Of course developers don't like them. MTX and related monetization
tricks are what happens when marketing douchebags and bean counters
are allowed to make decisions about product direction. And in any
industry, allowing such has never done anything but result in an
inferior product.

I guess the only real news is that historically gamers have a history
of referring to "the developers" of a game in a way that includes the
marketing douchebags and bean counters into the same category, as if
everyone in the company has common interests.

Perhaps the real enemy is bonuses and stock options as incentives for
the development team. A lot of these endeavors have creative
directors who have financial incentive to increase the games sales.
This puts pressure on them to cave into the money grabs, if not even
focus on sales numbers as a goal rather than focusing on how enjoyable
the game is.

Actual software developers also usually have stock option incentives,
but either their options package isn't attractive enough in terms of
earning potential to really make a difference, or (more commonly) it's
not the developer's first rodeo, and he's already savvy enough to know
that options are a scam.

Flat salaries are probably the only solution, but don't count on them
ever happening.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/20/2024 4:16 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

Of course developers don't like them. MTX and related monetization
tricks are what happens when marketing douchebags and bean counters
are allowed to make decisions about product direction. And in any
industry, allowing such has never done anything but result in an
inferior product.

I guess the only real news is that historically gamers have a history
of referring to "the developers" of a game in a way that includes the marketing douchebags and bean counters into the same category, as if
everyone in the company has common interests.

By "developers" we mean the company developing the game.

Perhaps the real enemy is bonuses and stock options as incentives for
the development team. A lot of these endeavors have creative
directors who have financial incentive to increase the games sales.
This puts pressure on them to cave into the money grabs, if not even
focus on sales numbers as a goal rather than focusing on how enjoyable
the game is.

Actual software developers also usually have stock option incentives,
but either their options package isn't attractive enough in terms of
earning potential to really make a difference, or (more commonly) it's
not the developer's first rodeo, and he's already savvy enough to know
that options are a scam.

Flat salaries are probably the only solution, but don't count on them
ever happening.

This is not limited to software, it is the way almost ALL companies are.
Flat salaries aren't going to help, you need to get rid of
shareholders with their demands for "money NOW!" and business schools
teaching "the next quarterly report is the only thing that matters!"

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:23:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 8/20/2024 4:16 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

Of course developers don't like them. MTX and related monetization
tricks are what happens when marketing douchebags and bean counters
are allowed to make decisions about product direction. And in any
industry, allowing such has never done anything but result in an
inferior product.

I guess the only real news is that historically gamers have a history
of referring to "the developers" of a game in a way that includes the
marketing douchebags and bean counters into the same category, as if
everyone in the company has common interests.

By "developers" we mean the company developing the game.

Then it becomes impossible to categorize their perspective in a single
bucket. Different roles within an organization bring many different perspectives.

I just call them game companies or vendors, usually. Development is
one of many roles within.

Perhaps the real enemy is bonuses and stock options as incentives for
the development team. A lot of these endeavors have creative
directors who have financial incentive to increase the games sales.
This puts pressure on them to cave into the money grabs, if not even
focus on sales numbers as a goal rather than focusing on how enjoyable
the game is.

Actual software developers also usually have stock option incentives,
but either their options package isn't attractive enough in terms of
earning potential to really make a difference, or (more commonly) it's
not the developer's first rodeo, and he's already savvy enough to know
that options are a scam.

Flat salaries are probably the only solution, but don't count on them
ever happening.

This is not limited to software, it is the way almost ALL companies are.

That's why I opened with "And in any industry, allowing such has never
done anything but result in an inferior product."

Flat salaries aren't going to help, you need to get rid of
shareholders with their demands for "money NOW!" and business schools >teaching "the next quarterly report is the only thing that matters!"

Agree about shareholders but that's getting into a bigger discussion
about a bigger problem that's related only in that it's about money
(but so are many of life's problems not just corporate ones),
inevitable long-term results of capitalism, yada yada. So I was
trying to keep it semi-focused on the ideas around what the employees
who are actually creating the product (not every employee in the
company -- at least for the scope of my post) think about monetization
schemes.

Of course, folks who chose finance/accounting as a career are going to
want to see impressive bottom lines and will care more about that than
the actual product development team. Marketing wants to be able to
brag about the measurable results of their campaign ideas .. again
measured in profits.

But what about product development? Everyone from testers to
developers to leads to managers and directors and c-levels. If their
salaries were not incentivized around profit, they would have only
incentive to create a product they would be proud of (not just be
proud of the sales of).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/08/2024 18:21, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

DevCom is a developer conference in Germany where developers --largely
from the video-games industry-- can come together to discuss and learn
about various industry-wide issues. Although it's been around for
almost a decade, it's a fairly low-key event because it's a lot less
about marketing specific games, and more about the nitty-gritty
details of coding them. After all, it doesn't make for exciting
marketing copy to say "developers of 'Call of Battlefield 19' went to
talk about AI-assisted texture-upscaling". So DevCom doesn't get a lot
of press.

Still, there's sometimes a few bangers that come out from the
conference.

Like this year, when nearly 90% of respondents* answered that they
believe that video-games (more specifically, AAA games on console and
PCs) can survive just fine just from the revenue taken in from initial
sales, and that additional purchases (MTX, cosmetics, lootboxes,
whatever) aren't necessary. The vast majority also said they PREFERRED
that revenue model over any other one too.

All the bullshit extra expenses aren't being pushed on end-consumers
because the developers think it's a good idea. They aren't building it
into their games because they think it makes them better, or offers
features that they otherwise couldn't provide. It's entirely something
the upper-levels are forcing upon them (and then down onto the
end-users) to milk the customers for every penny.

Keep that in mind the next time some exec or marketing hack tells us
about how excited they are to offer us "live service" features because
they feel it will "add to the experience" and how things like MTX and
season passes are the only way to fund them. You know it's bullshit.
The guys actually making the games know it is bullshit. The old-school "buy-to-play" model is perfectly viable, and the only reason companies
like EA, Activision and Ubisoft are pushing towards 'live service'
models is to grab ever more money for themselves.

Obviously we are never going to go back to the the likes of the 80's
when the driving force beyond quite a few games is they were developed
as the developer wanted to play that type of game. Nor would I say that
you don't need people in businesses who actually understand how to run
them beyond implementing games*.

Where it seems have gone wrong is instead of all groups having a level
of control of the game experience it's the one whose only interest in
games is how to make money from that gets to call all the shots.

Personally I'm not sure how it will change as regardless of how much
'moaning' gamers do about not liking MTX there's still a substantial
number that keep it as not just viable but lucrative. Personally I doubt
I'll ever play a live service game again due to my experience in the
direction World of Tanks went and just generally what seems to be going
on with them. To put it simply the games are driven too much by how to
push MTX and not enough of will I enjoy playing it.

*Admittedly, having no talent in how to run a business often seems to be
no bar to getting paid handsomely for doing just that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)