[cehrlich]

I agree with him completely.

But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling.

Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the Breach, Hades, Slay the Spire, Ori and the Blind Forest, etc. These span every genre, and that's not even mentioning the PC back catalog which spans decades. What does it take for those games to win against the lootbox microtransaction garbage?

[p1necone]

I notice the examples you're giving are all lower budget indie games, it's also worth pointing out that there's a /tonne/ of big budget games that also eschew this kind of nonsense. See: FromSoftware, basically anything that was a Sony published PS4 exclusive (Horizon Zero Dawn, Spiderman, Days Gone, Uncharted, etc etc), Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, basically everything Nintendo puts out, many many more (honestly I could probably recommend like 50+ AAA quality titles released in the past ~5 years if I sat here thinking for a while, without predatory microtransactions (maybe a few would sell some silly cosmetic items but that's about it)).

Really if you ignore the 'axis of evil' publishers (Activision, EA, Ubisoft) /most/ AAA games are fine.

Also in any single player Ubisoft game I've played (so mostly Far Cry and Assassins creed + Ghost Recon Wildlands (which is great btw)) the microtransactions can be completely ignored, none of their games are balanced around people spending money like mobile games are, nor is any meaningful content locked behind a pay wall unless it's in the form of a proper expansion/stand alone spinoff.

There seems to be a commonly held opinion on HN threads like this that the gaming industry has failed beyond repair, and all AAA games are dark pattern riddled slot machines. But it's really not true outside of a handful of large bad actor publishers. Just open up Steam and read user reviews, it's pretty obvious when a game is a poor cash grab.

I echo the sentiment of another comment here, saying that the market for "good" games never went away (really it's grown). It's just that there's now also another market, serving different customers with casual games with gameplay related microtransactions - which you can completely ignore as a consumer.

[dylan604]

Not being a game dev, I've often wondered how much the mobile platform for games lowered the barier to entry compared to PC/console games. Unity came along and opened up a lot of doors for people, but I'm not sure how much it is used for mobile (should provide an idea of my knowledge--or lack of--in this area).

Mobile games seems to just be flooded with copycat/clones with slight variations of the same game play with a lot looking like something that could be completed in a weekend or 2 or 3 weekends by someone looking for a quick buck. I've seen some games that look interesting, but their lootbox or other constant nagging for paid enhancements are really just a total turn off.

[donavanm]

I have a little knowledge of actual gambling “games” ala video poker etc. They seem to be dominated by large publishers who farm content from a collection of in house & contract “studios.” The studious crank out an entire new game on the order of 12-16 weeks using a single integrated team of development, art assets, marketing and production management. Releasing multiple games varying in assets/branding, but identical mechanics, is a very intentional strategy. Applies to “refrahing” popular older games as well.

History wise I suspect the micro monetized mobile apps trace their origins back to the “social platform” games of the 2000s ala Zynga, and the online “game platforms” of poker, faux-scrabble, etc of the yahoo era.

[bobthepanda]

I think part of the problem is the games that ended up setting the tone for the platform. Consoles historically did a fair amount of vetting of titles on their platforms. Steam did not have programs like Greenlight or Early Access until later in its lifetime.

Mobile's games that set the tone were ad-supported tchotchkes with microtransactions and the rest is history.

[8note]

Mobile imo replaced flash games... which were also full of variations on a theme

[AniseAbyss]

There's a lot of money in gambling.

[dylan604]

Yeah, I've met several people that use cashapp to send money to reload their account in games, and if they do well, they get paid their winnings via cashapp. Totally circumventing the 30% cut, and legality rules too. I'm sure it's a wackamole type of thing with games getting yanked off the stores.

These are targeted directly at addicts (not just gambling) as the game play is rather basic and just entertaining enough to keep that tweaker mindset occupied.

[ksec]

>Who is spending money on all of these awful games?

Have you ever played games like Rise of Kingdoms [1], or a lot of similar game of gathering resources, upgrading, attack etc. During one of cross server event you would see the whole server burning Millions ( USD ) worth of items within hours in just one battle. I still remember there was a whale working in investment bank ( or so he says ) that got $50k worth of whatever in-game resources wiped because he was busy in a meeting. He paid another $50K within a week to built back his troops.

These people easily spend $200K to million+ over their entire time in the game. And some will even help you to pay for resources in game as part of being the Guild.

And 80%+ of mobile game IAP revenues comes from just top 2-4% of players. So it isn't as another comment suggest lots of $20 to $50 dollars around from casual players.

Why do they do that? I dont know, I guess they want to be the king inside a virtual world. These freemium games means a lot of people gets to enjoy it without paying a cent. This also generate a feedback loop to the psychology of being king, after all what is the point of being King without followers?

It is unfortunate both Apple and Google are sucked into these money as part of their services revenue. Although I see this as an opportunity for a third mobile operating system. ( Hello Xbox Mobile? )

[1] https://rok.lilith.com/en

[gman83]

There's a lot of peer pressure among kids to play certain games. I bought a Nintendo Switch for my kids, and they certainly love the games, but a lot of their friends play games like Clash Royale together. Games like this are full of in-app purchases to be a better player. So obviously, they ask if they can play these kinds of games. For the moment, they're still satisfied playing on their Switch, but once they get their own phones I guess I won't be able to control what they do any longer.

[exdsq]

There’s a really good South Park episode on microtransactions and why they’re stupid. The devil explains to Stan why people get addicted and how stupid it is to be addicted to microtransactions in a game about collecting Canadough to spend on building a city. I’d watch it and consider re-watching it with your kids prior to getting phones, I think it genuinely might work at highlighting why they’re a bad thing! Obviously you might watch the episode and judge it as too rude, but if I remember correctly it’s mostly the Canadians farting at each other and Jimmy getting people addicted to it on street corners. I have pretty addictive tendencies and I think it would have worked on me!

[exdsq]

Edit: for context here’s a clip https://youtu.be/2luhwy3KAE0

[iepathos]

A lot of people like to play competitively with friends and strangers. The major free to play games with microtransaction models I think of are League of Legends, Hearthstone, and Dota 2 which feed off the competitive multiplayer aspects that single player games lack entirely. It often takes a bigger budget company to be able to support the servers and development hours needed to support big multiplayer games.

[kipchak]

I think the problem is these sorts of games are still relatively niche compared to most releases by the big shops, which appeal more to people with a passing interest in games as an occasional pastime versus a hobby. For example I knew someone who played a good bit of FIFA, but didn't really have any interest in other games, in the same way someone else might not be interested in Criterion collection movies but might put on a marvel movie.

There are a few games that are popular in both camps like Tetris, but they're by and large the minority, though they also can be extremely successful as a result. Making a game approachable but deep is very tricky. Celeste for example isn't terribly approachable, which is appropriate given it's story and gameplay, which is likely to turn off most players who might try it casually.

[paulryanrogers]

This is OK in my opinion. I bought a PS4 and called it my Uncharted machine because that was the motivator. Tried a few other games on the console but not necessarily as many as other platforms.

World is big and people are numerous. Games can be more than text adventures, 90s era, shooters, or whatever pure-blood PC master race gray beards think they are/were/should be.

[silisili]

Probably largely just name recognition/fame of some sort.

I have limited time, and have tried a few less famous games based on recommendation, and some I absolutely hated. However, I know if I buy say, Assassins Creed, I'm going to enjoy it.

So part of the problem your suggesting I guess is people like me. I don't buy the IAP/addons/microtransactions, but I do buy the games. So if I have time to sit and play a video game - do I scour the internet for recommendations, read reviews, watch trailers...or just buy a name brand I know I've enjoyed in the past? For me obviously, the latter.

[x0x0]

It's not so complicated though -- for big budget games, the budget has gone up while the box price has been eaten by inflation. People still pay $60 for a game in the midst of 9 figure dev budgets. $60 isn't enough money to make many types of games, leaving publishers with three choices: charge everyone more, charge a bunch of people a little more (dlc, some loot boxes, ads), or charge a handful of people a ton of money (loot box mechanics searching for whales).

When you watch interviews with some of the early doom developers, the level designers could make a level a week. Now levels in Doom Eternal are years long collaborations between a team of people. Content costs have exploded.

There's an identical trend with ios apps btw: an email app in the late 1990s like Eudora cost $100 to $150 with paid updates. Now people expect email apps to cost under $10 with lifetime updates while doing 10x as much.

[volfied]

Every game has their fair share of whales. People with so much money that it doesn't matter to them how much they spend on lootboxes.

One example I can give is Post Malone in Apex Legends, I think people estimated that he spent $1,600, he buys every heirloom skin as soon as it comes out.

There are a lot of streamers out there who will spend at least $100 a month on skins just to keep their content fresh. Or they buy battle pass levels second it comes out so they can show them off. It's a huge revenue stream for AAA studios.

https://www.reddit.com/r/apexlegends/comments/t0m44q/post_ma...

[newsclues]

Who watches all the crappy superhero movies instead of great cinema?

[pdimitar]

Me. I had enough tragedy in my life and I'm not interested in looking at other people's tragedies -- this is what often passes as "great cinema", I hear.

I go to cinema to have some brainless fun. It works. I get out smiling and criticizing the dumb plot holes in the superhero movies. It makes for a great social interaction, too.

Life needs contrast. My life is busy and not easy so I need pass time that relaxes me. "The crappy superhero movies" are one of my venues towards relaxation.

[JKCalhoun]

> for a fair price

There's the problem. A new fickle breed of consumer that do not pay for software.

I know, they fall for the in-game content, but that is optional. A game purchase is money up front.

[gameswithgo]

I think it is largely "casual" gamers and or gamers who can't afford the upfront $50 or $20 for a game and are lured in by the "Free" game and then of course addiction kicks in and they spend $100 or more on it. Sad state of affairs, and something that has only gotten worse with app stores. I don't know if it is causal but they certainly haven't helped stop it.

[russdpale]

Studies show the vast majority of the purchases on those apps are whales. Like 90% or more IIRC. If it weren't for whales those games would make no money.

[throwawaylinux]

Do you have any of those studies at hand?

[rrdharan]

https://deltadna.com/blog/how-whales-spend/

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/comment-and-opinion/72369/mobile...

[paulmd]

a skin in some of these games is $10 or more. Even as someone who might conceivably be tempted (I've bought stuff for TF2 before), there's a point where it's just an obviously bad use of your money. 20 bucks is a nice dinner out, I'm not spending that on a skin.

Maybe I am just stuck in 2012 but $2-3 is about the limit for me for a skin. "Unusual" hats (particle effects) in TF2 are basically the original NFT, they are unique items with a very limited number in existence, and they are worth more, but I'm not going to pay $10-20 for the same skin as a million other players.

Of course that's why they've started tying them to gameplay, like Rainbow 6 Siege and Battlefield 2042 "operators"... it's taken studios a long time but they've finally gotten us to bite on "pay to win" by framing it as player choice.

(although I guess DLCs/expansions having OP weapons that beat the base game is nothing new, but charging $10 or $20 a pop for each unit is new.)

[bigger_cheese]

I play Path of Exile. I've sunk 1000's of hours into the game at this point. I discovered PoE because I was so disappointed in Blizzard and Diablo 3 (which had terrible monetization problems - real world money auctions etc.)

I buy in game cosmetic items like skins occasionally. Are they bad value? Yes, however I don't consider that when I make the purchase. I've played this game so much and gotten so much enjoyment out of it I see the cosmetic purchases as a donation to the dev team for their time. If paying $30 for some fancy armor every so often helps fund ongoing development I'm happy to do it.

There is a line between "Pay to win" and "Purely cosmetic" microtransactions. I'm happy with the later but try to avoid games with the former.

[paulryanrogers]

Star Citizen has taken unit monetization to a whole new level. It's basically art as a service: buy these ships that are unlikely to ever render during gameplay. And now they can't stop. If it stops expanding the whole thing will collapse under its own weight.

[usrusr]

Star Citizen discovered a way to sell the imagination of being fully engaged in a game to people who don't actually have the time for playing that much (but have fond memories of wasting countless hours). It's a rather brilliant discovery. I wonder though how much of that has already been ruined by whatever beta versions exist.

[antifa]

> Maybe I am just stuck in 2012 but $2-3 is about the limit for me for a skin.

Even this is way overpriced for me, I've never in my life paid for a DLC of a skin or item.

[jamesgeck0]

I bought a few skins for my favorite character in Heroes of the Storm after I'd played the game for free over a hundred hours. I kinda felt like the developers had earned by money by that point.

[antifa]

That's at least more respectable and reasonable then what's going on in fortnight or the average android game.

[mbg721]

Or kids who don't have a credit card at the ready, but can ask after they get attached to the game. (Which makes it that much worse.)