I was reading again Daniel Cook’s thoughts on pricing and the model he chose for Triple Town. His focus on achieving long-term sustainability as a developer is an interesting one. Certainly, a product that you can never actually buy that instead asks you periodically to pay for boosts has a longer financial lifespan. And, in the case of those that might choose a particular game as a “lifetime hobby,” as he puts it, you’ve got a more-or-less linear correlation between time people spend playing a game and the income it generates. I think he’s on to something.

But then I look at myself. Living rather simply with only a minimal income, I keep an eye out for game sales and generally avoid spending more than a couple bucks on any one experience. But in any of the various free-to-play models, I will almost always choose non-monetary progression paths over spending money on a temporary boost. There’s a psychological block for me in purchasing something that doesn’t last. The consequence of this, though, is that I end up not contributing anything to these devs I so appreciate!

I’m also a creature of novelty: as much as I reminisce fondly about games I’ve enjoyed, I seldom go back and play them again. There are so many new experiences emerging all the time and there has never been a game I’ve not grown tired of at some point. And so it would appear I’m not one of those “lifetime hobbyists” with any one game, either.

Am I anomalous? Are these models just not suited for an errant consumer like me? Or would it serve my future marketing efforts to more fully embrace these approaches? “Games as services” still feels strange to me. It’s a marked departure from the history of non-video games. Is it what people want? Or is it what the market requires to ensure adequate compensation for developers?

Ack; I just want to go back to thinking about design.