Hacker News Reader

Comment by crayboff | Hacker News Reader

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 taken out of context.

Also there's this assumption in this thread and in HN in general that "monetization" always means bleeding people out of their money. Sure much of the industry does that, but I don't think that has to be the case

View on HN

It doesn’t have to be “politically” correct to simply not call your critics idiots. Long long before PC was a term, it was never acceptable to use this kinda language in a business/work context. Not to mention the utter disrespect in calling someone (not the idea or criticism) a ‘fucking idiot’. Even worse when that someone is your customer.

Being decent and being respectful has nothing to do with politics. Strong language betrays the emotional state of the speaker than any valuable idea. All this conveyed to me was that he has very thin skin and easily triggered with no emotional maturity to rationally push back.

There should be no monetization design in a video game. The design should be make your game good so people will buy it.

How ridiculous would it be for other forms of art to have "monetization design".

A chef that styles their dishes in such a way that there clearly is a gap in the dish which should contain a nice piece of steak or something else. When you are eating the dish the waiter comes with that piece in hand and asks if you want it for a small price.

Or a painter that paints a picture with elements missing. If you want to experience the true masterpiece. Please buy these extra element and also for a small price you can have better matching colors.

How such behavior is acceptable in video games is truly baffling to me. But then again I have never bought anything using a microtransaction. I think it should be illegal to be able to ask a user to buy something when in game. You also don't get a pop up when watching a movie to please enter your credit card number to be charged $2 to watch this extra scene that was cut.

Hard agree. "Monetization design" is almost universally a euphemism for casino-style addiction mechanics whose sole purpose is to habituate users to continue feeding quarters into the slot so the good feelings don't stop.

I pulled my (meager) rev contribution out of their subscription service following the IronSource acquisition and this makes me confident that was the right call. All due to respect to the fine folks working on the platform, but it's not something I'm interested in using anymore.

If you are going to have casino monitization, it is still better to consider it earlier than try to bolt it on at the very end.

> I pulled my (meager) rev contribution out of their subscription service following the IronSource acquisition and this makes me confident that was the right call.

Yesterday, I took a 5 figure loss on my Unity position to get out from under this horror show. Still feel fantastic about it.

In principle I don’t entirely disagree that the pendulum has swung way too far towards monetization and away from pure vision in video game design, but it’s funny you mention chefs not compromising…the restaurant business is notoriously low margin and very many new restaurants fail quickly.

One of the more common reasons is that inexperienced owners don’t understand their food costs and therefore design delicious, lovely menu items that actually lose money when you calculate everything that goes into them. If you want it to be more than a brief experiment, you gotta get the spreadsheets out at some point…

I'm not saying don't charge what is necessary. I'm saying monetization shouldn't be part of the experience you are creating.

If you are going to have it, still better to consider implementation and mechanics early, opposed to try to bolt it on to a mostly finished game. I would agree that intentionally planning to do the latter is idiotic.

That's the answer to the wrong question. You shouldn't even be considering adding monetization into the game. Because you are "fucking evil" if you do.

But the question in the quote was about early versus late addition.

Waiting until the end to add it in is both evil and idiotic

Hmmm...

Is that really so?

Sounds like pizzas where you can put things on it for additional price. Or when you buy house or car and pay extra for each little thing.

I agree that in modern games its way more intusive then it needs to be.

No it's not comparable to that. Adding things to the pizza/car is a decision you make prior to using/consuming the good. I have no problem with games doing the equivalent. E.g. you purchase any DLC or costumes or cosmetics or whatever BEFORE starting the game. The evil part is making monetization part of the game. I would also find it evil for a car to suggest "Buy the vacation increased range package for 49.99$ and have 50 extra kilometers of range for the next 2 weeks", while you car battery is at 10%.

Yeah, you are right. Intrusion level is different and way more peedatory.

"Less politically correct"? He called his own customers "fucking idiots" for not liking what he's selling. It reminds me of impotent men who blame feminism for their lack of a sex life, it's ridiculous. Perhaps you meant "irreverent," which is a more apt description.

What's ridiculous here is what it reminds you of, which makes you look worse than him.

He's just open and honest about his thoughts and feelings about some people, but you, on the other hand, are definitely, at least, weird.

The analogy is people who blame other's reactions to them on the people themselves instead seriously contending with the claim and at least looking inward.

Anyway, that was a bit off my point which I admit. The main point I am making is "irreverent" is more descriptive than "politically incorrect." Politically incorrect would be something not culturally sensitive or offensive to people with certain politics. He didn't make that sort of gesture, he just was crude about his own customers which is mean sure but also pretty unwise just from a PR perspective.

This the worst analogy.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com