View: https://youtu.be/5X6Q5Qqfw2w
Great insight into why (some) developers require monetisation to keep going.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Crytek explains reasoning for monetization (Developer Insight)
- Thread starter Stacey
- Start date
View: https://youtu.be/5X6Q5Qqfw2w
Great insight into why (some) developers require monetisation to keep going.
Because Stardew Valley sustaining one developer is going to be enough for a massive team of 250 employees right?
This one developer provided more quality & care than I've seen from any Crytek product.
Ok? You didn't even bother to watch the video in the first place but you were quick to jump here to say dumb shit.
Imagine believing that making a good game, especially in the MP space, is enough to sustain the economy of said game and the people behind the project.
You are truly clueless.
I find this take completely ridiculous. Great developers have released bad games, you're acting like somehow code and support make a game good and the idea behind a game has no relevance.
In the same context, how would you make a good song?
I wasn't aware that Stardew Valley is still getting pretty major updates, that's cool.
That's my positive takeaway from that dumb post
That's my positive takeaway from that dumb post
OK and? Obviously these are two totally different genres of games. Hunt Showdown is based on player retention.
Things cost money to make, to keep supporting, and so on.
Release the song, then go on tour and not charge money, is this what the person is trying to imply?
Hunt is a fantastic game. Glad they're making changes for the health of the game, it is incredible.
Nice video. Managing a MP game is really difficult (specially to make it sustainable and with constant new content) - and gamers are always clueless about game development (thanks to youtubers/streamers that are also clueless about the topic).
Stardew was made by one dude, who was living off his girlfriend while developing the game. That obviously doesn't work for a AAA game studio.
Well yeah, ofc.
You got 200+ people & the product is mediocre, that in and of itself is unsustainable to me no matter the changes to the in-game economy.
I'm interested, since you're all over this thread derailing the conversation and you clearly have played hundred of hours, what about Hunt is that mediocre or bad ?
The PvE mixed with players is awful to me, battle royale nonsense, we have plenty of ! Game tries too hard to be unique with its setting & ugh "zombies" it's shooting feel isn't anything to write home about, I could go on.
Just make a good game and itll update itself while also feeding devs?
But.
Hunt is a good game.
One of the best MP games out there actually.
OP
OP
Hunt Showdown is a phenomenal game.
Getting your game to shine through the bloatware is the issue.
All good games are financially successful? Galaxy brain stuff right here.
Looked like you just read the description of the game on steam and it's not even a battle royale but nice try with your trolling.
This is all taste stuff. The game has clearly proven itself well accomplished with its long lasting and growing player base. I've never played anything else like it, even Tarkov and its imitators are very different.
Also "battle royale nonsense" is a very clear indicator to me that you've put very little time (if any) into the game and failed to understand the point of it.
It's totally a battle royale except dying has extreme consequences, I don't claim to have 100 hours in the game. I played it twice & disdained it, the time to kill is lousy too man.
It's just a visual salad to me, like, just be a western.
"Just make a great game that becomes a megahit" is not really actionable advice unfortunately.
What you think is irrelevant.
The game is well liked by its playerbase and is active. And yet creating a good game doesn't mean it automatically sustains itself.
Titanfall 2 would still be alive if that was all it took.
Stardew Valley is an exceptional situation, and it's unreasonable to argue that the industry at large should simply just replicate the success of Stardew Valley. There are legitimate criticisms of how games are monetized, but pointing at an extraordinary case of success(which, I'll add, included the dev working years without income before release) as a viable option for developers broadly, is not a good argument.
It's not a battle royale man. Just get over yourself. You tried it, you died, and you got mad and quit.
User Banned (1 Month) - Continued history of Trolling and Thread Derailment
I died six-eight times before I quit, but, I'm not the only one.
The game is mediocre.
This is the best shooter on PC currently. They did an amazing job and are completely transparent before releasing new free content and updates. Not a single MTX in this game is pay to win, everything is purely cosmetic and fits in with the art style, unlike COD skins for example. You have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.
Might be one of the most successful thread derails ive ever seen.
Pretty good video. I do wonder if the players feel that the price increases in the Events/DLC are worth it compared to previous ones. And if what Crytek has added to the game through those events feel substantial.
Just let them take the L and report.
That watermark in the top right corner as well...
God damn.This thread right now.
That watermark in the top right corner as well...