5 ms·

I am pessimistic cause the only way Apple can pay game developers is by use (played time). This forces developer studios to produce games that one can't finish.

jedberg 8y ago
This is an interesting point if they are paying by play time, but why do you think that is the only way? Netflix doesn't pay based on play time -- they pay an upfront fee to license a title for set period of time, regardless of number of plays. Maybe they'll do the same here.
- arrrg 8y ago
  If they take this seriously then taking the time to “invest” differently in different kinds of games would certainly be wise. Different games have different metrics for success from the perspective of someone offering this service. Obviously in the end it always comes down to profit generated per game but with a subscription service that can be hard or even impossible to measure. Metrics for success can be playtime, number of times the game was completed, but also more diffuse things like whether critics like it or whether the press is writing about it. So one would hope Apple picks a differentiated approach – but such an approach can be much harder to implement.
- jeffchien 8y ago
  That's what a previous article from Bloomberg [1] claimed: "The company would collect these monthly fees, then divide up the revenue between developers based on how much time users spend playing their games, one of the people said. Apple is likely considering popular paid titles on the App Store and would exclude titles that are free to download but generate revenue via in-app purchases." This seems like the definition of a perverse incentive, but if Apple is having a hand in making some of these games, maybe they can keep it under control. Or, maybe having users spend more time in Apple Arcade is their plan all along. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-23/apple-s-reinvention-as-a-services-company-starts-for-real-monday https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-23/apple-s-r...
mcphage 8y ago
> This forces developer studios to produce games that one can't finish. Do you mean games like Tetris that have no finished state? Or games like Factorio or Minecraft, which have a last goal but no “finished” state? Or do you mean like online multiplayer games where you play an endless stream of short games?
- xhruso00 8y ago
  I am a fan of adventure games like "The Room" or "Monument Valley". Monument Valley can be finished pretty quickly. It puts my favourite category into unfair disadvantage. It is only my guess that they will pay by time played based on iOS12 and it's usage app.
  - 0xCMP 8y ago
    Right, but on the other hand you'd need to pay full-price upfront. They'll likely do better overall from this and create more buzz for those who aren't subscribers to buy the game out-right.
pfranz 8y ago
I think any incentive change will affect gameplay. If you look back at arcades, the goal was the get you to insert more quarters. When consoles got popular that went away...until video game rentals came along and they started adding obstacles to prevent you from beating a game within a rental period (but really, did it make sense to pay $20-50 25 years ago for something you'll only play for 2 days?)

jedberg 8y ago

This is an interesting point if they are paying by play time, but why do you think that is the only way? Netflix doesn't pay based on play time -- they pay an upfront fee to license a title for set period of time, regardless of number of plays. Maybe they'll do the same here.

arrrg 8y ago
If they take this seriously then taking the time to “invest” differently in different kinds of games would certainly be wise. Different games have different metrics for success from the perspective of someone offering this service. Obviously in the end it always comes down to profit generated per game but with a subscription service that can be hard or even impossible to measure. Metrics for success can be playtime, number of times the game was completed, but also more diffuse things like whether critics like it or whether the press is writing about it. So one would hope Apple picks a differentiated approach – but such an approach can be much harder to implement.
jeffchien 8y ago
That's what a previous article from Bloomberg [1] claimed: "The company would collect these monthly fees, then divide up the revenue between developers based on how much time users spend playing their games, one of the people said. Apple is likely considering popular paid titles on the App Store and would exclude titles that are free to download but generate revenue via in-app purchases." This seems like the definition of a perverse incentive, but if Apple is having a hand in making some of these games, maybe they can keep it under control. Or, maybe having users spend more time in Apple Arcade is their plan all along. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-23/apple-s-reinvention-as-a-services-company-starts-for-real-monday https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-23/apple-s-r...

mcphage 8y ago

> This forces developer studios to produce games that one can't finish. Do you mean games like Tetris that have no finished state? Or games like Factorio or Minecraft, which have a last goal but no “finished” state? Or do you mean like online multiplayer games where you play an endless stream of short games?

xhruso00 8y ago
I am a fan of adventure games like "The Room" or "Monument Valley". Monument Valley can be finished pretty quickly. It puts my favourite category into unfair disadvantage. It is only my guess that they will pay by time played based on iOS12 and it's usage app.
- 0xCMP 8y ago
  Right, but on the other hand you'd need to pay full-price upfront. They'll likely do better overall from this and create more buzz for those who aren't subscribers to buy the game out-right.

pfranz 8y ago

I think any incentive change will affect gameplay. If you look back at arcades, the goal was the get you to insert more quarters. When consoles got popular that went away...until video game rentals came along and they started adding obstacles to prevent you from beating a game within a rental period (but really, did it make sense to pay $20-50 25 years ago for something you'll only play for 2 days?)