[wheelie_boy]

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.

[MattRix]

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)

[ygjb]

Optimizing for player base is at odds with optimizing for paying player base. I am a "whale" as a consumer - I really enjoy video games, but my time is at a premium. I have more money than time, and I am happy to use it to accelerate my access to free to play games, especially for cases where I am playing games with my family, who generally have more free time than me.

Unfortunately in many of the games that my kids enjoy, I have noticed that the optimization path for the freemium model includes increasing the time sink required for access to game mechanics and content, and increasing the rewards for paying actual money for access to mechanics and contents.

There are some free to play games that find a good tension between this early on, but longer term, I find that the games because less enjoyable because it is too time consuming for others to keep up with my "pay to play" approach to skipping the time intensive portions of the games.

> Saying Fortnite is “optimized for profit” makes very little sense, since nothing you can do in the game requires purchases at all.

Sure, from a mechanical perspective. My son uses a portion of his allowance to keep current on his emotes and skins because his friends apply social pressure by teasing the kids that don't have them. It's been a great opportunity to teach him about peer pressure, and the relatively harmless of this version of it, in contrast to more harmful ones related to drugs, alcohol, or risky behavior for teenagers.

[ksaun]

The resources that are spent on cosmetic purchases could instead have been spent elsewhere, possibly providing a better overall gameplay experience.

I don't think anyone is arguing that freemium games can't be fun or that some microtransaction models are more player-beneficial than others. But, like with any feature, if you include microtransactions than some other aspect received less attention (assuming a fixed budget, which I realize is also a consideration as game X might never have been made without the freemium component to propel the business decision).

Edit: Also, as others have said here, most freemium developers focus on extracting revenue from the "whales," not the players who play for free or pay little.

[biohax2015]

> The resources that are spent on cosmetic purchases could instead have been spent elsewhere, possibly providing a better overall gameplay experience.

Those resources would not have existed had it not been for the sales of cosmetics.

[chongli]

By making a game that people actually enjoy playing and tell their friends about.

I think the thing that people miss in their discussions of video games is that “enjoyability” or “fun” are not 1-dimensional quantities. In fact, there are many different ways to evaluate a game: meaningfulness, emotional range, decision complexity, flow state, educational/pedagogical value, literary value, societal/social impact, etc etc etc.

Furthermore, many of these criteria can be good at multiple ends of their range depending on individual taste and/or mood. For example, sometimes I’m in the mood for complex decisions to really sink my teeth into. Maybe a Zachtronics programming game or engineering game like Factorio or perhaps a challenging roguelike such as NetHack or Slay the Spire will scratch that itch for me. Other times I’m really burned out from work/studying and I’m just looking to unwind so a super relaxing, simple, flow state game like Stardew Valley is better for me.

By pursuing the free to play model, games like Genshin Impact are incentivizing their developers to optimize the game for two things only: engagement and gambling-like rewards. That is very bad. These games are the junk food of the game industry. Even worse. They’re casinos as well.

[slightwinder]

> 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.

That's only true till the baseline. After that point, you need to focus on specific players, or you will risk compromising your game by catering for too many tastes, making it generic and bland. Ultimately you will drive people away anyway with your decisions, so there is no real harm in focusing on the money-pots, as long as you stay about the baseline of fun.

[checker]

It's a paid game, but EA/DICE are certainly sacrificing some existing gameplay elements (and story) in order to push Battlefield 2042's "Specialists" as a vehicle for in-game purchases.

Earlier Battlefields had generic soldiers per side that were identifiable by weapon class and customizable by camouflage but retained a clear distinction between the two large teams. This helped players to distinguish friend v foe and to optimize their attack/defend strategy based on the class of their opponent.

Things started going downhill with Battlefield V (WW2). It has "Elites" that can be played on both sides, so it's possible to have a Japanese soldier fighting in an early battle on the Western Front. This is not great for immersion in a game realistically themed around a serious subject.

From what I know about BF2042, because it's in the future, DICE's story is that there is a mercenary war (instead of country vs country). So now DICE can allow players to use their favorite Specialist and cosmetic on either team, which completely ruins friend v foe. And the Specialists can use any weapon which eliminates some of the strategy used when attacking/defending.

Premium cosmetics are certainly harder to pull off in some game types than others. I guess EA/DICE figured the in-game purchases will more than offset any popularity losses from these gameplay sacrifices. But hopefully DICE will be able to find a sweet spot if they are willing refine their current approach.

[yorwba]

> it's possible to have a Japanese soldier fighting in an early battle on the Western Front. This is not great for immersion in a game realistically themed around a serious subject.

The 442nd regiment composed mostly of Japanese Americans was deployed in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(Unite...

So what's breaking the immersion? Are they wearing the wrong uniforms?

[sleepybrett]

I don't think he's saying that there were no people of Japanese descent on the western front, I think he's saying that no members of the Japanese Imperial Army, and potentially specifically infantry, that were deployed on the western front. I don't have enough historical knowledge to know if that is true or not, but I could believe that.

[checker]

Yeah sorry wasn't specific enough. AFAIK there were no Japanese imperial soldiers dressed in Pacific front gear fighting in the snow at Narvik Norway. Nor for that matter American pilots in bomber jackets.

[checker]

Oh cool TIL. Yeah I didn't describe it well. The most egregious examples are: characters speaking Japanese while wearing Imperial Pacific uniforms and American pilots wearing aviators+bomber jackets, while fighting in the snowy mountains of Narvik, Norway.

[dageshi]

Yes the alternative was paid expansions for new maps and weapons, which people also didn't like because it split the player base.

[imwillofficial]

Some somebody who put hundreds of hours into BF4: Nobody, and I mean nobody identified their foes based on outfit. Specialists are take the “generic nameless soldier” aspect out of it, and I think that’s a step backwards, but not fake breaking. Yet.

[Arrath]

Did you not play hardcore or friendly fire-enabled and no-hud modes?

If you can't identify someone based on uniform and coloring, you're in for some nasty team kills.

[imwillofficial]

Yeah I played those only. And you know what, you’re 100% correct. In my mind was I was thinking the different models used for specialties, not IFF applications.

This reminds me how much I still love BF4

[wheelie_boy]

Cosmetic-only in-game purchases are great. I'm also not against one-time upgrades or subscriptions.

If it's not compromising the game design, and it's not so addictive that people are spending more than they have, I don't have a problem. I'm not against monetization, as long as the games steer away from the dark patterns / don't make casinos for children.

[hbn]

> By making a game that people actually enjoy playing

If you're willing to pay money to experience less gameplay, are you really enjoying the game?

[svachalek]

This is it. You want to make the game at least a little fun at first, but at some point you have to make your users feel dissatisfied in order to get them to spend. Much like Facebook needs to keep their users angry and depressed to keep them coming back. Hyper-optimizing anything for profit is never about creating an experience your customers will love, in my experience.

[Tenoke]

Sure, I played Lost Ark for it's PvP recently and paid $5 to skip leveling my second character. I definitely both paid to skip content and enjoyed playing.

[psyc]

Rightly or wrongly, the big players believe the way is to have more whales playing. However, I agree with you that Fortnite is the gold standard of how to do freemium.

[CraneWorm]

yes, the game that uses fomo and artificially creates scarcity of collectibles to exploit people into spending cash via gambling is the gold standard and every one else is copying it

[duskwuff]

> exploit people into spending cash via gambling

How so? As far as I'm aware, the free-to-play version of Fortnite never sold loot boxes.

[htns]

The model of the game seems to be to have steep prices, but then give something like $100 of premium currency monthly in exchange for playing the game. This will generate engagement even if the content is mediocre. How many players would do dailies for fun if they did not come with what's effectively a $1 coupon?

[spoonjim]

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?

[minimaxir]

Yes.

Hacker News strongly underestimates the appeal of cosmetics.

[psyc]

Absolutely true. It’s Fortnite’s DNA, and you would hear wailing in the streets out your window the day they broke that promise.

[nawgz]

Fortnite, CSGO, Valorant, ... Shooter players hate paid advantages but certainly don't mind paid fashion

[GhettoComputers]

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]

TF2 is a less pure example. Some purchaseable items are purely cosmetic, others have effects on game mechanics.

[nkrisc]

It's very expensive dress-up dolls. Except you can't hold them.

[unrealhoang]

Yes, the largest esport price pool (Dota2) is coming from cosmetic selling.

[pupppet]

Doesn't the Battle Pass give you some kind of competitive advantage?

[raydev]

No. Fortnite battle pass is a bundle of cosmetic items within a season, most of which you will need to unlock through gameplay after you purchase. Players are essentially signalling they’ve paid the fee and spent enough hours to unlock some skin or emote.

[ThatPlayer]

Battle passes in most games just give you a series of exclusive cosmetics to grind. And are time limited to urge you buy it sooner, and play more to grind it before it's over. Or you can spend more money to skip the grind.

[minimaxir]

> 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]

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.

[darren_]

> 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.

This is half-true, at least for the ones I tried on Apple Arcade. Example, the Castlevania game. All the stupid gem gacha bullshit addiction-driving stuff is still in the game, it's just that you no longer buy the gems, the game just absolutely throws gems at you for free while you play. But you've still got all the stupid mobile game addiction driving stuff like daily quests, 'pulls' to randomly get items, a tedious and complex system of upgrades for weapons/characters that's completely unnecessary (except it is necessary because the difficulty's tuned such that you'll never get through the game without engaging with it all), all that stuff. The Star Trek game was similar IIRC.

The games are still worse despite not wanting money, the (originally) monetization-driven game design poisons it anyway. For me this was one of the most disappointing parts of Apple Arcade, I'd thought the point was to pay for access to _quality_ games, not bullshit mobile games with the IAP hastily ripped out.

[fuyu]

> 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.

This ignores the fact there aren't unlimited resources to develop and maintain a game. Not requiring people to buy gems would improve some areas of the game for sure, but making less money is certain to impact other areas of the game - you always need to give up something in order to fit things in budget.

[minimaxir]

> 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.

IMO Genshin Impact has the right balance which is rare for gacha. Content is not balanced around the assumption that players spend real money (the game itself is relatively easy too).

> 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.

So there's a funny of example of that with the Castlevania game recently released for Apple Arcade. They 5x-ed the earnings of the formerly paid-for currency to compensate for the lack of payment...

...and it's still far more difficult and grindy to get anything worthwhile than in Genshin Impact.

I had to do two weeks worth of time manipulation to get something useful that could actually end up finishing the current content.

[GhettoComputers]

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?

[ThrowawayR2]

"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-...

[GhettoComputers]

>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"

[wheelie_boy]

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]

>It's always yes because paying money is not a really fun gameplay mechanic.

Gamblers and stock traders beg to differ.

[ksaun]

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]

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.

[advice_thrwawy9]

> 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

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]

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