the first time.
We, myself most definitely included, are all part of this.<p>On this site we love (ohmygoddowloveit), AB Testing, metrics tracking and all that goes along with it.<p>"Games getting more addictive" is very similar to "We used Abingo and this is what got the most responses."<p>I'm not saying this is bad so much as it doesn't represent everything and that there is a point between pandering to people and providing a service.
A good Saturday read. The incentives developers face when designing free-to-play games do indeed lead to games that are no fun.<p>But I actually think many game genres are getting <i>less</i> addictive. It used to be that distribution of games was so expensive that there was little money to be made without catering to the hardcore gamers (I use that loaded term to mean someone who is willing to spend huge amounts of time on a game)--so games often took forever to complete and were designed to be most fun if played in 5-hour chunks.<p>Now, with internet distribution and marketing, some indie game designer can design smaller games and sell them for $10. So there's a place in the market for smart games designed to be played in less time.<p>And, unlike the pusher-addict economics of social games, the low cost of distribution is win-win and not going away. Indeed, as it becomes easier and easier for a small team or single developer to make good games, this trend should only accelerate.
The sad thing is, it's not even social games anymore.<p>TF2 and Heroes of Newerth both became free in order to sell more premium "can't wait" for it goods.<p>Valve even has job listings for economists and psychologists now.
This kind of thing is admirable in a machiavellian evil kind of way.<p>It is amazing to think of the thought & effort that goes into making a title as infuriatingly awful (yet unarguably profitable) as some of these ville/hotel/zoo grinding games.<p>I bet someone somewhere is laughing & twirling their moustache.
I am not sure if the comparison holds but this FEELS like how bankers created derivatives. Its warping something from the inside out just to get some greed fuel.
And there I am still playing Quake because:
- achievements don't matter
- instant play
- a game is 10min
- its fun
- no experience points
- no DLC
- nothing to collect<p>Subscription brings you more maps.<p>Oh shall I mention, that Quake doesn't make enough money ?
Last fun game I played was Shenmue II about 8 or 9 years ago. It had it all - story, gameplay, art direction, cinematics, soundtrack, emotion, everything, that is, except profitability. Thus, Sega cancelled the series and I haven't played a game as genuinely enjoyable since. It's sad to say, but some fun games just don't make good business games.
I find games like this utterly vapid and without any appeal whatsoever. I wonder if there's a name for the condition in which you are psychologically immune to these games, for whatever reason. I'm thankful I have it.
This was a pretty good read, and I agree with much of what was written. However I can't help but think a macro piece of the puzzle has been left out: status.<p>WHY do people pay money for virtual goods? WHY do people assault friends with requests they know are annoying? WHY do people play games that aren't fun? The answer is status. From the outside looking in, we might think people spending real money within these games are crazy. But from the inside, there is a different game with different rules. And the players of theses game have accepted these rules. It may seem ridiculous to outsiders, but within the game there are sometimes millions of other players who create a culture of who and what is "good" or "bad". So just like in real life, "average" people are concerned with nothing more than accumulating crap and generating envy; being "good" at the game.<p>The model for any Facebook game is easy: Provide a platform where people are able to quantitatively measure their value versus other people. Provide a clear means to increase that value. Sell them the means, and do it for $1 at a time. For most people, that's easier than putting a new BMW in the driveway for your neighbors to oggle.
As someone who balances a free to play social game on Facebook everyday I find this kind of generalization short sighted and demeaning.<p>The nuances of creating a social free to play game go far beyond this simplistic narrative. A compelling user experience that engages non-paying users and convinces some players to convert is WAY more challenging than most people understand. ESPECIALLY if you care about your community.<p>The tools you HAVE to use are based on metrics and data. But you don't sacrifice fun. In the end you are still selling fun. If it isn't fun, people won't PLAY it...<p>In the end though... it isn't art, it's all just entertainment.
This is what makes a game like Starcraft 2 so great. Every player, regardless of time spent in the game, starts out with a level playing field. There is no incentive to play the next game except to get better.<p>So how does Blizzard extract more money from you? They balance the game, update it frequently, and then don't charge you. And they hope your experience was so great that next time a Blizzard game is released you will know that it's a high quality game that will be supported for years.<p>No gimmicks, no shortcuts, just gameplay.
There are multiple awesome video games every year. This post seems to be describing Facebook games or one genre of games in a generalization of the entire industry. As an avid gamer and big fan of the industry this post's title/conclusion is appalling.<p>Also, it's quite easy to play video games and still have time to learn things and further your skills for your career. I'm a dad, a gamer, and a programmer, and I love it.
These games are the embodiment of a generation raised on the idea that when the bell rings you change classes and at the end of thew week you get a gold star if you did all the things you were supposed to.<p>It puts them right back into a safe world where if the follow the rules they get rewarded.
It's kind of gross how that market of games is growing. It's really quite terrible, but at the same time genius, at least in the metric of making money.<p>At the same time I don't think there is a need to worry about the gaming industry being overtaken with that dirt - indie games have really been keeping my hope up with video games as a creative outlet. Lots of really wonderful stuff and wonderful people behind the works - here are some nice sites for finding such games.<p><a href="http://indiegames.com/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://indiegames.com/index.html</a>
<a href="http://gamejolt.com/" rel="nofollow">http://gamejolt.com/</a>
Good thing is that old games are still there, and you don't need expensive hardware to play them.<p>Now I play 5 year old games with a GPU integrated into my CPU. And since I'm pretty casual as a gamer (a few times a month), I'm pretty content.
I've become pretty harsh on video games in general. I wasted a lot of my life in WoW, and I've seen a couple other people <i>waste</i> their brilliant minds on video game playing.<p>If it doesn't contribute to interpersonal, personal, or societial good, I don't want to play it. I've gotten my 'video game' fix by playing pen and paper RPGs and meeting new people.<p>These days, I read history books for my "long-term amusement" and wouldn't mind playing video games with long-distance family (they don't play though).<p>Remember Steve Yegge's talk this summer. Please, do something more uplifting than incrementing a digital counter.
Yes, games like that suck, but I don't find them addicting. Perhaps there is a certain type of casual gamer that likes them, but to me, they're far too obvious to be interesting.<p>However, I do still find games on both my iPhone/iPad combo and on console. Humble Bundle's games are great too.<p>Just picked up a copy of Rage last night...good stuff. And though I find WoW slightly addicting, it's still a great one.
Jonathan Blow (creator of Braid) has an interesting rant on social video games:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqFu5O-oPmU" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqFu5O-oPmU</a><p>The gist being that games like Farmville are A/B tested to maximize addictiveness and profit, rather than maximizing fun.
Then play old games. I still regularly play Doom whenever I need to think about a solution for something. It's fun and the gameplay is instinctive, so you can let yourself think about things while playing.