Again, more information coming in today from the audio interview between Valve's Gabe Newell and Seven Day Cooldown. This time, the news concerns Dota 2 and how Newell claims that the payment structure for the game has never before been attempted.
What does that mean? Well, right now your guess is as good as ours. The Newell said that it will be "free to play" but with a "twist."
Newell continues on to say that they would like to try rewarding players who exhibit positive behaviors. Teach someone the ropes in game and be rewarded for it. It sounds great, right? Sure, but Newell says that sort of system is really hard to reliably track.
While that may not have cleared anything up at all, it is good to take away from this that Valve is looking towards Dota 2 being a F2P title. It's that little extra "twist" that might hold the key to how the game will be monetized. I'm sure their plans will start to make sense as the months go on.
What does that mean? Well, right now your guess is as good as ours. The Newell said that it will be "free to play" but with a "twist."
"It’s going to be free-to-play — it’ll have some twists, but that’s the easiest way for people to think about it.
The issue that we’re struggling with quite a bit is something I’ve kind of talked about before, which is how do you properly value people’s contributions to a community? We’re trying to figure out ways so that people who are more valuable to everybody else recognized and accommodated. We all know people where if they’re playing we want to play, and there are other people where if they’re playing we would [rather] be on the other side of the planet. It’s just a question of coming up with mechanisms that recognize and reward people who are doing things that are valuable to other groups of people.
The issue that we’re struggling with quite a bit is something I’ve kind of talked about before, which is how do you properly value people’s contributions to a community? We’re trying to figure out ways so that people who are more valuable to everybody else recognized and accommodated. We all know people where if they’re playing we want to play, and there are other people where if they’re playing we would [rather] be on the other side of the planet. It’s just a question of coming up with mechanisms that recognize and reward people who are doing things that are valuable to other groups of people.
Newell continues on to say that they would like to try rewarding players who exhibit positive behaviors. Teach someone the ropes in game and be rewarded for it. It sounds great, right? Sure, but Newell says that sort of system is really hard to reliably track.
When you start thinking about the different games that people play and you try to think about how people can create value or a service in one game and benefit somebody in a different game, you can start to see how the different games sort knit together.
How somebody who really likes Team Fortress 2 can still be creating value for somebody who is playing DOTA 2 or Skyrim, or if somebody is a creator in one space how it can translate into another. In a sense, think of individual games as instance dungeons of a larger experience, if that makes sense as a concept.
How somebody who really likes Team Fortress 2 can still be creating value for somebody who is playing DOTA 2 or Skyrim, or if somebody is a creator in one space how it can translate into another. In a sense, think of individual games as instance dungeons of a larger experience, if that makes sense as a concept.
While that may not have cleared anything up at all, it is good to take away from this that Valve is looking towards Dota 2 being a F2P title. It's that little extra "twist" that might hold the key to how the game will be monetized. I'm sure their plans will start to make sense as the months go on.
Comment