Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[arch5]

I hope this is a joke, because if it is, I'm probably the only person on here who's stupid enough to be convinced to make a thread about it on our gaming board.

View the article here, and the source interview here.

In a lengthy interview with Develop, Newell said: "The industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone. That's actually a bug, and it's something that we want to solve through our philosophy of how we create entertainment products."

Rather than pricing a product based purely on what that product is worth, Newell talks about pricing a product based on what the customer is worth as well. "Some people, when they join a server, a ton of people will run with them," Newell continued. "Other people, when they join a server, will cause others to leave."

"So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get DotA 2 for free, because of past behavior in Team Fortress 2," Newell added. "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."

(I assume the 100$ for voice idea is just an example, I hope)

I see this backfiring terribly if this does get implemented. That one time the one person who doesn't like you gets all of his friends to down-rate you.

But keep in mind this is only a discussion, they haven't said anything about actually implementing this.

 

[Vegeta897]

This is obviously a joke not only because of how bullshit it would be, but how could you possibly quantify how popular or liked a person is within a community?

 

[Mr. Djees]

This sounds familiar, I think he talked about something like this in that video conference he had with that marketing class.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

yea he's mentioned this before. Sorry valve but it seems like a terrible idea.

Reward good players of the community yes but dont punish others =/

 

[Ennui]

I think it's more of a rhetorical point he's making, not actually proposing charging $100 for in-game VOIP for people who teamkill or otherwise troll in multiplayer matches. What he is saying is just that he thinks players who make positive and often quite labor intensive contributions to the community should get rewarded with cheaper games or money - referring to things like user-made TF2 hats and levels and whatnot.

I don't think Valve is going to start putting "Troll status" on people's Steam accounts that gimps their games and/or makes them pay more money for the same features as other players. Even if they were to punish players for poor sportsmanship, that really wouldn't bother me too much either. Valve already takes privileges worth in some cases a lot of money from people who are caught hacking by VAC... do you have a problem with that?

You can say that people should expect to get banned from online play if they are hacking, but I don't see why that doesn't also logically apply to being a troll or total dick and doing things to purposefully ruin everybody elses' experience ingame - you know who I'm talking about, the 12 year old screaming racial slurs nonstop through his mic or the douche that stands in the only path out of spawn blocking his whole team in or the guy who teamkills when there are no admins around and brings the match grinding to a halt. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean you have free license to be a smacktard and not expect consequences. Steam is a service not something you own. If you shit in the hallway of a hotel and spew profanity at all the employees and fellow guests you are going to get kicked the **** out. I don't really see how this is different. We're all used to the internet being a free for all idiot zone where you can be a complete shithead to everyone with no consequences, but there is no moral or ethical argument that defense your right to that, it's just something that we consider the norm and thus defend. I have no problem at all with people being forced to maintain at least the most basic level of decency and conduct in multiplayer games.

My main issue with this whole hypothetical situation is how Valve would catch and judge these players. Everyone has moments where they have a bad day and are tense and they tell someone to **** off through VOIP... those people shouldn't be punished, just the ones who actually dedicate a lot of time and effort to trying to ruin other people's experiences online. And by NO MEANS would I be okay with Valve having players vote on other players because that system is far too easy to abuse. Which is why ultimately I do think this is a bad idea - not in principle, just I think the implementation would be difficult and more trouble than its worth. Server admins do a good enough job punishing idiots that I think Valve should just leave it how it is.

Besides all that, this was actually an awesome interview, I read it a couple days ago on reddit. I wasn't aware that Valve was so self-organized - I know they don't like hierarchies, but I was surprised to learn that people just do whatever they personally think needs to be done rather than having someone coordinating it all from on high. Interesting that the end result has so far been nothing but spectacular games that are among the most popular and praised titles in history.

 

[ríomhaire]

The full interview is definitely worth checking out. Listening to/reading Gabe speaking is like listening to Steve Jobs, except that Gabe isn't talking complete bullshit. The charging customer's different amounts thing is one of the less interesting parts of it.

That said. I don't like his over-emphasis on "connected experiences" and social aspects. These are great for lots of games. I think a button in TF2 that would let you post killcam screens straight to your Facebook page would be pretty cool, but some experiences are personal, not social. When I read a novel I like to do so isolated and in privacy, or at least without interruption (other people in the room with me also reading or such would be perfectly fine). I may then wish to discuss the novel with people after the reading is finished but I do not fancy having a connected novel where my friends have the ability to scribble in the margin and send me messages over it. Similarly, I disabled the Steam overlay when playing Portal 2 because I did not want to be told when Glenn was playing TF2 at that particular time. Such features are not desirable in all circumstances.

 

[Stigmata]

smacktard

I haven't heard this word in years. Nostalgiabomb'd.

Also, agreed on all points.

 

[Paulaner]

A joke, for sure. That can't be a serious idea.

EDIT: Also, I may be totally wrong but I think that in some countries (maybe mine), having different prices based on the single customer could be illegal and unconstitutional. You know, personal discrimination and stuff like that.

That said. I don't like his over-emphasis on "connected experiences" and social aspects. These are great for lots of games [...] but some experiences are personal, not social.

You perfectly described the difference between MP and SP. There are moments for MP games, and moments for SP games. Two different experiences. Forcing MP stuff into SP games is just... a very bad idea.

 

[Stigmata]

I'd be more open to anti-trolling measures like, flagged micspammers are muted server-wide if more than X players mute him simultaneously. Anything to do directly with purchase price or the like is a wholly terrible idea.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

It's not a joke but it also isn't a finalised concept in a Valve game. Gabe constantly theorises about improving gaming experiences or trying to work out what is wrong with our current models or assumptions. I think I understand where he is coming from and I also think there are some pretty near impossible issues in addressing his point.

I'll be more worried when biometrics become standard and Gabe will be able to diagnose me with hypertension and inform my local GP.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm sure this was just an extreme example of the notion just to get the point across.

except that Gabe is talking complete bullshit.

Surely you mean it the other way around?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I wouldn't be entirely against the idea I suppose. I'm generally well behaved. And what better motive than discounts for people to not be a dick.

 

[Higlac]

Suddenly, there's an item introduced into tf2 for cheaters/micspammers/griefers: A hat with a little six pointed star. They'll be required to wear it whenever they play.

 

[Krynn72]

Suddenly, there's an item introduced into tf2 for cheaters/micspammers/griefers: A hat with a little six pointed star. They'll be required to wear it whenever they play.

Anyone who doesn't get this joke is a Nazi.

 

[unozero]

I don't even think that would be legal.

 

[Acepilotf14]

So I have hit the max amount of friends possible multiple times and have had to prune my friends list constantly, can I get games free?

 

[Robbo]

I don't even think that would be legal.

I'm fairly sure that giving discounts to people based on some kind of in game rating or contribution is legal everywhere. You're not unfairly discriminating if you withhold a discount to someone who is being a tool.

 

[Krynn72]

Insurance companies can do it, theres gotta be a way for the gaming industry to do it.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Anyone else feel the need to grief relentlessly then dash on the "bill"

 

[Paulaner]

I'm fairly sure that giving discounts to people based on some kind of in game rating or contribution is legal everywhere. You're not unfairly discriminating if you withhold a discount to someone who is being a tool.

Insurance companies can do it, theres gotta be a way for the gaming industry to do it.

I foresee a lot of legal actions against that idea, because "being a tool" is something highly debatable. Insurance companies have a rigid way to profile users. Ranks and levels are based on numbers.
Anyway, about insurance companies, in my country there are a lot of lawsuits when customers think they are unfairly treated or discriminated.
Enterprises can't simply set a price and go with it; there are a lot of rules to follow. (I'm talking about Italy. America is much more liberal on the matter).

 

[ríomhaire]

I'm sure this was just an extreme example of the notion just to get the point across.

Indeed, I'd say so.

Surely you mean it the other way around?

Yes I did. Fixed.

 

[Avoidist]

It's great how Valve is encouraging innovation, and you can see it in their distribution method and (for example) all the little bits and pieces that went into Portal 2 to make it great... but does it ring a bit hollow for anyone else when their last original in-house IP was made 13 years ago?

Think about it - for 13 years anyone at Valve who has said "I have a great idea for a video game" while in the Valve offices has never seen their idea even break the surface of public awareness. It might just be me, and I know bits and pieces are incorporated into their games that do make it, but that just seems utterly bizzare.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I'm probably the only person on here who's stupid enough to be convinced to make a thread about it on our gaming board.

Nope.

char

 

[morgs]

The only people against this would be people who wont benefit :V

(I'm all for it).

 

[StarBob]

I guess the simple solution would be - don't be a prick and you won't pay more for games?

I think I'll use the comparison to insurance comapanies. If you could be an asshole and crash in to people everyday... for fun, you shouldn't pay the same as someone who drives around being safe and sane. Simple concept.

Probably not the best choice in the gaming industry considering how many assholes are regularly running around. Interesting though.

 

[Asknoone]

The only person stupid enough to think it's a joke.

It's great how Valve is encouraging innovation, and you can see it in their distribution method and (for example) all the little bits and pieces that went into Portal 2 to make it great... but does it ring a bit hollow for anyone else when their last original in-house IP was made 13 years ago?

Think about it - for 13 years anyone at Valve who has said "I have a great idea for a video game" while in the Valve offices has never seen their idea even break the surface of public awareness. It might just be me, and I know bits and pieces are incorporated into their games that do make it, but that just seems utterly bizzare.

Yeah, episode what?

 

[Krynn72]

I foresee a lot of legal actions against that idea, because "being a tool" is something highly debatable. Insurance companies have a rigid way to profile users. Ranks and levels are based on numbers.
Anyway, about insurance companies, in my country there are a lot of lawsuits when customers think they are unfairly treated or discriminated.
Enterprises can't simply set a price and go with it; there are a lot of rules to follow. (I'm talking about Italy. America is much more liberal on the matter).

Dude, they wouldn't base it on "being a tool" legally. Just like auto insurance companies don't legally take away discounts from drivers who are being a tool. They would define the terms in quantifiable aspects, and they'd do it to give discounts to good players, not charge more for bad players.

 

[Vegeta897]

They would define the terms in quantifiable aspects

What aspects of being a 'likable' person could possibly be quantified? Amount of people on your friends list? There is no way to quantify something like that, and we shouldn't ever try.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

MVP in a round of TF2? 100% achievements in Episode 2? Golden potato owner? Size of genitals?

 

[Krynn72]

I'm sure they could compare the number of players who leave the server while a certain person is playing with the rest of the player base. They could have a negative rep system, where people who think you're an asshole give can rate you down and the points expire with time, though that can be abused. They could even put in code that counted the number of times you typed out cuss words or racial slurs and rated you on that. They could even do it with voice chat.

Everything can be quantified, its just a matter of how to go about doing it, and whether the effort is worth it. Why do you think it shouldn't even be tried? What are your opinions on how insurance companies determine who is a good driver or not? Do you think they shouldn't even try?

 

[Vegeta897]

MVP in a round of TF2? 100% achievements in Episode 2? Golden potato owner? Size of genitals?

What do any of those have to do with being likable? All those require is being good at games.

I'm sure they could compare the number of players who leave the server while a certain person is playing with the rest of the player base. They could have a negative rep system, where people who think you're an asshole give can rate you down and the points expire with time, though that can be abused. Everything can be quantified, its just a matter of how to go about doing it, and whether the effort is worth it.

Negative rep system? Now I know you're really reaching here. The leaving servers thing I don't even need to touch, because you know that's ridiculous. Since when do you see people leaving servers when a certain person shows up? How do you even know any of the people in a pub server to leave on cue? How do we know that people who leave the server are leaving because of someone on the server, or just done playing?

You can not name a single method to quantify likability that isn't open to extreme error or abuse.

No, the likability of a person can not effectively be quantified, and it SHOULDN'T BE ATTEMPTED. Why the **** would anyone want a number to represent how much people like them? Why the **** would anyone want a number to represent how much they like someone else? It's ****ing stupid, and it ESPECIALLY shouldn't have anything to do with the prices they have to pay for games or features.

 

[Krynn72]

Negative rep system? Now I know you're really reaching here.

Whats wrong with that, besides the abuse aspect? I don't think it should be used simply because of that, but I take it you see more wrong with it than people voting down players who are kicking their ass?

The leaving servers thing I don't even need to touch, because you know that's ridiculous. Since when do you see people leaving servers when a certain person shows up? How do you even know any of the people in a pub server to leave on cue? How do we know that people who leave the server are leaving because of someone on the server, or just done playing?

By comparing the number to the average of other players you can know that a person is more likely to be at fault. If you see that for instance 60 players per day leave a server when this one guy plays on the server with them for an hour, and the average for the majority of other players is 10 people leaving the server when they play for an hour, you know theres something else at work besides people just being done playing. If you collect this sort of data over a long enough period of time, it could be very accurate. To make it even better, you could simply have a popup when someone leaves the server with a simple query asking why they left the server and give them options like "I'm just done playing" and "There was a person I didn't enjoy playing with." Without having to specify who it would help narrow it down when you look at the numbers for a given person and compare with the average. The opposite can be observed as well, with having players seemingly keep other people playing the game for longer, suggesting they're a good player.

You can not name a single method to quantify likability that isn't open to extreme error or abuse.

I think the above mentioned method (not the rep system) could be pretty damn accurate given the right algorithms and variables, so I must disagree.

No, the likability of a person can not effectively be quantified, and it SHOULDN'T BE ATTEMPTED. Why the **** would anyone want a number to represent how much people like them? Why the **** would anyone want a number to represent how much they like someone else? It's ****ing stupid, and it ESPECIALLY shouldn't have anything to do with the prices they have to pay for games or features.

I disagree. I think it can be effectively qualified, and see no reason why it shouldnt be attempted. I don't see any reason to let people see the behind the scenes calculations of their value, but I also don't see why it would be such a bad thing to know anyways. I also don't see why good customers shouldn't get discounts for improving the value of the company's games.

 

[Vegeta897]

and see no reason why it shouldnt be attempted. (...) I also don't see why good customers shouldn't get discounts for improving the value of the company's games.

Because you're essentially monetizing human behavior. Rewarding people who conform to the algorithm's definition of a 'good player' with saving money as the primary motivation. It's disgusting and wrong. People should care about being good players for the sole reason of being a good player. Not for discounts on games.

If you disagree with this then I think you're shit.

 

[Krynn72]

So thats your opinion on safe driver discounts and such as well?

I don't understand why you seem so upset of this particular instance. Rewarding good behavior is hardly a new concept. No doubt it was how you were raised to be a good person, with your parents rewarding you for behaving well. I don't see anything morally wrong with it, despite agreeing with you on the idealistic notion of being good for goodness' sake. If giving people discounts for being good players leads to a better game experience for everyone, I don't see who is wronged in that equation.

 

[Vegeta897]

So thats your opinion on safe driver discounts and such as well?

How safe a driver is is much simpler and accurate to quantify. And people don't drive safe to get better insurance rates, they do it because they don't want to ****ing go through a windshield, or in a less extreme case, damage their vehicle.

I don't understand why you seem so upset of this particular instance. Rewarding good behavior is hardly a new concept. No doubt it was how you were raised to be a good person, with your parents rewarding you for behaving well.

That's for children, because they haven't developed a moral compass or sense of right and wrong to act on their own judgement. Completely irrelevant.

If giving people discounts for being good players leads to a better game experience for everyone, I don't see who is wronged in that equation.

I still don't think there is an effective way of identifying all of the good players in a game. Whatever criteria Valve sets up is going to leave out some type of player. And there are different definitions of what a 'good' player is. What about players that are new to games and join servers and everyone gets mad at them because they're ****ing up their team by being noobs? Should those noobs be punished because they're making the other player's experience worse? Can we trust gamers to differentiate between a person who is intentionally ruining the game or just can't help it because they're inexperienced? That's the main problem, you're putting way too much faith in the general gamer public. What some people would say is ruining a game, others might enjoy. There is no solid definition of a 'good' player, so the idea of quantifying that is flawed from the start.

 

[lord_raken]

Perhaps if you can only vote another player up?...

Anyway, its an interesting idea, but implementing a system that's fair and resistant to abuse would be a challenge. Then there is apathy. How many players will vote up another player. How many people actually pay attention to who is on their team unless they are on a private server?

I don't see why implements a "Kudo's" system as a test run would hurt anything. Test it out as a system that has no real impact outside of what regular achievements would have and see how it fly. Perhaps you could even have different Kudos categories (Example: Team player, One man Army). Then they will see if the system is popular and whether or not people abuse it. If there is abuse, then just leave it as an auxiliary feature.

 

[Vegeta897]

Perhaps if you can only vote another player up?...

God no, this just leads to the kind of thing you see on youtube. PLZ RATE AND SUBSCRIBE!!!!!!!!!! VOTE UP THIS COMMENT IF YOU SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE LOLLLLL. Just a bunch of rep whoring.

I don't see why implements a "Kudo's" system as a test run would hurt anything. Test it out as a system that has no real impact outside of what regular achievements would have and see how it fly. Perhaps you could even have different Kudos categories (Example: Team player, One man Army). Then they will see if the system is popular and whether or not people abuse it. If there is abuse, then just leave it as an auxiliary feature.

And how could we possibly tell if the system was being abused or not? Popular people who are good at getting people to upvote them would end up with high reps. We would never know how many people out there who are just as good as those people who didn't whore themselves out didn't get represented.

 

[lord_raken]

God no, this just leads to the kind of thing you see on youtube. PLZ RATE AND SUBSCRIBE!!!!!!!!!! VOTE UP THIS COMMENT IF YOU SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE LOLLLLL. Just a bunch of rep whoring.



And how could we possibly tell if the system was being abused or not? Popular people who are good at getting people to upvote them would end up with high reps. We would never know how many people out there who are just as good as those people who didn't whore themselves out didn't get represented.

They could look at game data along with the Kudos. If one player is an amazing medic who invuls multiple times in a life or heals more points than the other medics, and that player has a lot of team player Kudos then they could assume that that player deserved them. You could also give each player a limited number of Kudos to give out (have then regenerate every week or so or be proportional to the amount of time they play) that way each player will think more carefully before giving them out.

You'd also have trouble with the points going to the players who are good at the game. You'd have to implement something so the new guy who just wants to have fun has a way to get points too.

It is a challenging problem and your concerns are completely valid. If done poorly any sort of player rating system would damage the gaming experience. But it is FUN the think about, and hypothesis about solutions.

 

[Stigmata]

The only system that can counter abuse is one that happens behind-the-scenes. It's the same principle behind VAC's effectiveness. There can be no overt voting or ranking system that is player-controlled, or it will be subject to overt and organised gaming and abuse. It must be a system that provides incomplete information, if any, to the relevant players.

Trolling occurs in several domains of interactivity - text, voice, teamplay, and gameplay. Text and voice trolling can be fairly subjected to deterrents up to and including blanket exclusion. Teamplay and gameplay trolling cannot be punished by blanket exclusion, as this affects the troller's basic ability to play the game, thereby intruding on his or her purchase. No trolling can be punished by variance of price or similar, as that is some further purchase-based moral quagmire.

The easiest way to determine troll-status covertly is to use game information that is: a) already available; and b) can be understood to be predicated upon troll activity at least some of the time. Using TF2 as an example, text-trolling is uncontrolled, but is also non-intrusive and largely gameplay-transparent, so it can be safely ignored (and considered the dumping ground for trolls who incessantly hang around). Voice trolling, on the other hand, is intrusive, but thankfully can be largely identified by the client-side mute function. Looking at the percentage of same-team players who mute a person, combined optionally with the delta-time between each instance of said player being muted by a teammate, will allow you to identify players whose mic use is considered at least "irritating" and/or "not gameplay-relevant". This is not a perfect way to identify a voice troll, but it is effective on a per-mapload (or per-server) basis, and can thus be safely used as a metric of voice trolling in such self-contained instances. One simply needs to set a threshold of teammate mutes, at which to enact a server-wide mute of the player in question, which resets on a map load or upon the player exiting the server.

Teamplay-trolling falls under the domain of player skill, as all cases of teamplay trolling could conceivably be explained away by poor skill or game knowledge, and as such can not be controlled for currently. Gameplay-trolling is the domain of the abuse of glitches, bugs, oversights, and design flaws. This is even harder to measure than teamplay trolling, as no metrics exist to identify instances of gameplay abuse (and if there were, they would be used to fix these bugs before release anyway).

So uh... yeah that's my analysis of all this. I probably wasted my time but whatever.

 

[Vegeta897]

The real question is, why would we want Valve to spend so much time and resource developing this when they should be focusing on making good games.