Hacker News Reader

Comment by hklgny | Hacker News Reader

This seems like a click bait title to me, he "technically" uses those words, but the article seems a lot more sensible to me than inflammatory. We should definitely be thinking through sales/marketing when building games just like we do when building software. Not sure why you wouldn't be.

Edit to add: This rings true even when you decide "not a priority this time", that's still thinking it through

View on HN

Counterpoint: Minecraft did essentially zero marketing and is monetized only in the sense that you need an account to log in (which is easily bypassed for single player) and it was/is the biggest and most valuable game of all time.

For sure - you can often find anecdata that works out well. But I think being conscious about that decision up front as a developer is still a good idea. If you choose to go the Minecraft route then great. Just know what you're getting into and what bets you're making.

That’s hardly a solid business plan though. We’ll be the next Minecraft because of magic! What about the 1000s of games released every week that fail to get more than a thousand downloads?

Is there some correlation between predatory mechanics and game popularity I don't know about? I'm not sure that games that follow the Unity CEO's advice have a better chance of breaking that barrier.

Because if you read the article his advice wasn't to engage in predatory mechanics - and that's why this conversation is so inflammatory for folks. It's a bad title. Here's the quote:

“It used to be the case that developers would throw their game over the wall to the publicist and sales force with literally no interaction beforehand. That model is baked into the philosophy of a lot of artforms and medium, and it’s one I am deeply respectful of; I know their dedication and care.”

“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. And I don’t know a successful artist anywhere that doesn’t care about what their player thinks. This is where this cycle of feedback comes back, and they can choose to ignore it. But to choose to not know it at all is not a great call.”

Lot of them fail to get traction also because they're bad. A small part because they're unlucky, too niche or other reason.

Still, with so many game out every day, it's also hard to keep track of everything. I should engage with my family (children and wife), do sport, work, learn to improve and be more efficient, see my friends, keep a healthy diet and sleep 10h every night... That's without speaking of the need to publish to be seen and heard.

So no, I won't engage with all the small games. No one will.

>"Most valuable game of all time"

Is it though? Yes, it did sell the most copies of any game ever, but how are you justifying to call it "the most valuable"?

Its cultural impact is undeniable and is generally positive. It depends on how you define valuable. It's pretty subjective when describing a video game.

By valuation and number of copies, it sold for more than any game. It defined an entire genre. It's culturally relevant a decade on. There's almost no metric that you can't define it as the most valuable.

Fortnite is also a free to play game, that requires no purchases to be equally competitive to paid players, and it is one of the most profitable games too. Players can pay for skins, celebration dances, theme music, etc.

That said, this is not the only way to make a living as a game developer and I'm happy to pay up front for a game that provides the full richness of the experience to all players.

Fortnite does require purchases if you want to be equally competitive in the dress-up meta, however. Certain player groups (usually children) use "default" as a slur. In fact, dressing up your character is arguably more important to the Fortnite experience than the actual shooty-bang-bang part of the game. And it's in line with Epic's "metaverse" aspirations too.

Only thing that I'd add to this is that the Bedrock Edition has a store on which you can buy skins, texture packs, total conversions, maps, etc. Microsoft is definitely pushing for monetization outside of unit sales.

"Minecraft did essentially zero marketing and is monetized only in the sense that you need an account to log in"

No, Minecraft has been monetized for a while: https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/catalog

That said, I've found it on the inoffensive side. It's got a plug on the title screen but my kids zip past it easily enough. Most of what you can buy involves a reasonable amount of work, they're not selling slight retexturings for $25. They've given away enough free stuff (of substance!) that I don't even feel bad that the free stuff is to remind you the market exists. No lootboxes.

Minecraft also supports 3rd party content, skins, gameplay mechanics, etc. There's a lot of things mods can do that official marketplace content can't.

Minecraft was sold for $2B before it had any of that.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

― Upton Sinclair

> Not sure why you wouldn't be.

Art is an end in itself. Not everything that takes work needs to make needs to be immediately converted into money.

I think the difference though, is what you're saying is "think about what your audience wants and how to tell them you're providing it" which is perfectly sensible, versus what "monetization" is generally referring to, which is "make your gameplay funnel people into buying things outside the initial purchase/download"

Nah - his behavior is bad.

Sure the concepts are also relevant / informative. However the impact is pro-bias, shaming people who don't think like he does.

It deserves a sincere apology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com