Kwari: PC Gamer Review

By John Walker on March 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am.

Ah, the nostalgia for Quake 2

Every now and then when the handsome folk at PC Gamer aren’t feeling handsome enough, they put up one of my reviews. It’s approximately a 34% increase in handsome. Today they’re buffing up with my review of online money-spending opportunity, Kwari. It begins very much like this:

Games traditionally work like this: you buy it, you install it, and then you play it as much as you like until you grow old, wither, and die. Let me try and sell a different idea to you.

How about instead you install the game, and then pay and pay and pay every time you play it? Sounds good, eh? Oh, and you could win some money too! You know, after you’ve paid for your ammunition.

And carries on over here.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

14 Comments »

  1. Nick says:

    That just has to be the most unappealing game I’ve ever heard of.

  2. ExcaliburXVII says:

    1 Sinister $32,610.81

    That’s the top guy at the time this comment was posted. Not too shabby. He probably owes them like $60,000 though. I wouldn’t bother playing it.

  3. Flint says:

    Why would anyone actually think this would be popular? Losing real money when hit in a fast-paced FPS sounds like a popularity suicide.

    Then again, you did seem to find other people to play against…

  4. John Walker says:

    It’s interesting – that Sinister fellow has been top of the board since it started, and he has apparently turned a huge profit. But each time I’ve checked in the couple of months since release, after about position 8 in the top 10, people are on a loss.

  5. Ben Abraham says:

    I wonder how this would reverse the trend identified by some researchers that says that Gamers have a sense of pleasure when they die… Might change that paradigm a little bit if there was money on the line. Alternatively, It could be an even *more* addictive form of gambling, as it would tap into the pleasures of gambling *and* dying in games…

    Okay… too weird.

    (I believe it was a chapter in ‘The Game Design Reader’, Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman Eds. but It might have been somewhere else… :S )

  6. Lou says:

    “In three matches, I’d blown £10.”

    Wow, seriously? What a complete joke. I would have thought they have much, much smaller stakes, where maybe after you play for a few weeks, you’ve lost/won the amount a game normally costs.

  7. ianwest says:

    There are much better business models: prizes sponsored by in-game advertising; charge-to-play with a weekly webcast/telecast playoff of best players who then win a big cash prize (so people would pay-to-play to get good enough in the hope of winning the final) —- I did a business plan for a pay-to-play game about 4-5 years ago, but couldn’t get backing for it. But just straight pay-to-play with no added tweaks or bells and whistles – that’s just dumb

  8. sigma83 says:

    That sounds like honestly the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. You lose money for picking up health? Idiotic beyond belief.

  9. ReturnToNull says:

    Well it would be popular like gambling is popular. Pay someone money for the chance of playing their game where the odds are stack in their favor, and you just -might- get a a return, maybe.

  10. John Walker says:

    Lou, since the review was written, they’ve introduced a lower rate. Which is interesting, as the previous one was intended to be the lowest, with higher money games to be introduced later.

  11. Wickedashtray says:

    If they can’t keep exploits and cheating out of regular shooters, what makes them think a game where cash is at stake is immune?

  12. Taximan says:

    Because I’m crap at html hotlinking: http://expresszone.blogspot.com/2007/12/chris-rock-on-gun-control.html


    You know what you need?
    We need some bullet control.

    Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. l think all bullets should cost $5000. $5000 for a bullet. You know why?’Cause if a bullet costs $5000 there’d be no more innocent bystanders.
    That’d be it.

    Every time someone gets shot, people will
    be like, “Damn, he must have did something.”

    “Shit, they put $50,000 worth of bullets
    in his ass.” People would think before
    they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5000.

    “Man, l would blow your fucking head off,
    if l could afford it. l’m gonna get me another job,
    l’m gonna start saving some money… and you’re a dead man. You better hope
    l can’t get no bullets on layaway.”

  13. Zed says:

    Ben Abraham: “I wonder how this would reverse the trend identified by some researchers that says that Gamers have a sense of pleasure when they die…”

    I’m still very skeptical of this. Anyone ever had to do a presentation in front of a group? Very stressful. Intense, even. And when it’s over? You feel fantastic (i.e.: relieved). The pressure’s off, so you can enjoy the moment, and reflect on what happened. Frankly, on some FPS’s at least, I’ve had the same experience. Some extremely intense scout runs in Team Fortress spring to mind.

    Somebody else told me about this IRL, but I don’t recall if (or where) I’ve seen this on the web.

  14. Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:

    Taximan beat me to the punch.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>