8 ms·

I have two main problems with the freemium model. First is that it necessarily compromises the game design. Instead of optimizing for fun, or a memorable experi

I have two main problems with the freemium model. First is that it necessarily compromises the game design. Instead of optimizing for fun, or a memorable experience, or an artistic vision, you are optimizing for profit, which compromises those other things. Second, if we've learned anything from social media and other ML-optimized user experiences, it's that optimizing solely for profit (or engagement) isn't healthy for your users. Some of them will be more affected than others, but if you do it wrong, you're converting human suffering into profit. Some of the stories of gem-game whales are just awful.

dageshi 5y ago
Fun is subjective. People actively complain when games don't have grindy tedious elements.
minimaxir 5y ago
> I have two main problems with the freemium model. First is that it necessarily compromises the game design. Instead of optimizing for fun, or a memorable experience, or an artistic vision, you are optimizing for profit, which compromises those other things. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Making a good game is important for user retention and keeping them spending, and being too aggressive with monetization can alienate them and result in less revenue overall. Genshin Impact could be far more aggressive with the monetization to put it on par with other gacha, but it's relatively subdued.
- wheelie_boy 5y ago
  But could you make a better game if you didn't need to funnel people into buying gems at all? The answer is always yes - you always need to give up something to make people buy gems. Apple Arcade is a good example of this. With the subscription, they have a bunch of games which used to be gem games, but had that part of the monetization removed. And all of the games are better for it - they removed a lot of the frustration, gambling, unnecessary delays, which had been added to push people to buy gems.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Why is it always yes? Games with cosmetics you can buy don’t change the core gameplay at all. Answer this question: what are players who don’t buy cosmetics giving up in gameplay?
    - wheelie_boy 5y ago
      It's always yes because paying money is not a really fun gameplay mechanic. That said, I don't have a problem with cosmetic-only purchases. It's really the gambling and other dark patterns that are the problem.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        >It's always yes because paying money is not a really fun gameplay mechanic. Gamblers and stock traders beg to differ.
    - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
      "Kids who play Fortnite say they get bullied and shamed if they can't afford paid skins, according to a damning report on gaming habits" - https://www.businessinsider.com/kids-feel-poor-if-they-dont-buy-custom-fortnite-skins-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/kids-feel-poor-if-they-dont-...
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        >Kids who play the massively popular free game Fortnite say that paid skins are a major status symbol, and that they get "scorned" and feel "poor" if they stick with the default free skin. Maybe they are poor, they can't afford the skin, and feel poor because they are poor and reality reflects it. >according to a damning report on gaming habits Reads like another moral panic from fake news they blow out of proportion and citing "some kids" to sample bias only from anyone who already agrees, like saying "Kids love Linux" with only interviews of Linux loving preteens. >Another is quoted as saying: "Sometimes if you are wearing the default skin you can get bullied." You get bullied for losing or making mistakes, but you don't hear articles about: "Kids who play Fortnite say they get bullied and shamed if they are killed in the game, according to a damning report on gaming habits"
- ksaun 5y ago
  Maybe this is just semantics, but I disagree with your mention that the goals aren't mutually exclusive. The number of parameters you can optimize for is limited (to one, in my opinion). While a premium game might also be attempting to optimize for profit, there is a greater distance between theory and data about what will achieve the highest profit. Therefore, we game developers (the individuals making the game), who may be more motivated by making a quality game than profit per se, are able/allowed to push harder on creating a fun experience. It is more difficult for business interests to require compromising gameplay for profit when not armed with the data that freemium games provide. I have loved working on premium video games (~20 year career, mostly RPGs and RTSs). I expect I would find it soul-crushing to work on a freemium game where I had to compromise player experience for the sake of profit. (I do not disagree with your later point that freemium games can be fun (and still must be, to some degree) and I cannot comment on Genshin Impact specifically.) Edit: I suppose I'm also attempting to point out that there can be a significant difference between what is motivating the corporate entity funding the game and the people who are actually creating it.
  - minimaxir 5y ago
    The balance between "what's more fulfilling for software developers" and "how does software generate the most revenue" isn't limited to gaming, and it's a topic that pops up on Hacker News frequently. It's a difficult question with no single answer.
MattRix 5y ago
You’re missing a key fact, which is that the best way to increase profits is to have more players playing. How do you do that? By making a game that people actually enjoy playing and tell their friends about. On top of that, many games have only cosmetic purchases. Fortnite is an obvious example of this model. Saying Fortnite is “optimized for profit” makes very little sense, since nothing you can do in the game requires purchases at all. It’s just a good game that a ton of people enjoy playing, which is really all you need to make a profitable free-to-play game these days. (the other route to getting more players is advertising, which is a whole other thing)
- spoonjim 5y ago
  Is that true about Fortnite? You don't get any competitive advantage anywhere from spending money? People are paying billions just to get different clothes on their character?
  - nawgz 5y ago
    Fortnite, CSGO, Valorant, ... Shooter players hate paid advantages but certainly don't mind paid fashion
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    It’s not like Magic the Gathering. They do the same model in TF2 and CS even going as far as calling TF2 a hat simulator.
    - duskwuff 5y ago
      TF2 is a less pure example. Some purchaseable items are purely cosmetic, others have effects on game mechanics.
  - pupppet 5y ago
    Doesn't the Battle Pass give you some kind of competitive advantage?
    - 5y ago
advice_thrwawy9 5y ago
> Instead of optimizing for fun, or a memorable experience, or an artistic vision, you are optimizing for profit, which compromises those other things. But this has always been true of games based on whatever market pressures optimized revenue. In the 80s arcade games, many of the classics we love today, were optimized around you feeding as many quarters as possible into a machine in order to beat it. There's even a joke about this in Wayne's World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4tmzwrdTmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4tmzwrdTmY The 90s home console market has some classics but every 90s kid remembers awful games with great cover art or movie licensing. Early 2000s is probably the peak of quality gaming: we were online enough to allow things like easy to access reviews to have a major impact on purchase decisions, while not online enough to make constant updates feasible. After that we also saw the rise of extremely addictive MMORPGs that not only consumed people's wallets but their lives. In the grand scheme of things I rather enjoy gacha games. Like most HNers I'm often in a position of having more money then time, and it's surprising how many relatively crappy gachas will evolve into pretty fun, well designed games over time.

dageshi 5y ago

Fun is subjective. People actively complain when games don't have grindy tedious elements.

minimaxir 5y ago

> I have two main problems with the freemium model. First is that it necessarily compromises the game design. Instead of optimizing for fun, or a memorable experience, or an artistic vision, you are optimizing for profit, which compromises those other things. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Making a good game is important for user retention and keeping them spending, and being too aggressive with monetization can alienate them and result in less revenue overall. Genshin Impact could be far more aggressive with the monetization to put it on par with other gacha, but it's relatively subdued.

wheelie_boy 5y ago
But could you make a better game if you didn't need to funnel people into buying gems at all? The answer is always yes - you always need to give up something to make people buy gems. Apple Arcade is a good example of this. With the subscription, they have a bunch of games which used to be gem games, but had that part of the monetization removed. And all of the games are better for it - they removed a lot of the frustration, gambling, unnecessary delays, which had been added to push people to buy gems.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Why is it always yes? Games with cosmetics you can buy don’t change the core gameplay at all. Answer this question: what are players who don’t buy cosmetics giving up in gameplay?
  - wheelie_boy 5y ago
    It's always yes because paying money is not a really fun gameplay mechanic. That said, I don't have a problem with cosmetic-only purchases. It's really the gambling and other dark patterns that are the problem.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      >It's always yes because paying money is not a really fun gameplay mechanic. Gamblers and stock traders beg to differ.
  - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
    "Kids who play Fortnite say they get bullied and shamed if they can't afford paid skins, according to a damning report on gaming habits" - https://www.businessinsider.com/kids-feel-poor-if-they-dont-buy-custom-fortnite-skins-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/kids-feel-poor-if-they-dont-...
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      >Kids who play the massively popular free game Fortnite say that paid skins are a major status symbol, and that they get "scorned" and feel "poor" if they stick with the default free skin. Maybe they are poor, they can't afford the skin, and feel poor because they are poor and reality reflects it. >according to a damning report on gaming habits Reads like another moral panic from fake news they blow out of proportion and citing "some kids" to sample bias only from anyone who already agrees, like saying "Kids love Linux" with only interviews of Linux loving preteens. >Another is quoted as saying: "Sometimes if you are wearing the default skin you can get bullied." You get bullied for losing or making mistakes, but you don't hear articles about: "Kids who play Fortnite say they get bullied and shamed if they are killed in the game, according to a damning report on gaming habits"
ksaun 5y ago
Maybe this is just semantics, but I disagree with your mention that the goals aren't mutually exclusive. The number of parameters you can optimize for is limited (to one, in my opinion). While a premium game might also be attempting to optimize for profit, there is a greater distance between theory and data about what will achieve the highest profit. Therefore, we game developers (the individuals making the game), who may be more motivated by making a quality game than profit per se, are able/allowed to push harder on creating a fun experience. It is more difficult for business interests to require compromising gameplay for profit when not armed with the data that freemium games provide. I have loved working on premium video games (~20 year career, mostly RPGs and RTSs). I expect I would find it soul-crushing to work on a freemium game where I had to compromise player experience for the sake of profit. (I do not disagree with your later point that freemium games can be fun (and still must be, to some degree) and I cannot comment on Genshin Impact specifically.) Edit: I suppose I'm also attempting to point out that there can be a significant difference between what is motivating the corporate entity funding the game and the people who are actually creating it.
- minimaxir 5y ago
  The balance between "what's more fulfilling for software developers" and "how does software generate the most revenue" isn't limited to gaming, and it's a topic that pops up on Hacker News frequently. It's a difficult question with no single answer.

MattRix 5y ago

You’re missing a key fact, which is that the best way to increase profits is to have more players playing. How do you do that? By making a game that people actually enjoy playing and tell their friends about. On top of that, many games have only cosmetic purchases. Fortnite is an obvious example of this model. Saying Fortnite is “optimized for profit” makes very little sense, since nothing you can do in the game requires purchases at all. It’s just a good game that a ton of people enjoy playing, which is really all you need to make a profitable free-to-play game these days. (the other route to getting more players is advertising, which is a whole other thing)

spoonjim 5y ago
Is that true about Fortnite? You don't get any competitive advantage anywhere from spending money? People are paying billions just to get different clothes on their character?
- nawgz 5y ago
  Fortnite, CSGO, Valorant, ... Shooter players hate paid advantages but certainly don't mind paid fashion
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  It’s not like Magic the Gathering. They do the same model in TF2 and CS even going as far as calling TF2 a hat simulator.
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    TF2 is a less pure example. Some purchaseable items are purely cosmetic, others have effects on game mechanics.
- pupppet 5y ago
  Doesn't the Battle Pass give you some kind of competitive advantage?
  - 5y ago

advice_thrwawy9 5y ago

> Instead of optimizing for fun, or a memorable experience, or an artistic vision, you are optimizing for profit, which compromises those other things. But this has always been true of games based on whatever market pressures optimized revenue. In the 80s arcade games, many of the classics we love today, were optimized around you feeding as many quarters as possible into a machine in order to beat it. There's even a joke about this in Wayne's World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4tmzwrdTmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4tmzwrdTmY The 90s home console market has some classics but every 90s kid remembers awful games with great cover art or movie licensing. Early 2000s is probably the peak of quality gaming: we were online enough to allow things like easy to access reviews to have a major impact on purchase decisions, while not online enough to make constant updates feasible. After that we also saw the rise of extremely addictive MMORPGs that not only consumed people's wallets but their lives. In the grand scheme of things I rather enjoy gacha games. Like most HNers I'm often in a position of having more money then time, and it's surprising how many relatively crappy gachas will evolve into pretty fun, well designed games over time.