Arkane Studios - Hiring Monetization Designer

Fare thee well, Arkane Studios, as I'm quite likely not interested in any of your future endeavours.

"Monetization designer"... *shudders*
This must rank somewhere between "reeducation camp guard", and "tax optimization specialist"...

Darth Tagnan said:

Have you played Prey or Mankind Divided? If so, you should know the answer to that already.

Click to expand...

I still don't get it, but ok.

Cacheperl said:

I still don't get it, but ok.

Click to expand...

Two top contenders for GOTY 2016 and 2017 - and we won't be seeing more of them because they only made a little profit instead of a lot.

Essentially, the big boys want big returns - or they lose interest.

Heck, it's a miracle we ever saw them take a chance on this type of game in the first place. But they're not interested in making great games unless it means getting rich in the process.

That said, I do think we'll see more of Deus Ex, eventually, but it's clear that it didn't live up to investor expectations - and it was made clear that it was put on hold for that reason.

If you don't agree that's a very, very bad thing - then that's ok. Personally, I think it's much worse than whatever funding model they pick to line their pockets.

Do note that I don't like microtransactions. In fact, I hate everything about the reality of the industry in terms of what money means for our hobby.

There's a reason I want to get rid of the monetary system altogether

My point is simply that microtransactions aren't necessarily better or worse than other ways that money infects our hobby. It's really all down to the actual implementation - and I've seen countless examples of both good and bad - for all funding models.

This includes crowd-funding and supposedly indie heroes exploiting the market all in the name of greed.

The funding model in and of itself is more or less entirely separate from the people using it. You can have fantastic and wonderful games using microtransactions - just like you can have fantastic and wonderful games without them, even if they're funded by EA/ZeniMax/Activision.

Suits are looking to make a profit. That's ALL they care about. Seriously, that's it. If microtransactions help them make a profit - of course they want to use that model, but they don't want it to hurt the game just for kicks. They just want money - and the game being good or bad is entirely irrelevant.

Overall, there are so many factors involved - and I guess I just don't see the concept of microtransactions as inherently bad.

Frankly, I think people just imagine all the worst case scenarios and go by those as the base assumption. They don't seem to understand that great games and profit can co-exist very peacefully - because suits aren't anti-gamers or evil, they just care more about the profit involved.

One should remember that Bethesda owns Arkane studio and likely whatever decision made is outside their direct control. The bigger question (imho) what does this mean for Bethesda other games.

Actually, ZeniMax owns them.

But, yeah, developers are rarely heavily involved in the monetization schemes, for obvious reasons.

I don't know what Arkane is up to, but I'm certainly not going to just write them off for something as trivial as this.

That said, I'm still crazy about the Monetization Designer title. That's like "Concentration Camp Decorator"…..

Darth Tagnan said:

If you don't agree that's a very, very bad thing - then that's ok. Personally, I think it's much worse than whatever funding model they pick to line their pockets.

Click to expand...

Ok, now I see what you are getting at. And I agree that it's a shame

But I feel like we've just turned the tables. One of your arguments for microtransactions is (paraphrased): "they need to make money". But wouldn't the same apply here? Why blame them for wanting to sell copies?

Cacheperl said:

Ok, now I see what you are getting at. And I agree that it's a shame

But I feel like we've just turned the tables. One of your arguments for microtransactions is (paraphrased): "they need to make money". But wouldn't the same apply here? Why blame them for wanting to sell copies?

Click to expand...

Tables have certainly been turned.

I'm not sure why I'm suddenly the one blaming people now

AFAIK, my point has been - from the start - that the reality of the industry is that games are funded by money.

I'm not blaming suits for being suits. I'm just saying suits are suits.

Then I'm demonstrating why microtransactions might actually be less of a problem than the overall publisher model - simply to point out why it's irrational to focus on the minor aspects as especially bad here.

That's all it is.

Human beings are human beings. I don't blame them for that at all. But I do recognise certain issues when they're subject to capitalism.

It's not like I think I'm entitled to suits financing games exclusively for my sake - and the way I would prefer.

But that's me.

I feel proven in my philosophy : "A game which is not treated as a game, but rather as a tool to generate profits, ceases to be a game anymore." ( I hope I made that grammar right )

God point. And besides, assassins need to be paid too, does that make their "job" acceptable?

joxer said:

God point. And besides, assassins need to be paid too, does that make their "job" acceptable?

Click to expand...

If they target Trump, they can loot his body and keep what they find

I see words like "monetary designer", my brain just interprets that as a studio that's given up on making games that I care for. You might have an audience, but it's certainly not me!!

@Darth Tagnan; The only game I played with lots of microtransactions was Path of Exile, and it was pretty good, though I did not like being connected to the Server, as my internet can at times be unstable. In general games I have seen with microtransactions tend not to be single player games, and that's what I'm interested in. I have no problem with coop if the game can be fun and is balanced to be played single player. I know lots of players here share the same priorities as I do. I know you enjoy multiplayer and coop games, and I have nothing against you enjoying those games. But that Arkane is making a future of games as a service seems bad news to me, because most "free to play" games are not designed to be enjoyable single player games. Of course I could be wrong, and I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

forgottenlor said:

@Darth Tagnan; The only game I played with lots of microtransactions was Path of Exile, and it was pretty good, though I did not like being connected to the Server, as my internet can at times be unstable. In general games I have seen with microtransactions tend not to be single player games, and that's what I'm interested in. I have no problem with coop if the game can be fun and is balanced to be played single player. I know lots of players here share the same priorities as I do. I know you enjoy multiplayer and coop games, and I have nothing against you enjoying those games. But that Arkane is making a future of games as a service seems bad news to me, because most "free to play" games are not designed to be enjoyable single player games. Of course I could be wrong, and I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

Click to expand...

Oh, I get that.

True, I'm a big fan of cooperative multiplayer - and I think it can make almost any game at least twice as good with limited negative impact on the singleplayer experience.

A prime example of that would be System Shock 2 - which was designed as a singleplayer game, and only added cooperative mode in a later patch because they found they could do it with little effort.

It's in my personal top-3 of all time when it comes to cooperative experiences.

With that said, I have to say that, for a developer like Arkane, I would probably prefer it if they kept making games like Prey and Dishonored.

Way, way too few quality immersive sims around - and while I'd love a good cooperative implementation, I worry that it's not the kind of multiplayer they're going for.

Even so, if they decide to make another kind of game - we're still talking about an incredibly talented developer. I don't want to assume the worst because of paranoia.

I tend to just let things happen and sort themselves out. I didn't expect much at all after Prey, because I heard some of the lead guys left the company.

So, I stopped paying attention at that point - because I didn't want to dwell on the negatives.

In my experience, negatives come around all by themselves - which is why I'd rather focus on the positives. That said, I don't want to be that happy-go-lucky guy who forgets reality and the negatives - because that wouldn't work for me, either.

Instead, I just try to stay neutral until I see a reason to go one way or the other.

I remember a time a number of years ago, when I harbored a lot of negative feelings about the industry. I felt like I was being betrayed by the developers - and I felt like my hobby was being destroyed.

I think it peaked around the time of Bioshock - which pissed me off something fierce, because of how it was streamlined and mainstreamed from System Shock 2.

However, at some point I realised that developers aren't necessarily bad guys - and that there are many factors at play. I understood that there's always a reason for how these things happen - and it's rarely about the worst case scenario.

Bioshock, for instance, was Ken Levine being real. He understood that the bigger market wouldn't accept another System Shock 2 - and he knew he had to appeal wider.

Sure, it made for a worse game in certain ways - but it also opened up the market for precisely the kind of game I love, and I honestly don't think Deus Ex Human Revolution, Dishonored or Prey would have happened if it wasn't for Bioshock.

So, I finally realised that Levine was actually saving the immersive sim by deliberately compromising the design. I know from interviews that the game started out very differently - and that they originally wanted a much more System Shockian kind of game, but they just couldn't get it funded.

Anyway, I'm rambling - but I'm just trying to explain how there are nuances that might be missed if you just focus on the negatives.

I don't want to dictate how people should think - but I honestly don't think this needs to be a tragic occurrence.

In fact, I'm afraid Monetization Designers are the norm - even if we didn't have a title for them before. That sort of thing is here to stay.

Now, we can cry about it and go sit in the corner - or we can just play the games that are genuinely good - and avoid those that are bad.

If this funding model in itself makes a game bad for you, then certainly - you should stay away.

I just think that might be a mistake, because I've played so many fantastic games with "questionable" funding models.

I think the larger, age-old problem comes in when bean-counters and financiers gain too much influence and control over any creative process. They want large, fast returns on their investments.

Every creative person wants to be paid for what they do, whether a musician, painter, writer, actor, dancer, whatever. I have no problem with that. My beef is with the accountants and bankers and 'investors' who know dick about producing what they're backing, but dictating to the creative staff. In essence demanding that they do it a certain way to meet an unrealistic deadline and profit goal.

Profit or compensation per se is not necessarily bad. But when it overrides everything else and dictates how and when everything gets done, you wind up with a bland, homogenized mess that appeals to the largest number of lowest-common-denominator consumers. AKA McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, Papa John's, Golden Corral -- fill in the blanks. Same with music, movies, TV, and books.

This is why I no longer play multiplayer games. They're not games anymore. They're just online scams.

It's also one of the reasons I visit RPGWatch every day. Because it's one of the few sites that bothers to cover single player games.

But this is generically true of any public company. While it takes different shapes ultimately as a public company the focus changes from being profitable to increasing profits for the shareholders.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I feel proven in my philosophy : "A game which is not treated as a game, but rather as a tool to generate profits, ceases to be a game anymore." ( I hope I made that grammar right )

Click to expand...