Lets move away from Season-pass and Loot-boxes.

KroxMalon

I posted this in the latest Skull and Bones post. 

But I think it could have some merits.

Let's keep single-player games as single-player story-driven narrative games. You pay for the game and you get the content unless there is also a worthy expansion later.

If the game company wants to run a live service game with regular updates and activities etc then it should be a subscription game.


What do we do when all the veteran game devs are retired and we're only left with the up-and-coming devs that see all this monetization crap as the defacto.

Kyleran

How about a nice game of chess?

AlBQuirky

Unfortunately, today's mantra is: "Always connected (online), always paying."

Sovrath

KroxMalon said:

I posted this in the latest Skull and Bones post. 

But I think it could have some merits.

Let's keep single-player games as single-player story-driven narrative games. You pay for the game and you get the content unless there is also a worthy expansion later.

If the game company wants to run a live service game with regular updates and activities etc then it should be a subscription game.


What do we do when all the veteran game devs are retired and we're only left with the up-and-coming devs that see all this monetization crap as the defacto.

I don't think "we" have a real choice. All you can do is opt not to play games with loot boxes or whatever else you don't like.

Unless you're making the game you are not a decision maker with how these games are monitized.

Scot

KroxMalon said:

I posted this in the latest Skull and Bones post. 

But I think it could have some merits.

Let's keep single-player games as single-player story-driven narrative games. You pay for the game and you get the content unless there is also a worthy expansion later.

If the game company wants to run a live service game with regular updates and activities etc then it should be a subscription game.


What do we do when all the veteran game devs are retired and we're only left with the up-and-coming devs that see all this monetization crap as the defacto.

There is not a single way of making money from a game that has been dropped since gaming met the internet. Each new revenue method is added to the stable of ones that already exist, we will see the end of the internet before one of them gets retired!

Kyleran

Paying by the hour has largely vanished from the gaming landscape these days with sub only mostly gone as well.

Tiller

Kyleran said:

Paying by the hour has largely vanished from the gaming landscape these days with sub only mostly gone as well.

Some other things have gone sub-based and online or cloud based while still forcing you to  still pay for other minor add-ons, like Adobe ect. I get people like new features but it's kind of annoying. Any way to get a steady flow of $$

Scot

Tiller said:

Kyleran said:

Paying by the hour has largely vanished from the gaming landscape these days with sub only mostly gone as well.

Some other things have gone sub-based and online or cloud based while still forcing you to  still pay for other minor add-ons, like Adobe ect. I get people like new features but it's kind of annoying. Any way to get a steady flow of $$

Add-ons is big but mostly outside of gaming you mentioned adobe for example. "paying by the hour" or "sub only" are still around, if only barely. Some have mutated so you can get a sub in a game where you don't need one, but they will always be with us. Death, taxes and gaming revenue streams.

kitarad

You wish.

KnightFalz

By all means, operate any single-player and live service games you control in the manner you describe. Your players will be pleased I'm sure.

AlBQuirky

KnightFalz said:

By all means, operate any single-player and live service games you control in the manner you describe. Your players will be pleased I'm sure.

But... I will start an "internet complaint form" and have hundreds... no MILLIONS of signatures! That'll  show them!

Theocritus

Whatever companies feel they can do to take your money, they will do.

Dattelis

If there's a demand, then there will always be someone trying to supply the demand. The companies are at fault for willing to supply, but the consumers are more at fault for demanding it.

AlBQuirky

Theocritus said:

Whatever companies feel they can do to take your money, they will do.

It's like the old "haggling system." Merchant starts high. The customer (NOT consumer) with a MUCH lower price. Eventually both parties reach an agreeable price.

Game companies operate the same way. They will nickel and dime until the backlash hits them, then act all "benevolent" as they make a concession or two.

Subs limited companies to a set amount each month. Cash shops remove that limitation. Players now "prefer" the open-ended spending