Kwari pays you to shoot people, not get shot

by Justin McElroy { Aug 31st 2007 at 9:30AM }

It's rare that games do well once money is introduced as a reward. It's almost as if people have said something for centuries about business and pleasure and what a bad idea it is to mix them. Kwari is an FPS (and a company) looking to break that mold. You'll buy ammunition (they beat you to it Microsoft!) but you'll also pay a stake to enter a game. At that point, your health bar is your bankroll, and every shot that that hits you deducts money from your account and adds it to the shooter's. Imagine a game where every gun fires utility bills.

Sure, this all sounds like, well, a nightmare. But it's a nightmare that won't even get off the ground if the game isn't fun. Kwari puts our minds at ease though, saying the game was "developed using some of the most advanced technology available to ensure total financial infallibility fused with benchmark playability." Benchmark playability, people. What are you waiting for? Beta registration is up now!

Tags: kwari

Related From Joystiq

Portland shooter called 'quiet, video game fan'
288 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Rubix42 @ Aug 31st 2007 9:39AM

Wow, talk about lag really screwing you over! I can't wait to go on these forums and listen to the crying.

Sweet, sweet sorrow, ah, I love the taste.

Jerk Face @ Aug 31st 2007 9:40AM

"Imagine a game where every gun fires utility bills."

That might have been the funniest thing I have read in weeks! Holy shit what an awful idea - unless you are really, really good at shooters. Then, well, fuck it - go take some kids' money!

arrakisman @ Aug 31st 2007 10:06AM

So I guess a aimbot could get you charged with larceny.

HotShotX @ Aug 31st 2007 9:55AM

It kind of sounds like they are following a system like moola.com (players fight over a pool of money smaller than what the developers bring in). Assuming that the entry fees aren't too much, they might actually pull this off.

~HotShotX

Intentless @ Aug 31st 2007 9:58AM

Isn't this essentially an equivalent to blood sports or at least gambling. I hope they have checked with their lawyers and the governments they plan on releasing this game to be safe. I've always wanted a game to play for money though... So once I have some extra cash to trow away I'm there.

Crono @ Aug 31st 2007 10:13AM

It depends. Gambling usually falls into the category of games of luck. This is clearly a game of skill, and I don't think gambling rules would apply.

As for bloodsport, people aren't ACTUALLY shooting each other, now are they?

Intentless @ Aug 31st 2007 10:20AM

No they arn't actually shooting eachother but I just meant that in the aspect of say it being like a blood sport. Like in those movies where they have all the mercs go after eachother and the last surviver takes the prize.

kyle @ Aug 31st 2007 12:00PM

It would be fairly easy for this to be construed as gambling. A game where where an agreed upon monetary amount changes hands as the result of preset victory conditions, thats pretty much textbook gambling and will open this game up to a litany of problems both legally and socially. In the U.S. online poker is already in the middle of legislation seeking to ban it based on state and county trespass (many states dont allow gambling, state laws and ordinances take precendent)and laws provisioning fines to credit card and payment companies that allow transactions to online gambling go in to effect this coming year.
Other problems, much more directly related to gamers, is how quickly will people develope hacks, a farming system, or what kind of backlash will we face the first time a minor steals his parent's credit card and they cant afford the mortgage because of a videogame.
I personally think this is a terrible idea (no true means of enforcing a level playing field, no mediating presence - most gambling scenarios have a judge, dealer, etc, to vulerable to fixes - unofficial agreements between players to give them an advantage )

Vince @ Aug 31st 2007 2:28PM

as said before, it's not gambling because it's a game of skill.

kyle @ Aug 31st 2007 8:26PM

@ Vince - The when the outcome of said contest pays dividends based on an agreed wager that is gambling. skill or dumb luck (chance) it's still gambling.

Jake @ Aug 31st 2007 9:59AM

My buddy plays a lot of Battlefield on PC. He once told me he had a hack or program or some damn thing that affected the way his PC displayed the game. What it basically did was made your enemies stand way out, even if they were behind something. He said it gave him a huge advantage when he used it, but he didn't like to use it because it put a couple bigass lines on the screen and ruined the fun.

My point is that there are plenty of hacks and cheats that can be easily used in PC games. With money at stake, you are bound to see a high percentage of them.

I actually like the idea of this game as long as it is played for very small stakes and the server isn't taking a big ol' rake.

Chi @ Aug 31st 2007 10:14AM

Yeah I saw the same thing happen with BF2142 except these crazy programmers got the game hacked in such a way that it was nearly undetectable by Punkbuster.

Bad thing was that I was at a Gaming Cafe (think internet cafe for gamers) and every computer had the stuff loaded up for anyone to use!!

tack @ Sep 11th 2007 3:51PM

Jake,
Nice to hear that your friend didn't like to use that cheating hack because the lines in his screen made it less fun.
How about the fact that the unfair advantage made it less fun for everyone else?
Sorry, but your friend is a cock.

Intentless @ Aug 31st 2007 10:00AM

Not to mention it should only be played in a controlled environment. Like maybe in a Casino or something. Imagine a room with a bunch of stations and then outside huge screens that display the combat to those that are waiting for just want to watch...

robert @ Aug 31st 2007 10:06AM

what a terrible idea... there has yet to be an online shooter i've ever played that hasn't been filled with people cheating.

you might as well send envelopes full of cash to some random 14 year old who spends his day finding map glitches in gears of war

ShadowHawk01 @ Aug 31st 2007 10:08AM

wow... and I thought I had it bad when I was paying $15 to play an MMO. If I read this correctly they think people are willing to pay for AMMO as well as pay for entry into a game.

NATO_Duke @ Aug 31st 2007 10:09AM

"Imagine a game where every gun fires utility bills."-That scares the crap outta me.

Sean @ Aug 31st 2007 10:36AM

I feel like we're moving backwards.

GRANTED @ Aug 31st 2007 11:23AM

i felt the exact same way reading it.

i guess video GAMES aren't supposed to be FUN anymore.

Intentless @ Aug 31st 2007 10:36AM

Again, I could see this at a casino. They already have the strictest if not best network security. It could all be held internally and be just as heavily monitored as everything else. They would love it. The players are making them money by playing. The spectaters could be betting on who will win, big rollers could sponsor players that make a name for themselves. People with money would notice and so then it would actually potentially lead to something. Most major sports were built off of betting.. Right? Well boxing was from what I understand...

Mr. P @ Aug 31st 2007 10:40AM

How's this any different than online poker? I'd rather just play cards.

Mike show! @ Aug 31st 2007 11:13AM

...because its not based off chance?

Booxatron @ Aug 31st 2007 10:47PM

And there's guns instean of cards?

Defenestrator2.0 @ Sep 1st 2007 11:58PM

...And the only way to kill somebody in poker is to give them a lethal paper cut to the jugular?

WiNG @ Aug 31st 2007 10:46AM

doesn't tournament.com do something like this already? You basically play every game for cash, and whatever team has most kills at the time limit splits the pot.

samfish @ Aug 31st 2007 11:04AM

Disaster, thy name is written all over thee.

Aberu @ Aug 31st 2007 11:25AM

They also ensured that their PR guys would lawyer up some bullshit jargon to try and confuse the majority of people into buying their game.

BananaBoat @ Aug 31st 2007 11:32AM

Greaaat, so now cheaters can make money by how many bullets they pump into me. That sounds like an impressive business model. Give me this same thing, on Counterstrike, but also give me admins watching the entire time to prevent cheating, and punkbuster to go one step further. Oh wait, they already did that, except without the stupid bullets cost money, and shooting people gives you money model. Once you take the fun out of games and make them about money, it's all over.

Patrick @ Aug 31st 2007 11:36AM

now if this were done with halo 3, in a controlled setting, I could see this happening

hvnlysoldr @ Aug 31st 2007 11:46AM

They could have a swear jar. Every time you swear or insult you have to pay a quarter to them. That's how they'll make money.

LessThanMrt @ Aug 31st 2007 12:22PM

I think this would be pretty awesome in a casino. I can't even imagine the hand cannon needed to shoot out a $300 dollar gas bill...

Bluebrake @ Aug 31st 2007 2:03PM

What's with the hostility? Sounds like a decent idea to me. Just like any other kind of gambling, only a lot more interesting.

ThornedVenom @ Aug 31st 2007 3:13PM

Being for or against games playing with money is a moral judgement. Being for or against fairness is another.

ThornedVenom @ Aug 31st 2007 3:17PM

Only two kinds of players would spawn from this: those who are insanely good, and those who rely on hacks. But in the end, they're all losers.

As someone mentioned earlier, games are supposed to be fun. Some people consider playing with money to be fun, others consider scamming to be fun.

I call bullshit on this game outside a non-controlled environment.