Forums Kongregate

Kreds Discussion page 25

653 posts

Flag Post

Forgive me if this has been addressed. Some games (Junk Battles to name on), have options to exchange Kreds for in-game money. The in-game money can only be obtained via Kreds (in a reasonable manner, at least), and gives one huge advantages, nearly unobtainable via normal gameplay. Essentially, it turns Kongregate into a game “demo” site, where to play the full game (competitively) one must pay.

Of the multiplayer games that have such systems, I would love to know how often someone scores in the top ranks without use of Kreds. It could be an interesting tag (Kred user vs non-Kred user) for profiles.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Demoncatt:

So, I’ve done 4 of the Third Party Advertisements, some of them wrecked my additional e-mails (Made for this purpose) with spam and it totalled to about 50 Kreds, 51 I believe so I could purchase something on Remnants of Skystone, one of my favorite games here on Kong and I didn’t see a single Kred. I completed every single one. I even went back and tried completing some of them multiple times because they didn’t work the first time and now I feel I’ve been cheated out of something I’ve been promised. Just something that bothered me. Thanks for listening

I’ve had similar issues. It is very annoying, but if I want to pay for games, I’ll buy them at a store.

 
Flag Post

The admins are arguing with us because they want us to buy Kreds so they get money. It’s so obvious. You can’t fool us, admins! We’re too smart for you!

 
Flag Post

I’ve read a few pages on this and I thought I’d share my feelings.

Something I’ve noticed is that when you download software on the internet, there are two different classes – shareware, and freeware. Freeware is exactly that, free to use in entirety, no strings attached at all. Shareware, on the other hand, is a bit like a demo version of a game. Limited in some ways, but if you pay for the full version you get a product that’s usually (not always, but usually) better than freeware.

I don’t mind paying to play a game – frankly I’d gladly pay a couple of bucks to play some of the games here. I do that on the iTunes Store, I’d surely do it here too. But I am a very avid gamer, and I appreciate the idea that I’m doing everything I can to be successful at the game. And when you can pay an unrestricted amount of real money to enhance your gameplay, I’ll always get the idea that I’m not as successful at the game as I could be. Well, that’s just me, but I’d like to say that it makes it a lot worse in games with an MMO or PVP aspect, because there will always be players who don’t mind paying, and I hate the idea of players not being on a level playing field because one player spent more money.

TLDR: I feel like developers should make their games with the “freeware/shareware” differences in mind. A dev who makes a freeware game could have an option to receive Kreds just as a “thank you”, while the shareware games (a lot of which are MMO oriented) should clearly indicate that the game can be seen as a demo, but to receive the full experience, players should think about paying for it.

 
Flag Post

I’ve seen that argument before, but where do you draw the line? Being able to buy something in-game doesn’t immediately mean it’s a demo.

 
Flag Post
I hate the idea of players not being on a level playing field because one player spent more money.

I hate the idea that I have to compete in real life with someone who’s more willing or able than I am to pay for stuff. It’s so unfair that they should do better in life because they spend more money. It’s up to the player to decide how they want to approach the aspect of a game with real-world money, and they’re allowed to do as much as they want to make their time in the game enjoyable.

 
Flag Post
It’s up to the player to decide how they want to approach the aspect of a game with real-world money

That also includes not playing the game and hating the developers for implementing such a system. Those types of games are aimed at players who would compete with money, and it’s perfectly fine for players who don’t like it to hate those games.

I’m not sure why you brought up real life, since just because it’s a real-life aspect isn’t a justification. Ultimately, it’s up to the developers. A developer can decide to make a game that requires you to see all colors, and it’s perfectly fine for colorblind people to hate those games.

 
Flag Post

That also includes not playing the game and hating the developers for implementing such a system. Those types of games are aimed at players who would compete with money, and it’s perfectly fine for players who don’t like it to hate those games.

Nowhere was said you can’t do that. In fact, many of us are trying to argue if there’s a game with kreds, those who don’t like them should just not play the game.

A developer can decide to make a game that requires you to see all colors, and it’s perfectly fine for colorblind people to hate those games.

By all means, rate it down. Which is already possible. You’ll see most games with kreds implemented are still fairly highly rated.

 
Flag Post

Don’t think something should be rated down just because it’s got pay features, that’s not how the rating system should work IMHO. I just don’t want this place to turn into a Zynga with all their BS games which have no point playing unless you pay for it.

I totally appreciate the fact that people spend a lot of time making games and they should be rewarded for it. Label it as a buy-stuff-in-game sort of game, or charge a couple of dollars to play. I don’t mind at all, and I’d probably pay for a few of them.

And let the devs who don’t mind making games for free have a way to earn money without putting rubbish “pay to get special item x!” functionalities in their games.

And as to the question Darkruler, yes I feel any game which charges for in game upgrades should be labelled as such “free to play, pay to unlock specials”. Free games should be completely free.

 
Flag Post

Not having a level playing field like you mentioned is a very good reason to downrate. I mostly rate lower because of balance issues, including both completely free games and ones with pay content. Imagine the outrage if you could buy advantages in StarCraft.

Kongregate won’t turn into Zynga because it’s a flash portal (and sponsor), not a development studio. There will still be lots of completely free games unless something drastic happens. There are already many Zynga clones on here, but they’re only a small number of the total games.

Before you could buy content with Kreds, there was only the option of donating. Now, games with pay content earn much more than donations for completely free games because of the manipulative nature (unlevel playing field, etc.) and that lots of people would rather get something in return for their money. I thought it was nice with only donations, but it’s not going to change back.

I doubt any further categorization would be made to separate completely free games and ones with pay content because they would lose that initial hook. It’s voluntary for developers to mention it has pay content upfront. Right now, there’s only the Kreds game group. Yeah, I’m tired of typing “completely free” since “free” can also mean “partially free” in a twisted way.

 
Flag Post

Don’t think something should be rated down just because it’s got pay features, that’s not how the rating system should work IMHO.

Well, I appreciate that, but some people instantly rate a game 1/5 if it even includes a hint of kreds.

And let the devs who don’t mind making games for free have a way to earn money without putting rubbish “pay to get special item x!” functionalities in their games.

You can tip them kreds.

Free games should be completely free.

Free to play does not imply there are no options to ever give the developer a bonus. I’ll give a simple explanation. Let’s say we have game A. Kongregate allows the option for people to tip the developer of game A, but nothing in-game changes due to that. Let’s say we have game B. In game B, you can pay kreds to get a nice background or a colour change for your character. In game C, you can pay for special weapons, upgrades and bonuses. In game D, you can pay for extra levels. In game E, you have to pay before you can even play.

Let’s compare and start with the easy ones:

Can game E be considered free? No, I think very few people would agree it is. The only “free” thing about this game is the starting screen, but since that isn’t the core of the game, the game itself cannot be considered free.
Can game D be considered free? In full, no. If you look at the whole, intended game, you can only play it through entirely if you pay. However, that is an unfair comparison. If you have two identical games, but one includes the option of paying for extra levels, then surely you must see both have the exact same amount of free content? Game D can already be considered free, but it has buyable content.
Can game C be considered free? The whole game in this case is entirely unlocked, you only miss out on certain upgrades and bonuses. Let’s assume these aren’t required to beat a certain boss or level (as it is in many cases), so there’s even less reason to state this game is somehow pay-to-play.
Game B doesn’t even give you an advantage for paying, it merely “pays you back” for donating. Entirely free to play.
Game A is roughly the same as game B, except it doesn’t give you additional nice stuff for donating.

Now for some additional arguments. I’ll use Dever’s post for this.

Not having a level playing field like you mentioned is a very good reason to downrate.

I’m not sure what you mean. What is a “level playing field”? Is it not giving the option to pay for additional content? Or for good bonuses? Is it not favouring those who played in the beta? Is it not giving free extra’s for playing an extended amount of time without interruption? Is it not making people who “farm” get higher stats? Is every person spawned at an exact same location with exactly the same neutral enemies and exactly the same resources around them? Until what point can you randomize or expect people to simply be “better”, play for a more extended period of time or pay cash?

I mostly rate lower because of balance issues, including both completely free games and ones with pay content.

Completely fair, even if the rest of the world disagrees with you. You have the privilige to rate what you want for whatever reason you want. You can state a game is imbalanced with some reasoning and if the developer gets more of such complaints, he might look into it.

Imagine the outrage if you could buy advantages in StarCraft.

Suggestive. We don’t know. If people don’t like it, they won’t play it any more, it will be bought less and word-of-mouth will generally be negative. The developers will notice this and quickly change strategy. If it’s positive, then no matter what the elite will say, profit will go up and complaints will be ignored (unless the company thinks fixing this complaint will increase profits even more). I’d imagine if StarCraft had something like this implemented, they’d make two versions. One in which nobody is allowed any advantages, regardless if they paid and one in which these are activated. This will seperate those who paid and those who didn’t, but at least the full game doesn’t suffer any more because of these differences.

Regardless, there is one thing you have to keep in mind. Profit and success. A person generally thinks about earning profit, even you. You want to maximize value. Value to a company is generally getting a higher revenue than costs. When a company thinks implementing a pay-to-play system or simply additional bonuses when you pay is profitable, they will implement it.

Now, games with pay content earn much more than donations for completely free games because of the manipulative nature (unlevel playing field, etc.) and that lots of people would rather get something in return for their money.

That’s how marketing works.

 
Flag Post
What is a “level playing field”?

You can’t be that dense. The argument is about free vs. pay content. If someone pays for an advantage over a free player, it’s no longer a level playing field. One can’t be a free player and then pay for the advantage to be equal because then he wouldn’t be a free player. Free vs. free and pay vs. pay are level playing fields.

It’s even in your 2-version StarCraft example. Why didn’t you suggest that they mix them in one version?

Suggestive. We don’t know.
No, it’s not suggestive, and we do know. There’s a reason why Blizzard hasn’t done it. They’ve done their research on pay content. Balance (a level playing field) is one of the main aspects of the game.

 
Flag Post

You can’t be that dense.

Pardon for triggering the ad-hominem. I’m trying to see your definition.

The argument is about free vs. pay content. If someone pays for an advantage over a free player, it’s no longer a level playing field. One can’t be a free player and then pay for the advantage to be equal because then he wouldn’t be a free player. Free vs. free and pay vs. pay are level playing fields.

That’s why I added all those questions in the same paragraph. Do you or do you not agree those are factors as well in which you are no longer in the same level playing field?

To be fully honest, you still are in the same level playing field. One of you simply is a pay-player, and the other a free player. The pay-player received an advantage through paying. There could easily be a game where a free player gains an advantage over another free player (or even a pay-player) by staying up all night farming. Is this unfair? Or is that not what you’re implying? I do not think it is unfair a player finds a way to gain an advantage (unless it’s a bug/glitch, in which case his account should be modified).

It’s even in your 2-version StarCraft example. Why didn’t you suggest that they mix them in one version?

Could be. The developer should simply think what is more profitable.

No, it’s not suggestive, and we do know. There’s a reason why Blizzard hasn’t done it. They’ve done their research on pay content. Balance (a level playing field) is one of the main aspects of the game.

It is suggestive until you actually point out such a research. We don’t know until we have a research on it. Just a minor, scientific point.

It’s entirely about profit, as said above. If Blizzard finds out it is more profitable to not include pay-content in a “free” game (it isn’t free, but let’s take it as such for now), then it won’t.

 
Flag Post
Do you or do you not agree those are factors as well in which you are no longer in the same level playing field?

In a level playing field, two players with the same skill, time investment, etc. should end up in a tie or as close to one as possible. In the context of free vs. pay players, it’s not a level playing field because the free player can’t have the same advantage as the paying player when both have the same skill, time investment, etc. In your bug/glitch example, just replace “glitch” with “pay option”. So, those things you mentioned aren’t factors in the context.

It is suggestive [subjective?] until you actually point out such a research.

I thought it was famous enough, but I’ll link you to the Cracked article about FarmVille. You can also find scientific articles in psychological behavior relevant to pay content.

For Starcraft, introducing pay advantages to a well established playerbase that depends on balance will be catastophic. Pay content only works under certain conditions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ItBeNickYo:

To buy:

US$5 = 50 creds.
US$10 = 110 creds.
US$20 = 225 creds.

No way am I spending $5, that would totally buy me some subway.

Can buy a 5$,5$,5$ FOOTLONG :)

 
Flag Post

In a level playing field, two players with the same skill, time investment, etc. should end up in a tie or as close to one as possible.

A a level playing field, two players with the same skill, time investment, and same amount of money spent on the game should end up in a tie or as close to one as possible. You are arbitrarily leaving out the money factor in an effort to support your argument. It is to be expected paying players gain an advantage over non-paying players as it is to be expected if you spend more time on the game, or are better at it, you have such an advantage as well.

In the context of free vs. pay players, it’s not a level playing field because the free player can’t have the same advantage as the paying player when both have the same skill, time investment, etc.

It is only not a level playing field because for some reason you leave out money as a factor that should be available for getting an advantage in a game. I’ll point out again that a player who has school from 9 to 5 and does homework from 7 to 10, only allowed to play on the PC from 10 to 11, will never be as good in a farming game as a person fired from work and capable of playing all day long. Not a level playing field, in your definition. The thing is they do not spend equal time on the game. In the same way a free player does not spend money on a game while a paying player does. The advantage is expected.

In your bug/glitch example, just replace “glitch” with “pay option”.

No, let’s not replace “glitch” with “pay option”. That is ridiculous. It’s like saying if we have a farming game, experience gained by everyone is shared by everyone. If you farm a lot, you’re giving away free experience to the rest of the players. If you don’t farm at all, you are getting free experience without doing anything. Again, the advantage is an expected one. You are not abusing glitches, the comparison is laughable at best.

So, those things you mentioned aren’t factors in the context.

No, the context is your pre-drawn conclusion. You assume paying money cannot be a factor and conclude that it therefore cannot be a factor. That’s not how it works.

Pay content only works under certain conditions.

Developers explore and learn. When they make profit, they are doing something right. When they make losses, they are doing something wrong. When the latter occurs, time to get a new strategy. If your strategy was payable content, you might opt taking it out. If you’re profitable while having payable content, leave it in unless research suggests your profit will be higher without it. It’s really that simple.

 
Flag Post
You are arbitrarily leaving out the money factor in an effort to support your argument.

Ok, we’re going in circles:

and same amount of money spent on the game

One can’t be a free player and then pay for the advantage to be equal because then he wouldn’t be a free player.

I’ll put it another way. In a level playing field, all players have access to the same utilities of the game. A free player doesn’t have the same access to a pay utility as a paying player.

Expected advantage doesn’t equal balance or a level playing field. I can make a game with a pay-only item that makes the player invulnerable. The free player obviously isn’t balanced against the pay player with that item. If you believe that one side always winning and the other always losing is balanced, you need to look up the definition.

I’ll point out again that a player who has school from 9 to 5 and does homework from 7 to 10, only allowed to play on the PC from 10 to 11, will never be as good in a farming game as a person fired from work and capable of playing all day long.

It’s still the player’s option to go to school and do homework instead of playing the game. Both can choose to spend all day playing. A free player can’t choose to pay for an advantage because then he wouldn’t be a free player by definition.

No, the context is your pre-drawn conclusion. [cut] That’s not how it works.

That’s exactly how it works. I gave you a definition of the context, and those factors don’t apply. The context is free vs. pay players, not the context of reality or the entire game.

In a different context, you can say that reality is a level playing field. In that case, any and all factors pertaining to reality apply.

No, let’s not replace “glitch” with “pay option”. That is ridiculous.

In your farming anology, all players have access to the same advantage (not farming). A free player doesn’t have access to pay options by definition.

In your bug/glitch anology, the player that can abuse the glitch has an advantage over players that don’t know about the glitch and therefore can’t access it. In the context of reality, games are known to have glitches, so the one abusing the glitch is just taking advantage of reality that everyone has access to. Notice the difference?

You can replace “glitch” with “pay option”, and it’s the same arguments we’re making. Interchanging the phrases is not comparing them to each other like you seem to think.

Developers explore and learn. When they make profit, they are doing something right. When they make losses, they are doing something wrong.

You’re giving an obvious generalization and avoiding the specific example of Starcraft that I gave. In the interest of ending this tangent, the Blizzard VP doesn’t think pay options for an advantage make sense for that game.

 
Flag Post

Ok, we’re going in circles:

We are indeed. Again, drawing a conclusion from your assumption is not how it works.

I’ll put it another way. In a level playing field, all players have access to the same utilities of the game. A free player doesn’t have the same access to a pay utility as a paying player.

A non-farming player does not have access to the same utilities as a farming player. It’s really that simple. These advantages are expected. If a free player also wants these utilities, he pays.

Expected advantage doesn’t equal balance or a level playing field. I can make a game with a pay-only item that makes the player invulnerable. The free player obviously isn’t balanced against the pay player with that item.

You are only looking at paying. If any developer implements an invulnerability item which instakills any player he touches with a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% droprate from a boss which spawns once in a million years, and then one player earns it, the balance is completely gone as well. This is not just a paying issue. If you do not gain unreasonable advantages through any factor, the game is balanced.

It’s still the player’s option to go to school and do homework instead of playing the game. Both can choose to spend all day playing. A free player can’t choose to pay for an advantage because then he wouldn’t be a free player by definition.

..that is just ridiculous.

Let’s call a person who goes to school 9 to 5 a “school person”. Let’s call a person who doesn’t have anything to do all day a “non-school person”. By definition a non-school person has an advantage over a school person, as he has the ability to farm away or gain skills in a game where the school person does not. Obviously the school person can’t choose to not go to school, because then he wouldn’t be a school person by definition.

See how that works?

That’s exactly how it works. I gave you a definition of the context, and those factors don’t apply. The context is free vs. pay players, not the context of reality or the entire game.

The context is simple. Pay players gain an advantage over free players because they paid. If this advantage is surreal, then balance is out of the question, so go ahead and rate it down for being imbalanced, not for allowing pay options.

In your farming anology, all players have access to the same advantage (not farming). A free player doesn’t have access to pay options by definition.

Let’s make two groups again. We have “farming players” and “non-farming players”. A non-farming player does not have access to farming options by definition, or he wouldn’t be a farming player any more.

See how that works?

In your bug/glitch anology, the player that can abuse the glitch has an advantage over players that don’t know about the glitch and therefore can’t access it. In the context of reality, games are known to have glitches, so the one abusing the glitch is just taking advantage of reality that everyone has access to. Notice the difference?

I can’t see the point:

1. Everyone knows about the pay options.
2. If everyone has access to these “glitches”, and there’s no legal issues involved, then the ones not abusing it will have a disadvantage.

You can replace “glitch” with “pay option”, and it’s the same arguments we’re making. Interchanging the phrases is not comparing them to each other like you seem to think.

Interchanging the concepts is useless and false.

You’re giving an obvious generalization and avoiding the specific example of Starcraft that I gave. In the interest of ending this tangent, the Blizzard VP doesn’t think pay options for an advantage make sense for that game.

I’m not avoiding any specific examples by “generalising” what every normal company does or should do. A company’s primary goal is profit (or shareholder value, which usually can be achieved through the same means). If an option grants profit over another, it should be chosen. Blizzard may hide behind an excuse of “it doesn’t make sense to implement this feature”, but really all they’re saying is “it is believed to be unprofitable opposed to not implementing it”. Evaluating options takes a long time, and includes a lot of factors. If your players aren’t satisfied, they are going to leave and make for bad advertising. That’s just one example. Blizzard evaluated this and came to the conclusion it is not profitable. There is no other reason. If there was, they would be a bad company. Risk your competitors overtaking you by thinking of the elite who absolutely hate payable content when it could be profitable.

I’m not saying it is profitable, I’m merely showing you that just because a few elites think something shouldn’t be done, a company isn’t suddenly going to say “well, okay, it was going to increase profits, but if you say so!”.

 
Flag Post
If a free player also wants these utilities, he pays.

That’s a contradiction. A free player can’t be a free player if he pays. He will be a paying player.

Again, drawing a conclusion from your assumption is not how it works.

It’s defining the context and coming up with a conclusion from the implications of that definition. If I assume “x > y”, then I can conclude that “y < x” from the implications of the “>” symbol.

This is not just a paying issue.

Indeed, but it includes a paying issue. It’s also a balance issue that directly results from having an unbalanced paid item that a free player doesn’t have.

If you do not gain unreasonable advantages through any factor, the game is balanced.

Exactly, this includes advantages from paid items.

If this advantage is surreal, then balance is out of the question, so go ahead and rate it down for being imbalanced, not for allowing pay options.

Cosmetic pay items don’t affect balance because they don’t create a gameplay advantage. Pay items that do affect gameplay will create an imbalance (the advantage).

Obviously the school person can’t choose to not go to school, because then he wouldn’t be a school person by definition.

Now you’re talking about people who choose to go to school vs. those who choose not to. That isn’t relevant to pay content whatsoever. Now, replace “going to school” with “buying pay content”. See how that works?

The problem is you’re mixing contexts. You’re trying to make a free player who spends 2 hrs gaining XP equal to a paying player who spends 1 hr gaining XP with a 2x XP pay item. You can’t say that’s inherently balanced because every free player won’t be playing half as long as every paying player. A free player and a paying player who spend the same amount of time playing also aren’t equal. A player who abuses a glitch also won’t be equal to them. A player who loses his internet connection in the middle of playing also won’t be equal to them. I can bring up an almost infinite number of factors and claim a game can never truly be balanced. It doesn’t work that way. I also can’t claim that all games are balanced because there can be combinations of factors which make each player equal. You only work with the factors you’re comparing in the context. I’m only talking about free vs. pay players. All the other factors (not relevant to pay content) must be equal for each player under that context.

Blizzard evaluated this and came to the conclusion it is not profitable. There is no other reason.

There’s also always a reason why something is profitable or not. You can’t arrive at the conclusion without the supporting arguments (reasons).

I’m merely showing you that just because a few elites think something shouldn’t be done, a company isn’t suddenly going to say “well, okay, it was going to increase profits, but if you say so!”.

A company has to first think that throwing away its already established consumer base will increase profits, and then it will become Digg.

 
Flag Post

By Darkruler2005:

If this advantage is surreal, then balance is out of the question, so go ahead and rate it down for being imbalanced, not for allowing pay options.

By Dever:

Cosmetic pay items don’t affect balance because they don’t create a gameplay advantage. Pay items that do affect gameplay will create an imbalance (the advantage).

Basically you both agree on the same thing. The rest are just pointless debates of logic paradoxes. The point is that it’s the individual devs that includes the pay options, making the game imbalanced that is to blame, not the whole micro-tx system.

 
Flag Post

Basically you both agree on the same thing.

..but I don’t agree that all payable content inherently makes a game imbalanced. It is an expected advantage, unless the advantage is surreal, as I said.

That’s a contradiction. A free player can’t be a free player if he pays. He will be a paying player.

1. A non-farming player can’t be a non-farming player if he farms.
2. You cannot get those utilities as a free player as you cannot get certain utilities in-game due to all kinds of other factors (such as extra experience from farming).

If I assume “x > y”, then I can conclude that “y < x” from the implications of the “>” symbol.

If “X > Y” isn’t true in the first place, your conclusion is also wrong.

Indeed, but it includes a paying issue. It’s also a balance issue that directly results from having an unbalanced paid item that a free player doesn’t have.

The thing is that not all purchasable options are imbalanced.

Exactly, this includes advantages from paid items.

As long as you accept it doesn’t matter where the imbalance comes from, because you seemed to be implying there is some sort of inherent imbalance in between paying and non-paying players. If you apply this imbalance in every area of a game, then we agree. However, it is not always imbalanced if there is a difference.

Pay items that do affect gameplay will create an imbalance (the advantage).

No. Unless you are going to rate down a game for allowing people to gain +1 attack if they are online for 5 hours longer than the standard player, there’s no reason to think all things you can pay for are imbalanced. It depends on the items/features.

Now you’re talking about people who choose to go to school vs. those who choose not to. That isn’t relevant to pay content whatsoever. Now, replace “going to school” with “buying pay content”. See how that works?

Not really. All you’re saying is “person X isn’t person Y, so it’s wrong by definition”. It isn’t. The advantage gained is expected, and if it’s imbalanced, you rate it down for that. But not because it’s due to payable content.

I’m only talking about free vs. pay players. All the other factors (not relevant to pay content) must be equal for each player under that context.

Which doesn’t make any point or whatsoever. If everything is equal except one factor, then surely one player will have an advantage. The problem is accepting this advantage isn’t inherently imbalanced.

There’s also always a reason why something is profitable or not. You can’t arrive at the conclusion without the supporting arguments (reasons).

I don’t have to. I know profit is the reason. A good company will never say “well, we wanted to include payable content due to it really being profitable, but we decided against it a few hardcore players would leave (even though we would gain a massive amount more of profit from the players who stay)”.

A company has to first think that throwing away its already established consumer base will increase profits, and then it will become Digg.

Everything is already evaluated. Everything. Future cash flows. Expected value from established customers. Everything. If that is profitable, it will be included. Otherwise it won’t. It’s really that simple.

 
Flag Post

we should earn kreds for just using kongregate…

 
Flag Post

we should earn kreds for just using kongregate…

Why, yes, everyone should be given money for no reason at all.

 
Flag Post

Kreds are a silly thing.
In every game that has a Kred-feature-thing availible to players, there will always be a bunch of people who are inevitably MUCH “better” than all the other players. “Better” meaning “They have the money for the Kreds, so they can get the best items”. I reckon I have even seen games where the very best items REQUIRED you to buy Kreds. That’s just a bitch move.

Also – The surveys I can take to get free Kreds are never updated. There isn’t a “survey of the day” either. Second bitch move. I only earned a total of 6 Kreds from free surveys! And apparently this is only because I’m DANISH!
I know what you’re thinking: “Pull the other one! Just ‘cause you’re Danish?” But I shit you not, people. A friend of mine, who happens to be in America, has an entirely different range of surveys that he can do in order to get free Kreds.

I could probably continue finding things to bitch about now, but I have better things to do. Sort of.
So, I’ll do this the easy way, and declare the entire Kred-system a complete and utter bitch move on Kongregate’s part.
Why do we need Kreds anyway?
Okay, okay:
1) To support our favourite games. (Doesn’t seem like a lot of people actually want to spend money on a regular internet flash game just because they like it, though.
2) To get more money for Kongregate. Yay capitalism! (And don’t lie now, we know for a fact you earn extra money from Kreds. Especially because…)
3) Kreds create a massive gap between normal users, and the users who actually BUY Kreds to get fancy shit in the games! (This is a very obvious fact, mind you – one that I have experienced myself. Not just on Kongregate and because of Kreds, but on other sites and in other games with similar systems as well. It just spoils gameplay completely because a (relatively) small number of people have the money and are halfwitted enough to pay for Kreds/otherstuff…)

Sometimes, I really just wish Kongregate would put the Kreds in a brown linen sack and drop them in an icy river, much like a disgruntled father drowns his daughter’s kittens when her cat had sex one too many times.

 
Flag Post

Arghast – You know… Kong would bankrupt without them.