4 ms·

I have to doubt this is a primary factor. If it were then developers would make more single players games, but everyone wants to make online games with microtra

I have to doubt this is a primary factor. If it were then developers would make more single players games, but everyone wants to make online games with microtransactions

dijit 6y ago
I'm trying to find a nice way of responding to this because it's rather loaded. > I have to doubt this is a primary factor Time and money are indeed a factor, micro transactions typically are used to continue "live services" of a game, and don't get counted towards recouping development costs. (at least in Ubisoft). > if it were then developers would make more single player games We can, and do, but sometimes to create the game you want other players involved. Imagine a NPC only For Honour or Rainbow Six: Siege.. that would be very boring. > but everyone wants to make online games Because there can be more interesting games than just "go here, kill boss, go here, loot thing", you can have genuinely unique experiences on every play through with online and networked games. > with microtransactions To cover the cost of the servers and staff required to update/fix the game, usually. This is a complex one because people are so polarised by micro transactions. I (and incidentally, my studio) are convinced that they _MUST_ be optional, they can offer no advantage in game. We used to have the policy that you must be able to earn that cosmetic with a realistic amount of in-game time (which is contradictory for us because more in-game time = less money, and obviously we "lost" the revenue of a player not buying it, but that goes without saying). Given that we release buggy mess games, you might argue that we would need less micro transactions if we just did a good job in the first place, but obviously we try our best to make decent games. I think it's dangerously arrogant to assume that 60 developers working on engine and game server code are all less intelligent than you are- and there definitely isn't malice, most game developers are gamers themselves otherwise the complexity, stress and time spent would definitely not be worth it. So I'm not sure why people are so outwardly hostile to game developers, the alternative is that we spend longer and charge more for games, but people don't like that either, so at some point the market has to make up it's mind about whether it can accept rushed products that have improvements year on year, no or marginal improvements year on year (ala Fifa, Call of Duty) or pay more. There is no magic here, unless we bring back slavery.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  In general, I'm sympathetic; games development is difficult. However, regarding "Imagine a NPC only For Honour or Rainbow Six: Siege.. that would be very boring.", I'd take it. Despite being an avid gamer, I've given up on online games precisely because of the cheating and griefing. I just don't want to deal with it anymore as a player whose free time is more and more limited as the years go by.
  - dijit 6y ago
    That's good news, you can play R6 with bots only. Seems like not many people choose that option though. :)
    - wizeman 6y ago
      Not the OP, but I enjoy playing R6 with bots more than with other people. However, unlike CSGO, R6 doesn't allow you to team up with bots and that makes it a lot more boring.
      - dijit 6y ago
        I can give that feedback to the R6 team. I can't promise that anything will change, because we can't easily qualify how much demand there would be for such a feature. But, I can tell the people I know.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      Thanks for the tip; I'll check R6 out.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I suspect that you're right about the general audience, but I for one would be happy to pay more upfront for a game if it meant I didn't have to deal with all the current shenanigans. a AAA game has cost about $60 for as long as I can remember, despite the dollar falling significantly over the last decade or so. I would happily pay $100 for a high quality game. I've probably spent at least that on csgo skins over the years.
vsareto 6y ago
I have to imagine they scale the server amounts based on metrics. Running an appropriate amount of servers scaled with active installs is probably cheaper than all of the extra production value and dev work you have to add for a great single player game.

I have to doubt this is a primary factor. If it were then developers would make more single players games, but everyone wants to make online games with microtransactions

dijit 6y ago

I'm trying to find a nice way of responding to this because it's rather loaded. > I have to doubt this is a primary factor Time and money are indeed a factor, micro transactions typically are used to continue "live services" of a game, and don't get counted towards recouping development costs. (at least in Ubisoft). > if it were then developers would make more single player games We can, and do, but sometimes to create the game you want other players involved. Imagine a NPC only For Honour or Rainbow Six: Siege.. that would be very boring. > but everyone wants to make online games Because there can be more interesting games than just "go here, kill boss, go here, loot thing", you can have genuinely unique experiences on every play through with online and networked games. > with microtransactions To cover the cost of the servers and staff required to update/fix the game, usually. This is a complex one because people are so polarised by micro transactions. I (and incidentally, my studio) are convinced that they _MUST_ be optional, they can offer no advantage in game. We used to have the policy that you must be able to earn that cosmetic with a realistic amount of in-game time (which is contradictory for us because more in-game time = less money, and obviously we "lost" the revenue of a player not buying it, but that goes without saying). Given that we release buggy mess games, you might argue that we would need less micro transactions if we just did a good job in the first place, but obviously we try our best to make decent games. I think it's dangerously arrogant to assume that 60 developers working on engine and game server code are all less intelligent than you are- and there definitely isn't malice, most game developers are gamers themselves otherwise the complexity, stress and time spent would definitely not be worth it. So I'm not sure why people are so outwardly hostile to game developers, the alternative is that we spend longer and charge more for games, but people don't like that either, so at some point the market has to make up it's mind about whether it can accept rushed products that have improvements year on year, no or marginal improvements year on year (ala Fifa, Call of Duty) or pay more. There is no magic here, unless we bring back slavery.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
In general, I'm sympathetic; games development is difficult. However, regarding "Imagine a NPC only For Honour or Rainbow Six: Siege.. that would be very boring.", I'd take it. Despite being an avid gamer, I've given up on online games precisely because of the cheating and griefing. I just don't want to deal with it anymore as a player whose free time is more and more limited as the years go by.
- dijit 6y ago
  That's good news, you can play R6 with bots only. Seems like not many people choose that option though. :)
  - wizeman 6y ago
    Not the OP, but I enjoy playing R6 with bots more than with other people. However, unlike CSGO, R6 doesn't allow you to team up with bots and that makes it a lot more boring.
    - dijit 6y ago
      I can give that feedback to the R6 team. I can't promise that anything will change, because we can't easily qualify how much demand there would be for such a feature. But, I can tell the people I know.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    Thanks for the tip; I'll check R6 out.
leetcrew 6y ago
I suspect that you're right about the general audience, but I for one would be happy to pay more upfront for a game if it meant I didn't have to deal with all the current shenanigans. a AAA game has cost about $60 for as long as I can remember, despite the dollar falling significantly over the last decade or so. I would happily pay $100 for a high quality game. I've probably spent at least that on csgo skins over the years.

vsareto 6y ago

I have to imagine they scale the server amounts based on metrics. Running an appropriate amount of servers scaled with active installs is probably cheaper than all of the extra production value and dev work you have to add for a great single player game.