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

11–20 of 145 posts

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#11

Post by bluefirebrand »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #8
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'd separate that into two categories: consensus that "withholding content, breaking games up, or locking devices to stores to artificially create redundant sales" and "abusive monetization design where the game is mostly a flimsy pretext for their real product, a gambling addiction simulator" are reviled industry practices. People like their stores and skins, they just don't want to have to gamble to get them or be…

> People like their stores and skins

Two types of people here, too.

Those who bought "Horse Armor" and those who thought it was the most ridiculous thing they had ever heard of.

Personally I dislike the move towards every game being a live service to justify the presence of a store with skins and emotes and such.

I'm getting sick of always online, seasonal event driven live service games where the game balance constantly changes and new stuff is funnelled into it constantly. It is such a relief to me when a game just is released in a mostly final shape, with maybe some QoL patches and an expansion dlc or two.

Destiny 2 ruined this for me in a big way with how they are not just introducing new content but also removing old content, content I paid for and now can never access again.

It has set a terrible precedent and I'm just not going to use my money on games like that anymore.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#12

Post by nest0r »

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…

Why would any publisher do that? They make their profit on ingame marketplaces by taking a cut of the transaction it just doesn't make any sense.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#13

Post by fattless »

Bombthecat wrote: post #6
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 idea of nfts is cool, imagine star citizen where everyone could model ships and sell them as nft and set a counter of how many they sell (are available) the market should then set the value between work put in to design the ship, sell it and how many are available. So juat like right now, you could buy a ship for 5 dollar, cheaply designed and thousands are available (or endless) or get a unique nice and…

I’ve always said that something like this could be a cool idea, but I don’t get why nft/blockchain is necessary. Speaking about the Ubisoft nft thing (because I understand it the best), Steam marketplace has been doing the same thing very well for years, offering a very similar expirence. Is there something I’m missing?

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#14

Post by Bombthecat »

nest0r wrote: post #9
Bombthecat wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea of nfts is cool, imagine star citizen where everyone could model ships and sell them as nft and set a counter of how many they sell (are available) the market should then set the value between work put in to design the ship, sell it and how many are available. So juat like right now, you could buy a ship for 5 dollar, cheaply designed and thousands are available (or endless) or get a unique nice and…

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.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#15

Post by Bombthecat »

nest0r wrote: post #12
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…

Why would any publisher do that? They make their profit on ingame marketplaces by taking a cut of the transaction it just doesn't make any sense.

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.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#16

Post by verdverm »

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…

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?

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#17

Post by nest0r »

Bombthecat wrote: post #15
nest0r wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would any publisher do that? They make their profit on ingame marketplaces by taking a cut of the transaction it just doesn't make any sense.

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.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#18

Post by nest0r »

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.

That doesn't sound like it would be an incentive for a publisher or developer.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#19

Post by fattless »

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 over time and id almost rather a stagnant game. Furthermore, gameplay can suffer too. In my opinion R6 siege started really strong, but has gone downhill recently, most obviously in operator design. Real power creep is sometimes an issue as well, somewhat recently I remember there were one or two operators added that felt like almost direct upgrades to base game ones. In its case, both the art style and operator design suffered from being stretched out for so long. Or RDR2, who sells most of the content through their premium currency and whose movement between the single player and online is so drastically different that fights online look like smash bros melee matches with frantic strafing and rolling. Compare this to titanfall 2’s design, which has remained stagnant (because it was killed a long time ago), but incredibly successful maintaining a large player base to this day.

Cod and pubg have sacrificed their art style and aesthetic, MW went from “realistic” tactical characters to jigsaw puppets and neon, out of place outfits. It’s like power creep, but for ridiculousness, skins have to get crazier and crazier because sometimes it keeps people buying them because its funny. It fit in fortnite because it was cartoonish and ridiculous from the beginning, but through MW and CW lifespan you can see the art style gradually decay. These game aren’t really meant to be taken seriously, but it always kinda put me off. Not necessarily making an argument about my taste, but rather how the games stray more and more from their original vision, driven by micro transactions.

Battlefield has thrown out their traditional classes for specialists following in r6 and other hero shooters footsteps, part of me always kinda felt like it was to sell skins for each specialist, but I might be wrong here.

This isnt the biggest deal, especially not within the games industry, but frustrating to see innovation slowly be stamped back into the mold. There are many games that hold true to their visions or fill these voids, but the state of AAA gaming and how it molds to the market is a little disappointing to me.

Re: Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

#20

Post by Bombthecat »

verdverm wrote: post #16
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…

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?
Post reply on HN