1. I bought Bioshock Infinite. I finished it a few days later. (£35)
2. I'm still paying for Star Wars: The Old Republic since its launch. (A couple-hundred pounds)

Granted, there are server costs, constant updates for SWTOR, etc, but you can see the obvious place my money is going. You can see why people would stay in one and not the other.

There are plenty of games that don't have these systems, but there are a couple of things which make it look otherwise. First of all, in the last two or three years, F2P has become viable and there have been dozens of games with that model showing up in the market. Second of all, Call of Duty and Battlefield, the two most widely played multiplayer first-person-shooters, and now Halo, all use essentially the same form of player investment.

Games like Dishonored use a version of it, but one which is refined and well built: you unlock things which directly and positively affect your experience, and you unlock them through the enjoyable activities of exploration and progression. We're not going to see "15k xp to unlock the M4's foregrip" become standard, but we may see well made systems of progression become more common.

This makes me wonder, have we reached the point where gamers won't accept a game unless it contains some sort of addictive reward system for them grind out. Similar to how people will only accept cell phones that can play games or take pictures. So much so that currently all cell phones possess these extraneous capabilities that aren't necessary for phone calls. Have gamers become conditioned to expect player investment systems in most new games?

Yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it serves my point well enough. I am pretty sure a cell phone without a camera or games would sell pretty poorly these days.

Is designing a good player investment system just as/more important than designing a good game? Without an addictive reward system, how do developers expect gamers to accept their game?

I think gamers will still accept them, they will just not invest as much time in them. The game developers take note of that and the rest is history.

This makes me wonder, have we reached the point where gamers won't accept a game unless it contains some sort of addictive reward system for them grind out. Similar to how people will only accept cell phones that can play games or take pictures. So much so that currently all cell phones possess these extraneous capabilities that aren't necessary for phone calls. Have gamers become conditioned to expect player investment systems in most new games?

Yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it serves my point well enough. I am pretty sure a cell phone without a camera or games would sell pretty poorly these days.

Is designing a good player investment system just as/more important than designing a good game? Without an addictive reward system, how do developers expect gamers to accept their game?

Personally I don't think so, I think plenty of games sell well that don't have addictive reward systems (except for achievements, but I am 99% sure those are required by Microsoft and other distribution companies). A few examples: Bioshock games, Metro 2033 and Last Light, and Portal 1 & 2 as just a few examples. I definitely think they are (sadly) the exception to the rule now, but they definitely exist and can sell very well.

Yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it serves my point well enough. I am pretty sure a cell phone without a camera or games would sell pretty poorly these days.

Is designing a good player investment system just as/more important than designing a good game? Without an addictive reward system, how do developers expect gamers to accept their game?

A lack of significant player investment is what has kept me from playing any of the Halo games in multiplayer to any significant degree.

A lack of significant player investment is what has kept me from playing any of the Halo games in multiplayer to any significant degree.

This sentence is the epitome of what I'm talking about.

Raid Designer job description (which is NOT the one I posted about) there was also one posted about microtransactions

We were talking about player investment, I thought. We've had multiple conversations about that subject. I did not think you meant every subject we've had on DBO recently with even the most contrived connection.

'Microtransactions' is short-hand for a particular monetization strategy. If you mean extra content being released after the game's initial ship, that can come with or without the monetization strategy.

Living in Scotland is hard enough! "Outwith" my arse! :P

BTW: You use incredibly strong innately-negative metaphors such as "polluting" the game, when there's no proof that such a system will do anything of the sort. I don't appreciate that. :(

No no no no no no - that's how he draws you in! Don't look at him! EnderCody's only attack when they're seen . . .

Your only choice is to record yourself at all times now.

BTW: You use incredibly strong innately-negative metaphors such as "polluting" the game, when there's no proof that such a system will do anything of the sort. I don't appreciate that. :(

No no no no no no - that's how he draws you in! Don't look at him! EnderCody's only attack when they're seen . . .

I say Bring On The Trumpets!

BTW: You use incredibly strong innately-negative metaphors such as "polluting" the game, when there's no proof that such a system will do anything of the sort. I don't appreciate that. :(

There is nothing that works against one's suspension of disbelief, sense of immersion, and
of unadulterated fun quite like pay gates.

"Player Investment" need not necessarily mean "ways for The Man to have his hand in your pocket", how about simply "making things fun and engaging over a long period of time"? Ten years of Halo seems to have passed quicker than I would have thought, but it certainly wore on me like I've heard it did on some of Bungie themselves. They have the experience and the skill on-hand, I trust no other developer as much to keep things fun and not be picking my pocket all the while.

For what it's worth, I love this part of a game's lifecycle most of all; when so many things are possible. Bungie is capable of changing the way we interact with and experience our entertainment in significant ways. I think we should remain open to what could be instead of expecting to be disappointed.

I expect great things.

~M

If I understand correctly, Cody usually takes the phrases to mean what the rest of the industry uses the phrase as, which is a pretty legitimate POV. I am (like at least some of us) quite a bit of a fanboy so I usually think: Bungie is going to take what other developers do and strip away the crap and make it awesome.

I admit to being in this camp.

Such a system results in a player becoming invested in the game. Ergo, player investment system.

How can you use such broad definitions sometimes and such narrow ones at other times?

If I understand correctly, Cody usually takes the phrases to mean what the rest of the industry uses the phrase as, which is a pretty legitimate POV. I am (like at least some of us) quite a bit of a fanboy so I usually think: Bungie is going to take what other developers do and strip away the crap and make it awesome.