Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#21

Post by verdverm »

Bombthecat wrote: post #20
verdverm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hard problem is how to use an asset in-game, beyond the visual aspect. What is the speed, rate of fire, etc. Each game does this differently, their code is not the same, their assets are managed in many ways. How do you propose to deal with this?

Like any rpg, but not for character creation, but for whatever?

That process is very different for each game. Do you make them all use the same rules and mechanisms? What differentiates games then?

Have you tried to develop a game? It's much more complex than most applications. There are no standard libraries or APIs for this type of thing.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#22

Post by vorpalhex »

saurik wrote: post #10
nest0r wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would I need NFTs for that?

NFTs (as defined by ERC721 or whatever it is) by and large end up acting as an interoperable standard that allows the assets to be traded on unified exchanges with assets from other games in a way that doesn't require any of the game developers to have to deal with money transmission issues (as they would only ever sell, not buy or facilitate trade). Like in some sense all the NFT is to the game you develop is a mini…

We can't agree on what file format to use most of the time, nobody is going to make interoperable textures/models/etc between games.

NFTs would still be a "thing of value" and still be beholden to all the same rules as other things of value.

You still have AML issues.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#23

Post by ranger207 »

fattless wrote: post #19

The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory. Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion…

I agree. At this point AAA games are a genera unto themselves, whether they're a shooter, adventure game, sports game, whatever. They all share the same elements you outlined: seasons, battlepass, in-game currency, microtransactions for the smallest items, and game design that puts the focus of the entire game on those elements. AAA games are made with massive budgets and are designed to be very attractive to play, to the point of addiction, but I simply can't get into them because of the genera elements.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#24

Post by donmcronald »

sstevenshang wrote: post #2

Excellent article, and the thing is that if you spend any time talking to gamers or on gaming platforms, there’s a near consensus on this attitude against in-game purchases that contribute nothing to gameplay. Even though people still make these purchases, I’d say most of them are conscious of the fact that the current trend is detrimental to gamers. As a side note, the only people pushing for NTFs in games are crypt…

I think the NFT thing should be illegal. It adds nothing beyond a false promise that you're buying an "investment" instead of an in game item. IMO it's disgusting to see game companies targeting kids with a scam like that.

As for the rest of the article, he could be talking about me. I've basically given up on PC gaming. I used to love gaming and now it feels like a second job. It feels like I'm being forced to "accomplish" a bunch of in game goals because the developer thinks "engaging" me like that is going to lead to a microtransaction.

I thought I'm probably just getting older and grumpier, but I bought an Oculus Quest before Christmas and it's been a blast. Games like The Room had me feeling like a kid who just got their first PC game. I think a lot of it has to do with VR being a new platform and there's less focus on developers squeezing every penny out of you and more incentive for them to build small, fun games that help discover what makes sense in VR.

The craziest part is that I've spent several hundred dollars on VR games in a few months which is more than I've spent on PC games in the last 5 years combined. I know it's popular to trash Meta/Facebook, but I think they did a really good job of pricing VR games. It's I also think microtransactions can make sense. GGG did a good job with Path of Exile. I've played that game on and off and every time I pick it back up I play for a bit and if my stash starts getting disorganized with items that have a convenience stash tab as a microtransaction I'll buy that stash tab. It's always after I've spent a weekend playing and it's only $20, so I don't feel like I've gotten ripped off or forced into buying something. I've probably spent twice as much on that game as any other in recent memory.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#25

Post by time_to_smile »

I think the real issue is that we've just left a brief period where the best way to succeed in the market was to make good games.

Anyone who grew up playing arcade games knows that, for the vast majority of cases, the pre-console arcade world was about finding the best way to keep you feeding quarters to a machine. Difficult, almost beating the boss, but ultimately simple games ruled the day. Some are classics now but many were very meh.

The early home console years, when reviews were still hard to come by and rentals weren't a thing yet, were flooded with tons of pure trash games. Everyone knows how awful any licensed game was, but it didn't matter because all they had to do was to get you (or more often parents/grandparents) to buy the game. By the time you got home and realized the game was garbage it was already too late. I remember owning far more horrible games as a kid than good ones.

The late 1990s and early 2000s were a great time for gaming because it was much easier to determine if a game was quality or not before buying, and for a brief window of time the only really great way to make money was to just make a compelling game that got good reviews.

We've since seen gaming become a major industry, where heavy marketing can play just as big a factor as initial reviews. With the massive growth of online gaming and digital downloads it's much easier to make a game that is really about a million microtransaction (remember when people used to think that would save the internet?)

The truth is games have always been structured in a way to optimizer revenue, it's just that we remember a period when the best way to make money in a game was to actually make a game good.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#26

Post by falcolas »

fattless wrote: post #19

The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory. Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion…

Imagine being a player who wants to collect new skins or looks in a modern game. In almost any modern game that offers microtransactions. Even indie games are starting to sell cosmetics, so they aren't left out of the feast, err, leaving money on the table.

Your choice is usually limited to: 1) spend money, 2) be unable to get all cosmetics, and occasionally 3) spend hundreds to thousands of hours to obtain the skins.

The worst part is that the average player seems to be fine with this, since it's not selling power - as if power's the only thing that matters in a game.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#27

Post by imiric »

Sid is a few years too late with the warning.

Gameplay and original game design have taken a backseat to increasingly hostile monetization schemes, lazy/safe/rehashed game loops and marketing/shareholder driven development for at least a decade now. The amount of AAA titles built on hype and released broken at launch, with promises of future patches, is too long to list. With some notable exceptions, most of the innovation and interesting game design is done by indie developers and smaller studios.

This video sums it up nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q38fjcyP1IQ

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#28

Post by ericd »

fattless wrote: post #19

The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory. Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion…

Yeah, the presence of a season pass means an automatic pass from me. I don’t need any heavily monetized skinner boxes in my life, thanks.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#29

Post by StanislavPetrov »

lewispollard wrote: post #4

It's a bit rich, given there are 14 paid DLCs for the latest Civ game, and they all have pretty negative reviews for being too expensive while adding little to the gameplay.

Ironically, I'd rather play a game where the DLC didn't add much to gameplay. If I purchase a game, I want to be able to enjoy the full experience of that game without being forced to purchase DLC. If they release DLC that is little more than different skins or supplemental music, I don't feel I've lost out on anything by not purchasing it. On the contrary, if they release a DLC that substantively changes the game and, even worse, makes it incompatible with the original version for saved games or multiplayer, then I'm more or less obligated to purchase it if I want to keep enjoying the game to its full potential.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#30

Post by kevingadd »

lewispollard wrote: post #4

It's a bit rich, given there are 14 paid DLCs for the latest Civ game, and they all have pretty negative reviews for being too expensive while adding little to the gameplay.

Is Sid actually involved in the Civ games anymore? As far as I know he hasn't been directly involved in that franchise for years.
Post reply on HN