Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO(pocketgamer.biz)
pocketgamer.biz
Gamedevs not baking in monetization are “fucking idiots”, says Unity CEO
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/interview/79190/unity-ironsource-john-riccitiello-marc-whitten-merger/
356 comments
> “I’ve seen great games fail because they tuned their compulsion loop to two minutes when it should have been an hour.
A 'compulsion loop' sounds bad to me, I'd never heard the term before. Although if I try to take a step back I suppose this term could be used to describe any game and not just one of the lootbox-mania or idle games.
However, the wikipedia article [1] states:
> A core or compulsion loop is any repetitive gameplay cycle that is designed to keep the player engaged with the game. ... A compulsion loop may be distinguished further from a core loop; while many games have a core loop of activities that a player may repeat over and over again, such as combat within a role-playing game, a compulsion loop is particularly designed to guide the player into anticipation for the potential reward from specific activities
For some reason, all I can think of is that game from ST:TNG [2]. I'd like to say that I am somehow above it all but back when I used to play FPS games, it was probably just the same thing. Nonstop dopamine infusion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsion_loop
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_...
A 'compulsion loop' sounds bad to me, I'd never heard the term before. Although if I try to take a step back I suppose this term could be used to describe any game and not just one of the lootbox-mania or idle games.
However, the wikipedia article [1] states:
> A core or compulsion loop is any repetitive gameplay cycle that is designed to keep the player engaged with the game. ... A compulsion loop may be distinguished further from a core loop; while many games have a core loop of activities that a player may repeat over and over again, such as combat within a role-playing game, a compulsion loop is particularly designed to guide the player into anticipation for the potential reward from specific activities
For some reason, all I can think of is that game from ST:TNG [2]. I'd like to say that I am somehow above it all but back when I used to play FPS games, it was probably just the same thing. Nonstop dopamine infusion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsion_loop
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_...
Did you know there is a market for pre-war steel? This is steel manufactured before 1945 that is uncontaminated by radionuclides:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
There will soon be a market for pre-microtransactions games.
Also: I used to hate on the casino industry for using the term “gaming” to euphemistically refer to gambling, but now they’re not so different so I’ll let them have that one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
There will soon be a market for pre-microtransactions games.
Also: I used to hate on the casino industry for using the term “gaming” to euphemistically refer to gambling, but now they’re not so different so I’ll let them have that one.
Frank Stephenson who designed the Ferrari F430, some BMWs and the good looking Mini from 2004, has a youtube channel. He sticks to pen and paper because computers lock him in too early in the design process.
I don't get what Mr Riccitiello is on about. Clay is a great way to sketch car ideas.
Mike Morhaime of Blizzard fame sees indie games as a space where the small guys can try out games that have never been made before. What is the unity CEO pushing for? Cookie cutter games?
There is a GDC lecture from way back in 2017-2018, where one man did his thesis on what motivates people in video games. When people see the 'victory screen' or story cutscene or audiovisual reward feedback for an action, what are they responding to deep down inside?
He did a metastudy of 70-something studies on this topic and they barely agreed on anything. Nobody really has a firm answer for why people are motivated to play video games and you end up with a lot of handwaving around dopamine.
Why is Mr Riccitielo still pushing compulsion loops like we should be yanking players into addiction? Games are so much more than that. See the recent Ocarina Of Time beta showcase at GDQ.
I don't get what Mr Riccitiello is on about. Clay is a great way to sketch car ideas.
Mike Morhaime of Blizzard fame sees indie games as a space where the small guys can try out games that have never been made before. What is the unity CEO pushing for? Cookie cutter games?
There is a GDC lecture from way back in 2017-2018, where one man did his thesis on what motivates people in video games. When people see the 'victory screen' or story cutscene or audiovisual reward feedback for an action, what are they responding to deep down inside?
He did a metastudy of 70-something studies on this topic and they barely agreed on anything. Nobody really has a firm answer for why people are motivated to play video games and you end up with a lot of handwaving around dopamine.
Why is Mr Riccitielo still pushing compulsion loops like we should be yanking players into addiction? Games are so much more than that. See the recent Ocarina Of Time beta showcase at GDQ.
This seems like a click bait title to me, he "technically" uses those words, but the article seems a lot more sensible to me than inflammatory. We should definitely be thinking through sales/marketing when building games just like we do when building software. Not sure why you wouldn't be.
Edit to add: This rings true even when you decide "not a priority this time", that's still thinking it through
Edit to add: This rings true even when you decide "not a priority this time", that's still thinking it through
Yeah, this is gross. He has a point that when you are selling a game, you're in it for a non-zero amount of profit, so you do have to think about compulsion and keeping people coming back to the game - if people aren't drawn back over multiple sessions then they're going to walk away thinking they spent money for 2 minutes of playtime and they'll be upset.
But the context of the question was moving monetization earlier in the development process. This is something that winds up feeling very broken in most games. You can tell when the game is a fleshed out around a scaffold of "how can we extract payment" and it always feels lame. In fact, some of my favorite games are the opposite - the core gameplay is built out, and then the monetization is added as a cosmetic store.
But the context of the question was moving monetization earlier in the development process. This is something that winds up feeling very broken in most games. You can tell when the game is a fleshed out around a scaffold of "how can we extract payment" and it always feels lame. In fact, some of my favorite games are the opposite - the core gameplay is built out, and then the monetization is added as a cosmetic store.
Or, you know, invested in building games where people retrospectively assess their time spent with the game as enriching rather than exploitative.
Focus on monetization/profit as the first priority in a creative effort is the world's biggest flashing neon sign for shitty leadership.
Making a AAA video game is a gigantic gamble no matter how you slice it. Trying to hedge this gamble up front with micro transactions will result in vicious design cycles that further increase the effective risk profile of the project to your business.
This is all a matter of higher-order consequences to me. I always believed the harder you focused on the money (especially in gaming), the harder it would be to obtain. Only once you completely wash yourself of that madness can your mind expand and engage in more empathetic thinking. If you are trying to make something fun, empathy is critical. Obsession with money robs most humans of that trait.
I think Blizzard is a good example of how money has nearly zero impact on the amount of fun that can be produced, especially when looking at fun per unit of capital involved. I believe running a game studio like a hedge fund is the critical error here.
Making a AAA video game is a gigantic gamble no matter how you slice it. Trying to hedge this gamble up front with micro transactions will result in vicious design cycles that further increase the effective risk profile of the project to your business.
This is all a matter of higher-order consequences to me. I always believed the harder you focused on the money (especially in gaming), the harder it would be to obtain. Only once you completely wash yourself of that madness can your mind expand and engage in more empathetic thinking. If you are trying to make something fun, empathy is critical. Obsession with money robs most humans of that trait.
I think Blizzard is a good example of how money has nearly zero impact on the amount of fun that can be produced, especially when looking at fun per unit of capital involved. I believe running a game studio like a hedge fund is the critical error here.
In the eyes of the MBA, the ideal business is one whose customers hate it as much as possible while still using it.
I guess my feeling is, if you're in the game industry and your core concern is maximizing profit, you're in the wrong industry. He seems to be suggesting that the key to success is selling your soul. However, even people that cynically monetize everything and use every dark pattern available have enormous chances of failure. For every Zynga or Candy Crush there's a million similar things that failed. At least if you're going to fail, aim high. There are so many samey games that come out and are immediately forgotten. IMO, if you're going to make a game and work in the game industry you should do it because you have a great vision for what can be accomplished artistically in a well made game.
It takes one to know one, I guess. Not being interrupted during gameplay by prompts to spend money or watch ads is a feature.
I knew I remembered the name John Riccitiello from somewhere as a dumbass. And it turns out, it's 1997 to 2004 and 2007 to 2013 at Electronic Arts. The two periods known as the absolute worst times in terms of quality and scumbaggery when it comes to monetization of games for EA. Oh, and also as someone who was fired because EA was bleeding out money, fucked up not one but four consecutive high profile game launches and was in litigation with about half of its studios.
Thanks John, but I seem to have a slight idea at who the fucking idiot in the room might be, unfortunately, you're failing upwards.
Thanks John, but I seem to have a slight idea at who the fucking idiot in the room might be, unfortunately, you're failing upwards.
This short-sightedness will ultimately kill big publishers. Yes you can milk customers and it will be profitable in the short run. But in the long run, your clientele will consist solely of idiots. Look at EA and Blizzard for examples of this.
I can't help but notice the underlying conflict giving rise to these sort of controversies. What is a game? What makes a successful one?
Ok, checks dictionary: "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". I remember buying Age of Empires or Total Annihilation as a kid. That was before the ubiquitous internet, you asked your friends and read game magazines before heading to the shop to buy the CDROM. New games had similar prices but some were better (from the player pov) than others and I feel like at that time, being fun and entertaining more directly correlated to commercial successes.
Now everything is online: the games, the stores, the payments. We have in game transactions, DLCs, pay-to-win, pay-to-not-wait-24h, in game gambling, analytics to optimize, etc. And also this definition of gaming: "to manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous". What gives?
> “But this industry divides people between those who still hold to that philosophy and those who massively embrace how to figure out what makes a successful product."
So yeah, could this divide actually come from our definition of "success"? Is it about maximizing the financial ROI using all the tricks we know to hook and exploit whales? Is it about making an actually fun and enjoyable game? I wonder...
Ok, checks dictionary: "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". I remember buying Age of Empires or Total Annihilation as a kid. That was before the ubiquitous internet, you asked your friends and read game magazines before heading to the shop to buy the CDROM. New games had similar prices but some were better (from the player pov) than others and I feel like at that time, being fun and entertaining more directly correlated to commercial successes.
Now everything is online: the games, the stores, the payments. We have in game transactions, DLCs, pay-to-win, pay-to-not-wait-24h, in game gambling, analytics to optimize, etc. And also this definition of gaming: "to manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous". What gives?
> “But this industry divides people between those who still hold to that philosophy and those who massively embrace how to figure out what makes a successful product."
So yeah, could this divide actually come from our definition of "success"? Is it about maximizing the financial ROI using all the tricks we know to hook and exploit whales? Is it about making an actually fun and enjoyable game? I wonder...
This would be great advice... If it weren't for the fact that Unity is mainly used by small to medium size studios (yes, they do have 50% market share), while in-house, Unreal and some other well known engines, rule the AAA market.
It's the AAA studios and publishers who can afford the bad PR that comes with exploiting your audience, by throwing exorbitant amounts of money at marketing.
Meanwhile, the indie studios can't afford that, and relay on word of mouth, streamers/YTubers, luck, and just plain simply being a good product. Exploiting your audience is a great way to burn bridges that you don't have the resources to repair by fanning the media monster into hyping your next title.
It's the AAA studios and publishers who can afford the bad PR that comes with exploiting your audience, by throwing exorbitant amounts of money at marketing.
Meanwhile, the indie studios can't afford that, and relay on word of mouth, streamers/YTubers, luck, and just plain simply being a good product. Exploiting your audience is a great way to burn bridges that you don't have the resources to repair by fanning the media monster into hyping your next title.
To all the folks complaining it's gross: This is Riccitiello. Of course it's gross. That's who he is.
He's one of the reasons a whole lot of good people left the games industry, and continue to leave.
He's one of the reasons a whole lot of good people left the games industry, and continue to leave.
I think he's probably right, in context. And I also think this is increasingly why I just don't play new games anymore. I like the output of those clay-carver idiots, and don't like product from savvy businessgamers.
Cash extraction machines aren't fun. When I want an escapist experience, "social" bullshit incorporating status skins and whatnot is an utter turnoff, as is effectively mandatory upsells for in-game whatevers.
I'm sure losing people like me works out on the balance sheet. I'll be over here, yelling at clouds.
Cash extraction machines aren't fun. When I want an escapist experience, "social" bullshit incorporating status skins and whatnot is an utter turnoff, as is effectively mandatory upsells for in-game whatevers.
I'm sure losing people like me works out on the balance sheet. I'll be over here, yelling at clouds.
Other things monetized to great success:
- facebook (soooo much better with 80% ads)
- google search (soooo much better with an entire first page of ads)
- app stores (I love how they "curate" and "enforce standards")
- insulin (mmmm, monopolize a drug whose manufacture is open and charge 10x for that, that's the free market)
- college tuition and education (even nonprofits can be completely ruined by MBAs)
- military/defense
Well, the list goes on.
Gotta love those MBAs with their excel spreadsheets and strike price stock options.
- facebook (soooo much better with 80% ads)
- google search (soooo much better with an entire first page of ads)
- app stores (I love how they "curate" and "enforce standards")
- insulin (mmmm, monopolize a drug whose manufacture is open and charge 10x for that, that's the free market)
- college tuition and education (even nonprofits can be completely ruined by MBAs)
- military/defense
Well, the list goes on.
Gotta love those MBAs with their excel spreadsheets and strike price stock options.
>It’s a very small portion of the gaming industry that works that way
Yeah, I don't know about that.
For every pay-to-play game there are 10 excellent indie games on Steam/GoG that still "works that way".
Yeah, I don't know about that.
For every pay-to-play game there are 10 excellent indie games on Steam/GoG that still "works that way".
No surprise. This is probably the most useless and mindless generation of leaders the US has ever produced.
Doing mobile ad IRR modeling spreadsheets, tweaking ad copy to rank higher in search engines, and other business-y MBA crap is easier than actually building a good game, especially if you don't actually like games and are just getting into "e-sports and mobile".
"Idiot" in this case means anybody who prioritizes anything over money.
> if you’re not thinking about monetisation during your creative process, you’re a “fucking idiot.”
This is why Poe's work is not enjoyable. Knowing he died penniless makes all his creativity worthless. Likewise William Blake - what a fool, laboring upward into futurity! /s
This is why Poe's work is not enjoyable. Knowing he died penniless makes all his creativity worthless. Likewise William Blake - what a fool, laboring upward into futurity! /s
The link title doesn't match to the article title so I suspected the comment wouldn't look as audacious in context. But actually it doesn't look much better. Here's the relevant snippet:
Ah well, he's financially incentivized to say all this crap so what can you do?
Interviewer: Implementing monetisation earlier in the process and conversation is certainly an angle that has seen pushback from some developers.
Riccitiello: Ferrari and some of the other high-end car manufacturers still use clay and carving knives. It’s a very small portion of the gaming industry that works that way, and some of these people are my favourite people in the world to fight with – they’re the most beautiful and pure, brilliant people. They’re also some of the biggest fucking idiots.
I’ve been in the gaming industry longer than most anybody – getting to the grey hair and all that. It used to be the case that developers would throw their game over the wall to the publicist and sales force with literally no interaction beforehand. That model is baked into the philosophy of a lot of artforms and medium, and it’s one I am deeply respectful of; I know their dedication and care.
Ah well, he's financially incentivized to say all this crap so what can you do?
'Sometimes, you wouldn’t even notice the product difference between a massive success and tremendous fail, but for this tuning and what it does to the attrition rate'
He throws this in as well, and I think it's if anything a more important quote. I think anyone working in a creative industry would like for there to be a process whereby you can 'fail fast' and realise that you aren't making something that's fun or meaningful, but from my experience, such a mechanism really doesn't exist.
As a study, it would be interesting to imagine what minecraft would have looked like if the concept had been developed by an established game company, using all the latest wizz-bang graphics and sound. If it had been well funded, and had focus groups and a team of industry veterans helping out, would it be the game it is today, with the following it has?
I would go as far as suggesting that the most amazing creative innovations happen from the indie scene - amateurs doing what they love for it's own sake, and monetisation coming a distant second. Most crash and burn, or are boring 'me too' efforts, but every now and again, a Minecraft, or a Linux appear.
He throws this in as well, and I think it's if anything a more important quote. I think anyone working in a creative industry would like for there to be a process whereby you can 'fail fast' and realise that you aren't making something that's fun or meaningful, but from my experience, such a mechanism really doesn't exist.
As a study, it would be interesting to imagine what minecraft would have looked like if the concept had been developed by an established game company, using all the latest wizz-bang graphics and sound. If it had been well funded, and had focus groups and a team of industry veterans helping out, would it be the game it is today, with the following it has?
I would go as far as suggesting that the most amazing creative innovations happen from the indie scene - amateurs doing what they love for it's own sake, and monetisation coming a distant second. Most crash and burn, or are boring 'me too' efforts, but every now and again, a Minecraft, or a Linux appear.
Compare to Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney's presentation on game development from ~2006 including, among other things, his thoughts on the merits of Haskell
https://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced...
I'll put all my money on Sweeney over this asshole.
https://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced...
I'll put all my money on Sweeney over this asshole.
Famous last words.
Unity is doomed with the malware company merger
Unity is doomed with the malware company merger
And yet $U is at -75%, year to date. Maybe they should have focused on making something good instead?
a man with a hokus pokus business degree and a history of working pseudo-jobs in lazy c-suite positions is really not in a position to call anyone an idiot. especially not the excellent craftspeople who know how to make their own video games. fuck off john riccitiello, keep your worm-infested brain away from us!
The headline is pretty sensationalist. The full quote "Ferrari and some of the other high-end car manufacturers still use clay and carving knives. It’s a very small portion of the gaming industry that works that way, and some of these people are my favourite people in the world to fight with – they’re the most beautiful and pure, brilliant people. They’re also some of the biggest fucking idiots."
> Ferrari and some of the other high-end car manufacturers still use clay and carving knives. It’s a very small portion of the gaming industry that works that way, and some of these people are my favourite people in the world to fight with – they’re the most beautiful and pure, brilliant people. They’re also some of the biggest fucking idiots.
Their CEO is certainly not calling everyone an idiot, just that there are some in that group of people. And personally, I greatly prefer this sort of frank talk to run-of-the-mill generic PR speak that usually comes from CEO interviews.
The next thing he says in the interview:
> I’ve been in the gaming industry longer than most anybody – getting to the grey hair and all that. It used to be the case that developers would throw their game over the wall to the publicist and sales force with literally no interaction beforehand. That model is baked into the philosophy of a lot of artforms and medium, and it’s one I am deeply respectful of; I know their dedication and care.