Quote

There's few examples of such games being developed, specifically because pre-Bitcoin there were a lot of problems with handling of game currency.

This biggest one of these right now, and most successful (that I know of) is Spiral Knights. The in game currency "Energy" is used to play the game, and can only be purchased. Energy can be traded on an open market for goods and other things, but all energy spawns from users purchasing it.

Another less successful game using this model is Diablo III. All items can be traded for fiat, thus all the items correlate to a real cash value.

The reason there are few examples isn't because there "were a lot of problems with handling of game currency", but because once the mechanic is introduced it creates optionalism for the players:

Quote

By contrast, the gameplay in social games is almost entirely optional. The play acts themselves are rote, usually mere actuations of operations on expired timers. And then more so, even the enacting of those rote maneuvers can be skipped, through delegation or (more often) by spending cash money on objects or actions. Social games are games you don't have to play. - Dr. Bogost

Bitcoin doesn't automagically solve this issue, it solves the payment issues in the background, but not the mechanics themselves. When you add any kind of optionalism to a game, you're essentially saying "I've added a cheat code activated by money", no matter how you try to dress it up.

Spiral Knights did RCE well because they utilized economics inside the game as opposed to game subscriptions. Buying Energy amounts to buying subscription time. They didn't make it a gameplay bypass.

I understand the desire to cash in on the whole MMO cash cow:

World of Warcraft went live in 2004. A monthly subscription is/was $15.
That means for every player that plays a year, they generate $180 of revenue.
Multiply that by the peak 15 million actively subscribed players: $2,700,000,000/year

A lot of studios joke about how in the morning the Blizzard developers and managers would collectively first grab a wad of cash, throw it on the floor and roll in it for the first two hours of their work day.

I know that there are some standard deviations in there to get a more "reasonable" number (they had specials, yearly deals, etc. that changes this generalized number), but this still clearly shows the cash to be made from a successful MMORPG.

Now lets be generous and say 1/10th of those 15 million players have been playing the past 8 years:
That's $2.16 Billion they've made from that group of players.

Again I understand the desire to capitalize on such a product, but don't let this blind you from other important issues.

Quote

Why are you in Bitcoin when so many reputable industry giants have flat out stated the many flaws in this system?

Bitcoin is it's own financial space, the financial giants have no reign here, what they say generally doesn't matter in relation to Bitcoin, because they've never used it. The ones that have still haven't used it as extensively as say MP.

What game industry legends have to say about the game industry definitely applies to any and all games.

To answer your rhetorical question: There is an invaluable educational value to Bitcoin if you're willing to sit and listen. As an anecdote, I've learned more from MP and others about business, than the so called MBA's learned during their "education". I've applied a few of MP's models to physical businesses that has been met with success.

MP wrote in his FAQ:

Quote

Bitcoin is in fact first and foremost a wonderful community of highly skilled, intelligent and open minded people which tearfully reminds one of the old days of the pre-September Internet.

Everyone yearns for the pre-September days of computing. And alas here it is. Unfortunately it seems inevitable, the flood of college students will come and dilute the intellect, but hopefully not for awhile longer.

Quote

Nobody goes "let's make some cool shit" and then, after the cool shit is made, has meetings to establish if it will be sold as a Broadway musical, a make your own adventure book series or a line of branded sodas.

Are you saying the revenue model is merged in the process of developing the product? Or are you saying that you figure out what you're going to sell and how to sell it, then you create a product within those bounds?

That just seems like it over complicates the nature of selling games. Lets take the anomaly of Minecraft for example, and I use the term anomaly because there was a lot of luck involved in its success. But Notch started by first demoing a prototype on an IndieGame forum, much in the structure of this one. He got good feedback, so he continued developing it. Eventually he started charging 5 dollars per download. Unexpectedly the game was an overnight success, so he took the numbers to someone he thought best fit the role of "Manager". At that point they sat down and discussed what you described above. From this they made a simple authentication server to track purchases, similar to the functionality of Steam.

Yes, I understand it's an anomaly, but games tend to follow: "lets make cool shit now, if people like it we'll figure out what to do". The whole concept Valve popularized of, "Keep coding and the rest will take care of itself", is a sound plan. This is why you're likely confused, you know from a realistic standpoint this generally doesn't work, but in the world of games it tends to defy reality's logic.

This is why there is a mystique surrounding the entire process. You could argue the reason it worked for Mojang is due to it being an anomaly, but they aren't the only ones who took that path and succeeded.

Isn't this the same way Satoshi got Bitcoin started?

Quote

It's not a this or that. It's doing this well, and doing that well.

That's exactly what I was trying to say in so many words. If you have a great game and a poor business strategy you go up in flames. If you have a great business strategy and a sucky game, you go up in flames. You definitely have to do both well.

Quote

You're acting as if doing the business homework somehow automagically prevents doing the creative homework

No, but I know that when business hands start trying to do creative work it ruins the creative process in the same way when artistic hands start handling money they get paint all over bills.

Quote

In a well managed project the incentives are so aligned that this never happens. If the situation is of that nature management has already amply failed, and the designs weren't in all likelihood too bright either.

This is very hard to do with games generally due to the fickle nature of gamers.

Lets take Legend of Zelda for example. The first 3-4 grew into a snowball of a franchise. Then, Ocarina of Time Comes out on the Nintendo 64, the first Zelda game to be done in 3D. A critically acclaimed success people still rave about today. A year or two later, Majora's Mask, the spiritual sequel, comes out. Fans are disappointed, the game is still well designed, uses the same fundamentals used in Ocarina of Time, but it just didn't catch on with fans. Still financially successful, but fans are now on the fence with the franchise. Okay, so Miyamoto takes a step back and says, "lets mix up the art a little, go back to the cartoon-ish roots". Windwaker is announced for the GCN, and fans go fucking bonkers, foaming at the mouth in anger. Game is still excellent, and critically acclaimed, still didn't hit fans the same way as OoT. Fans state clearly, "We want a more realistic approach", so Twilight Princess comes out, fans again foam at the mouth.

The moral of the anecdote is not that you can't please everyone, but that fans are fickle and sometimes it's a "certain place / certain time" aspect to garner both commercial and fan based success. This is why I said revenue and fan-base health hang in a balance, rather than naturally align. I applaud your optimism, but don't underestimate the fickle nature of a neckbeard gamer, nor his ability to get a large portion of the fanbase foaming at the mouth in rage.

Quote

Only if what you mean by "fanbase" is people who want to use but not pay. If that's what you mean we disagree: the free-as-in-beer-and-only-free-as-in-beer types are NOT fans. They may call themselves fans but it's a misnomer, like calling strippers chaste or politicians leaders.

This reaches back to what I stated above, sometimes the fanbase is too fickle to please at some particular time. You can have healthy sales but upset fans, and the fanbase dwindles over time, the two do not correlate. Revenue from direct game sales generally correlate to how many people purchase the game, in the same way the box office numbers correlate to how many people paid money to see the movie. It doesn't reflect how many people walked out the theatre pissed off, in the same way healthy game sales don't reflect the attitude of the fans.

The recent reboot of SimCity is a perfect example of this trend. The game was financially successful, however you'd be hard pressed not to find long term fans who have given up on the franchise due to their disappointment in the reboot of the game. Some fans who have followed the franchise for over 20 years, being long term buyers, will likely not be buying anymore Maxis games. This is a problem, a problem that EA caused by putting too much emphasis of milking revenues from a new model they applied to SimCity relating to DLC.

S.MG won't initially have this issue, as there are no games out there to have fans, (yet). But like a good drug dealer, your income is on the "come back": recurrent customers. As a game company produces games, and people become fans of those games, they also become fans of the studio. You don't have to put as much effort of convincing as many people to buy the game since there's already loyal fans who will buy the game despite what anyone tells them.

As I said, ideally you'd like for the revenue and fanbase to align, but it rarely ever does, thus it leads to difficult compromises.

Quote

There's really not much constraint, at the present time, like it or not. Maybe in time.

That's definitely good to hear. Giving open doors to the game development community is a good way to bring in worthwhile talent. Indie developers generally know they'll make terrible managers, that is why S.MG has so much potential. S.MG needs a good development community to surround it, the development community needs people to tell them when they're fucking up. I would say it's Win-Win if the attitude stays this way.

Quote

I really don't care if they are or are not. I don't think anybody sane cares

Which is why I called it a flamewar, no one truly cares. It's a debate for neckbeards to get into so they feel they are standing up for something they believe in: a fruitless and unproductive endeavor.

Quote

Now don't take this the wrong way, I understand you feel very strongly about all these topics, and in many places you raise interesting points.

Take what the wrong way? Sounds like a compliment, and I appreciate the discourse. I don't particularly feel strongly about these topics one way or the other, just trying to illuminate some of the fundamentals. Again you gotta make your free throws: they're free points.

Curious, what points did I raise in particular that were interesting?