World of Goo Remastered | Hacker News Reader

World of Goo Remastered

play.google.com

153 pointsshrikant106 comments

So how does Netflix exclusivity work for apps freely distributed on the Play Store? Do you need to log in with a Netflix account and does it need to be always online to check that the account has not expired?

Also, has anyone from Netflix shared why they wanted to make their own game subscription as opposed to the normal premium monetization (pay upfront) or other monetization models? I know Netflix already has a media business built around subscriptions, obviously, but did they say anything about why they chose this for games?

I don't think games-as-a-subscription is a very easy monetization model. Even large game development companies struggle with it. The games need to retain players for a long time for subscriptions to surpass upfront sales in revenue per player. It is very challenging. The whole games industry is tilted the other way around - sometimes building up too much hype to get pre-orders and initial sales (which in itself is a large topic that I'd rather not open up right now). But the decision Netflix made seems to go against a lot of my professional experience in indie and AAA games. So it's very interesting.

I'm playing it right now. You have to sign in to Netflix to use it.

whoa. well, that's certainly a choice they can make, but it's an extremely cheap and seedy look.

It's not that different than apps which require you to authenticate with Google or Facebook.

Which is also a seedy look, and risky with Google tending to close accounts without recourse.

But although I used hundreds of apps, I don't think any of them authenticate with my Google or Facebook accounts anyway - except for work apps, and those all use work Google accounts which I don't control.

In practice each of my devices has a different primary Gooogle account unique to the device, and my Facebook account is only used inside an isolated Facebook container in my desktop browser, never on the phone.

It's a strange thing but I trust Netflix more, especially more than Facebook, which is why my phone is logged into the same Netflix account as my TV and laptop.

i do not use those apps either, but this particular case is cheap-feeling in a very different way. it's like, if you were required to go buy a mcdonalds meal in order to get a specific toy, how much would you think of the toy? similarly here, if the game is any good then i should just be able to go buy it from some store (or the developer's website) and play it. if you're gating it behind "you have to have a netflix account in order to play this game" even though it is an offline game with no connection to netflix, that just cheapens it.

the sad thing is that "world of goo" is actually an excellent game, and does not deserve to have its image tarnished like this.

My analysis: They already have subscribers. They're looking for ways to maximize retention of existing subscribers, as opposed to creating a new source for subscribers. Get someone hooked on a game, and they have another reason to stay on Netflix.

The cost of acquisition for most of their gamers is likely close to zero -- depending on how you think about it. They can use their existing platform to direct people to play games.

I also suspect they're licensing the games, which could theoretically be relatively low cost, especially compared to the cost of some of their video productions.

Hmm, yes, it's possible they want to diversify like many other tech companies recently. Add a music service and bundle everything into Netflix One?

The existing services are pretty much interchangeable, especially from a content perspective, and there are already at least three of them--one of which probably has the strongest brand and the other two are already integrated with a bunch of other services.

It's the same reason Spotify moved into podcasts and audiobooks, why Amazon moved into Prime Video, and so forth.

Basically every major subscription service is trying to expand its offerings to make its subscriptions stickier. In this case, you might want to cancel one of Netflix or Disney or HBO for the next couple months, and you were going to cancel Netflix except your kid is loving World of Goo, so you'll cancel HBO instead.

Sure, Netflix could license World of Goo and charge $5 for it directly. But not that many people are going to buy it. But literally 100x more people might download it and play it when it's free with their existing subscription, and then if just 1% of them extend their Netflix account for a couple months because of it, it's much more profitable for Netflix.

(Edit: I don't work for Netflix, this is just general industry strategy right now that I'm describing.)

I'm a bit surprised you haven't seen more of a move towards annual plans. HBO already offers a 20% discount. At some price delta you start to make switching in and out unattractive for all but the hardest core binge watcher and optimizer.

I would like to see a breakdown of how long the average user stays subscribed but I guess it’s too sensitive to ever be communicated. I don’t think I have ever subscribed more than a month at a time every couple of years to watch something very specific (or play actually - last time was because of Immortality). While I think this is an unusual customer profile, I wouldn’t be surprised if short subscriptions still represented a significant number of accounts.

I'm sure it's a significant number in the aggregate. However, knowing people and subscriptions, I suspect a very significant majority keep services for years even when they're not using them much. Certainly, I rarely cancel and, if I do, it's probably going to take something I really want to watch to pick back up again. I also don't really binge watch so if something is a season or 2 it might take me a good 6 months to watch it anyway.

I find a couple things a month on HBO Max that keep me on the service anyway. I find it hard not to have Disney+ by comparison... pretty much can't get hulu, verizon or half a dozen other things I use(d) without Disney+, wonder how much they're cheating on their subscriber counts or how much they're actually making.

It's also a sure way to boost piracy.

Service providers don't seem to learn that by restricting access to content they only incentivize people to pirate it instead. The more accessible content is, the less likely it is to be pirated.

The music and gaming industries have mostly caught on, but for some reason TV and film are still clinging to their old ways.

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but it's kind of funny you mention that in the context of World of Goo, a game that famously was a gigantic hit, extremely affordable, made with love by two indy devs… and had a 90% piracy rate

https://www.destructoid.com/wankers-world-of-goo-has-a-90-pi...

There's no data for that 90% claim.

There presumably was behind the dead link, see https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/world-of-goo-piracy-rate-82

The original claim was based on the number of IPs that submitted to the leaderboard compared to the number of games sold.

But if it's IP-based, it's completely unreliable. My home DSL gets a new IP# every 24h and I know that is not uncommon in Europe at least. I bought it both for Mac and iOS, and I would be responsible for hundreds of false-positive "pirated installs" as I played it a long time.

The link addresses that by saying 76% of player IDs only connected from 1 IP. So the 90% is high, but not by a massive amount.

As the other comment pointed out, there is. The lack of DRM meant that anyone could submit to the leaderboard. Which, to me at least, sounds like it should be one of the more reliable estimates out there all things considered.

I had a pirated version on PC but it was such a great game I bought it for Wii as it was much more fun to play it there. So piracy != lost sales.

Sorry, my bad: the devs weren't actually mad about this, the journalist writing about it was. In another article[0] the devs state:

> "by the way, just in case it’s not 100% clear, we’re not angry about piracy, we still think that DRM is a waste of time and money, we don’t think that we’re losing sales due to piracy, and we have no intention of trying to fight it."

[0] https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/world-of-goo-piracy-rate-82

The guys running netflix now (35-45) were the kids and college students (14-25) running limewire and gnutella and later bittorrent and/or DC++. They might have even chanted "Dee Cee Plus Plus!" over and over at QuakeCon. They were the OG movie and TV pirating generation. They absolutely learned what was up and how cause and effect work in this industry.

And yet they're still ruled by the industry they have license agreements with. Which is partly why they started their own production studio.

All streaming services are not much more than a coat of paint over the same old industry practices. Why do you think every media conglomerate has their own streaming service?

Nice theory, but how is your kid going to love World of Goo when:

> Note: Netflix games aren't available for Kids profiles.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/121442

On the Netflix app it takes maybe 3 seconds to change profiles. Does it work differently with their games?

No idea. But if you let your kid use your profile to play, how are YOU going to enjoy World of Goo?

You're allowed up to 5 profiles. Why does this line of technicality even matter?

Because of the absurdity of offering kids games, but disallowing them from kids profiles.

This is most likely lawyer CYA, rather than any real attempt to stop kids from playing games. Is it absurd? Yes. Is anyone going to have any issues with it? No.

Is world of goo a kids game? I mean, it's appropriate for kids, but it doesn't seem to target them particularly. This adult enjoys it.

Is there a name for this missing of the forest for the trees?

This looks like a case "straw manning" the original argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It's not exactly that, the GP isn't claiming something the parent didn't say, they're just treating the example as the whole point. They act as if attacking the example invalidates the whole argument, when the point clearly stands and it's trivial to just find a better example.

Yeah it would be nice if there were a more specific word, but I think this still qualifies as a straw-man. It misrepresents the argument as a whole by acting as if refuting the "your kid" example refutes it completely.

It’s not exactly that either but it’s close to sealioning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Yeah, the kid thing especially. (Mine likes Octonauts and Ada Twist.)

it's weird the app stores don't have a mechanism for this

you can actually see 1 star reviews from people who downloaded it and couldn't play

i know apple has a mechanism for it, i can't download apple+ games

“No in app purchases”

I absolutely love this! The App Store has become a wasteland of subscriptions and in-app purchases.

I just tried to use a tape measure app. They wanted me to sign up for a $14.99 a week subscription! How did it get this bad?!

> Available exclusively for Netflix members.

I use Apple Arcade and have no in-apps for games (on arcade of course). I guess this is the netflix equivalent of Arcade.

It always was this bad. Google has no interest in a 'Show only apps without Ads and IAP' filterbutton on the Appstore. It would be implemented in a heartbeat and greatly improve the UX, but hurt sales. But hey, on Android you should know that you are the product (grass in iOS Land is not much greener though)

On Android you can side load whatever you want at any time including exclusively FOSS if you want, so no, you're not necessarily the product there. On Google's store specifically, sure

You have to load a custom ROM if you don't want to be tracked without your consent. You have a crumb more freedom on Android, that's all.

You can simply not sign into a Google account, and Android lets you turn off more tracking than iOS, which won't even let you get your location without telling Apple. No need to install a custom ROM.

And then you won’t have maps, Gmail, …

On iOS you can have the above without giving them your location 24/7

FYI, Google maps works without you needing to sign in (iirc it doesn't even need Play services, so it works with de-googled custom ROMs). Though this is an exception rather than the norm.

If you want to use an inferior Gmail client similar to the iOS Mail app, you can simply access Gmail using a third party mail client on Android exactly the same way.

The difference is you don't have to give your location to anybody on Android, while Apple makes you give them your location. You don't have to tell anybody that you installed an app on Android, while Apple knows every app you've installed and when you used each one.

The problem is that you can't easily find nice apps that you even want to install. E.g. if you want to install a Sudoku game, good luck finding one that isn't filled with ads and popups. But the sad thing is that there are some, you just can't find them!

Simon Tatham's Puzzles include Sudoku.

True, but the topic was Appstore user experience. If you know what App you want it becomes hundred times easier.

They do, but it is well hidden.

You need to have Play Games installed. On the home page, scroll all the way down until "Dive deeper" section (or do a search), then you have choice between:

- Trending/New

- Premium/Free install

- Ads/No ads

- In-app purchases/No in-app purchases

and other categories

This is why I've subscribed to Pay Pass. The games available don't have microtransactions and are usually more than plain android cash makers.

"Pay Pass" is actually a great descriptive name, but I assume you're talking about "Play Pass"[0].

[0] https://play.google.com/about/play-pass/

$14.99 a week? I can't tell if you are serious or joking. If you are serious can you send which app that is? I'd love a good laugh.

I'd rather pay a single fee once than be subjected to the barrage of ads that normally occur instead.

I just can't stand in app ads, to the point that if I can't pay for them to go away I have to remove the app.

Worse than ads in games, are those special menus and special points system and try to seduce you into buying in-game items. At least with an ad I just know "Oh now I simply have to wait for 10 seconds"...

I accidentally clicked buy premium inside a guitar tuner app the other day, so I quickly pressed the home button. As I pressed it the fingerprint reader started for processing the payment, and bam, I had a $15 monthly subscription to a guitar tuner app.

Luckily the first month was free so I could simply cancel my subscription, but I still don't understand how Apple allows such expensive subscriptions for such silly things. You can buy a real life guitar tuner for less than $15

I've held a grudge against the Android app "DaTuner" for literal years now, because at one point I paid what was then a one-time fee to remove ads from the app. I used it for years as a very handy and useful tuner. And then, they added a subscription.

YOU ALREADY GOT MY MONEY!

Since then, I have just used the built in tuner in the Ultimate Guitar app - which is inferior, but I'm not paying a subscription for a single-purpose app like a guitar tuner.

This happened like 8 years ago and I'm still annoyed by it.

Looks like the original version was taken down in the Android store, but is still available for $5 on Amazon [1]. The desktop version is $20 direct or $15 on Steam.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/2D-BOY-LLC-World-Goo/dp/B009MCRHH6

$15 at GOG plus it's DRM free

Yes! Please support GOG if you can because they are doing it right.

I played through this game the other month and was amazed at how well it still holds up. Also a good example of a game with a very complimentary sound track.

Ahhh I loved this game so much. There's such a lovely human touch to it. I tend to hate puzzle games but this makes you feel like you just found a good fudge each time you succeed.

I think I completed it five times :) I do wish there was a continuation (kinda hinted at by the ending)

> Available exclusively for Netflix members.

Wat, why?

I have a Netflix subscription, and I find this infuriating. Just let me pay for the damned game and keep it.

The funny thing is, World of Goo was already released this way on Android, and the old version still works fine offline.

Too bad it's no longer available on the Google Play store.

Netflix has a ton of games, if you've never noticed.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/121442

It's a membership perk.

... I had no idea this existed. I've been a member since the DVD days (with a couple brief interruptions—and I'll probably re-cancel again pretty soon, until something gets me back in for a while)

Wow, I was pretty skeptical but there are a few titles on here that are really good. Into The Breach is great, and I'm looking forward to trying it as a phone game. I also discovered Poinpy, which is by the creator of Downwell, and is a ton of fun. Also Moonlighter, which I've been wanting to try for a while.

This is honestly pretty a cool subscription perk.

Probably the Android equivalent to Apple Arcade. I know one dev who released their game on Apple Arcade and had said that the exclusivity deal is too good to reject. It isn't viable to sell the app stand alone because people just don't buy apps anymore. But bundling it in to an existing subscription works because you get paid regularly and don't have to convince users to buy anything which is a hard task.

Do you know roughly how much the dev made from his game? What was the payment structure like?

That stuff is all NDA. But Netflix pay for games like they for TV/movies. Upfront and a hefty sum.

For the same reason they won't let you pay for a movie and keep it. It's a worse business to be in.

Well, it seems they just removed the old world of goo version from the playstore and published a "remastered" version exclusively for Netflix users that looks exactly the same (not even bothering to mention what the remastered game actually change ). At least the game is still great!

The floss alternative (but it grow slow...years of wip) is https://mandarancio.github.io/OpenGOO/ .

I remember playing World of Goo back when it first launched on the Wii, it was a great game. I believe it was one of the first games I downloaded from the Wii Store as opposed to buying on disk. I'm ready to play it again via the Android version.

available on iOS as well: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/world-of-goo-remastered/id6443...

Was Tower of Goo an early version of this game? You had to build a tower out of a finite number of blobs (duh) without them collapsing, the higher the better. Libertango was playing as the background music.

I know this as a mini-game that's part of world of goo.

Yeah, I remember this trending as a sort of freeware/demo too.

More info: https://worldofgoo.fandom.com/wiki/Tower_of_Goo_(game)

Tower of goo was the proof-of-concept. I believe it was made in a game jam type environment. It was popular enough they made a more fleshed out game out of the concept. "world of goo". tower of goo remains as a minigame in world of goo.

Yes! I find it funny that you're asking this, the original World of Goo having released almost 15 years ago (the one linked above is the remake) and probably one of the most popular/well known indie games of that era :)

It reminds me a few years ago when talking about Battlestar Galactica one of my coworkers at some point said "wait, they did a remake of battlestar galactica?" - this whole time he thought we were talking about the original 70s show, who he was a fan of and didn't realize (a decade+ after it was released) that the BSG everyone was talking about was a remake.

I wonder how many video game developers come out ahead with those exclusivity deals. Every story I've heard points to even limited exclusivity crippling lifetime sales.

World of Goo is a very old game. At this point, extra revenue from it is pure gravy.

The Jelly Car dev just released a new version on Apple Arcade and had commented that the deal was very favorable.

I imagine that most games have a very limited lifetime to begin with. Only a very free become “classics” that continue to sell well for years.

There was a leak for the Epic Games store pricing (or was it through discovery in Epic v Apple?) that made it sound like you're getting a decent one-time cash payment in most situations

I love WoG and bought it directly from their website back in the day, then I bought it on Google Play, Steam, and AppStore.

Now, original app on Google Play seems to be unavailable for me for install, because it was apparently taken down, and new app is unavailable because my Google Play region is Russia ... . I understand sanctions and such, but it feels like the game was kinda stolen from me.

Not nice, Netflix. I've already started torrenting my revenge.

Well, now I feel old. World of Goo is older today than snood was when World of Goo came out.

I didn’t realize Netflix was now competing as a mobile game publisher.

Netflix stock price is half of what it was in 2021, and as a subscriber via T-Mobile I can confirm that their content situation is dire. This is a company throwing whatever they can find at the wall to see what sticks.

The latest tempest over password sharing doesn't affect me but it did give me the motivation to look at their catalog last night. There are a few things I've been meaning to watch but I think I'll those and drop Netflix for the time being. Funnily enough, I might have given DVDs another shot but of course that's going away.

If you're looking for something to try I can recommend Into the Breach. As a turn-based strategy it works really nicely on a touch screen. I don't think I'm ever going to _get_ 3D realtime games played on a phone...

I remember this game fondly, though I don't really feel like playing it again. Sucks that it's a Netflix exclusive

I enjoyed this game a ton. The ambience is great. But when I went to play it again I found that my fingers obfuscating the play area was far more annoying than I remembered. Dragging things around the edge also sucked. I’d “let go” of goo balls all the time when I didn’t mean to.

I used to waste hours in World of Goo and Little Inferno. Fun games.

my son is still playing the same version I bought on android years ago. Might give this one a spin. The changes seem to be improved graphics and more platform independent [0]

[0] - https://www.androidpolice.com/world-of-goo-relaunches-androi...

It appears this Remastered version has “hi-res” graphics—though I’m not certain how valuable it is on a tiny phone screen.

> We're sorry, the requested URL was not found on this server.

That's a game that kept me hooked more than a game should keep a human captive. I have it on Steam, I don't see any reason to burn some hours on it on the phone.

I played World of Goo on a PC and on a tablet back in the day, and I felt it's easier to control with a mouse, because you can't see the gooballs (which have to be placed pretty precisely) if your finger is over them. So, if you want to play it without a Netflix subscription, it's 12,49€ on Steam. Or 60€ for the Tomorrow Corporation Bundle, including WoG, Little Inferno, Human Resource Machine, 7 Billion Humans and The Captain.

I played World of Goo on Wii and while it was sort of a nice game to play sitting back, I'm not sure the Wii controller was the most natural thing to use.

Good Old Games has it DRM free

IIRC it was always DRM free (except on iOS/macOS/GPlay but that's part of the packaging)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com