Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Goko Dominion Online => Topic started by: philosophyguy on April 09, 2013, 11:44:16 am
-
As someone who watched Goko trying to fix their issues and hoped that the current status of the software was good enough, I wanted to share that I am now seriously regretting purchasing their product. Besides the UI issues like bane cards and the lobby (oh my god, the lobby), I regularly and unpredictably have to deal with issues like getting a solid black page instead of a login screen, or having the gear spin indefinitely while attempting to login.
I'm sharing this here not to complain, per se, nor to file a bug report (I've been quite busy on getsatisfaction), but simply to strongly discourage anyone who is undecided about Goko from buying their product. At this point, it's a pain, and not only has it felt like wasted dollars but it's actually dulled my love for the game Dominion.
-
That was…beautiful.
-
...I regularly and unpredictably have to deal with issues like getting a solid black page instead of a login screen, or having the gear spin indefinitely while attempting to login.
Out of interest, how many people are having these problems? I have had this happen exactly zero times on FF or Chrome since getting each of the most recent browser updates.
-
...I regularly and unpredictably have to deal with issues like getting a solid black page instead of a login screen, or having the gear spin indefinitely while attempting to login.
Out of interest, how many people are having these problems? I have had this happen exactly zero times on FF or Chrome since getting each of the most recent browser updates.
I've only played a few times on Goko, and it's never happened to me.
-
I get the black screen more often than not. I was putting it down to my dodgy old computer and/or less than brilliant internet connection, but it seems others are having the same problem.
-
I get it every time on my home laptop using Firefox for some reason. Chrome is okay though. And my other computers are all fine with Firefox. I can't figure it out.
-
Yep, the third post completely derailed the topic. Anyway, I'm most likely not going to buy Goko.
-
...I regularly and unpredictably have to deal with issues like getting a solid black page instead of a login screen, or having the gear spin indefinitely while attempting to login.
Out of interest, how many people are having these problems? I have had this happen exactly zero times on FF or Chrome since getting each of the most recent browser updates.
I've had it happen sometimes. Not that often, but sometimes. Refresh usually fixes it for me. I've been bouncing around between Chrome and FF recently so I don't remember which one it was or whether it was current, but still. It happens and is annoying.
-
I have issues like those in the opening post quite often, which is why I haven't bought goko's product yet. It's gotten better, in December 70% of games would never load.
But these problems shouldn't even happen; I have an up-to-date computer and my internet is reliable.
-
...I regularly and unpredictably have to deal with issues like getting a solid black page instead of a login screen, or having the gear spin indefinitely while attempting to login.
Out of interest, how many people are having these problems? I have had this happen exactly zero times on FF or Chrome since getting each of the most recent browser updates.
I've had Goko lock up on me one time since... whenever i started trying it again. ~150 games. Not a bad rate.
-
Ever since I got Goko I've only used it to play with IRL people. It's been fine for this.
Until last night. I tried playing with other people. I started a game that said "All Cards Except Promos" and never had to wait longer than 15 seconds to start a game. Not too bad.
Everyone I played was of pretty low level; they all seemed like they were still in the "buy lots of action cards" phase of the game, so I only lost once out of like 10 games. The games went by pretty quickly, I guess. That one loss, though, man that set my rating back. I was pleasantly surprised that one person bought a Duchy with more than $8 because buying a Province would have resulted in a loss.
I was really surprised at how many people resigned on me. I think 3 out of the 10 games went to the end. One resigned on turn 4 when he (I assume) accidentally passed me his opening Pillage when I played Masquerade. Hmmm.... One resigned before I took my first turn. I suppose it's good that they had the decency to click the resign button, though.
Hmm, that reminds me, I've been wondering if Pillage is a good opener, but so as not to derail the thread, I'm going to start a new one. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7794.0) See what I did there?
But the last game, my opponent "disconnected" after several turns in a row of me playing Margrave. Yeah, OK maybe that wasn't very nice, but I gotta tell you. Sitting there for five minutes before my opponent was forced to resign was not fun. Not fun at all. I didn't want to play anymore after that. In fact, I don't want to go back into the lobbies to play with strangers. After just one time. Wow.
There seems to be little incentive for people to finish games at the moment. Do people not know what resigning does to their rating? Five minutes seems a little bit excessive here, what are we waiting for if there's no possibility to reconnect?
There's no way for me to have any chance of playing a high-level opponent, or for any type of auto-match. These things have to be fixed for Goko to be playable for me. Is this still a public beta? Why did we take iso down if this is still a public beta? Why isn't this stuff fixed? Why do I need a browser extension to have a visible game log? Why hasn't Goko done this? If amateurs who don't have access to the code can do it, why can't professionals?
Needless to say, I wish I could have paid money for a completed product, and I'm regretting that there isn't a completed product out there (that I already paid money for).
-
Note: Iso took 3 minutes for an auto disconnect.
-
For me right now, Goko is a product that I am happy to mooch off other people for. I don't own any cards and just wait until someone hosts a game that has more than just base. But right now it isn't worth the asking price, honestly I wouldn't pay $10 for it at this point.
However, iso is a product that I would have gladly spent money on. And I would have paid more than what Goko is asking for. I would have spent $100 for iso.
I think in the end what is going to keep me from buying into Goko is the question of whether or not this business can succeed in the long term. I am very skeptical that it can. And the question--and the question always pops up whenever you are dealing with something of this nature--is what happens when Goko fails to make enough money to sustain its costs and keep its investors happy and has to cut back, let go of its employees and eventually go out of business? I lose out on my money, yes?
Because right now that is where I think Goko is heading. I wish it weren't and maybe I am just being pessimistic. But right now I do not see their business model succeeding into the foreseeable future and I am not willing to spend money on something that might only be around for a little bit longer.
-
But the last game, my opponent "disconnected" after several turns in a row of me playing Margrave. Yeah, OK maybe that wasn't very nice, but I gotta tell you. Sitting there for five minutes before my opponent was forced to resign was not fun. Not fun at all. I didn't want to play anymore after that. In fact, I don't want to go back into the lobbies to play with strangers. After just one time. Wow.
On my very first attempt at a multiplayer game, my opponent did me one better: he tried to get me to quit. If he had 3 coppers to play, he would play them one by one, at 4.5 minute intervals. If I were to leave the game open and wait for him to lose without checking back, I could've been the one hit with a timeout. GAH.
All that being said, I didn't come starry-eyed into the Goko version, but I'm glad it's there. I'm a relative n00b, and I hardly have opportunities to play IRL, so an online option is very good, even if isotropic was infinitely better. And I really like having the option of playing against bots - it's an opportunity to practice, and to have quick, me-focused games, so bots are better than solitaire or multiplayer.
-
But the last game, my opponent "disconnected" after several turns in a row of me playing Margrave. Yeah, OK maybe that wasn't very nice, but I gotta tell you. Sitting there for five minutes before my opponent was forced to resign was not fun. Not fun at all. I didn't want to play anymore after that. In fact, I don't want to go back into the lobbies to play with strangers. After just one time. Wow.
On my very first attempt at a multiplayer game, my opponent did me one better: he tried to get me to quit. If he had 3 coppers to play, he would play them one by one, at 4.5 minute intervals. If I were to leave the game open and wait for him to lose without checking back, I could've been the one hit with a timeout. GAH.
That happened to me on isotropic. I would just do something else and wait for the "boop". Eventually he timed out.
-
As one of the shameless moochers, I have to wait for games hosted by people with all the cards, and usually with 4000+ pro ratings. This seems to be a more dedicated group and I rarely have quitting of other such behavior. It happens, but there are plenty of players with sportsmanlike behavior to be found.
-
On my very first attempt at a multiplayer game, my opponent did me one better: he tried to get me to quit. If he had 3 coppers to play, he would play them one by one, at 4.5 minute intervals. If I were to leave the game open and wait for him to lose without checking back, I could've been the one hit with a timeout. GAH.
One solution for this would be to have a rolling clock. It could start fresh (at, say, 3 minutes) at the beginning of your turn, but playing a card would only add, say, 10 seconds to that clock.
-
So far I have not spent any money on Goko because of the lack of good auto-match. If they ever put that in I will likely buy the whole package. But I really miss being able to take a 15-20 minute break from work and play a game or two in that time.
Right now I only play with a group of friends from college, one of whom already purchased all the sets.
My basic impression of Goko is that it is serviceable but not exceptional. For the weekly games I play with the college friends it functions well enough for us to play.
EDIT: I forgot, the ability to create random decks with certain restrictions is very important too.
-
Goko's interface is absolutely infuriating. Having end turn right next to play treasures with no warning or doublecheck, and having discarding/trashing look exactly like playing makes it borderline unplayable. I'm probably 15 levels lower as a player than I was in iso because of these things. Also it not remembering my setting when I'm creating a game is mildly annoying.
And that's just the objectively terrible stuff. On top of that I hate the match making and absolutely despise not having a point counter or veto mode.
It's so badly inferior to isotropic it's not even funny. Gg dominion, you were a really fun hobby.
.. or am I just dreaming these problems? Someone tell me there is something I can do about these things!
-
Goko's interface is absolutely infuriating. Having end turn right next to play treasures with no warning or doublecheck, and having discarding/trashing look exactly like playing makes it borderline unplayable. I'm probably 15 levels lower as a player than I was in iso because of these things. Also it not remembering my setting when I'm creating a game is mildly annoying.
And that's just the objectively terrible stuff. On top of that I hate the match making and absolutely despise not having a point counter or veto mode.
It's so badly inferior to isotropic it's not even funny. Gg dominion, you were a really fun hobby.
.. or am I just dreaming these problems? Someone tell me there is something I can do about these things!
Well, when you're discarding cards, they're highlighted in yellow. When you trash them, it's red. When you're playing them, it's blue. Just pay closer attention. In general, your UI issues are the result of you playing too quickly and not being used to Goko. In time you'll stop making those mistakes. It probably wouldn't even take that long.
As for no point counter, I don't care. It's cheating and the only reason iso had one built in was because you can't stop people from using a plugin to do it.
As for veto mode, good riddance. Dominion is already a great game. It doesn't need a bullshit meta-game that you play first to improve your odds.
Goko does need to fix their matchmaking/lobby situation. It's abysmal.
-
Goko's interface is absolutely infuriating. Having end turn right next to play treasures with no warning or doublecheck, and having discarding/trashing look exactly like playing makes it borderline unplayable. I'm probably 15 levels lower as a player than I was in iso because of these things. Also it not remembering my setting when I'm creating a game is mildly annoying.
And that's just the objectively terrible stuff. On top of that I hate the match making and absolutely despise not having a point counter or veto mode.
It's so badly inferior to isotropic it's not even funny. Gg dominion, you were a really fun hobby.
.. or am I just dreaming these problems? Someone tell me there is something I can do about these things!
Well, when you're discarding cards, they're highlighted in yellow. When you trash them, it's red. When you're playing them, it's blue. Just pay closer attention. In general, your UI issues are the result of you playing too quickly and not being used to Goko. In time you'll stop making those mistakes. It probably wouldn't even take that long.
As for no point counter, I don't care. It's cheating and the only reason iso had one built in was because you can't stop people from using a plugin to do it.
As for veto mode, good riddance. Dominion is already a great game. It doesn't need a bullshit meta-game that you play first to improve your odds.
Goko does need to fix their matchmaking/lobby situation. It's abysmal.
Well, I wasn't saying people aren't allowed to like goko. I, as someone who played some 4000-5000 games on iso, probably will never reach 100 on goko, because I just don't find it nearly as fun. Sure, I could avoid most of the interface problems by paying closer attention - but I do not want to! Dominion was always something I did while I had a skype conversation or two and watched a tv-series, never something I gave 100% of my attention to (not even during tournaments). You cant play like that on goko, it doesnt flash in the tab bar when it's your turn and you'll be playing things in the wrong order (no undo for treasures) or discarding or trashing the stuff you want to play all the time unless you full attention. I dont think having a point counter is cheating if both players want to play with it (and hey, a good matchmaking system can help people find the right opponents for them so everyone gets their way!) and veto mode made the game more fun for me personally (another lovely variant, thanks iso).
But sure, I guess it's cool of you to take that tone just because we disagree on some stuff. I'm just saying "man, I think I'm giving goko a fair chance, but I just don't like it, and I don't think I ever will. And it's very sad, just so so sad, because I would have paid 10 times more to have iso as we knew it forever."
The biggest problem is that bugs arent the issue. In fact, it has never frozen on me, I can play just fine. Goko is just offering something different than what I'm looking to get from dominion. I doubt they'll ever fix that, I guess I'm just not target audience then. I doubt I'm alone with this though.
-
But sure, I guess it's cool of you to take that tone just because we disagree on some stuff. I'm just saying "man, I think I'm giving goko a fair chance, but I just don't like it, and I don't think I ever will. And it's very sad, just so so sad, because I would have paid 10 times more to have iso as we knew it forever."
Hey, man, you asked what you could do about these things. I'm telling you that you could play a little slower until you get used to the interface. That's a real solution. Once you're used to it, you can go back to playing faster. I have.
My tone was angry when discussing veto mode because veto mode makes me angry. I'm not angry at you specifically. Sorry! :-\
-
But sure, I guess it's cool of you to take that tone just because we disagree on some stuff. I'm just saying "man, I think I'm giving goko a fair chance, but I just don't like it, and I don't think I ever will. And it's very sad, just so so sad, because I would have paid 10 times more to have iso as we knew it forever."
Hey, man, you asked what you could do about these things. I'm telling you that you could play a little slower until you get used to the interface. That's a real solution. Once you're used to it, you can go back to playing faster. I have.
My tone was angry when discussing veto mode because veto mode makes me angry. I'm not angry at you specifically. Sorry! :-\
It's all good! :)
I'm realizing the root of my problem is that goko offers an interface I'm not interested in. Needing to give the goko window full focus and attention to avoid mistakes like that is just not fun, not after getting spoiled with iso's flawlessness.
-
You guys are both right pretty much everything you're saying.
...I'm paying more attention and I'm misclicking less. But that's not a reason for Goko to not make their interface better, especially when it would not only be very simple to do to, but this improved interface would make their product so much better for so many people, many of whom are very passionate about playing Dominion.
If they can't make a product that satisfies people who love the game so much, I think that's the biggest failure possible. You might say that's the hardest audience to please, but trust me, I want more than anything to like Goko Dominion and I'm trying as hard as I can. I don't think I'm asking too much.
-
Ooh, ooh! Are we talking about Goko interface issues?!
LastFootnote, IMO, the Goko misclicks are 100% bad interface design. I've played through the free Adventure mode stuff because I was curious, and I can't tell you how many times I discarded cards I meant to play because my opponent had actually played a Militia. You say "play slower," but that's exactly the thing I hate about Goko. I want to play *fast* and... guess where I could do that before? Iso! Now I have to artificially slow my pace of play to accommodate a bad (albeit pretty) interface. Iso let me play much faster, for a variety of reasons.
Which touches on a larger issue. I think the main reason people are disappointed in Goko has very little to do with Goko and a lot to do with the fact that Iso was so much better. It's like we were given gourmet ice cream and now they're charging for the cheap stuff. Sorry, I got a taste of the good stuff and now I'd happily pay for that - but I'm not going to pay for an inferior product. That may make it sound like Iso was bad for Dominion, but the big thing it did was create an online community that really loves the game. It's too bad the poor execution of Goko couldn't capitalize on that well.
-
I don't doubt that some people who have not played Iso before dislike Goko because it's not very good.
-
I'm a Dominion n00b, for the most part. I discovered the game just before xmas this past year and immediately bought all of the cards. I discovered Isotropic in January and started playing every night. I was rated ~35 on Iso before it shut down and I switched to Goko.
Despite all the problems with Goko, I've really enjoyed playing against the bots that Goko provides. For someone at my skill level, it's a great way to learn the game at a fast pace. I've played about 500 - 600 games on Goko, almost all against the bots. As a n00b, I found the community on Isotropic to be a bit intimidating-- I played several games where an opponent ended up bitching at me in the chat box because I was taking too long. I eventually stopped playing automatches against strangers because I was encountering a lot of people who were hostile and ridiculously impatient (complaining if a turn takes more than 10s).
Now that I've learned the cards and have a grasp on basic strategy, I'm trying to switch to multiplayer on Goko and am having a very difficult time. The bugs and interface issues are just as bad as everyone says. I get the black screen probably every other day. It randomly moves from browser to browser. Some days Chrome is fine, other days the game will only run in Firefox. Sometimes it will only run on Firefox Nightly. Sometimes it won't start in any of my browsers. I've had many days where the game just randomly dies and times out while I'm playing, which probably sets my rating back. One afternoon a couple of weeks ago I hit reload on probably 40 - 50 hands before I just gave up. I'd finish a game without any issues, then go through a string of 5 - 10 attempts that would hang after a few turns. Fantastic for my win/loss ratio.
Regarding the interface issues, all of the points raised are spot-on. I've spent most of the last decade as a user experience designer (design lead on Gmail for ~3.5 years, among other things), and there are a lot of fairly small changes that could make the experience much, much better. My biggest frustrations have already been mentioned-- I end up discarding things by accident all the time, particularly when playing at "fast" or "very fast," and I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally ended my turn when I meant to play treasures. These are muscle memory mistakes that are the result of poor design. These things often get worse as you spend more time with the product. You get used to clicking in a certain place after playing the game several hundred times, and when an exception occurs, it's very easy to click before you realize that you're not in the state you thought you were. It took me forever to figure out how to find the second page of cards in games that have more than 10. For a while I thought the bots were cheating and were somehow able to buy stuff that wasn't in the supply. These are not issues of paying more attention to the game or learning its quirks-- they are design flaws, pure and simple. One round of usability studies conducted on players of varying skill levels would bring these issues to light, along with a ton of other small things.
There are many other threads on the forum about the other issues-- the joyless adventure mode that requires you to use zaps in order to balance your bad hand against the bot's overly generous hand, the poorly-conceived use of virtual currency, the lack of automatch, the lack of point tracking, etc, etc.
All of those things aside, the thing I find most surprising about Goko is that they are failing pretty miserably when it comes to building a strong community of fans. Yes, I want them to build a solid version of the basic game before they move on to other stuff, but there are so many obvious community features that should have been launched with the game: profile pages, statistics, logging and analysis, spectator mode, friend lists, forums, etc. As someone who is pretty new to the game, I want to connect with other people who are at roughly the same skill level and are interested in learning and exploring the game at the same pace. I want to get better at the game and learn new strategies from more experienced players. It's really hard, if not impossible, to do that on Goko.
I guess the bright spot is that the black screen finally got me to register for this site, which is a real treasure. :)
-
Ooh, ooh! Are we talking about Goko interface issues?!
LastFootnote, IMO, the Goko misclicks are 100% bad interface design. I've played through the free Adventure mode stuff because I was curious, and I can't tell you how many times I discarded cards I meant to play because my opponent had actually played a Militia. You say "play slower," but that's exactly the thing I hate about Goko. I want to play *fast* and... guess where I could do that before? Iso! Now I have to artificially slow my pace of play to accommodate a bad (albeit pretty) interface. Iso let me play much faster, for a variety of reasons.
Which touches on a larger issue. I think the main reason people are disappointed in Goko has very little to do with Goko and a lot to do with the fact that Iso was so much better. It's like we were given gourmet ice cream and now they're charging for the cheap stuff. Sorry, I got a taste of the good stuff and now I'd happily pay for that - but I'm not going to pay for an inferior product. That may make it sound like Iso was bad for Dominion, but the big thing it did was create an online community that really loves the game. It's too bad the poor execution of Goko couldn't capitalize on that well.
Yes. I paid for all goko. But it is and always will be an inferior product to Iso for many (well most) players. The kind folks at RGG (and probably x) either don't comprehend this, or just don't care, or maybe are deeply regretting their decision right now. Even as fast as the rooms are growing I really doubt they are selling nearly enough to cover the investment. Keeping iso up and actively supporting it could have been a way to keep the old and the new players. It seems more and more people are moving on to iso innovation, and if I can learn the game, I probably will too. Such a pity that such a great product (isodom) was so undervalued by the real decision makers. The "you're getting something for free" mindset was so unfortunate....they should have been thinking: this product is damn good, how can we be involved, or how can we develop it/integrate it. A smart lawyer would have never let his client kill something of such obvious value to the franchise.
-
All of those things aside, the thing I find most surprising about Goko is that they are failing pretty miserably when it comes to building a strong community of fans. Yes, I want them to build a solid version of the basic game before they move on to other stuff, but there are so many obvious community features that should have been launched with the game: profile pages, statistics, logging and analysis, spectator mode, friend lists, forums, etc. As someone who is pretty new to the game, I want to connect with other people who are at roughly the same skill level and are interested in learning and exploring the game at the same pace. I want to get better at the game and learn new strategies from more experienced players. It's really hard, if not impossible, to do that on Goko.
Man, that is a very good point! This community (me included) has been so hung up on Isotropic vs. Goko that I'd never considered some of these features that Iso never had, but that Goko really should. Ugh, it's really depressing how much they've dropped the ball when I think about it that way.
-
Hypothetical, slightly in response to yuma's worry:
If Goko goes under, and Goko Dominion is no longer available, does iso become available again?
Sounds like a reason to boycott...
-
Hypothetical, slightly in response to yuma's worry:
If Goko goes under, and Goko Dominion is no longer available, does iso become available again?
Sounds like a reason to boycott...
If the answer is yes, then we should all cross our fingers for failure! But really, If it does fail, RGG should reapproach Dougz and try to renegotiate something. If there are hurt feelings involved (on any side) let the lawyers do the negotiating. That's what they exist for....
-
Such a pity that such a great product (isodom) was so undervalued by the real decision makers. The "you're getting something for free" mindset was so unfortunate....they should have been thinking: this product is damn good, how can we be involved, or how can we develop it/integrate it. A smart lawyer would have never let his client kill something of such obvious value to the franchise.
I still hate this argument. isotropic was absolutely valued by Donald X, and almost certainly by RGG as well. They WERE involved with iso. It was used for tons of play testing! They approached dougz before Goko was ever in the picture!
I have no idea what you mean when you say that the "you're getting something for free" mindset is unfortunate. do you mean that RGG should have let iso continue as a free service, never monetizing their product? It's unreasonable to say that a company should not be allowed to do what they can to make money. Do you mean that they should have tried to monetize iso? Again, they totally did approach dougz about it. We don't know the details, but it's not like we need them. All we need to know is that dougz turned down the offer, and whatever reasons for that are between him and RGG.
-
I still hate this argument. isotropic was absolutely valued by Donald X, and almost certainly by RGG as well. They WERE involved with iso. It was used for tons of play testing! They approached dougz before Goko was ever in the picture!
I have no idea what you mean when you say that the "you're getting something for free" mindset is unfortunate.
I guess it's the pizza thing. Donald complains about people who are complaining about the free stuff gone when in reality they would have paid for Iso. It's not so much a Goko vs. Iso thing, but the general approach: Making an online version that is oriented at the real life experience.
I've learned Dominion real life (and with 4 players -> another mistake) and stayed away from the game for 2 years. I've tried Iso nevertheless (when prosperity came out) and it teached me how great and deep Dominion is.
I've tried Goko then and recently the Dark Ages cards real life due to the lack of alternatives. It was a real pain. It might have been possible in the old days with the base game, but turns become much more complex. You simply need an Isotropic like interface to play competitively and notice all things you have to notice and play mega turns appropiately. Both Goko (animation speed, general view) and real life (administrative effort) fail in that regard.
So, yes: I'm playing RftG (Goko threatening here as well, but it's good real life too) now and will try Innovation. I probably won't fully explore Dark Ages, which is a pity.
-
that's exactly the thing I hate about Goko. I want to play *fast* and... guess where I could do that before? Iso!
When you started playing Iso, did you play fast? Did you play flawlessly? Were you able to grok the interface right away?
Unless you're really a robot, I'm going to presume the answer to all three of those questions is no.
It can take time to grok the Goko interface, and you're not going to be fast. Not immediately. You're going to pick up on certain cues and know that a Bishop's been played before you click on a card. It'll happen, but it'll take several games to get those cues in your brain. I experienced a lot of issues playing Androminion; I was screwing up games left and right because I tried to play too quickly before I was at the point where I could recognize cues. Now I play games quickly on Androminion because I'm used to the interface.
That's not to say the Goko interface can't be improved. It most certainly could. There can be some interface changes that make full integration a quicker process. Androminion improved its UI, and my games became even faster, so don't think I'm wholly dismissing the interface concerns. But part of it also boils down to playing enough games that these things become automatic. The Isotropic experts didn't start off that way.
You might still dislike the UI, but that doesn't mean you couldn't become proficient with it. And hopefully Goko will implement thoughtful suggestions to make the experience easier.
-
that's exactly the thing I hate about Goko. I want to play *fast* and... guess where I could do that before? Iso!
When you started playing Iso, did you play fast? Did you play flawlessly? Were you able to grok the interface right away?
Unless you're really a robot, I'm going to presume the answer to all three of those questions is no.
It can take time to grok the Goko interface, and you're not going to be fast. Not immediately. You're going to pick up on certain cues and know that a Bishop's been played before you click on a card. It'll happen, but it'll take several games to get those cues in your brain. I experienced a lot of issues playing Androminion; I was screwing up games left and right because I tried to play too quickly before I was at the point where I could recognize cues. Now I play games quickly on Androminion because I'm used to the interface.
Wishful thinking. At least in my case. I've played almost 1000 games on Goko since Iso went down and still hate the interface as much as when I started out. It makes me do more unintentional stuff in a single day than I did in all my games on iso combined.
-
Such a pity that such a great product (isodom) was so undervalued by the real decision makers. The "you're getting something for free" mindset was so unfortunate....they should have been thinking: this product is damn good, how can we be involved, or how can we develop it/integrate it. A smart lawyer would have never let his client kill something of such obvious value to the franchise.
I still hate this argument. isotropic was absolutely valued by Donald X, and almost certainly by RGG as well. They WERE involved with iso. It was used for tons of play testing! They approached dougz before Goko was ever in the picture!
I have no idea what you mean when you say that the "you're getting something for free" mindset is unfortunate. do you mean that RGG should have let iso continue as a free service, never monetizing their product? It's unreasonable to say that a company should not be allowed to do what they can to make money. Do you mean that they should have tried to monetize iso? Again, they totally did approach dougz about it. We don't know the details, but it's not like we need them. All we need to know is that dougz turned down the offer, and whatever reasons for that are between him and RGG.
This is exactly why lawyers should have done the negotiating. When it's personal....good results are hard to come by. And no one can say killing iso Dom was a good thing (unless you buy x's freeloader argument outweighs the good, and you readily admit that iso had value beyond gameplay (testing, coding, etc, community of players (hard to replace that, and goko doesn't seem to be trying to). The thing is, the freeloader problem always has an answer---killing the host to smite the virus, is just an incredibly bad one.
-
Two things wrong with that. First, maybe lawyers were involved. Again, we don't know the details. Second, maybe dougz doesn't have a lawyer on retainer, you know?
Besides, lawyers only ever make things worse. /jokes ;)
-
And also, you keep saying that Donald complained about freeloaders, but I don't think tthat's true. He complained (and rightfully, imo) that people were arguing against monetizing online Dominion. IIRC, those arguments weren't made against people who would have paid for Iso. Rather, it was addressing the entitled idea that people shouldn't have to pay for what was once free to them.
-
And also, you keep saying that Donald complained about freeloaders, but I don't think tthat's true. He complained (and rightfully, imo) that people were arguing against monetizing online Dominion. IIRC, those arguments weren't made against people who would have paid for Iso. Rather, it was addressing the entitled idea that people shouldn't have to pay for what was once free to them.
The problem I saw was that his frustration leaked into at least one thread where people were doing nothing but pleading to pay for Iso. That was never a real possibility and I'm sure he got tired of people suggesting it, but it looks really crappy to insult people who love your product. It would have been wiser, IMO, to simply not engage in that no-win discussion.
-
that's exactly the thing I hate about Goko. I want to play *fast* and... guess where I could do that before? Iso!
When you started playing Iso, did you play fast? Did you play flawlessly? Were you able to grok the interface right away?
Unless you're really a robot, I'm going to presume the answer to all three of those questions is no.
It can take time to grok the Goko interface, and you're not going to be fast. Not immediately. You're going to pick up on certain cues and know that a Bishop's been played before you click on a card. It'll happen, but it'll take several games to get those cues in your brain. I experienced a lot of issues playing Androminion; I was screwing up games left and right because I tried to play too quickly before I was at the point where I could recognize cues. Now I play games quickly on Androminion because I'm used to the interface.
Wishful thinking. At least in my case. I've played almost 1000 games on Goko since Iso went down and still hate the interface as much as when I started out. It makes me do more unintentional stuff in a single day than I did in all my games on iso combined.
To add to this, it's really not just an issue of training. DrKlahn hit on this when he said this type of problem can actually get worse over time instead of better.
Fundamentally, it's the problem of poorly-designed context-sensitive actions. It's bad design to assign multiple meanings to the same action because it requires the user to fully know the game state to know what, for example, clicking on a card will do. On Iso, discarding and playing happen in different areas with very distinct actions (and a confirm button). Ending your turn is a specific button, also with a specific confirm action.
On Iso, I can't ever remember misclicking because I didn't understand the game state. It was always a mechanical error or a tactical error. I can't say the same for Goko.
Don't get me wrong, Iso had problems, but very few of them got in the way of core gameplay. It's totally possible to make a quick, beautiful interface that enables fast play instead of hinders it. Goko has so-far failed in this respect; I hope they can eventually get it right.
-
Go lurk Dominionstrategy a bit...leave sad =(
-
And also, you keep saying that Donald complained about freeloaders, but I don't think tthat's true. He complained (and rightfully, imo) that people were arguing against monetizing online Dominion. IIRC, those arguments weren't made against people who would have paid for Iso. Rather, it was addressing the entitled idea that people shouldn't have to pay for what was once free to them.
I can only remember him talking about freeloaders when people were complaining either that Goko was too expensive or that it didn't have all the sets and therefore wasn't worth spending any money on. I don't believe he ever talked about it in response to criticisms of Goko's interface or features.
-
Fundamentally, it's the problem of poorly-designed context-sensitive actions. It's bad design to assign multiple meanings to the same action because it requires the user to fully know the game state to know what, for example, clicking on a card will do. On Iso, discarding and playing happen in different areas with very distinct actions (and a confirm button). Ending your turn is a specific button, also with a specific confirm action.
Iso did have one major UI flaw that falls under this category. On other players' turns, the "Info" button was in the same location as the "End Turn" button on your own turn (or maybe it was the "+$" button) - see this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=468.msg6404#msg6404). This often made me click the wrong button. Of course, Iso had a "are you sure" red text to make it so that at least you could take back the click.
-
I don't hate Goko's interface SO much... but I'm always trashing the card I want to play whenever I just played Masquerade, or Jack, or my opponent played Bishop.
-
Fundamentally, it's the problem of poorly-designed context-sensitive actions. It's bad design to assign multiple meanings to the same action because it requires the user to fully know the game state to know what, for example, clicking on a card will do. On Iso, discarding and playing happen in different areas with very distinct actions (and a confirm button). Ending your turn is a specific button, also with a specific confirm action.
Iso did have one major UI flaw that falls under this category. On other players' turns, the "Info" button was in the same location as the "End Turn" button on your own turn (or maybe it was the "+$" button) - see this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=468.msg6404#msg6404). This often made me click the wrong button. Of course, Iso had a "are you sure" red text to make it so that at least you could take back the click.
Yes, that's true and I thought of it but also thought the confirmation made it excusable. Not good design (in fact, exactly the main problem with Goko), but I didn't ever actually end my turn unless I meant to. I should have abstracted my comment from "misclicked" to "taken the wrong action".
-
Such a pity that such a great product (isodom) was so undervalued by the real decision makers. The "you're getting something for free" mindset was so unfortunate....they should have been thinking: this product is damn good, how can we be involved, or how can we develop it/integrate it. A smart lawyer would have never let his client kill something of such obvious value to the franchise.
I still hate this argument. isotropic was absolutely valued by Donald X, and almost certainly by RGG as well. They WERE involved with iso. It was used for tons of play testing! They approached dougz before Goko was ever in the picture!
I have no idea what you mean when you say that the "you're getting something for free" mindset is unfortunate. do you mean that RGG should have let iso continue as a free service, never monetizing their product? It's unreasonable to say that a company should not be allowed to do what they can to make money. Do you mean that they should have tried to monetize iso? Again, they totally did approach dougz about it. We don't know the details, but it's not like we need them. All we need to know is that dougz turned down the offer, and whatever reasons for that are between him and RGG.
This is exactly why lawyers should have done the negotiating. When it's personal....good results are hard to come by. And no one can say killing iso Dom was a good thing (unless you buy x's freeloader argument outweighs the good, and you readily admit that iso had value beyond gameplay (testing, coding, etc, community of players (hard to replace that, and goko doesn't seem to be trying to). The thing is, the freeloader problem always has an answer---killing the host to smite the virus, is just an incredibly bad one.
On the "community of players" bit -- I can so see Goko creating a players' forum for people to log onto, have threads on strategy, articles on cards, etc. WoW has one, just about every online game has official forums.
They can't make theory shut us down, though.
-
If I understood the rating system better and there was automatch, I would probably start playing on Goko more. But it would have to be with the log extension.
The interface is okay, but I feel it isn't quite as good. Once I got used to the Iso interface, it all felt very intuitive and streamlined. Whereas with the Goko interface, it took much longer for me to understand all of its quirks. There was only so much time for the interface to win me over, and it didn't make it.
I'm more focused on automatch than the interface though.
-
After playing about a dozen games or so on Goko (enough for an opinion), here's what I can say about it:
It's not as bad as you'd think, it's not as good as you'd hope.
Finding a game is very annoying and obviously the multi-screens issues, but the games themselves play out decently fast though. I would have just liked if they made it more "pro friendly", not that I'm such a great player, but more options to turn off fancy stuff and be able to focus on the actual gameplay a bit better.
-
On the "community of players" bit -- I can so see Goko creating a players' forum for people to log onto, have threads on strategy, articles on cards, etc. WoW has one, just about every online game has official forums.
They can't make theory shut us down, though.
Or they could, you know, just support the existing "unofficial" community. We are pretty well-established and it is completely baffling that they almost do not interact with us in any way.
After playing about a dozen games or so on Goko (enough for an opinion), here's what I can say about it:
It's not as bad as you'd think, it's not as good as you'd hope.
And unfortunately, this is what is going to keep Goko afloat. It is depressing to see a company get away with providing a thoroughly mediocre product, but as long as they are just "good enough," they have sole rights to many of the games that the players desperately want.
I would have just liked if they made it more "pro friendly", not that I'm such a great player, but more options to turn off fancy stuff and be able to focus on the actual gameplay a bit better.
Oh, don't be so modest, Davio, we all know that you're among the best in the world :)
-
After playing about a dozen games or so on Goko (enough for an opinion), here's what I can say about it:
It's not as bad as you'd think, it's not as good as you'd hope.
And unfortunately, this is what is going to keep Goko afloat. It is depressing to see a company get away with providing a thoroughly mediocre product, but as long as they are just "good enough," they have sole rights to many of the games that the players desperately want.
Agreed. Goko is good enough and the price is low enough that if they just get automatch working I will pay for the sets -- I don't really have a problem with the speed or interface.
But it is annoying to know that if Goko actually had to compete with other Dominion implementations they'd sink faster than a lead anvil. They will get my money not because I'm enthusiastic about their product, but because it's (nearly) adequate and they have a monopoly.
-
But it is annoying to know that if Goko actually had to compete with other Dominion implementations they'd sink faster than a lead anvil. They will get my money not because I'm enthusiastic about their product, but because it's (nearly) adequate and they have a monopoly.
This remind me of cellphone companies. Also ISPs 10 or 15 years ago. Also Windows in non-computer professional environments. I'm suddely (re-)realizing how bad monopolies are for the world.
-
Strictly speaking, Goko's not got a monopoly - you can always play a different game online.
That few people seem to be considering that as a realistic option goes to show just how good Dominion is. (-8
-
Strictly speaking, Goko's not got a monopoly - you can always play a different game online.
Like Monopoly? ;)
-
I haven't thought I, as a teetotaller wrt Goko, could contribute to this thread.
But I noticed that some links to older games (as in nine weeks) seem to be dead. As in http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6817.msg189033#msg189033
Has anyone else noticed that? Is this a temporary issue? Is this a matter of restructuring the website? Or are game logs taken offline after a while?
Apologies if this is a known and well-discussed issues. I am not around Goko-specific threads too often.
-
Has anyone else noticed that? Is this a temporary issue? Is this a matter of restructuring the website? Or are game logs taken offline after a while?
All logs before April are gone from their website, I haven't see any anouncement of this, but it's like that for about a week, seems like it's intended.
-
Strictly speaking, Goko's not got a monopoly - you can always play a different game online.
That few people seem to be considering that as a realistic option goes to show just how good Dominion is. (-8
You'd make a wonderful antitrust lawyer. It's all about defining the relevant market!
-
Strictly speaking, Goko's not got a monopoly - you can always play a different game online.
That few people seem to be considering that as a realistic option goes to show just how good Dominion is. (-8
You'd make a wonderful antitrust lawyer. It's all about defining the relevant market!
Wouldn't that be more like a protrust lawyer?
-
But it is annoying to know that if Goko actually had to compete with other Dominion implementations they'd sink faster than a lead anvil. They will get my money not because I'm enthusiastic about their product, but because it's (nearly) adequate and they have a monopoly.
This remind me of cellphone companies. Also ISPs 10 or 15 years ago. Also Windows in non-computer professional environments. I'm suddely (re-)realizing how bad monopolies are for the world.
Except this is not a monopoly in that sense. This is a monopoly in the sense that RGG has a "monopoly" on publishing Dominion, or that Tor has a "monopoly" on publishing John Scalzi's books. Oddly, no one complains about lack of competition in those senses. The competition there is other games in the first case, and other books in the second.
Or, basically what crj said--Goko doesn't have a monopoly on online games. It doesn't even have a monopoly on online eurogames or online card games.
-
It does have the monopoly on online dominion, though. The competition here would be other dominion implementations.
-
It does have the monopoly on online dominion, though. The competition here would be other dominion implementations.
Sure, but suggesting that there should be other, competing, online implementations is the same as suggesting there should be other, competing, offline implementations--that, say, Mayfair or FFG should be able to publish their own version of Dominion, and that we consumers would pick the one with better... I don't know, art? Cardstock? Packaging? You get the point.
-
Right, there's legit reasons for a game maker to have a monopoly on making their own game. Doesn't change the fact that they do. Most of the time it's not something anyone complains about because publishers are pretty good at, well, publishing their games, and the thought "dammit, somebody else could have done this better" doesn't really come to mind.
In this case, it's not RGG's monopoly on Dominion which is mildly annoying, it's Goko's.
-
Yes,we should be entitled to buy Puzzle Strike or Tanto Cuore.
-
Right, there's legit reasons for a game maker to have a monopoly on making their own game. Doesn't change the fact that they do. Most of the time it's not something anyone complains about because publishers are pretty good at, well, publishing their games, and the thought "dammit, somebody else could have done this better" doesn't really come to mind.
In this case, it's not RGG's monopoly on Dominion which is mildly annoying, it's Goko's.
I think you pointed out one of the reasons why this isn't a "monopoly": there are good incentives to make a good product because of the threat of substitution. Make a bad product and the market self-corrects by not buying your item any more. Contrast this with a true monopoly, where there is little incentive to improve your product quality because people have no adequate substitute.
-
Yes,we should be entitled to buy Puzzle Strike or Tanto Cuore.
should be entitled to buy
be entitled to
entitled
*head explodes*
-
Right, there's legit reasons for a game maker to have a monopoly on making their own game. Doesn't change the fact that they do. Most of the time it's not something anyone complains about because publishers are pretty good at, well, publishing their games, and the thought "dammit, somebody else could have done this better" doesn't really come to mind.
In this case, it's not RGG's monopoly on Dominion which is mildly annoying, it's Goko's.
I think you pointed out one of the reasons why this isn't a "monopoly": there are good incentives to make a good product because of the threat of substitution. Make a bad product and the market self-corrects by not buying your item any more. Contrast this with a true monopoly, where there is little incentive to improve your product quality because people have no adequate substitute.
It's a monopoly because nobody else is allowed to make the same product. How does the threat of substitution of a different product matter to that? There aren't really any products in the world that don't have something you could substitute for them intead... [cue f.ds edge cases]
-
Right, there's legit reasons for a game maker to have a monopoly on making their own game. Doesn't change the fact that they do. Most of the time it's not something anyone complains about because publishers are pretty good at, well, publishing their games, and the thought "dammit, somebody else could have done this better" doesn't really come to mind.
In this case, it's not RGG's monopoly on Dominion which is mildly annoying, it's Goko's.
I think you pointed out one of the reasons why this isn't a "monopoly": there are good incentives to make a good product because of the threat of substitution. Make a bad product and the market self-corrects by not buying your item any more. Contrast this with a true monopoly, where there is little incentive to improve your product quality because people have no adequate substitute.
I think this discussion is quickly getting into the realm of arguing about what "monopoly" means. Regardless of connotations, we can all agree:
1) Goko is the only authorized producer of an electronic implementation of Dominion.
2) Their implementation is currently lacking.
3) If there were competing licensed implementations, Goko would have more pressure to fix their issues.
Now, whether anybody (RGG / DXV) has any business incentive to allow competing implementations is a different, even-more-hypothetical discussion.
-
Heh, I doubt they'd face more pressure to fix their issues to be honest. They probably face a lot of pressure anyway from their investors, I think they're working as hard as they can anyway.
They've got their hearts in the right place it seems, and they fix things eventually. It's getting better, and maybe it'll be top-notch eventually. It'll just take a while.
-
Right, there's legit reasons for a game maker to have a monopoly on making their own game. Doesn't change the fact that they do. Most of the time it's not something anyone complains about because publishers are pretty good at, well, publishing their games, and the thought "dammit, somebody else could have done this better" doesn't really come to mind.
In this case, it's not RGG's monopoly on Dominion which is mildly annoying, it's Goko's.
I think you pointed out one of the reasons why this isn't a "monopoly": there are good incentives to make a good product because of the threat of substitution. Make a bad product and the market self-corrects by not buying your item any more. Contrast this with a true monopoly, where there is little incentive to improve your product quality because people have no adequate substitute.
It's a monopoly because nobody else is allowed to make the same product. How does the threat of substitution of a different product matter to that? There aren't really any products in the world that don't have something you could substitute for them intead... [cue f.ds edge cases]
You do know that there are quite a few successful antitrust cases? Utilities, sugar, oil, telecommunications, Microsoft Windows, Kodak, etc. Those suits were successful because they were able to show inadequate demand-side substitution.
Of course, you can argue that Dominion can't be substituted because other games don't provide the same feel (e.g., compare to sports like NFL, which can't be substituted with MLB). This is what antitrust lawyers are paid to do, to try to define the relevant market. But the fact that other deckbuilders exist probably undercuts this argument.
-
Heh, I doubt they'd face more pressure to fix their issues to be honest. They probably face a lot of pressure anyway from their investors, I think they're working as hard as they can anyway.
They've got their hearts in the right place it seems, and they fix things eventually. It's getting better, and maybe it'll be top-notch eventually. It'll just take a while.
You may be right; I assumed that since their business pitch was basically their platform, they'd probably be more concerned about getting everything to an "acceptable" state and branching out to other games. Playable and awesome are pretty different, but people often don't know what they're missing until they see awesome. Their hearts may be in the right place, but I doubt there will be sufficient business incentive for Goko to reach "awesome" in the absence of a good competitor.
-
But we're all agreed Monoploy is shit right though?
Stupid game
-
Wait.....are not there loads of different versions of Monopoly made all over the world these days.....oh the irony!
-
You do know that there are quite a few successful antitrust cases? Utilities, sugar, oil, telecommunications, Microsoft Windows, Kodak, etc. Those suits were successful brought because they were able to show inadequate demand-side substitution.
Of course, you can argue that Dominion can't be substituted because other games don't provide the same feel (e.g., compare to sports like NFL, which can't be substituted with MLB). This is what antitrust lawyers are paid to do, to try to define the relevant market. But the fact that other deckbuilders exist probably undercuts this argument.
Right, and in those cases, there's obviously things that can be substituted for the product, so "there isn't any substitute" isn't necessary for something to be a monopoly, which was my point in the first place, I think? Just because you can not use the product and use something else instead doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a monopoly over the product...
Anyway, context matters. I think it's obvious that in the context of Dominion, Goko has a monopoly on making online dominion at the moment, as they're the only ones that can do it. In the context of board games as a whole, obviously nobody has a monopoly on making online games! When talking to a bunch of people on a dominion board, the "relevant market" is, well, playing Dominion, when talking to antitrust lawyers and/or filing a lawsuit, the relevant market is whatever the law says it is, I assume, I don't know antitrust law.
Though I'm surprised that there's even an argument there. Isn't the whole point of intellectual property basically to give somebody a monopoly over the thing they design? Of course inventing Dominion gives DXV has a monopoly on making Dominion (which he can then sell/license/whatever to RGG, who can then do the same for Goko). That's the whole point, isn't it?
But we're all agreed Monoploy is shit right though?
Stupid game
Agreed.
-
Though I'm surprised that there's even an argument there. Isn't the whole point of intellectual property basically to give somebody a monopoly over the thing they design?
Have an upvote. Monopolies are discussed about here only in the context of antitrust suits, which leads us to thinking that they are a thing to be battled rather than respected.
If I got it right, a dominant market position amounting to a monopoly is not something which can be tackled at the court level. Only if someone abuses their market position to for instance obtain a share of another market, the monopoly may be challenged. In the case of Microsoft, the dominant market share of desktop computer operating systems (and more or less a monopoly on operating systems where most software would run on) was not challenged before they tried to use it to dominate the web browser market.
-
A product like a game introduces a factor that makes the concept of monopoly a little fuzzier than with other products. Prestige Brands is the only company that can make and market Comet (cleanser), but that's not a "monopoly" since you can buy other cleansers from different companies.
With a game it's a little different; Square-Enix is the only company that can make Final Fantasy games -- of course there are other games out there, but a Final Fantasy game can't just be swapped for another game in the same way that Comet can be swapped for another cleanser. It's the same thing with Dominion; saying that you can play Innovation or Ticket to Ride instead is different from saying that you can buy 409 or generic cleanser instead of Comet.
I'm certainly not saying that the antitrust laws should be revised for games, but the issues are a little different than most products. Personally, if I thought that a game is a game is a game, I would delete the Goko bookmark from my browser and never give it a second thought, but I like Dominion enough that I'm willing to put up with their (nearly) adequate implementation to be able to play it online.
-
I don't really care about the word monopoly, and I agree there is no ilegal or illegitimate usage of the exclusive rights (look, I avoided the word monopoly) of a Dominion implementation going on.
My point when comparing goko Dominion to cellphones or ISPs is that they get away with a bad implementation because they rest assured on their money buying the success of others (in this case, the great game put together by DXV/RGG -for this argument, we can consider them one giant team, even though they are not). ISPs rest on the great thing that is to have internet access (or some particular access like broadband or something) and cellphone carriers rest on the fact that is a great idea to have working cellphones. So, ISPs provided a shitty and/or overpriced service but as long as they had some sort of monopoly (which was actually an oligopoly, at least in Argentina) they could get away with it because the internet is so awesome. Same thing with cellphones and same thing with online Dominion.
-
Right. A good point somehow got sidetracked into a semantic debate about the word monopoly. That is not the point. The point is:
We can imagine a world where there are various implementations of Dominion, which differ in quality and price.
In that world, we expect higher quality, and lower prices, than a world in which only one online implementation of Dominion is legally allowed to exist. This has nothing to do with Dominion or Goko, but is just economics.
We don't live in that hypothetical world, in this case because of government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained. This again has nothing to do with Dominion or with Goko, but is just economics.
Theoretically government intervention in the market in the form of intellectual property protection is justified because there is a positive externality: future game designers are more likely to design good games knowing that they won't get free or cheap imitators ripping them off. This principle can be debated, but at least on a small scale or for more expensive products (pharmaceutical research) there's empirical evidence for it. But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it.
-
Right. A good point somehow got sidetracked into a semantic debate about the word monopoly. That is not the point. The point is:
We can imagine a world where there are various implementations of Dominion, which differ in quality and price.
In that world, we expect higher quality, and lower prices, than a world in which only one online implementation of Dominion is legally allowed to exist. This has nothing to do with Dominion or Goko, but is just economics.
We don't live in that hypothetical world, in this case because of government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained. This again has nothing to do with Dominion or with Goko, but is just economics.
Theoretically government intervention in the market in the form of intellectual property protection is justified because there is a positive externality: future game designers are more likely to design good games knowing that they won't get free or cheap imitators ripping them off. This principle can be debated, but at least on a small scale or for more expensive products (pharmaceutical research) there's empirical evidence for it. But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it.
You're definitely going RSP here.
-
Right. A good point somehow got sidetracked into a semantic debate about the word monopoly. That is not the point. The point is:
We can imagine a world where there are various implementations of Dominion, which differ in quality and price.
In that world, we expect higher quality, and lower prices, than a world in which only one online implementation of Dominion is legally allowed to exist. This has nothing to do with Dominion or Goko, but is just economics.
We don't live in that hypothetical world, in this case because of government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained. This again has nothing to do with Dominion or with Goko, but is just economics.
Theoretically government intervention in the market in the form of intellectual property protection is justified because there is a positive externality: future game designers are more likely to design good games knowing that they won't get free or cheap imitators ripping them off. This principle can be debated, but at least on a small scale or for more expensive products (pharmaceutical research) there's empirical evidence for it. But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it.
You're definitely going RSP here.
Yeah, I also thought that post was pretty sexy.
-
Right. A good point somehow got sidetracked into a semantic debate about the word monopoly. That is not the point. The point is:
We can imagine a world where there are various implementations of Dominion, which differ in quality and price.
In that world, we expect higher quality, and lower prices, than a world in which only one online implementation of Dominion is legally allowed to exist. This has nothing to do with Dominion or Goko, but is just economics.
We don't live in that hypothetical world, in this case because of government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained. This again has nothing to do with Dominion or with Goko, but is just economics.
Theoretically government intervention in the market in the form of intellectual property protection is justified because there is a positive externality: future game designers are more likely to design good games knowing that they won't get free or cheap imitators ripping them off. This principle can be debated, but at least on a small scale or for more expensive products (pharmaceutical research) there's empirical evidence for it. But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it.
Thank you! This is exactly the argument I've been trying to make.
-
Right. A good point somehow got sidetracked into a semantic debate about the word monopoly. That is not the point. The point is:
We can imagine a world where there are various implementations of Dominion, which differ in quality and price.
In that world, we expect higher quality, and lower prices, than a world in which only one online implementation of Dominion is legally allowed to exist. This has nothing to do with Dominion or Goko, but is just economics.
We don't live in that hypothetical world, in this case because of government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained. This again has nothing to do with Dominion or with Goko, but is just economics.
Theoretically government intervention in the market in the form of intellectual property protection is justified because there is a positive externality: future game designers are more likely to design good games knowing that they won't get free or cheap imitators ripping them off. This principle can be debated, but at least on a small scale or for more expensive products (pharmaceutical research) there's empirical evidence for it. But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it.
You're definitely going RSP here.
I disagree. He's indicating that there are multiple positions that can be justified--and often are justified differently depending on which political side you're on--but without indicating a side in his post. Not RSP material quite yet.
-
What is RSP?
-
Religion, Sex, Politics (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=35.0)
-
I think moving "Goko Sucks" threads to RSP at this point is quite reasonable.
-
I think moving "Goko Sucks" threads to RSP at this point is quite reasonable.
How about "Goko Rocks" threads?
-
I think moving "Goko Sucks" threads to RSP at this point is quite reasonable.
How about "Goko Rocks" threads?
Well, hypothetical posts don't really count.
-
Right. A good point somehow got sidetracked into a semantic debate about the word monopoly. That is not the point. The point is:
We can imagine a world where there are various implementations of Dominion, which differ in quality and price.
In that world, we expect higher quality, and lower prices, than a world in which only one online implementation of Dominion is legally allowed to exist. This has nothing to do with Dominion or Goko, but is just economics.
We don't live in that hypothetical world, in this case because of government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained. This again has nothing to do with Dominion or with Goko, but is just economics.
Theoretically government intervention in the market in the form of intellectual property protection is justified because there is a positive externality: future game designers are more likely to design good games knowing that they won't get free or cheap imitators ripping them off. This principle can be debated, but at least on a small scale or for more expensive products (pharmaceutical research) there's empirical evidence for it. But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it.
You're definitely going RSP here.
I disagree. He's indicating that there are multiple positions that can be justified--and often are justified differently depending on which political side you're on--but without indicating a side in his post. Not RSP material quite yet.
The reason I say this is because I was all about to write a response to the post, then realized that said response, while entirely dealing directly with what he was saying, would definitely be RSP. Particularly, he's saying "government interference in the market (i.e. because of intellectual property laws) artificially creating a market in which only one company competes. As a result, a lot of consumer surplus is lost and a comparatively smaller producer surplus is gained". But of course, this is pretty ridiculous. Sure, government is defining what is and is not property and who has rights to that - in the same way as it does for all kinds of property, which is what every market is based on. I mean, I would say that the government is equally interfering in the market by saying you have exclusive rights to the computing device you are using to access this site. And it's just as true. Now, we can disagree on whether you should have those rights or not, and in some cases probably agree yes, others probably agree no, unless one of us doesn't believe in private property of course... all of which is definitely a political issue.
Also, his final claim of "But I don't know any economic theory that says it's good for one particular product that only one company be legally allowed to sell it." is pretty ridiculous as well. I mean, it gets to how you want to define terms - economic theories, though, generally don't say "it's good for ______" where the blank is ANYTHING. They don't have values - you have to come into the picture with values, and then economics can help you get where you want to go with those values. And of course there are some value systems which say that this is a good thing, as that's the way it is, so SOMEONE supports it.
And he clearly is taking a side on the issue, even while saying 'potentially you could make the argument for the other side, but only via method X'. Which is also a bad bit of sophistry - sure, if we accept your premises, then the way you would make such an argument would be X. But clearly the people disagreeing with him on the position don't accept his premises! This is the point!
Now, none of this is to say those points or positions which he is making or supporting are wrong, only that the arguments he is using are bad ones. And moreover, political.
-
Haha. I also wrote up a long post but deleted it for exactly the same reason.
It's just very strange to associate Goko with monopolistic anti-competitive behavior. It's not even close. Scholastic Press had an exclusive license on publishing Harry Potter. Maybe you're sad that they overpriced the book or used cheap binding, but that doesn't mean that the answer is for someone else to publish Harry Potter as well. The market will correct: if the prices are too high or the product is too shabby, Scholastic and JK Rowling will suffer accordingly and appropriately. Scholastic may have an exclusive license, but its incentives are correctly aligned with that of its consumers. Ditto for Goko.
So it's not about legalistic hair-splitting or semantic issues. It's just not a situation where antitrust concepts are in play.
-
The market will correct: if the prices are too high or the product is too shabby, Scholastic and JK Rowling will suffer accordingly and appropriately. Scholastic may have an exclusive license, but its incentives are correctly aligned with that of its consumers. Ditto for Goko.
Of course! As long as people can play Dominion, then Goko doesn't have to do anything special. People just really want their Dominion fix. Who cares about leaderboards, lobbies, and loss-upon-quitting enough to not play Dominion?
-
Haha. I also wrote up a long post but deleted it for exactly the same reason.
It's just very strange to associate Goko with monopolistic anti-competitive behavior. It's not even close. Scholastic Press had an exclusive license on publishing Harry Potter. Maybe you're sad that they overpriced the book or used cheap binding, but that doesn't mean that the answer is for someone else to publish Harry Potter as well. The market will correct: if the prices are too high or the product is too shabby, Scholastic and JK Rowling will suffer accordingly and appropriately. Scholastic may have an exclusive license, but its incentives are correctly aligned with that of its consumers. Ditto for Goko.
So it's not about legalistic hair-splitting or semantic issues. It's just not a situation where antitrust concepts are in play.
Can you explain to someone completely ignorant of anti-trust concepts what makes Goko (or Scholastic Press) NOT an anti-trust / monopolistic situation? I mean, if the only way to read Harry Potter is to buy the Scholastic printed version of it, then isn't it the case that Scholastic will not suffer for overpricing the books or poor bookbinding nearly as much as they would if there were a second company also allowed to publish it?
-
Antitrust has a sort of inherent tension with IP. One stops monopolies and the other grants monopolies.
The core principle is that it is OK to earn supracompetitive profits as "a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident". It becomes a problem when there are no adequate substitutes, or alternatively, you take steps to ensure that there are no adequate substitutes.
The concept of "substitute" applied to HP essentially says, JK Rowling wants to maximize her sales. If she signs an exclusive license with Scholastic, we can trust that she is bargaining for Scholastic to do as good a job as possible publishing her works. Likewise, we can trust that Scholastic also wants to do as good a job as possible. Sure, no matter how crappy their product is, they'll still have some consumers, but when they make a good product, they'll attract more consumers that are currently buying substitutes (Eragon?) instead. So if Scholastic dramatically overprices HP, it is a net loss for them.
On the flip side, if there were no substitutes (let's say Rowling's contract with Scholastic also required it to stop publishing other teen fiction novels, and Scholastic dominates the teen fiction market), now the incentives are all wrong. Now there is a lot less reason to worry about overpricing: your consumers are captive because they don't have anywhere else to go. If Scholastic produces a superb product, they don't gain many more consumers than if they produced a shabby product.
Now, of course, there are gradations. Antitrust is nothing if not murky, and sometimes the ultimate verdict kind of comes down to a gutcheck.
The disconnect might be how you define the relevant market. The history of US antitrust works very hard to promote "interbrand" competition, rather than "intrabrand" competition. Reason being, if you define each individual brand/product as its own relevant market (i.e., Harry Potter's market is Harry Potter books, not all books), then you run into some other problematic issues. Is it OK if Pepsi agrees to sell only west of the Mississippi and Coke agrees only to sell east of the Mississippi? Shouldn't it be an antitrust violation if DXV pays RGG/etc. not to make any other deckbuilders? Neither of those would be prosecutable if each brand constituted its own relevant market, even though there might be compelling reasons to suggest that Coke and Pepsi are not "true" competitors, just like how Dominion and Ascension are not "true" competitors.
-
Haha. I also wrote up a long post but deleted it for exactly the same reason.
It's just very strange to associate Goko with monopolistic anti-competitive behavior. It's not even close. Scholastic Press had an exclusive license on publishing Harry Potter. Maybe you're sad that they overpriced the book or used cheap binding, but that doesn't mean that the answer is for someone else to publish Harry Potter as well. The market will correct: if the prices are too high or the product is too shabby, Scholastic and JK Rowling will suffer accordingly and appropriately. Scholastic may have an exclusive license, but its incentives are correctly aligned with that of its consumers. Ditto for Goko.
So it's not about legalistic hair-splitting or semantic issues. It's just not a situation where antitrust concepts are in play.
Can you explain to someone completely ignorant of anti-trust concepts what makes Goko (or Scholastic Press) NOT an anti-trust / monopolistic situation? I mean, if the only way to read Harry Potter is to buy the Scholastic printed version of it, then isn't it the case that Scholastic will not suffer for overpricing the books or poor bookbinding nearly as much as they would if there were a second company also allowed to publish it?
Harry Potter was in competition with thousands of other books; Dominion is in competition with hundreds of other games.
If RGG were the only publisher of all Eurogames, that would be monopolistic.
-
Antitrust has a sort of inherent tension with IP. One stops monopolies and the other grants monopolies.
The core principle is that it is OK to earn supracompetitive profits as "a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident". It becomes a problem when there are no adequate substitutes, or alternatively, you take steps to ensure that there are no adequate substitutes.
The concept of "substitute" applied to HP essentially says, JK Rowling wants to maximize her sales. If she signs an exclusive license with Scholastic, we can trust that she is bargaining for Scholastic to do as good a job as possible publishing her works. Likewise, we can trust that Scholastic also wants to do as good a job as possible. Sure, no matter how crappy their product is, they'll still have some consumers, but when they make a good product, they'll attract more consumers that are currently buying substitutes (Eragon?) instead. So if Scholastic dramatically overprices HP, it is a net loss for them.
On the flip side, if there were no substitutes (let's say Rowling's contract with Scholastic also required it to stop publishing other teen fiction novels, and Scholastic dominates the teen fiction market), now the incentives are all wrong. Now there is a lot less reason to worry about overpricing: your consumers are captive because they don't have anywhere else to go. If Scholastic produces a superb product, they don't gain many more consumers than if they produced a shabby product.
Now, of course, there are gradations. Antitrust is nothing if not murky, and sometimes the ultimate verdict kind of comes down to a gutcheck.
The disconnect might be how you define the relevant market. The history of US antitrust works very hard to promote "interbrand" competition, rather than "intrabrand" competition. Reason being, if you define each individual brand/product as its own relevant market (i.e., Harry Potter's market is Harry Potter books, not all books), then you run into some other problematic issues. Is it OK if Pepsi agrees to sell only west of the Mississippi and Coke agrees only to sell east of the Mississippi? Shouldn't it be an antitrust violation if DXV pays RGG/etc. not to make any other deckbuilders? Neither of those would be prosecutable if each brand constituted its own relevant market, even though there might be compelling reasons to suggest that Coke and Pepsi are not "true" competitors, just like how Dominion and Ascension are not "true" competitors.
This is all very interesting and you clearly know quite a bit more about the legal issues than I do, which makes sense, since I hear you're a lawyer. :)
But I thought the Harry Potter analogy seemed a bit flawed as a comparison to Dominion, specifically because it's a book. I mean, if two publishers each made a hardcopy of a Harry Potter novel, there wouldn't be much to differentiate them. The covers and maybe slight variations in font / weights / page counts, but those don't seem like they'd be that important. Similarly, if two publishers could put out a Harry Potter ebook, realistically, they just wouldn't be that different.
It seems like the less differentiated versions of a product are, the less relevant competition is. And electronic Dominion is certainly differentiated or we'd all be happy to buy/play it no matter who made it.
I guess I really don't have much of a point other than that this distinction seems relevant to me. A competing electronic Dominion implementation could very much make Goko better. A competing Harry Potter publisher doesn't seem very likely to change what Scholastic does.
-
Book binding quality, introductions, annotations, and above all, price! There's lots of ways to differentiate with publishers.
-
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation. Even pharmaceuticals protected by patent law can be substituted by possibly less efficacious substances.
-
Book binding quality, introductions, annotations, and above all, price! There's lots of ways to differentiate with publishers.
Well, I'm talking about ways to differentiate that truly impact consumer behavior. I don't personally know anybody who has ever voiced a buying decision made on any of the things you mentioned (or even remarked on it in a review) except price. But price is the one way the IP licensor DOESN'T want them to compete, because that directly cuts into overall profits.
Just going with this thought some more, I see incentive for an IP owner to say "anybody can make my thing, but they have to pay me at least X for it" because, if it's actually a viable business model, the competition means everybody gets better without cutting into the licensor's profit. Now, as I touched on before, that kind of arrangement may not be attractive to developers. But, in the case of Dominion, dougz did it for free, so that demonstrates *some* interest. :) The hard part is getting the appropriate X value for any arbitrary implementation.
I guess it comes down the IP licensor's goal. If absolute profit isn't the main goal, the multi-license idea could make sense (although the sky could be the limit with this approach). If it's *guaranteed* money, exclusives start to look more attractive. I don't particularly blame RGG for taking this approach, but I'd love to see what would happen in a multi-license environment (for any sufficiently-awesome game, really).
-
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation.
That's obviously not true in practice, though. The Goko implementation leaves a lot to be desired (for me), and I haven't stopped playing it or started playing some other free game.
And for HP, I started reading it when 4 books were out and I would have paid more than I did pay for the remaining books without question. (Obviously there's a limit, I wouldn't have paid $75 for each book, but I certainly would have paid $35 instead of the $29.99 or whatever I did pay.)
-
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation.
That's obviously not true in practice, though. The Goko implementation leaves a lot to be desired (for me), and I haven't stopped playing it or started playing some other free game.
Maybe you haven't, but I'm pretty sure lots of other people have... I mean, I play Goko from time to time when I really want a Dominion fix, but I won't pay money for it until certain things are addressed. I think there's lots of people who played on Isotropic who haven't bought Goko Dominion.
-
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation.
That's obviously not true in practice, though. The Goko implementation leaves a lot to be desired (for me), and I haven't stopped playing it or started playing some other free game.
And for HP, I started reading it when 4 books were out and I would have paid more than I did pay for the remaining books without question. (Obviously there's a limit, I wouldn't have paid $75 for each book, but I certainly would have paid $35 instead of the $29.99 or whatever I did pay.)
In this analogy, is Isotropic the public library that has its funding slashed by local government in order to raise their own salaries and is eventually forced to shut down because the bake sale permit wasn't approved?
-
Maybe you haven't, but I'm pretty sure lots of other people have... I mean, I play Goko from time to time when I really want a Dominion fix, but I won't pay money for it until certain things are addressed. I think there's lots of people who played on Isotropic who haven't bought Goko Dominion.
*raises hand*
I gave Goko a lot of chances, but now I refuse to even log in to that piece of trash. I play Innovation on Isotropic for my card game fix, and I hope -- perhaps futilely -- that Goko will go under sooner rather than later and sell their Dominion license to someone who can make it fun.
I really do miss Dominion. But Isotropic is an interface that is fun to use repeatedly, and Goko is not, and that is much more significant to me than the difference between Dominion and Innovation.
-
Quote from: ipofanes on April 20, 2013, 01:39:10 am
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation.
That's obviously not true in practice, though. The Goko implementation leaves a lot to be desired (for me), and I haven't stopped playing it or started playing some other free game.
You can't make an argument from practice based on one person's experience.
Everything in life has a cost curve of people's willingness to pay. (in money or in time, waiting for a match with people who bought it)
It is a monopoly of sorts based on IP/branding but its in a market with many near substitutes. Its two competing forces. Were there multiple suppliers of Dominion, competition from the near substitutes and with eachother would almost certainly drive the price down. As-is Goko et. al. can set the price to whatever they want, and of course a subset of dominion fans will always be willing to buy it, the size of that subset depending on the price. Also, depending on how much you consider dominion substitutable for other games, you may be willing to pay more.
Its a major difference! Even if I don't really want to pay, but I think that there is no substitute for online dominion, I will behave as if it is a monopoly, however, if someone is neutral, they will treat it as if it was not a monopoly. So you get some sort of oligopolistic behavior going on.
I love Economics.
-
The seemingly oxymoronic concept of monopolistic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) actually exists. If Harry Potter books became too expensive, people would switch to reading Artemis Fowl. If the Goko implementation left something to be desired, people would switch to Isotropic Innovation. Even pharmaceuticals protected by patent law can be substituted by possibly less efficacious substances.
For leisure activities, I think this concept applies too well to be interesting/noteworthy. They're all pretty trivially substitutable, since one can do basically anything else with their free time. It doesn't have to even be a game to be in direct competition.
The fundamental question is always "how much is it worth to the customers"? It has to be pretty good to compete with everything else I could be doing. Dominion is that good. Isotropic was that good. Goko is not that good.
If Goko fails, I hope the lesson learned is about poor execution and not product viability. The freaking game sells itself as long as you just don't screw it up. FWIW, I also think that would quickly become clear with a little true competition.
-
If Goko fails, I hope the lesson learned is about poor execution and not product viability. The freaking game sells itself as long as you just don't screw it up. FWIW, I also think that would quickly become clear with a little true competition.
That's actually a really good summation of Goko's problems.
-
I accidentally clicked "End Turn" prematurely today because it appears on screen at the same place as "End Actions".
I was sad. :'(
-
I accidentally clicked "End Turn" prematurely today because it appears on screen at the same place as "End Actions".
I was sad. :'(
I may have done this today as well, though I could have sworn I clicked "play treasures" and it ended my turn. They really need to make that harder to click, or have an "I'm sure" option.