• JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 month ago

    So, the scheme is basically to have you, the publisher, invest some money into marketing the game, to get potential players aware of it, then have them pay a one-time premium to actually play it, if they’re interested.

    • MoonMelon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Sorry that doesn’t drive MAU, DAU, or ARPPU. Also we want users on our walled garden data harvesting service that’s just “Steam but Worse”, so I’m afraid you need to close your studio. What’s that? Sorry you’re breaking up, must be something wrong with the phone here in the Swiss Alps. Ok ta ta.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      If that’s not the business model, then I’m honestly not playing it.

      And while I may be outnumbered by children playing Fortnite obsessively, at this stage of life I do have more money than gaming time.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I am okay with the “I made this game for fun and publish it for free/pay what you want because I can’t be bothered with monetization” business model too.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s more to game development than that. Setting, art style, gameplay loop, interface…

      The argument being made is that a “proven” mechanism for monetization is getting in the way of developing other attributes of gameplay, as the

      • get potential players aware of it

      and

      • then have them pay

      Steps are made the focus of design, and only known existing formulas for the above encourage the

      • invest some money

      step.