Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation • Hacker News Board

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#91

Post by mbg721 » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:29 AM UTC

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…

Some of the AAA publishers overextended themselves; I think they inadvertently got into the cathedral-building business and then realized they can't build a $70-per-serving cathedral every three years without abusing their employees or making some kind of quality compromise. It's been a decade since Skyrim was released, for example, and a little less since GTA V, and the microtransaction model seems to be their strategy for filling in the gaps.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#92

Post by jmyeet » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:30 AM UTC

Yeah this was obvious 10 years ago with the rise of mobile gaming. The only difference between mobile gaming and other forms is that the payment infrastructure was so easily accessible and seamless integrated.

But 10+ years ago we had Farmville and then on mobile we had thing slike Candy Crush, Clash of Clans and so on.

These aren't games. They're A/B tested addiction loops optimized to extract as much money from you as possible.

You can see the impact of this on World of Warcraft, which is >17 years old at this point. In its original form it had traditional RPG game loops. Over the years it has become increasingly dominatded by "micro-transactions". These includes services like character transfers, boosts, racce changes and name changes. It also includes a bunch of cosmetics.

Some people are most OK with cosmetics for monetization but this still has a problem. It creates an incentive for the game designers to make paid cosmetics better than in-game cosmetics to encourage you to buy them. You see this in WoW where in-game mounts sometimes look like they're made of 7 triangles while store mounts are rendered in semi-translucent 3D with particle effects, modern textures, large triangle counts and special moves. More importantly though cosmetics matter. The ability to flex through cosmetics is a huge motivator to players. The fact that someone can swipe a credit card and devalue in-game accomplishments really destroys any incentives to work towards in-game goals.

Outside of FPS games there are depressingly few actual games out there (as opposed to addiction pay-to-win treadmills). I like computer adaptations of board games for this reason because at least these games tend to stay true to being "games".

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#93

Post by pom66 » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:38 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #55

I agree with the general idea in the article that games should be about fun and great gameplay at its core. What I don't agree with is this simplistic narrative by gamers on how how very evil and greedy game producers are. Because gamers themselves play a significant role in that. As an example, mobile game developers largely switched to in-game purchases not because they want to, instead because it's the only model…

No post body was provided.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#94

Post by lmm » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:39 AM UTC

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…

Power is the only thing that directly affects other people you're playing with. I don't mind if my opponents want to pay for some particular look - them having a nice skin takes nothing away from me (Oh no, I'll "be unable to get all cosmetics", the horror!). I mind a lot if my opponents can pay to have better winning chances, since that part is zero-sum.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#95

Post by tasha0663 » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:43 AM UTC

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…

> 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

FALSE. The assets from the games are not being traded in your hypothetical. The NFTs are.

> minimal external yet-trustable representation of the existence of some in-game asset

TRUE, BUT all it does is confirm someone calls dibs on something. Actually integrating those dibs in any sensible way is a huge task. It might be the "Deluxe Crystal AstroBlaster9000" in one game, but due to trademark issues, you might have to settle for "1 Ripe Banana" in another.

> so people can then go and use all of these systems you don't have to worry about

UNLIKELY. Developers would be one hashtag away from the Internet mob demanding they not allow people to use items pointed to by NFTs purchased with Dunning-Kruggerands that have dirty histories. The whitepapers might say you don't have to worry about it, but the users will.

Then there are security concerns. There will be a bad contract. There will be a phishing scam. The whitepaper might say code is law, but the users are still going to want the developer to make it right, or they'll walk.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#96

Post by lmm » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

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?

A few old RPGs tried to make it possible to import characters from the previous entry in the series. This generally didn't work very well, and those were first-party games; to do it for a third-party game seems a lot harder.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#97

Post by donavanm » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #88

p1necone wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice the examples you're giving are all lower budget indie games, it's also worth pointing out that there's a /tonne/ of big budget games that also eschew this kind of nonsense. See: FromSoftware, basically anything that was a Sony published PS4 exclusive (Horizon Zero Dawn, Spiderman, Days Gone, Uncharted, etc etc), Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, basically everything Nintendo puts out, many many more (honestly I…

Not being a game dev, I've often wondered how much the mobile platform for games lowered the barier to entry compared to PC/console games. Unity came along and opened up a lot of doors for people, but I'm not sure how much it is used for mobile (should provide an idea of my knowledge--or lack of--in this area). Mobile games seems to just be flooded with copycat/clones with slight variations of the same game play with…

I have a little knowledge of actual gambling “games” ala video poker etc. They seem to be dominated by large publishers who farm content from a collection of in house & contract “studios.” The studious crank out an entire new game on the order of 12-16 weeks using a single integrated team of development, art assets, marketing and production management. Releasing multiple games varying in assets/branding, but identical mechanics, is a very intentional strategy. Applies to “refrahing” popular older games as well.

History wise I suspect the micro monetized mobile apps trace their origins back to the “social platform” games of the 2000s ala Zynga, and the online “game platforms” of poker, faux-scrabble, etc of the yahoo era.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#98

Post by throwawaylinux » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

russdpale wrote: post #72

gameswithgo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Studies show the vast majority of the purchases on those apps are whales. Like 90% or more IIRC. If it weren't for whales those games would make no money.

Do you have any of those studies at hand?

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#99

Post by x0x0 » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

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…

It's not so complicated though -- for big budget games, the budget has gone up while the box price has been eaten by inflation. People still pay $60 for a game in the midst of 9 figure dev budgets. $60 isn't enough money to make many types of games, leaving publishers with three choices: charge everyone more, charge a bunch of people a little more (dlc, some loot boxes, ads), or charge a handful of people a ton of money (loot box mechanics searching for whales).

When you watch interviews with some of the early doom developers, the level designers could make a level a week. Now levels in Doom Eternal are years long collaborations between a team of people. Content costs have exploded.

There's an identical trend with ios apps btw: an email app in the late 1990s like Eudora cost $100 to $150 with paid updates. Now people expect email apps to cost under $10 with lifetime updates while doing 10x as much.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#100

Post by lmm » Wed, Mar 02, 2022, 2:06 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #55

I agree with the general idea in the article that games should be about fun and great gameplay at its core. What I don't agree with is this simplistic narrative by gamers on how how very evil and greedy game producers are. Because gamers themselves play a significant role in that. As an example, mobile game developers largely switched to in-game purchases not because they want to, instead because it's the only model…

> 59.99€ for some mysterious reason is carved in stone. Games have costs this amount (or less) since forever. Inflation seems to have no grip at all on game prices, nor does the price reflect the explosion in complexity, scope and upkeep (servers, anti-cheat, more bugs due to complexity, etc).

> Let's talk value. If you're a fan of the series, it has almost infinite replay value, as is the point of an online shooter. You can play the game for years, for thousands of hours. People are still playing BF4, which is from 2013.

> And still gamers complain that it's expensive. The reality is that at least for this game, it's a steal. Extraordinarily cheap highly engaging entertainment in limitless supply. Thousands of hours compared to about the cost of going out for dinner.

But you can't know that at launch time, and with the hit-based dynamic that the publishers have set up, they need a lot of buyers on launch day. Reviewers are completely in the industry's pocket and everyone knows it. So it's a complete lemon market.

59.99€ isn't the price because it's what the good games are worth. It's the price because it's what gamers are willing to risk losing if the game turns out to suck. And that part is very much on the industry's side - pre-orders, day 0 patches, lack of credible criticism and a very limited ability to get refunds are big factors in this dynamic.