TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Sid Meier warns the games industry about monetisation

220 pointsby ChrisWreckabout 3 years ago

19 comments

cehrlichabout 3 years ago
I agree with him completely.<p>But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There&#x27;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&#x27;t feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling.<p>Some examples I&#x27;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&#x27;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?
评论 #30521830 未加载
评论 #30524876 未加载
评论 #30521643 未加载
评论 #30522394 未加载
评论 #30521022 未加载
评论 #30521428 未加载
评论 #30522767 未加载
评论 #30531093 未加载
评论 #30521557 未加载
评论 #30522234 未加载
评论 #30520959 未加载
sstevenshangabout 3 years ago
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.<p>As a side note, the only people pushing for NTFs in games are crypto enthusiasts or profit-seeking actors who do not care about game experience at all. Even gamers who are also into crypto do not advocate for NTF in games. The whole thing is a shit show IMO.
评论 #30520695 未加载
评论 #30499641 未加载
评论 #30499488 未加载
评论 #30499155 未加载
time_to_smileabout 3 years ago
I think the real issue is that we&#x27;ve just left a brief period where the best way to succeed in the market <i>was to make good games</i>.<p>Anyone who grew up playing arcade games knows that, for the vast majority of cases, the pre-console arcade world was about finding the best way to keep you feeding quarters to a machine. Difficult, almost beating the boss, but ultimately simple games ruled the day. Some are classics now but many were very meh.<p>The early home console years, when reviews were still hard to come by and rentals weren&#x27;t a thing yet, were flooded with tons of pure trash games. Everyone knows how awful any licensed game was, but it didn&#x27;t matter because all they had to do was to get you (or more often parents&#x2F;grandparents) to buy the game. By the time you got home and realized the game was garbage it was already too late. I remember owning far more horrible games as a kid than good ones.<p>The late 1990s and early 2000s were a great time for gaming because it was much easier to determine if a game was quality or not before buying, and for a brief window of time the only really great way to make money was to just make a compelling game that got good reviews.<p>We&#x27;ve since seen gaming become a major industry, where heavy marketing can play just as big a factor as initial reviews. With the massive growth of online gaming and digital downloads it&#x27;s much easier to make a game that is really about a million microtransaction (remember when people used to think that would <i>save</i> the internet?)<p>The truth is games have always been structured in a way to optimizer revenue, it&#x27;s just that we remember a period when the best way to make money in a game was to actually make a game good.
评论 #30529648 未加载
fattlessabout 3 years ago
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&#x2F;memory.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
评论 #30520447 未加载
评论 #30520782 未加载
评论 #30520773 未加载
评论 #30522525 未加载
评论 #30520892 未加载
eezurrabout 3 years ago
If the video game market is growing, that means the quantity of people playing games is increasing. Perhaps what&#x27;s really happening is that a new category of players are being captured by the modern video game market, and that &#x27;old school&#x27; video games are still alive and well. I mean, there are still great video games being released. Maybe the audience for those hasn&#x27;t really changed in size as much.<p>A year or two ago, I watched @shroud (on Twitch) play Squad. I&#x27;m not a fan of playing shooter games, but wow it was quite a spectacle to watch! There were tiers leaders on your team to report to and receive orders. Anyone could pin enemy locations on the map. Every squad worked as a team to capture territory. The play development was entirely organic. etc. etc.<p>If anything, I hope someone carves out the &#x27;old school&#x27; market from the belly of the beast and creates a name or brand that that market can rally around. It seems unnecessary to be concerned by the modern video game market. They are catering to an entirely different type of player. It doesn&#x27;t matter that it&#x27;s more profitable if they aren&#x27;t taking away your audience.
评论 #30524852 未加载
jmyeetabout 3 years ago
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.<p>But 10+ years ago we had Farmville and then on mobile we had thing slike Candy Crush, Clash of Clans and so on.<p>These aren&#x27;t games. They&#x27;re A&#x2F;B tested addiction loops optimized to extract as much money from you as possible.<p>You can see the impact of this on World of Warcraft, which is &gt;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 &quot;micro-transactions&quot;. These includes services like character transfers, boosts, racce changes and name changes. It also includes a bunch of cosmetics.<p>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&#x27;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.<p>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 &quot;games&quot;.
评论 #30522994 未加载
评论 #30529534 未加载
AtlasBarfedabout 3 years ago
Android games for kids are so depressing. I imagine iOS is no better. The games AND game ads are so manipulative, so transactional, unregulated.<p>It does not take long for me to come to the realization: WOW, these games are all employing addiction triggers, are all manipulative, are all without depth, and the two major app stores are 100% in cahoots with these parasites.<p>In the dawn of the TV age there was so much handwringing about children&#x27;s programming, advertising. Where are the regulators? I&#x27;m not even concerned about depictions of violence or sex or drugs or hedonism. What concerns me the most is the outright psychological manipulation of dopamine triggers and other manipulations.<p>And having played a Machine Zone game (thankfully for not a lot of money) I am familiar with the graduated versions of the childrens &quot;programming&quot;: illusory emotional investment, bullying, false group dynamics, fake peer pressure, harassment, direct addiction, rapidly changing economics&#x2F;devaluation, and other tactics to get you to pony up an endless stream of money.<p>Obviously the app stores won&#x27;t police this to even a small degree, too much 30% sweet commission involved.<p>I&#x27;m going to have to setup a retro emulator for my kid so they can play games that aren&#x27;t riddled with ads and are designed around manipulation.
评论 #30522439 未加载
lewispollardabout 3 years ago
It&#x27;s a bit rich, given there are 14 paid DLCs for the latest Civ game, and they all have pretty negative reviews for being too expensive while adding little to the gameplay.
评论 #30520788 未加载
评论 #30522487 未加载
评论 #30520789 未加载
评论 #30527100 未加载
评论 #30523000 未加载
stack_framerabout 3 years ago
I&#x27;ve been mulling over some ideas for a word game, so I recently installed the top 10 grossing word games in the Google Play Store to see what they&#x27;re like.<p>They&#x27;re all just garbage, and they all follow the same dark patterns: Incessant ads and prompts to buy in-game items, interspersed with short bits of gameplay here and there.
imiricabout 3 years ago
Sid is a few years too late with the warning.<p>Gameplay and original game design have taken a backseat to increasingly hostile monetization schemes, lazy&#x2F;safe&#x2F;rehashed game loops and marketing&#x2F;shareholder driven development for at least a decade now. The amount of AAA titles built on hype and released broken at launch, with promises of future patches, is too long to list. With some notable exceptions, most of the innovation and interesting game design is done by indie developers and smaller studios.<p>This video sums it up nicely: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Q38fjcyP1IQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Q38fjcyP1IQ</a>
评论 #30521208 未加载
评论 #30521475 未加载
评论 #30521194 未加载
aidenn0about 3 years ago
Does anyone have a ballpark for how much a AAA game would retail at to hit similar mean-profitability as a similar game monetized through smaller purchases? It would be nice to know if this number is more like $70 or $250 in terms of &quot;can this be solved&quot;<p>[edit] I suppose it would actually have to be X copies at $Y to be fully specified.
labsterabout 3 years ago
&gt; [Civ] has spawned five sequels, the most recent of which was released in 2016.<p>More like one sequel, SMAC, and five remakes.
评论 #30527167 未加载
3npabout 3 years ago
Slighly OT: There is great arc in the recent anime ODDTAXI following the inner monologue of a character that gets sucked into being a whale on a micro-transaction-monetized Zoo game. Highly recommended series that brings up several contemporary issues in a poignant and entertaining way.
jerryzhabout 3 years ago
Yeah, yeah, so this is the reason Civ 6 use sh*t dlc to cheat money? Don&#x27;t forget Civ 6&#x27;s dlc still hold one of the only 7 games that is &quot;overwhelmingly negative&quot;. -- From a (still) angry luxury civ6 pre-order player
Shadonototraabout 3 years ago
that&#x27;s how south korea managed to become something in the gaming industry, by using shady monetization schemes<p>they are after NFTs nowadays, the sooner that shit gets banned, the better the western developers will live, not having to kill their brands and reputation to compete with shitty KR and SEA brands in general<p>one can dream
fleddrabout 3 years ago
I agree with the general idea in the article that games should be about fun and great gameplay at its core.<p>What I don&#x27;t agree with is this simplistic narrative by gamers on how how very evil and greedy game producers are. Because gamers themselves play a significant role in that.<p>As an example, mobile game developers largely switched to in-game purchases not because they want to, instead because it&#x27;s the only model that works to even get back their investment. Even asking as little as 3-5$ for a high quality game means most people skip it, even though they would love the game and could easily afford it. Apple Arcade is a counter act against this very perverse market dynamic.<p>Gamers created this dynamic. For being cheap. And please don&#x27;t respond to say that you&#x27;re not cheap, it&#x27;s not a personal comment.<p>Next example. As a Battlefield fan, let&#x27;s take good old ultra evil EA. Let&#x27;s restrict this to the monetization part. Upon launch, Battlefield typically costs about 60€ where I live. And it doesn&#x27;t take very long for this to significantly drop. IF you want to go crazy, you can go for some ultimate version, for about 100€.<p>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).<p>I guess this is some gamers&#x27; &quot;value treshold&quot;. A game just can&#x27;t be priced any higher no matter the value on offer.<p>Let&#x27;s talk value. If you&#x27;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.<p>And still gamers complain that it&#x27;s expensive. The reality is that at least for this game, it&#x27;s a steal. Extraordinarily cheap highly engaging entertainment in limitless supply. Thousands of hours compared to about the cost of going out for dinner.<p>The low price of 59.99, enforced by irrational gamers, likely is subsidized by optional in-game purchases that do not affect gameplay. In other words, people wanting a fancy soldier&#x27;s coat in the game are basically paying to keep 59.99 steady, seemingly forever. And in this magic gamers world, ongoing costs somehow don&#x27;t exist. Basically, any method to monetize is evil.<p>All of this is to say that game producers use the model that works. If you refuse to pay for fair value and sabotage every reasonable method, this is what you get. Gamers need to look in the mirror.
评论 #30522801 未加载
评论 #30522186 未加载
评论 #30522570 未加载
Barrin92about 3 years ago
It&#x27;s getting worse and worse in my opinion. There&#x27;s so many perverse mechanics now, Gacha games being at the forefront of it. Money is always necessary to develop games, but we&#x27;ve gone from a situation were money was a resource to creative genuinely creative works that had merit to a point where the game itself is just a mechanism to create revenue.<p>In the process the games themselves degrade. Addictive mechanisms are added, stories are dragged out or split into DLCs, money distorts competition between players, games are designed to waste the players time, and so forth.<p>And the problem is not just the industry or &#x27;capitalism&#x27; or whatever, I think culturally we also have lost the ability to talk about entertainment critically. Games that are glorified slot machines should be called out for it, parents should tell their kids not to play them, and people need to start valuing their attention.
Chris2048about 3 years ago
Also: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30497881" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30497881</a>
tasha0663about 3 years ago
Did he? It sounded more like he said you&#x27;ll lose the audience if the games aren&#x27;t actually good. That seems disconnected from monetization.