-
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.
Devs not baking monetisation into the creative process are “fucking idiots”, says Unity’s CEO John Riccitiello
- Thread starter Soundchaser
- Start date
The literal idea that you can be a basement developer in your parents house is the domain those those with privilege .
Being privileged can mean lots of things : Maybe your parents were in a good socioeconomic place where you went to a good school or even sent you to one, you went to university and your parents funded it - you learned the skills that you have become of this. It might be you got to live with them whilst you studied in a huge international city that was outside the possibility of you funding that whilst studying - it might be that they supported your in other ways and helped you moved internationally. And this is before you consider that you might be a white male.
Last edited:
That's what he's saying in the context of pitching Unity merging with IronSource to integrate its malware, yes. When he talks about "giving devs tools to get the information" the tool he's talking about is the malware platform they just bought.
If Coke bought a toxic waste disposal company and gave an interview talking about how anyone who didn't want their soda to provide them with "exciting new fission opportunities", would y'all be like "he's just talking about providing drinkers with new experiences!" and not understand that the underlying meaning was "we want to poison consumers"
I think the misunderstanding between what you are viewing as the two sides is in the agreement/disagreement on what is happening here. The people who are saying "what he's saying is (can be) correct" are taking the statement at face value or as an overall game dev philosophy. The other side is seeing someone grifting malware that makes games worse.
Both can be true.
If an actual lizard-person was hocking cyber viruses that injected themselves into user's bank accounts and siphoned funds and said "You should start thinking about the price of your game while you are doing initial scoping." They would both, be correct for the present market, and a horrible monster for what they are peddling.
But someone (especially experienced someones) saying "Lizard man is right about thinking about price" doesn't mean they think injecting neural viruses into software to drain bank accounts is the right way to go about it.
I think it's fair to think early on about how your game will be sold. For example, if you decide very late that your new fighting game IP should be free 2 play (to increase the chance of people testing the game), it's going to be a huge hassle to retrofit all of your systems, modes, customization etc. into a pipeline that works for the game in a free to play state, where it can be released and not feel like a sleazy product that you don't want to invest money into.
But I doubt this kind of scenario is what John is thinking about, but rather "how can the game be designed around maximizing profit".
But I doubt this kind of scenario is what John is thinking about, but rather "how can the game be designed around maximizing profit".
You're not wrong, but it's a hellspace at least in part because the SDK features available to devs enable them to throw obnoxious ad interstitials into their apps with ease. The end result of this merger is going to be further proliferation of these hellscape-y monetization and data collection techniques since they're now built-in to the most popular mobile game engine.
And to be clear, that "watch a 30 second ad for a power-up" wasn't a hypothetical, it's literally one of the advertised services of IronSource:
I guess it'll technically help small devs make more money though so... hooray?
I guess? What I'm saying at heart is "when an asshole with a history of doing asshole things says something superficially correct but is actually saying it in the specific context of doing something super-assholey, focusing in on the superficially-correct bit is missing the forest for the trees, especially if you insist everybody who isn't taking the asshole's superficial claim at face value is wrong/being hysterical at the same time".
Having a business model is important for anything, including games. This interview had nothing whatsoever to do with pitching "having a business model" to game devs. It's specifically about putting a positive spin on the malware company they just announced they're merging with.
Riccitello probably still remembers fondly the unprecedented two times he won worst company in the world as CEO and wants to let Unity have some of that as well.
Yes capitalism is the thing ruining this industry, we understand.
LOL that was Exhibit A of everything wrong with gamers. We had a collapsing economy, the likes of Bank of America and other major banks responsible for untold misery, a housing market collapse, nearly nine million jobs lost in the US, a huge recession, etc., and yet gamers voted in droves that EA was the worst company in the country because they weren't happy the Battlefield servers were up and down the first week of launch or whatever bullshit excuse they had. Ridiculous.
You know while the advice may be useable. I'm not about to listen to the guy that's causing the exact same issues at Unity that he caused when he was at EA. Man's over here preaching to devs about how to make a better monetization plan yet he ain't listening to devs on how to make unity a better product for them lol.
You're not wrong, but it's a hellspace at least in part because the SDK features available to devs enable them to throw obnoxious ad interstitials into their apps with ease. The end result of this merger is going to be further proliferation of these hellscape-y monetization and data collection techniques since they're now built-in to the most popular mobile game engine.
And to be clear, that "watch a 30 second ad for a power-up" wasn't a hypothetical, it's literally one of the advertised services of IronSource:
I guess it'll technically help small devs make more money though so... hooray?
This is definitely one of those bigger philosophical questions about implementing this type of crap. I personally wouldn't do any of this garbage unless absolutely forced to, but it's weird to think about how giving access to the tools that allow devs to do it is worse for everyone involved. Like...the idea that devs are pure-hearted angels that would otherwise create pure-art masterpieces that make users cry but for access to the siren's call of available monetization options and feedback tools.
It's like...if not for access to ease of monetization, would the games be made better...or just not made at all?
Ol Johnny boy could probably argue that with proper feedback tools, one could calibrate a "compulsion loop" to better fit the given audience. He literally argues that a game could fail because it was designed around a 30 minute loop when it should have been 2 hours (seemingly benefitting the play vs. ad/monetization in favour of the customer based on that feedback). Of course the tools are designed to monetize PRECISELY at the minimum amount of enjoyment to the maximum amount of payout, but he'd argue that's a metric set by the people playing, not the people making the game.
Sure, same way as finding a lost wallet full of money and returning it makes you a fucking idiot.
Some people are in the industry because they want to make games, some just want to make money. You must be a real asshole to not understand that
Some people are in the industry because they want to make games, some just want to make money. You must be a real asshole to not understand that
Last edited:
That EA could even make the top-10 was an amazing display of how shithouse and insular the gaming "community" is.
Sounds like 100% EA's mindset lol.
Funnily though, they got Respawn to make an online shooter and they nailed it (great game, huge population and I assume a very good revenue stream for EA) but right after that they succeeded in making a single player Star Wars game that, to my knowledge, has no monetization and was in fact the first successful Star Wars game in a long time. So I guess how successful a game is (financially) might be related to the devs being good... with or without mtx.
Funnily though, they got Respawn to make an online shooter and they nailed it (great game, huge population and I assume a very good revenue stream for EA) but right after that they succeeded in making a single player Star Wars game that, to my knowledge, has no monetization and was in fact the first successful Star Wars game in a long time. So I guess how successful a game is (financially) might be related to the devs being good... with or without mtx.
so like... there's some amount of truth here, but mostly in a direction that I probably wouldn't be openly stating if I were him lol
notably, if you don't "bake monetization into the creative process" but there ends up being monetization in your game (likely because the people that supply you with funding have said "no, you're monetizing this"), it is bad for your game and it will often clash with your game design. you have to design with that in mind from the start in order to make a version of monetization that won't feel tacked-on and exploitative. so there is sort of truth to this statement from that angle.
from a different angle, just saying "if you don't monetize your game, you're dumb" is... it's john riccitiello, that's for sure
notably, if you don't "bake monetization into the creative process" but there ends up being monetization in your game (likely because the people that supply you with funding have said "no, you're monetizing this"), it is bad for your game and it will often clash with your game design. you have to design with that in mind from the start in order to make a version of monetization that won't feel tacked-on and exploitative. so there is sort of truth to this statement from that angle.
from a different angle, just saying "if you don't monetize your game, you're dumb" is... it's john riccitiello, that's for sure
Ads and analytics have been built-in, easy to use and implement Unity features for a decade or so. Including rewarded video ads of course.
Lots of overreaction ITT.
The business side of video games is just as important as the artistic side of it all, maybe more so when talking about longevity and security for your employees. While a bit uncouth, he wants his clients to succeed because it means more profits for his company in the long term.
They really were the best to ever do it
God I miss IT so so so much!
All that was showing is how gamers are idiots and shouldn't be trusted with polls when much worst companies did much worst and EA wasn't even close to the worst company.
The full quote is much better than what the op and thread was made in.
The quote doesn't really sound quite as harsh in context. It's clearly tongue in cheek.
And he's not wrong, sadly. I think there's that romanticized image of a group of indie devs coming together to unleash all of their creativity into this wonderful piece of entertainment they develop over the span of two or three or maybe even four years that then by its sheer brilliancy alone makes them money hand over fist. But these stories are the exception from the rule and the market is so incredibly crowded nowadays that this romanticized approach will most likely lead to misery. It's a business like any other and that means that from the very start you'll need to make up your mind what you wanna sell, how and if there's actually a market for that.
And he's not wrong, sadly. I think there's that romanticized image of a group of indie devs coming together to unleash all of their creativity into this wonderful piece of entertainment they develop over the span of two or three or maybe even four years that then by its sheer brilliancy alone makes them money hand over fist. But these stories are the exception from the rule and the market is so incredibly crowded nowadays that this romanticized approach will most likely lead to misery. It's a business like any other and that means that from the very start you'll need to make up your mind what you wanna sell, how and if there's actually a market for that.
What if we could monetize jumping?! AND EACH JUMP WOULD COST A JUMP GEM, AND THEY COULD BUY JUMP GEMS IN BUNDLES! WE"D BE RICH! RICH! *laughs hysterically while he foams at the mouth in his straightjacket*
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE
John Riccitello has been saying things like this for over a decade. He is a complete jackass.
Even in context, I'm not sure how far I'm going to go to rehabilitate the remarks of a guy who oversaw FIFA-ing a generation into video game gambling.
This guy isn't just talking about like, having a business plan.
This guy isn't just talking about like, having a business plan.
Ironically that will be the only thing that allows EA to continue making football games given they've dropped the license
Unity has lost most of its ease of use advantage for indies, and its very far behind the AAA potential of UE5.
It's a business first and a craft last for these people. They don't belong in the process because they dilute it by not recognizing what people who engage with the hobby care about in the first place.
Exactly. I can't believe people are actually saying the full quote is better when all it does is lay bare his entire cynical philosophy.
I'd take the over on 50 posts praising him before the airbags deployed.
Around his timeframe at EA is when games started to feel more like products and less like games. Not surprised that he said that.
