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

Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

pocketgamer.biz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 370 posts

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#271

Post by selfhoster11 »

jeffwask wrote: post #265
selfhoster11 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confusion is over what is meant by 'monetisation' here. Is is "making sure the game is at all commercially viable so I can afford to keep myself alive and well fed", or "making sure that every drop of money is juiced from the customer". Without a clear statement that he meant the latter, I decided to give him some benefit of doubt unless I have additional context (I never heard of the guy before).

Just in case there is further confusion here he is talking about how cool it would be if you could charge per reload in shooter. https://youtu.be/ZR6-u8OIJTE "You are really not that price sensitive at that time"

That's just effing evil.

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#272

Post by worker_person »

jl6 wrote: post #23

Did you know there is a market for pre-war steel? This is steel manufactured before 1945 that is uncontaminated by radionuclides: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel There will soon be a market for pre-microtransactions games. Also: I used to hate on the casino industry for using the term “gaming” to euphemistically refer to gambling, but now they’re not so different so I’ll let them have that one.

Building a RetroPie is a fun project that can end in having hundreds of old games. https://retropie.org.uk/

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#273

Post by overgard »

srvmshr wrote: post #12

Famous last words. Unity is doomed with the malware company merger

I doubt it; I can't imagine this is going to affect the engine/editor itself in a way you can't opt out of. Companies that want tools like ironsource would have already been using a package or custom code to do these things anyway.

It does speak to the priorities of the company though -- Unity used to be about indies, but it seems like their focus is more on mobile and services. I don't think that means they're going to neglect the indies, but I think they're realizing subscriptions without royalties isn't a huge money maker for them.

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#274

Post by blaze33 »

I can't help but notice the underlying conflict giving rise to these sort of controversies. What is a game? What makes a successful one?

Ok, checks dictionary: "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". I remember buying Age of Empires or Total Annihilation as a kid. That was before the ubiquitous internet, you asked your friends and read game magazines before heading to the shop to buy the CDROM. New games had similar prices but some were better (from the player pov) than others and I feel like at that time, being fun and entertaining more directly correlated to commercial successes.

Now everything is online: the games, the stores, the payments. We have in game transactions, DLCs, pay-to-win, pay-to-not-wait-24h, in game gambling, analytics to optimize, etc. And also this definition of gaming: "to manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous". What gives?

> “But this industry divides people between those who still hold to that philosophy and those who massively embrace how to figure out what makes a successful product."

So yeah, could this divide actually come from our definition of "success"? Is it about maximizing the financial ROI using all the tricks we know to hook and exploit whales? Is it about making an actually fun and enjoyable game? I wonder...

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#275

Post by s1artibartfast »

rowanG077 wrote: post #266
s1artibartfast wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to have it, still better to consider implementation and mechanics early, opposed to try to bolt it on to a mostly finished game. I would agree that intentionally planning to do the latter is idiotic.

That's the answer to the wrong question. You shouldn't even be considering adding monetization into the game. Because you are "fucking evil" if you do.

But the question in the quote was about early versus late addition.

Waiting until the end to add it in is both evil and idiotic

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#277

Post by dragontamer »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #240
dragontamer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A typical RPG example is defeating the same monster over and over again to get experience to reach the next new area. A great RPG however, provides you with the tools to advance without ever grinding. Most Fire Emblem games for example, are carefully tuned (thanks to a pretty interesting experience point formula) to rig your "active members of the party" to a particular level. Fire Emblem effectively asymptotes you…

That's the general theme among turn-based RPGs. The games are either too undertuned to warrant grinding for skilled players, or they are tuned so they do require some form of grinding. It's an inherent problem with stat sticks and fairly simplistic strategies. Almost no moderately difficult RPG is tuned to not have some of its player base grind, bar introducing difficulty selection. Pokemon is absurdly easy because t…

> The games are either too undertuned to warrant grinding for skilled players

That's a good thing. Players who figure out the system "properly" shouldn't have to grind.

Ex: Atelier series generally have "alchemy engines" that create absurdly powerful creations, if you spend some time mapping out how alchemy can pass back and forth and mastering the alchemy minigame (main game??). Yeah, you can grind another +10 levels, but the game is about crafting items and rewards you with way more damage from well-crafted items (from +Quality loops) rather than from trying to bash your head against enemies for 10 hours.

The only games that seem to "force a grind" are these crappy phone-RPGs / gatchapon games, where escaping the grind literally costs money.

> Beating required Geodude trainer number 30 with Tackle and Rock Throw may as well be grinding.

A decent speedrun of Pokemon is only a couple of hours long at the most. I don't think any skilled RPG player would call any decent run of Pokemon (of any game) a "Grind".

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#278

Post by philistine »

revolvingocelot wrote: post #184
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every game has a compulsion loop. In chess its a full game of chess. In Street Fighter II it is one full fight with up to 3 rounds. Its a very dystopian sounding but very central component to almost all games.

>Every game has a compulsion loop Of course, but in non-Skinner-box-speak, we call that the "gameplay". Refactoring an old concept like "gameplay" to wield the tools of war usually associated with gambling -- that's the crux of the matter. That's what I and the root-level commenter fear. Vampire Survivors itself isn't the problem -- it costs $3, and doesn't require any more (non-temporal) investment, neither microtra…

What we call things is fluid and flexible, like our language. So there might be a discussion about calling the main loop in a game something different. But redefining the gameplay loop as the compulsion loop is oh so wrong in my mind; one implies no nefarious intent, and the other is clearly meant to describe the loop of a game focused on selling microtransactions.

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#279

Post by philistine »

overgard wrote: post #199
jl6 wrote: post #23

Did you know there is a market for pre-war steel? This is steel manufactured before 1945 that is uncontaminated by radionuclides: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel There will soon be a market for pre-microtransactions games. Also: I used to hate on the casino industry for using the term “gaming” to euphemistically refer to gambling, but now they’re not so different so I’ll let them have that one.

Honestly, I think there already is a market for that. I know personally, when I buy mobile games, I completely avoid the F2P space. The last mobile game I played was The Oregon Trail (on Apple Arcade), and I gotta say, it was incredibly refreshing playing a game on the phone that was just a game. No annoying timers or things like that to convince me to buy "gems" or whatever currency. (I'm not sure if that game is co…

The dichotomy between cosmetics and gameplay-impacting microtransactions is irrelevant. They both produce the addiction you describe.

Re: Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO

#280

Post by philistine »

barrysteve wrote: post #80

Frank Stephenson who designed the Ferrari F430, some BMWs and the good looking Mini from 2004, has a youtube channel. He sticks to pen and paper because computers lock him in too early in the design process. I don't get what Mr Riccitiello is on about. Clay is a great way to sketch car ideas. Mike Morhaime of Blizzard fame sees indie games as a space where the small guys can try out games that have never been made be…

> What is the unity CEO pushing for? Cookie cutter games?

Not cookie cutter. Cookie clicker.

Post reply on HN