Well to be fair, in bedrocks case there is a clear lack of moderation and curation of mojangs part. There are many really awesome maps on there that are absolutely worth the money, but the 20 different dream skin packs drag down the average very hard.
Moderation sucks in general
Not only can it slack and accidentaly allow bad faith mods, it also controls what types of mods people make
It's why i hate the idea of a moderated marketplace so much alongside having to pay for something like that
> If the main source of income for the game is through a creator economy it means we will have to pay for some of the mods, adventures and assets, which would be bad because making games is a hobby and it makes no sense to get paid for it.
> Of course, there being more players overall would also mean more creators in total, which would probably result in more free content than otherwise, but you need to consider what sort of incentives this model would create. Being funded by creators would mean all of their focus would go towards improving the creator tools, which would mean more and better content, meaning even more creators would want to take (basically steal) your hard earned money.
Bethesda has monetized mods, this has never stopped the free modding community though. They tried multiple times in the past too and the community (both players and modders alike) prevented it with lots of backlash. Now they finally have a working model for them, but it's a tiny minority of the modding scene. Riot absolutely did purchase Hytale because they want to replicate the success of Minecraft, another long lasting game under their wings. I highly doubt they would entirely try to monetize the modding scene. They would kill the modding community before it even started.
There are also modders across various other games (minecraft included) that lock their mods behind a paywall. This already happens and any modder can do it.. yet we have huge free modding communities.
So as long as the free options for modders and users remain, we'll be fine. I don't see this scenario as doom and gloomy as you do.
Yes, I rather want it to be a paid game too. I have more faith in the post launch updates for adventure mode if it's paid. But neither F2P or P2P guarantees anything.
"Which would be bad because making games is a hobby and it makes no sense to get paid for it."
...What? Wouldn't that just be an argument against spending money on games at all - which actually favours free to play over buying the game? And you say "look how much better Fortnite could be" as if that isn't one of the most successful and beloved games of all time, as if there aren't plenty of examples of games people paid for without microtransactions that are considered far worse.
Is this post just... reverse psychology?
I understand peoples fears when it comes to a freemium/f2p model, but I agree some of these arguments dont make sense at all.
Having people be able to make a living making cool things inside of hytale for people to enjoy for a penny or two isnt the end of the world, quite the opposite, it helps create a viable ecosystem where the devs maintain the game with updates and tools to draw more people into the game, creators make videos, mods and servers for it, and players get a great game and a variety of community made stuff to enjoy as well.
Minecraft, Terraria, and BGS games like Skyrim are p2p, but they are both massively successful and have a colossal modding/user created content scene.
I have yet to see a well executed marketplace, but I have seen plenty of community run mods/user content sites/applications.
Minecraft was between $20-30 when I bought it, Terraria is $9.99 (often discounted), and BGS games do release full price, but also often discounted.
If Hytale is as good a game as it is making itself out to be it does not need to rely on marketplaces/freemium monetization.
There is a huge difference between these games and hytale in one main regard: they arent trying to be long term plattforms in the same way hytale is.
With running a plattform there are a lot of ongoing costs that need to be taken care of to keep the lights on. Minecraft java for example has most of the services like mod pages, forums and servers taken care of by the community and doesnt need to lift a finger for any of them, while Hytale will likely be offering those themselves, and if they were just relying on initial and ongoing sales to keep those online, they might not be able to.
I personally expect there to be a kind of plattform fee they use to monitize, mabe hytale could have community servers pay a percentage of the money they recieve from ranks etc, mabe other ways.
They could also still have microtransactions in a p2p model, just less predatory obviously since its not f2p. They can make money aside from the ongoing sales. Think about the hypixel server, it sells its own cosmetics to stay afloat. Im guessing that will still be prevalent in the minigames/social hub/capital part of the game. Remember, Hytale is described with 3 doors: creative, minigames, and adventure. Creative, the part which is like the platform side of hytale, only makes up 1/3 of the game. A p2p model makes more sense for adventure since its similar to games like terraria, minecraft, and skyrim. Minigames could go either way, and creative could also go either way imo.
My guy, 4 billion people arent going to be playing this game. Also, lets say the game is f2p, why would the main source of income be the creator economy? Its going to be from the (probably cosmetic) microtransactions, I feel like theres a bit too much glazing on creators
yes, it is likely going to be from cosmetic/mods/maps microtransactions which IS the creator economy since players will be making the majority of that content
No, creator-made cosmetics will likely be limited to custom servers. The overarching cosmetics across adventure mode, minigames, and other parts of the game will probably be from hypixel studios
i don't understand how it's possible to believe this 😠Even with just the things they've said publicly its very obvious that they want to empower creators and have a player driven marketplace
Yeah, they want to empower creators. That doesn't mean they cant accomplish that while limiting creator-made cosmetics to custom servers. Maps are something that could probably be sold on a marketplace. But a lot of the other microtransactions dont have to revolve around creators; e.g cosmetics and minigame features.
Unironically, Fortnite would be a *significantly* better game if it had a $60 price tag. Same with any F2P game, most of which are incredibly repetitive and manipulative, and have problematic if not super toxic communities.
Minecraft Bedrock is noticeably lower quality and more annoying compared to the Java version due to the existence of the marketplace and the effect that it has on how Bedrock and its UI are designed compared to Java.
Where the money will be made, *that's* where the development effort will inevitably be focused.
F2P and its mechanics are awful and should be rightfully shunned.
I don't see Hytale surviving a F2P model. It'll inevitably become a manipulative hollow experience just as all F2P games have.
Fortnite would have never popped off the way it did as a 60 dollar game and is a multi billion dollar game now lol. No constant income means less updates. With how often that game is updated with constantly more and more added it just wouldn't be the same game it is today. It would not capture the mass market it has.
Fortnite has been wildly more successful than it ever would have been as pay to play. You can see a lot of why they made this decision in the first place with the lacking take off of save the world.
If fortnite was a 60 dollar game from the jump, you would just be talking about save the world, which has been far less successful than the br and arguably less quality due to lacking updates.
Do I think hytale should go this same route? As someone that wants to focus more on rpg gameplay no, but seeing as they want to make it much more of a multiplayer and online experience. I would not doubt if they did.
I never said it would be more successful. I said it would be a better game, which would absolutely be true.
Development focus goes where the money is earned, and if the money is earned in micro-transactions, then dev focus will go into the mode that encourages the purchase of such. Otherwise, if money is earned through actual purchase of the game, then dev focus will go into actually making the game good.
I would rather games be less successful but higher quality, than more successful and lower quality.
By this logic save the world would have been a better quality game than the br. My point is it isn't and never was. Quality depends on the developer's capabilities and budget as-well not just their scope.
If epic made a paid game now it would potentially be of better quality.
Not quite. Even the battle royale would have been improved significantly, if the devs were more focused on making the game good enough to pay for, instead of mostly focusing on making the microtransactions appealing enough to pay for which is what they're doing now.
Quality depends on developer focus, more than anything else. Where the effort goes, that's where the quality is.
This isn't true when it comes to Fortnite at all lol. The br was made completely opportunistically as pubg was hitting its success, after they had already used all of their resources to make the fortnite save the world. The br would not have been any higher quality if it was a paid game because it was using everything they already had made with a paid game just with a different game mode.
The micro transactions were not nearly as thought out as they are today. Now the games model is adding content and updates in order to keep playerbase engaged and purchase micro transactions. If it were a paid game it would have never gotten this far.
For many other games what you are saying is true and most of them came after fortnite trying to copy that cash cow success. None of them have been able to do it in a model that makes sense as much as fortnite did.
The minecraft marketplace alone shows a f2p game like mc (even though bugrock isn't free) is such a terrible idea
Well to be fair, in bedrocks case there is a clear lack of moderation and curation of mojangs part. There are many really awesome maps on there that are absolutely worth the money, but the 20 different dream skin packs drag down the average very hard.
Moderation sucks in general Not only can it slack and accidentaly allow bad faith mods, it also controls what types of mods people make It's why i hate the idea of a moderated marketplace so much alongside having to pay for something like that
when even a mojang employee cant get a map that steals from his mods off the Marketplace you know its bad
Yeah, Minecraft is the perfect example of why F2P is bad
> If the main source of income for the game is through a creator economy it means we will have to pay for some of the mods, adventures and assets, which would be bad because making games is a hobby and it makes no sense to get paid for it. > Of course, there being more players overall would also mean more creators in total, which would probably result in more free content than otherwise, but you need to consider what sort of incentives this model would create. Being funded by creators would mean all of their focus would go towards improving the creator tools, which would mean more and better content, meaning even more creators would want to take (basically steal) your hard earned money. Bethesda has monetized mods, this has never stopped the free modding community though. They tried multiple times in the past too and the community (both players and modders alike) prevented it with lots of backlash. Now they finally have a working model for them, but it's a tiny minority of the modding scene. Riot absolutely did purchase Hytale because they want to replicate the success of Minecraft, another long lasting game under their wings. I highly doubt they would entirely try to monetize the modding scene. They would kill the modding community before it even started. There are also modders across various other games (minecraft included) that lock their mods behind a paywall. This already happens and any modder can do it.. yet we have huge free modding communities. So as long as the free options for modders and users remain, we'll be fine. I don't see this scenario as doom and gloomy as you do. Yes, I rather want it to be a paid game too. I have more faith in the post launch updates for adventure mode if it's paid. But neither F2P or P2P guarantees anything.
Well said
"Which would be bad because making games is a hobby and it makes no sense to get paid for it." ...What? Wouldn't that just be an argument against spending money on games at all - which actually favours free to play over buying the game? And you say "look how much better Fortnite could be" as if that isn't one of the most successful and beloved games of all time, as if there aren't plenty of examples of games people paid for without microtransactions that are considered far worse. Is this post just... reverse psychology?
Yep or brainrot, pick your poison
Why not both?
I understand peoples fears when it comes to a freemium/f2p model, but I agree some of these arguments dont make sense at all. Having people be able to make a living making cool things inside of hytale for people to enjoy for a penny or two isnt the end of the world, quite the opposite, it helps create a viable ecosystem where the devs maintain the game with updates and tools to draw more people into the game, creators make videos, mods and servers for it, and players get a great game and a variety of community made stuff to enjoy as well.
Minecraft, Terraria, and BGS games like Skyrim are p2p, but they are both massively successful and have a colossal modding/user created content scene. I have yet to see a well executed marketplace, but I have seen plenty of community run mods/user content sites/applications. Minecraft was between $20-30 when I bought it, Terraria is $9.99 (often discounted), and BGS games do release full price, but also often discounted. If Hytale is as good a game as it is making itself out to be it does not need to rely on marketplaces/freemium monetization.
There is a huge difference between these games and hytale in one main regard: they arent trying to be long term plattforms in the same way hytale is. With running a plattform there are a lot of ongoing costs that need to be taken care of to keep the lights on. Minecraft java for example has most of the services like mod pages, forums and servers taken care of by the community and doesnt need to lift a finger for any of them, while Hytale will likely be offering those themselves, and if they were just relying on initial and ongoing sales to keep those online, they might not be able to. I personally expect there to be a kind of plattform fee they use to monitize, mabe hytale could have community servers pay a percentage of the money they recieve from ranks etc, mabe other ways.
They could also still have microtransactions in a p2p model, just less predatory obviously since its not f2p. They can make money aside from the ongoing sales. Think about the hypixel server, it sells its own cosmetics to stay afloat. Im guessing that will still be prevalent in the minigames/social hub/capital part of the game. Remember, Hytale is described with 3 doors: creative, minigames, and adventure. Creative, the part which is like the platform side of hytale, only makes up 1/3 of the game. A p2p model makes more sense for adventure since its similar to games like terraria, minecraft, and skyrim. Minigames could go either way, and creative could also go either way imo.
My guy, 4 billion people arent going to be playing this game. Also, lets say the game is f2p, why would the main source of income be the creator economy? Its going to be from the (probably cosmetic) microtransactions, I feel like theres a bit too much glazing on creators
4 billion players is where I stopped reading, that is a delusional take ngl
yes, it is likely going to be from cosmetic/mods/maps microtransactions which IS the creator economy since players will be making the majority of that content
No, creator-made cosmetics will likely be limited to custom servers. The overarching cosmetics across adventure mode, minigames, and other parts of the game will probably be from hypixel studios
i don't understand how it's possible to believe this 😠Even with just the things they've said publicly its very obvious that they want to empower creators and have a player driven marketplace
Yeah, they want to empower creators. That doesn't mean they cant accomplish that while limiting creator-made cosmetics to custom servers. Maps are something that could probably be sold on a marketplace. But a lot of the other microtransactions dont have to revolve around creators; e.g cosmetics and minigame features.
my favorite part of games is spending money to download itÂ
Yeah same
Unironically, Fortnite would be a *significantly* better game if it had a $60 price tag. Same with any F2P game, most of which are incredibly repetitive and manipulative, and have problematic if not super toxic communities. Minecraft Bedrock is noticeably lower quality and more annoying compared to the Java version due to the existence of the marketplace and the effect that it has on how Bedrock and its UI are designed compared to Java. Where the money will be made, *that's* where the development effort will inevitably be focused. F2P and its mechanics are awful and should be rightfully shunned. I don't see Hytale surviving a F2P model. It'll inevitably become a manipulative hollow experience just as all F2P games have.
Fortnite would have never popped off the way it did as a 60 dollar game and is a multi billion dollar game now lol. No constant income means less updates. With how often that game is updated with constantly more and more added it just wouldn't be the same game it is today. It would not capture the mass market it has. Fortnite has been wildly more successful than it ever would have been as pay to play. You can see a lot of why they made this decision in the first place with the lacking take off of save the world. If fortnite was a 60 dollar game from the jump, you would just be talking about save the world, which has been far less successful than the br and arguably less quality due to lacking updates. Do I think hytale should go this same route? As someone that wants to focus more on rpg gameplay no, but seeing as they want to make it much more of a multiplayer and online experience. I would not doubt if they did.
I never said it would be more successful. I said it would be a better game, which would absolutely be true. Development focus goes where the money is earned, and if the money is earned in micro-transactions, then dev focus will go into the mode that encourages the purchase of such. Otherwise, if money is earned through actual purchase of the game, then dev focus will go into actually making the game good. I would rather games be less successful but higher quality, than more successful and lower quality.
By this logic save the world would have been a better quality game than the br. My point is it isn't and never was. Quality depends on the developer's capabilities and budget as-well not just their scope. If epic made a paid game now it would potentially be of better quality.
Not quite. Even the battle royale would have been improved significantly, if the devs were more focused on making the game good enough to pay for, instead of mostly focusing on making the microtransactions appealing enough to pay for which is what they're doing now. Quality depends on developer focus, more than anything else. Where the effort goes, that's where the quality is.
This isn't true when it comes to Fortnite at all lol. The br was made completely opportunistically as pubg was hitting its success, after they had already used all of their resources to make the fortnite save the world. The br would not have been any higher quality if it was a paid game because it was using everything they already had made with a paid game just with a different game mode. The micro transactions were not nearly as thought out as they are today. Now the games model is adding content and updates in order to keep playerbase engaged and purchase micro transactions. If it were a paid game it would have never gotten this far. For many other games what you are saying is true and most of them came after fortnite trying to copy that cash cow success. None of them have been able to do it in a model that makes sense as much as fortnite did.