[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.