So, there's a report that shows that -for mobile game developers- 82%
of 'em find that "reward-based user acquisition outperforms
traditional marketing channels".*

Which is probably gibberish to you (I know it was to me, initially).
"Rewards based" gaming recompenses gamer "with rewards such as Amazon
vouchers for completing specific actions in a game. Those actions may
include reaching a certain level, or acquiring in-game items." So
rewards based UA means using the above to attract new gamers to your
product, with the hope that their spend will outpace the cost of the
rewards.

In the mobile game, this means making your game so grindy your players
have to buy lots of MTX to keep playing so they can level up and get
the virtual equivalent of kewpie dolls as a reward to stay on the
treadmill. Except this strategy has the added bonus of partnership
deals (with marketplaces like Amazon) and data-collection that makes
your gameplay even more valuable to the game developer, beyond what
you might bring in with all your microtransaction purchases.

A huge number of the polled mobile developers have implemented rewards
based UA strategies, most of them intend to add or expand its use in
2025, and many see it as a net benefit to the bottom line. All of
which means its going to become more prominent in mobile gaming... and
increasingly it will likely be seen as something that needs to be
added to gaming outside of the mobile space. E.g., onto PC and mobile.

Which just makes me sad for where our hobby is going. Remember when
just ENJOYING the game was enough to keep us playing? Or when we got
games that were PROGRAMMED to be enjoyable? Now it's all about the
bottom line, and rewards-based strategies like the above are only
going to make our games more predacious and tedious as they struggle
to claw back the cost of those rewards.

And people wonder why I keep such a prodigious library of old games.
Why shouldn't I, when those games were actually fun to play and not
designed to separate me from my last penny?

* linky link!
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-82-of-mobile-game-devs-say-reward-based-ua-outperforms-traditional-channels

On 28/01/2025 17:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Which just makes me sad for where our hobby is going. Remember when
> just ENJOYING the game was enough to keep us playing? Or when we got
> games that were PROGRAMMED to be enjoyable? Now it's all about the
> bottom line, and rewards-based strategies like the above are only
> going to make our games more predacious and tedious as they struggle
> to claw back the cost of those rewards.

I've said it many times but one of my biggest gripes is the number of
games where the model off give us money as you'll enjoy playing this
game has been replaced by we'll use ever trick in the book for 'player
engagement' even if you're not really enjoying it that much. Oh you
don't feel like playing today, well you wouldn't want to miss out on the
daily rewards would you. That battle pass you just bought, it would be a
shame to waste it.

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 08:20:36 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 28/01/2025 17:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Which just makes me sad for where our hobby is going. Remember when
>> just ENJOYING the game was enough to keep us playing? Or when we got
>> games that were PROGRAMMED to be enjoyable? Now it's all about the
>> bottom line, and rewards-based strategies like the above are only
>> going to make our games more predacious and tedious as they struggle
>> to claw back the cost of those rewards.
>
>I've said it many times but one of my biggest gripes is the number of
>games where the model off give us money as you'll enjoy playing this
>game has been replaced by we'll use ever trick in the book for 'player
>engagement' even if you're not really enjoying it that much. Oh you
>don't feel like playing today, well you wouldn't want to miss out on the
>daily rewards would you. That battle pass you just bought, it would be a
>shame to waste it.

It's almost understandable with triple-A games that cost hundreds of
millions of dollars. Just selling the game for $70USD per game, you'd
need to sell tens of millions of copies to break even.

[Some quick back-of-the-napkin math: assuming $500 million
development costs and the same for marketing and
production, and a 50% cut goes to the marketplaces
(Walmart, Steam) and for returns, etc, a $70USD game
would have to sell 28.5 million copies to break even.
Since you generally want to make at least 150% cost so you
have cash-in-bank for future products (and to smooth over
any flops), actual expected sales would be 42 million.
According to Wikipedia, only 15 video games ever have sold
this many copies.

It's estimated 100,000 video games have been developed. This
means you'd have to be as popular as the top 0.015% of all
video games. That's not a very practical business model.]

Of course, this is a self-inflicted wound by the triple-A publishers.
There's no real reason games have to cost this must. But from an
accounting perspective, it's no surprise that publishers look to
alternate methods of income. But it feels very much like applying
bandages to your wounds with one hand whilst stabbing yourself in the
leg with the other.

Meanwhile, there are suggestions that GTA6 may sell with a retail cost
of $100USD, and that this will trigger other games to up the price to
a similar level. Again, an understandable reaction but not one, I
think, that will work out the way they hope. People are getting
squeezed financially, and that price jump will probably mean they'll
just buy fewer games.