You know who else curtails developer choice by setting arbitrary deadlines and pushing for aggressive monetization? Game publishers. Pretty sure the devs don’t want their game to be universally hated for lootboxes and bugs.
Just look at Battlefront 2, arguably one of the best star wars games ever made and its reputation was irrevocably tanked because the publishers pushed the lootbox model on the game.
Not only did they push for it, but they also made the game extremely predatory by requiring players to grind for an excessively long time 40 hours for just one character. It’s nasty work.
Except developers don’t have the same incentives. Publishers are incentivized by profits. Developers are usually incentivized by wanting the world to see their artistic output.
Of course some of them will do it for money because some people are just like that, but overall the industry would probably be in better hands if the developers got the long end of the stick and the publishers got the short end. Right now in the AAA market it’s the opposite and it shows.
Developers are also incentivized by profit when they’re entitled to keep it rather than a publisher, and this is the case regardless of being AAA or not.
And who was the CEO of Bungie during that period? Pete Parsons who had a senior marketing job at Microsoft before joining Bungie. Parsons also had no problem laying off hundreds of people at Bungie while continuing to expand his classic car collection. Dude has big publisher energy all over him. In fact he was the person I was thinking of when I said some people will do it for the money.
Which is a very different market. Mobile game developers couldn’t even ask $20 for their game let along $60-$70. It’s not comparable to the traditional computer gaming market.
There’s even an argument that SKG is a good financial motive for studios. Consumer electronics/entertainment spending is down, and it’s not hard to connect the idea that people are less enthused about video games when they aren’t sure they get to keep them. Which are you more likely to buy: Snake oil from a merchant on a turbo-driven truck ready to leave town? Or multiple panel-certified medicine from an extremely tightly-regulated industry.
I also love this part:
Well, yes, that’s the point of pretty much any regulation about anything. Curtailing the choice of people abusing the system.
You know who else curtails developer choice by setting arbitrary deadlines and pushing for aggressive monetization? Game publishers. Pretty sure the devs don’t want their game to be universally hated for lootboxes and bugs.
Just look at Battlefront 2, arguably one of the best star wars games ever made and its reputation was irrevocably tanked because the publishers pushed the lootbox model on the game.
Not only did they push for it, but they also made the game extremely predatory by requiring players to grind for an excessively long time 40 hours for just one character. It’s nasty work.
Fucking luke cost 60k credits gtfo with that.
“A sense of Pride™️ and Accomplishment™️.”
In here to argue
Let’s see. Mr. Debakey’s free, but he’s a bit conciliatory. Try Mr. Barnard, Room Twelve.
Developers often make the same decisions about monetization as publishers do when they have the same incentives.
Except developers don’t have the same incentives. Publishers are incentivized by profits. Developers are usually incentivized by wanting the world to see their artistic output.
Of course some of them will do it for money because some people are just like that, but overall the industry would probably be in better hands if the developers got the long end of the stick and the publishers got the short end. Right now in the AAA market it’s the opposite and it shows.
Developers are also incentivized by profit when they’re entitled to keep it rather than a publisher, and this is the case regardless of being AAA or not.
Can you give me 3 examples where the developer is monetizing the game like EA or Ubisoft would?
Destiny after the Activision split and before the Sony acquisition. Warframe. Basically the entire mobile market.
And who was the CEO of Bungie during that period? Pete Parsons who had a senior marketing job at Microsoft before joining Bungie. Parsons also had no problem laying off hundreds of people at Bungie while continuing to expand his classic car collection. Dude has big publisher energy all over him. In fact he was the person I was thinking of when I said some people will do it for the money.
First of all, Warframe is a F2P game which means they need SOME sort of a revenue stream. And from what I’ve heard Warframe monetization is one the best on the gaming market. It doesn’t feel like you have to pay to have good time. And they actually removed an accidental slot machine from their game because they didn’t want to incentivize whale behavior.
Which is a very different market. Mobile game developers couldn’t even ask $20 for their game let along $60-$70. It’s not comparable to the traditional computer gaming market.
Then yes, developers have nothing but the best intentions with monetization compared to publishers when you say that the counter examples don’t count.
There’s even an argument that SKG is a good financial motive for studios. Consumer electronics/entertainment spending is down, and it’s not hard to connect the idea that people are less enthused about video games when they aren’t sure they get to keep them. Which are you more likely to buy: Snake oil from a merchant on a turbo-driven truck ready to leave town? Or multiple panel-certified medicine from an extremely tightly-regulated industry.