Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-13-2011 @ 5:30PM
Bart said...
”The crucial part of the design is not having to invest, but wanting to. Most people in the Bigpoint universe don’t ever pay,” says Philip Reisberger. ”But if they want to pay, don’t just offer hats — offer them something that will help them. It wouldn’t ruin the game. If selling an advantage ruins the game, you haven’t done the balancing right,”
No amount of facedesking...
Reply
9-13-2011 @ 6:35PM
zweitblom said...
"If selling an advantage ruins the game, you haven’t done the balancing right"
Of course it ups the challenge, but in my opinion most people only accept that in one of two cases:
a) the 'dumb machine' having an advantage by design to make up for its lack of intelligence, or
b) them being able to *choose* to give another player an advantage.
In the end what will happen is either everyone buying the advantage, or the people not willing or able to buy it leaving. The result will be the same: everyone left in the game will have the advantage and thus - negating it. It's a con scheme, plain and simple.
9-13-2011 @ 11:18PM
cloudhopper013 said...
So... if giving players who pay an opportunity to tilt the game's balance in their favor causes balance problems then it's your fault for not balancing the unbalancing?
... what?