Valve boss Gabe Newell has once again talked about the possible strategy the studio might implement with its upcoming Dota 2 strategy game, saying that he wants to accurately reward players who benefit the community, while imposing restrictions and higher prices on those who are disruptive.
Valve is working on quite a few projects nowadays, including Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Dota 2, both of which are currently in closed beta
In terms of Dota 2, the company's owner, Gabe Newell, has expressed his desire to reward good players with more than just features in the game.
“We’re trying to figure out ways so that people who are more valuable to everybody else [are] recognized and accommodated. We all know people where if they’re playing we want to play, and there are other people where if they’re playing we would [rather] be on the other side of the planet,” he told Seven Day Cooldown
, via Polygon
“It’s just a question of coming up with mechanisms that recognize and reward people who are doing things that are valuable to other groups of people. The issue that we’re struggling with quite a bit is something I’ve kind of talked about before, which is how do you properly value people’s contributions to a community?”
Newell also talked about this strategy last year, when he said that good players should enjoy lots of advantages while "jerks" should be charged extra
when trying to access a game.
Basically, if this strategy comes to fruition, a player who takes time to mentor others and works well with his team should get more benefits than someone who isn't social and drives teammates away.
“So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get Dota 2 for free, because of past behaviour in Team Fortress 2. Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice.”
Of course, Newell won't firmly commit to such a strategy just yet, but added that Dota 2 will be free-to-play, but not in a traditional way.
"It's going to be free-to-play -- it'll have some twists, but that's the easiest way for people to think about it," Newell concluded.
What do you think? Should team players be rewarded and disruptive ones forced to pay more?