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

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#31

Post by donmcronald »

Bombthecat wrote: post #14
nest0r wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would I need NFTs for that?

Nfts itself aren't the "game changer" the game changer is the combination of nfts and smart contracts, where various attributes are defined for the nfts, and they are not changeable. In the steam marketplace, the developer can change things easily, like changing a super rare card in a collectable card game to a common card.

It seems like all negatives IMO. How does a developer re-balance a game if they sold an NFT item that's game breaking? Do you upgrade every other NFT item to compensate? Who pays for that? Everything on the blockchain is a transaction, so who's going to pay for attribute changes? What if you want permanent damage on items so that pristine NFT items are more valuable? Who's going to pay the transaction fee to have their item tagged as damaged or destroyed or with any negative stat?

We already know in game items that affect gameplay basically ruin the game for anyone that isn't a whale. The NFT proponents think they can get everyone emotionally invested like the whales are, but good luck catering to the masses to keep them happy. It's only possible with whales because there aren't many of them and they're the largest source of revenue.

Once you realize that blockchain and NFTs are about charging processing fees for every single event that happens the whole thing looks terrible. Eventually you'll be paying fees to track your items stats, so every time you click or tap it costs money.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#32

Post by thebean11 »

nest0r wrote: post #17
Bombthecat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The publisher can take a cut from minting (creating an nft) and taking a cut from every sale, for example 30 percent first sale and then any other sale 10 percent.

What would be difference between whaht they are doing now ie. Steam wihth cosmetics in csgo or tf2 and NFTs? It would only add overhead.

Wouldn't it remove overhead? They don't need to develop or host the "auction house" or whatever it is.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#33

Post by thebean11 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #22
saurik wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> nobody is going to make interoperable textures/models/etc between games

Unity / Unreal Engine asset stores are just that aren't they?

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#34

Post by prox »

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…

There are many great games coming out from smaller studios and still being maintained. Cases : Rimworld, Valheim, Police Simulator, Project Zomboid, Space Engineers, KSP 1, Factorio.

All off the games you mention seem to be FPS games, perhaps that segment and the sport games suffer segment the most from Pay to Keep Playing schemes.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#35

Post by cehrlich »

I agree with him completely.

But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling.

Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the Breach, Hades, Slay the Spire, Ori and the Blind Forest, etc. These span every genre, and that's not even mentioning the PC back catalog which spans decades. What does it take for those games to win against the lootbox microtransaction garbage?

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#36

Post by prox »

donmcronald wrote: post #24
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 "acco…

I guess it very much depends what kind of games you play. These are the games I enjoy : Rimworld, Valheim, Police Simulator, Project Zomboid, Space Engineers, KSP 1, Factorio, Skyrim, Mount and Blade 2 : Bannerlord.

None of them have significant money sinks with add on purchases. Most are modable, adding to their appeal and longevity.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#37

Post by gameswithgo »

cehrlich wrote: post #35

I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…

I think it is largely "casual" gamers and or gamers who can't afford the upfront $50 or $20 for a game and are lured in by the "Free" game and then of course addiction kicks in and they spend $100 or more on it. Sad state of affairs, and something that has only gotten worse with app stores. I don't know if it is causal but they certainly haven't helped stop it.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#38

Post by donmcronald »

falcolas wrote: post #26
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…

When I played WoW I liked collecting pets and old mounts that were dropped from raid bosses that became solo-able or duo-able. I can't imagine anyone building a modern game where collecting cosmetics is nothing more than a fun side game rather than a revenue stream.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#39

Post by kipchak »

cehrlich wrote: post #35

I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…

I think the problem is these sorts of games are still relatively niche compared to most releases by the big shops, which appeal more to people with a passing interest in games as an occasional pastime versus a hobby. For example I knew someone who played a good bit of FIFA, but didn't really have any interest in other games, in the same way someone else might not be interested in Criterion collection movies but might put on a marvel movie.

There are a few games that are popular in both camps like Tetris, but they're by and large the minority, though they also can be extremely successful as a result. Making a game approachable but deep is very tricky. Celeste for example isn't terribly approachable, which is appropriate given it's story and gameplay, which is likely to turn off most players who might try it casually.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#40

Post by paulmd »

gameswithgo wrote: post #37
cehrlich wrote: post #35

I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…

I think it is largely "casual" gamers and or gamers who can't afford the upfront $50 or $20 for a game and are lured in by the "Free" game and then of course addiction kicks in and they spend $100 or more on it. Sad state of affairs, and something that has only gotten worse with app stores. I don't know if it is causal but they certainly haven't helped stop it.

a skin in some of these games is $10 or more. Even as someone who might conceivably be tempted (I've bought stuff for TF2 before), there's a point where it's just an obviously bad use of your money. 20 bucks is a nice dinner out, I'm not spending that on a skin.

Maybe I am just stuck in 2012 but $2-3 is about the limit for me for a skin. "Unusual" hats (particle effects) in TF2 are basically the original NFT, they are unique items with a very limited number in existence, and they are worth more, but I'm not going to pay $10-20 for the same skin as a million other players.

Of course that's why they've started tying them to gameplay, like Rainbow 6 Siege and Battlefield 2042 "operators"... it's taken studios a long time but they've finally gotten us to bite on "pay to win" by framing it as player choice.

(although I guess DLCs/expansions having OP weapons that beat the base game is nothing new, but charging $10 or $20 a pop for each unit is new.)

Post reply on HN