The point, though, is not just to nurture value of the game to the player, but to nurture the value of the player to the aggregate. That is to say, get the player to buy not just good games, but bad games, too! (It sounds sinister, and it's rarely that black-and-white. More like: decent games vs. not-as-good games, but I use such contrasts to better illustrate my point.) Now, it is in the best interest of the portal and developer to make good games, because good games purchased == happy customers == loyalty == more money. The problem now is, however, that the players are only buying the absolute best games, and frequently not "really good" or "pretty good" games. (If they are buying any games at all, and not just artificially extending their trial by visiting multiple portals!) The approach is two-fold: 1) Get more people buying more games by tweaking hard-sell techniques on a per-game basis, and 2) Facilitate a more responsible product push through relevancy and customer satisfaction. (E.g. Support niche titles and players with a the long-tail.) The real bonus, though, is that it's healthier for the entire industry! It puts more money into the hands of more people, fosters innovation at every turn, and consequently expands the market to people who otherwise might not enter it! Everyone--from the players to the aggregates to the developers--benefits both in the short-term and in the long-term! And this would open up existing marketing/product channels to developers like Phil, who want to try a different business models and further stimulate innovation, either through success or error. How's this for a better analogy of why try-too-much-before-you-buy is bad: How many movies would you have paid for after you've seen it? Conversely, how many do you thoroughly regret paying for? It's likely that you'd have paid for few, but don't hate yourself for paying for so many. Get it?