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

321–330 of 370 posts

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

#321

Post by majkinetor »

soneca wrote: post #110
morley wrote: post #25

The full quote for context: > Ferrari and some of the other high-end car manufacturers still use clay and carving knives. It’s a very small portion of the gaming industry that works that way, and some of these people are my favourite people in the world to fight with – they’re the most beautiful and pure, brilliant people. They’re also some of the biggest fucking idiots. Their CEO is certainly not calling everyone an…

> ”And personally, I greatly prefer this sort of frank talk to run-of-the-mill generic PR speak that usually comes from CEO interviews.” There is this desire for “authenticity” in the current zeitgeist. You see it everywhere, but mostly in how the crowds love people like Trump and Elon Musk. I think this is an understandable reaction from being lied a lot by polite PR-trained people. Politicians and businesspeople mo…

Very nice thinking regarding ultra popular folks like Musk.

However, IMO it doesnt hold truth for others which risk rage and clearing from insulted. Insulting people is always risky buisiness but if you want to show that you give a shit that shouldnt stop you.

I pesonally dont like to work with polite people very much because I know they always euphemize the truth. Some things are so shitty that if you frame it in polite way you simply lie.

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

#322

Post by sirmarksalot »

nonbirithm wrote: post #224
actinium226 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsion loop does sound rather dystopian and "attention-hacking" but it's interesting that he says "two minutes when it should have been an hour," instead of the other way around. An hour long compulsion loop sounds like it could be an immersive experience. That said, I'm not hearing nice things about IronSource and it sounds like maybe there's better ways to get user feedback than the particular implementations t…

I wonder if there is a point that a game or other experience can become "predatory" solely focusing on the time someone spends on it regardless of monetization. To my own mind, there are many games that I can't put down for hours, sometimes missing out on sleep entirely for days. But the capitalistic part doesn't apply to me since I never play games with in-game monetization. Still, a lot of my time is sucked away by…

I noticed something like this with Nintendo's early Switch games. Both Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey had a design philosophy that something should always be just over the horizon, waiting for you to explore. It sounds romantic in theory, but the problem is that the game never gives you a good place to take a break, and it drives that same kind of addictive behavior you're describing.

It's a set of design habits that served the industry well back when they were trying to get people to pump in money, but which don't really do anyone any good when it's just you at home on a fully paid-up console game. It's not malicious, it's just a habit that got uncritically elevated to a Best Practice.

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

#323

Post by xg15 »

actinium226 wrote: post #35
wyldfire wrote: post #19

> “I’ve seen great games fail because they tuned their compulsion loop to two minutes when it should have been an hour. A 'compulsion loop' sounds bad to me, I'd never heard the term before. Although if I try to take a step back I suppose this term could be used to describe any game and not just one of the lootbox-mania or idle games. However, the wikipedia article [1] states: > A core or compulsion loop is any repet…

Compulsion loop does sound rather dystopian and "attention-hacking" but it's interesting that he says "two minutes when it should have been an hour," instead of the other way around. An hour long compulsion loop sounds like it could be an immersive experience. That said, I'm not hearing nice things about IronSource and it sounds like maybe there's better ways to get user feedback than the particular implementations t…

> but it's interesting that he says "two minutes when it should have been an hour," instead of the other way around.

Didn't sound very nice to me. More like an elder drug lord who knows that too many overdoses are bad for business or a virus that evolves to be less lethal because dead hosts don't spread.

Or in this case: a two minute compulsion loop would probably make it really obvious that the game is trying to hook you and might trigger some kind of counter reaction: Players realizing it's a slot machine and uninstalling it to stop themselves from wasting time. Whereas a hour-long loop might keep a player hooked without them realizing it.

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

#324

Post by gretch »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #213
crayboff wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen much of what he says in general so I don't know if he has a really antagonistic trend in his he talks. I interpreted what he said to mean "I have respect for devs who approach this for just the art, but if you don't consider monetization into your design from the beginning, you are self sabotaging your chance at business success". He just said that with less politically correct talk, which is easily ta…

It's hard to see what else it could mean in this context. I've seen a lot of cosmetic-based monetization strategies I really have no issue with, and in general they seem like a great way to let people who really like the game choose to pay more for it. But if you're considering monetization from the beginning, doesn't that mean your core design is making a tradeoff between fun and transactability?

No, it’s not a trade off because the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive. Through innovation they can be greater than the sum of their parts.

Sure, in lazy/bad games there’s trade off, but that goes for anything. Bad games have existed for a long time for more than just money

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

#325

Post by djur »

revolvingocelot wrote: post #298
djur wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just arcade design. Vampire Survivors might have a more bombastic way of presenting random drops, but otherwise it's not meaningfully different from something like Robotron or Gauntlet.

Well, why do we want to go back there? The demise of the arcade, brought on by computers and consoles growing inexpensive and powerful, allowed videogaming to become an art form (eg Braid, FEZ, To The Moon, etc, are artistic experiences if a film ever was, cannot be replicated on other forms of media, and cannot easily be monetized into an arcade machine). Returning to an age where electronic entertainment needs you…

Arcade games are fun. It's great that we have more thoughtful, artistic games now, but not all games need to meet that description. I can still walk up to a Robotron cabinet and have fun, but I'll probably never play Braid again.

I'm speaking specifically to your criticism of Vampire Survivors, which as you said doesn't have microtransactions. I'm strongly opposed to the use of "compulsion loops" to generate revenue via microtransactions.

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

#326

Post by astrostl »

wyldfire wrote: post #19

> “I’ve seen great games fail because they tuned their compulsion loop to two minutes when it should have been an hour. A 'compulsion loop' sounds bad to me, I'd never heard the term before. Although if I try to take a step back I suppose this term could be used to describe any game and not just one of the lootbox-mania or idle games. However, the wikipedia article [1] states: > A core or compulsion loop is any repet…

Explicit references to a "compulsion loop" make me want to delete all my non-indie video games and take a shower.

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

#327

Post by dcow »

akhmatova wrote: post #307
dcow wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy to say, for sure.

It's also pretty easy to do, actually. The not being an asshole part, anyways.

Is the dude an asshole? I don't know anything about him other than this discussion here. I'm certain most people have said something to the effect of "those people are fucking clueless" in their lives. Does that make them assholes?

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

#328

Post by dylan604 »

mulmen wrote: post #262
dylan604 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ostensibly arcade machines are skill based. That's also a slippery slope of an argument. Poker players claim that they are not gambling. Early stage addicts claim they are not addicts and can stop any time. Gaming, whether the player is earning money or points, all keys in on the same addictive traits of their players. Some game devs go all in on that because it is fish in a barrel stakes for making money.

Sure. Modern arcades even survive by selling alcohol as a 1-2 punch. But now we are talking about addiction in general, not gambling specifically.

Not sure why that matters to be honest. Gambling is a form of addiction. GaveDevs are tapping into that rush. That's how it breaks down for me. It may not be an illegal/scheduled substance that they are pushing, but they are pushing a product specifically made to trigger addictive behavior. It's no different than social media algorithms in my book either. They all are designing their product to be consumed by an addict to ensure they continue using their product as much as possible. We've just been dealing with drugs/alcohol/etc for much longer and society is much more aware of the addict problem in these cases. Social media/gaming addiction is a much less understood and/or acknowledged.

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

#329

Post by s1artibartfast »

xg15 wrote: post #316
s1artibartfast wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is another angle to it beyond Truth vs lying. There is also content and clarity. A lot of generic PR speak is devoid of actual content, it doesn't mean anything. In this example, he is making a clear claim, like it or not. There is no ambiguity or double speak. I think a lot of people are willing to tolerate disagreement and even lying if it is done in simple language opposed to evasion. If you disagree…

I find that sort of ironic because Unity's very own press release, in which they announced this merger was stuffed with some of the most vapid and nonsensical PR bullshit phrases I have ever seen. As in, they couldn't even get out a straight line about what ironSource's actual product is.

What exactly is Ironic?

To be clear, I was making a comment and speculating on the publics attraction to blunt language.

It seems like you are agreeing with me - you are sick of vapid and nonsensical PR bullshit.

I don't think anyone is in favor of the PR bullshit, except the people who hide behind it.

Wouldn't you prefer something more direct?

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

#330

Post by dragontamer »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #309
dragontamer wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 level…

>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". I'll articulate what I mean, since it hasn't come across. The problem isn't with grinding itself. It's with the things associated with grinding. Grinding itself can be immensely fun and satisfying. Doing the same repetitive, thoughtless actions to…

> You'll go through various non-random battles with trainers which have Pokemon with no random moveset whatsoever.

In my experience though, most of those trainers are easily avoidable if you don't want to deal with them.

I think that's what I'm going for. They're there as "grinds" if your the type of player who wants to capture a whole lot of experience points and/or money throughout the game. But if you're "against the grind", then you simply walk away from those trainers, and they'll never challenge you.

There's exceptions of course. You must fight the gym leaders (each with a specialization on a particular typing. Brock for Rock, Misty for Water, etc. etc., ensuring forced diversity through the game). And the Elite 4 at the end force you to fight against 4 trainers (again with elemental specialties), before facing the champion (who breaks the mold and fights with a well balanced, supported team across multiple elements/typings)

--------

In Sword/Shield, its an explicit strategy to run away from fights in fact. You're not really expected to fight against the most powerful Pokemon, and Poke-dolls (aka: run away from fights) are plentiful.

Post reply on HN