Okay everyone the news is in, Christmas is cancelled and everything good has left the server. All those little hopes and dreams you had for 2020, dash them to the winds because chaos and evil are all that reigns here today. What could possible have me expositing such doom and gloom, you ask? Did I run out of sugar for my morning bowl of sugar? No and I will enjoy my cholesterol, thank you very much. Gaming communities were shocked today to hear that their saviours, CD Projekt Red, would be succumbing to the dark forces of Microtransactions when it comes to their Online outing for Cyberpunk. (I guess there really are; No More Heroes.)
Usually I would delight in the destruction of a paragon of the community, for I always expect the worse from everyone and hardly sneeze whenever I am proved right, However, this time is different. This is the third time that we, I'm referring to the RPG community as well myself, have been burned by another trusted developer. First Bioware went the way of corporate with the rushed Andromeda and the gutted Anthem, then Bethesda turned their backs on RPG with the soulless Fallout 4 and, whatever the heck Fallout 76 is; and now Cyberpunk's VP and CEO have confirmed monetisation making its way to their next full price title, truly this is the darkest timeline. Except, as with every attention grabbing 'headline', that is not the full story.
First of all, I've heard a damn lot about the potential of microtransactions making it's way into Cyberpunk Online (or whatever this incredibly unclear project ends up being called) even though the sound bit in question features literally no mention of MTX. In a financial teleconference held by CDPR's VP of finance, Piotr Nielubowitz and CDPR CEO, Adam Kicinski (so glad this is a written blog) they address this issue in very uncertain terms. Allow me to transcribe: "As far as the monetisation on the multiplayer for Cyberpunk is concerned, we believe right now it is definitely too early to share any details on that or (deep?) guidance. The project is ... in the early stage. We keep experimenting, it's our first multiplayer game and we've checked different options and possibilities and it's definitely not the time to point you to a certain specific direction on that. But you can expect that we won't change our general policy toward (deals?) with gamers, so expect wise monetisation and always value for money." Now that transcript may not be exactly one-to-one, they may have been kind enough to be speaking English but that audio quality plus their accents can be difficult to hear, but what I've picked out from it straight away is the fact that no one has anything planned yet.
Now usually whenever I hear statements to this avail I call it out for the lying bull that it usually is. That absolute drivel we typically get when Devs come out and claim that they don't know what monetisation will look like until the day of launch, drives me crazy with how stupid it is as a statement. (Oh really? You guys have no idea what monetisation will look like! Is that how you got the funding to make the damn thing, by going "I dunno" in the pitch meeting? You lying sacks of-) But this is a situation in which I am legitimately more inclined to trust the word of management when they that they have literally no clue, for several reasons.
Firstly, this is another CDPR game that is self published, meaning that they have no overseers to make grand promises to and can make sweeping changes to the structure of the game without having to worry about pushback from another entity. This means that it is entirely possible, and likely, that they are working on developing game before they even bring up microtransactions. Secondly, this game is really, really early in development. If you remember, despite the idea having floated around for several years right now, it was only a month or so back that the project was publicly confirmed. This was accompanied alongside a casting call for developers to sign up and help them make the thing, something they did for Cyberpunk during the planning stages of pre-production. And if that alone doesn't sell you on the fact that this game isn't even a fetus yet, how about the fact that CDPR still have no idea what the game will end up being. Maybe it will be a DLC, maybe a standalone product, no one has any idea because they're so early in development they likely haven't even finished setting up a file directory for future assets. Thirdly, and my least favourite point, because they said so. CDPR have been the most 'real' AAA developers in the industry for a good many years right now, and their brand has been built on establishing trust between the consumers and the developers. Such a harmony has been broken before by other developers, granted, but I'm willing to give the team the benefit of the doubt here. They'll probably hold a public press announcement once they settle on a monetisation model, and I'll appreciate their candidness when they do.
One important factor that we must account for in this situation is whether or not the concept of monetisation is, inherently, bad. Of course, you'll get those morons out there that will label you a 'cheapskate' if you don't shell out for additional content, (see: the idiots who signed up to Fallout 1st)
but there is a valid argument to be made for the fact that monetisation helps fuel perpetual development. Of course, most people tend not to realize exactly what it means to 'feul development', and labour under the erroneous presumption that microtransaction profits make it directly into developers pockets (it doesn't) or that a studio needs microtransactions in order to survive. (99 out of 100 times, things are no where near that dire.) Although, that doesn't mean that a steady source of income doesn't go a long way to reassuring publishers and investors that this project is worth keeping around and that players are really gelling with the direction of things. (Which is why it is irredeemably short-sighted to support Bethesda's Fallout 76 under the assumption that they'll work harder on the game. You're literally rewarding them for doing next to nothing and telling them that you'll continue to fund their lethargy for the foreseeable future.)
The problem I have with monetisation is the way it starts as a pebble and becomes a landslide, almost always. It's always something small and inconsequential 'here's a cosmetic. Don't worry, you can buy it with in-game money too!' and within no time flat it morphs into something vile and predatory wherein players are forced to dish out extra cash in order to have a good time. Presumably this is what CDPR want to avoid when they talk about 'wise monetisation'. They want to strike some sort of balance between what players get by buying the game and what others get by buying even more. That's still a recipe for disaster in my book, but I've already committed to give the team a pass for now so I'll relent.
Monetisation is truly one of the trickiest issues to circumnavigate as a developer, as the concept is so synonymous with overbearing greed. It's hard to operate on a moral high ground when you're attempting to twist player's arms into dropping extra cash and misimplementation can have the knock on effect of devaluing the initial work that you put together for the game. I think that CDPR have put themselves on a very slippery road with this latest, unintentional, announcement, and all of the gaming world will be on lookout to see how they handle it. Fingers crossed they manage with half the amount on grace with which they put their single player games together. I'm sure that the conversation will continue to ramp up for the next couple of months, but I'll do my best to lay-off until we get more concrete information on what this Online component of Cyberpunk even is. (I'll ignore the whispers, which I wish would go away.)
Usually I would delight in the destruction of a paragon of the community, for I always expect the worse from everyone and hardly sneeze whenever I am proved right, However, this time is different. This is the third time that we, I'm referring to the RPG community as well myself, have been burned by another trusted developer. First Bioware went the way of corporate with the rushed Andromeda and the gutted Anthem, then Bethesda turned their backs on RPG with the soulless Fallout 4 and, whatever the heck Fallout 76 is; and now Cyberpunk's VP and CEO have confirmed monetisation making its way to their next full price title, truly this is the darkest timeline. Except, as with every attention grabbing 'headline', that is not the full story.
First of all, I've heard a damn lot about the potential of microtransactions making it's way into Cyberpunk Online (or whatever this incredibly unclear project ends up being called) even though the sound bit in question features literally no mention of MTX. In a financial teleconference held by CDPR's VP of finance, Piotr Nielubowitz and CDPR CEO, Adam Kicinski (so glad this is a written blog) they address this issue in very uncertain terms. Allow me to transcribe: "As far as the monetisation on the multiplayer for Cyberpunk is concerned, we believe right now it is definitely too early to share any details on that or (deep?) guidance. The project is ... in the early stage. We keep experimenting, it's our first multiplayer game and we've checked different options and possibilities and it's definitely not the time to point you to a certain specific direction on that. But you can expect that we won't change our general policy toward (deals?) with gamers, so expect wise monetisation and always value for money." Now that transcript may not be exactly one-to-one, they may have been kind enough to be speaking English but that audio quality plus their accents can be difficult to hear, but what I've picked out from it straight away is the fact that no one has anything planned yet.
Now usually whenever I hear statements to this avail I call it out for the lying bull that it usually is. That absolute drivel we typically get when Devs come out and claim that they don't know what monetisation will look like until the day of launch, drives me crazy with how stupid it is as a statement. (Oh really? You guys have no idea what monetisation will look like! Is that how you got the funding to make the damn thing, by going "I dunno" in the pitch meeting? You lying sacks of-) But this is a situation in which I am legitimately more inclined to trust the word of management when they that they have literally no clue, for several reasons.
Firstly, this is another CDPR game that is self published, meaning that they have no overseers to make grand promises to and can make sweeping changes to the structure of the game without having to worry about pushback from another entity. This means that it is entirely possible, and likely, that they are working on developing game before they even bring up microtransactions. Secondly, this game is really, really early in development. If you remember, despite the idea having floated around for several years right now, it was only a month or so back that the project was publicly confirmed. This was accompanied alongside a casting call for developers to sign up and help them make the thing, something they did for Cyberpunk during the planning stages of pre-production. And if that alone doesn't sell you on the fact that this game isn't even a fetus yet, how about the fact that CDPR still have no idea what the game will end up being. Maybe it will be a DLC, maybe a standalone product, no one has any idea because they're so early in development they likely haven't even finished setting up a file directory for future assets. Thirdly, and my least favourite point, because they said so. CDPR have been the most 'real' AAA developers in the industry for a good many years right now, and their brand has been built on establishing trust between the consumers and the developers. Such a harmony has been broken before by other developers, granted, but I'm willing to give the team the benefit of the doubt here. They'll probably hold a public press announcement once they settle on a monetisation model, and I'll appreciate their candidness when they do.
One important factor that we must account for in this situation is whether or not the concept of monetisation is, inherently, bad. Of course, you'll get those morons out there that will label you a 'cheapskate' if you don't shell out for additional content, (see: the idiots who signed up to Fallout 1st)
but there is a valid argument to be made for the fact that monetisation helps fuel perpetual development. Of course, most people tend not to realize exactly what it means to 'feul development', and labour under the erroneous presumption that microtransaction profits make it directly into developers pockets (it doesn't) or that a studio needs microtransactions in order to survive. (99 out of 100 times, things are no where near that dire.) Although, that doesn't mean that a steady source of income doesn't go a long way to reassuring publishers and investors that this project is worth keeping around and that players are really gelling with the direction of things. (Which is why it is irredeemably short-sighted to support Bethesda's Fallout 76 under the assumption that they'll work harder on the game. You're literally rewarding them for doing next to nothing and telling them that you'll continue to fund their lethargy for the foreseeable future.)
The problem I have with monetisation is the way it starts as a pebble and becomes a landslide, almost always. It's always something small and inconsequential 'here's a cosmetic. Don't worry, you can buy it with in-game money too!' and within no time flat it morphs into something vile and predatory wherein players are forced to dish out extra cash in order to have a good time. Presumably this is what CDPR want to avoid when they talk about 'wise monetisation'. They want to strike some sort of balance between what players get by buying the game and what others get by buying even more. That's still a recipe for disaster in my book, but I've already committed to give the team a pass for now so I'll relent.
Monetisation is truly one of the trickiest issues to circumnavigate as a developer, as the concept is so synonymous with overbearing greed. It's hard to operate on a moral high ground when you're attempting to twist player's arms into dropping extra cash and misimplementation can have the knock on effect of devaluing the initial work that you put together for the game. I think that CDPR have put themselves on a very slippery road with this latest, unintentional, announcement, and all of the gaming world will be on lookout to see how they handle it. Fingers crossed they manage with half the amount on grace with which they put their single player games together. I'm sure that the conversation will continue to ramp up for the next couple of months, but I'll do my best to lay-off until we get more concrete information on what this Online component of Cyberpunk even is. (I'll ignore the whispers, which I wish would go away.)
No comments:
Post a Comment