[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.