Netflix adding video games to it's service next year...

Monopolies

 

The unseen hand guides humankind along the path of palatable and even enjoyable slavery, each of us living too brief lives to find the time to contest for long. Each of us too dim to understand if this would benefit us or hinder us as we hurtle toward extinction, inevitable.

 

Was it really though? I mean it was a great way to get games for free by not paying or simple cracking tools. But for developers, it was difficult to maintain, and even some of the best shareware games often were ultimately just portfolio pieces for devs to get a "real job" at a large studio. Most of the folks actually benefiting from shareware were the distributors, like magazines, sites and CD/bundles. But also, most of that time, paying for shareware was a complete pain through most of that era (or at least dodgy). Paypal helped, that was later.
It was awesome for players... not so much for developers.

 

When demos were a thing, I used to install and try out like 10 games a month.
I would not have had exposure to or been able to test drive 95% of those games without those demos.

Exposure was a plus for devs

 

How many of them did you buy?

Exposure doesn't pay bills.

 

Not really. Like so many things, the big guys make money off the little guys whenever they can. CD mags sold huge for while with disks full of demos/shareware. Those almost never boosted sales. (I had stuff on those disks a few times). The magazine would sell well and do very will selling ad space. And usually the reason they sold well was the packed CD (internet was less prolific/fast). It would sometimes take a month to go through all the stuff on those disks. So the magazines were basically making money off the backs of UGC.
And also there was the spike in demos about a decade back. Places like Big Fish and such. Which were bulk reskinned games with a 30 minute demo. Of course the site was the distributor, devs were staff, so they were just getting a wage. Most of the games were basically a 60-90 game in total and the best parts were in the demo.
Again, this stuff was not so bad for players, but teh suck for developers. Indies weren't in the position to hit it big back then. I worked for a ethical publisher back then, one that really promoted and took care of indies, but it just wasn't a super viable existence. Piracy was huge and easy, and the path to sales wasn't easy.

 

"Exposure isn't good for sales" - people on unity forums

And talking about sales back in the 90's isn't particularly relevant to the idea of bringing back demos today. Hardly anyone had a pc at home that could play games back then, and most of the subs to gaming mags were kids with a tiny budget. I also suggested that demos were nice, I don't remember suggesting we bring back piracy. As far as I remember, it was the already successful games that got pirated and cracked anyway. I played cracked quake, but when the second and third games came out, I wasn't going to wait for a cracked version, because I loved the original. I bought those. Even in that scenario, the exposure of their cracked game led to sales. Eventually I would also buy Quake 1 and its mission packs, but not for many years.

I guess some devs would rather not expose players to gameplay BEFORE they make the sale?
That doesn't bode very well, does it?

 

I think these days getting people to download your demo is almost as hard as getting them to buy it.

 

almost

 

It is the matter of what kind of exposure and how. For example 30 seconds TV ad for CoD is excellent. For Binding of Isaac or for Baba Is You is terrible.

It depends on what you're trying to sell and to who. And this is true for gameplay as well. People can easily write off a title in two seconds if they are exposed to the gameplay on a way they don't understand what it is about.
If you're selling glare and action, general exposure is good for you, otherwise you want to control where and how players encounter with your gameplay.

 

Yes, but people downloading a demo isn't a sale and making a demo isn't 0 effort.

 

My game was pirated almost immediately. it has sold a few thousand copies. it cost 7 dollars when its on sale.

 

So come on, then, how many of them did you buy?

Look into sales or conversion funnels. Adding an extra step is counter productive unless it increases the overall conversion rate, and what you're suggesting almost never does.

This whole topic is somewhat more nuanced than you seem to appreciate.

 

Who knows. You think I kept a list? I bought some of them. My friends would often buy different games, so we could play different games at each others houses.

And as an adult with a lot more disposable income, do you think I buy lots of games now that I can afford them but can't try them for free?

I don't.
I buy few games, and I do my homework before buying. Would take me less time if there was a demo.

 

At least it's not Unity's fault if nobody downloads the demo.

 

That is a complete misunderstanding of the point. Exposure is an important element, but it isn't a sales model or business plan by itself. Hence the whole of the internet 90s (get eyeballs!). Getting a bunch of views/downloads without conversion is the same as no one seeing it. Shareware of the 90s had terrible conversion rates, as did demos. That is why the models have evolved and/or been replaced. Freemium, F2P, streaming and IAPs models have replaced them. Shareware failed. Demos are largely pointless except in premium cases, and even on the rare occasion they do exist, their impact is negligible compared to communities, reviews and gameplay footage.

There are SO MANY games out there, demos literally aren't most folks' times. Certainly not mine. I hear about a new game, I'll watch a video, and check the reviews. If after that I am on the fence... I'll skip it. My wishlist and "games friends told me about" list super long, demos are just too much time.

 

Well, that free try costs someone else a bunch of money and often doesn't give a return on the investment. Demos didn't mostly disappear because developers can't do math, it was because they often don't make financial sense.

And partly that's because these days there are loads of other, more accessible ways for players to get a taste of a game. Platforms like YouTube and Twitch mean it's trivially easy to give players loads of gameplay footage which, unlike a demo, doesn't need to be pre-downloaded and installed. As zombiegorilla says, if the footage doesn't convince a player to play instead of watch then there's a very good chance a demo isn't going to get the sale anyway. And for players on the fence there's Steam and their 2 hour refund window.

I also have fond memories of checking out demos. That was more about the vibe of the times than it is about the demos themselves, though. There wasn't an ever active internet hype machine back then, or news drip-fed over an extended period. It was a monthly magazine with a disc, together representing one batch of whatever the editor thought was cool. And I think the waiting was a good thing because it built anticipation, rather than today's constant onslaught of stuff competing for your attention.

 

i actually got a chastising email from steam because i've returned too many games. basically 99% of games i buy get played for 20 minutes then returned.

i would have just kept them if not for the 2 hour "demo" window.

 

I heard before, that Steam may chase after users, who refunds too often.
What is "too many" current limit?
I suspect it is average over the time, or something?

When that issue may be valid?
Is when mostly refunding larger AA+ games, which are fewer.
Or rather applies in cases, where there is actually large number of refunds from user, because user was trying many small indie games?

 

i can only guess, but probably in the last two years i've purchased maybe... 50 or more games that got returned?

I basically use it like free demos. Most the time i just want to check a game out for game developer interest, not actually to play it.

I get a mix of AAA and indie games, its probably 50/50.

they just sent an email that said the refund policy isn't for free demos, and that i had a high volume and if it continued i might have refund ability revoked.

usually if i respect the game and its made by a tiny indie i just keep it.

 

I tend to only use the refund policy if the game is not as advertised, has serious bugs that stop it being playable, no players in online and therefore not usable, that sort of stuff (like, a real reason to return it, not because you dont enjoy it)

I dont think its meant to be used like a "free demo" type deal, that sounds a bit of a pain for people involved especially for the developers who are refunding/charge back after thinking a sale went through

I personally would clasify that, especially how often and the volume of your refunds, to be abusing the system tbh

For example, I played your game for only 1 hour. Would it have felt fair for me to have refunded it because I didnt play past 2 hours? I dont think so imo.

 

yeah it is abusing the system, thats why they sent the email

i do favors for little guys but that's all. i probably have a dozen indie games that i have no intention of playing but i didnt return just because i wanted to do a tiny favor.

 

Haha thats fair enough! At least you own it

 

if steam gave better deal to developers maybe i extend the favor to them and respect their rules, but somehow the big fat cats always get a little too greedy so i got no love for them. i swipe a gold coin whenever they aren't looking.

 

Yeah I think a subscription model which pays out by total play time will really hurt single player campaign or story based games. Looking at my own Steam game usage, even though I really liked the 2016 Doom remake, I only have like 60 hours on it, because I was just playing through the single player campaign. On the other hand I have over 4,000 hours in Europa Universalis IV, which is a pretty time consuming grand strategy game. I think both games were well worth paying full price for. But in a subscription model, between those two games it is obvious which one will be favored.

 

Update with more info Netflix's Video Games Don't Want To Worry About Ads, Purchases (kotaku.com)

Interesting could subscription based services provide a walled garden for game makers to just make fun games, without needing Ads, Monitisation and Social media bells and whistles needed to make money and stay on trend?

 

Subscription model makes it easy for gamers to try new games. With a relatively low cost per month comparing to the cost for a single released game, gamers are much less likely to get disappointed. For consumers, the risk mentality switched from losing money to losing time, which does not feel as bad. It actually helps subscribers play more.

 

"Initially, we’ll be primarily focused on games for mobile devices"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netf...ndustry-with-free-mobile-games-205851782.html

I'm still confused. Is it going to be another store? (which rules out being available on iOS). If it's streaming, how and why is it focused on mobile devices?

 

There was another factor. When they started to disappear games had just started to swell in size massively thanks to optical disc drives becoming commonplace in home computers. Meanwhile Internet connections were still largely 56K. Very few people compared to today had broadband connections.

 

It being Netflix (I'm guessing) they are probably going to go with a streaming games approach that allows people with the Netflix App to play games or stream movies, right?

 

Netflix being Netflix, I'm guessing they will go with game disk renting service, right?

(For those, who don't know: Netflix got big on video cd and DVD renting through mail service, streaming came later)

So, basically we do not know what they will do. Time and Netflix themselves will tell.

 

In general, I recently learned that, it turns out, you can pump your character at the expense of skins. I got into the Internet, looked at and checked the information, and came across ak empress. I hung there for probably two hours, there are so many interesting things there, for a long time I could not choose what I like best. Gamers, this service is exactly for you, I recommend it!

 

I already unsubscribed from Netflix a while ago anyways, but if I hadn't, I definitely would've now.

In my eyes, Netflix is and will always be a streaming platform for movies and TV shows, not a video game streaming platform

 

Didn't Amazon just sell books online when it started.

 

I, um, uh, yeah..

 

You probably mean Netflix always will be the mail-in CD and DVD rental company. Never should have subscribe to them. I knew it.

 

And Netflix didn't do online streaming when it started.

 

That's exactly what we need, more monopolies ...

 

What's next? Is Netflix going to start a fast food branch?

 

Given current trends, I think we're more likely to see a food delivery service by them instead.

Gotta piggy back off that cheap labour wave, yo.

 

Or plan for the future rise of automation within the transport/delivery industry and setup your systems before the robots take over.

Netflix: Popcorn, Drinks, Pizza and Crisps brought to you by Robosnax.

 

Been saying f**k Netflix for yonks now...

So... when's Steam starting a streaming service?

 

Why would you want that?

Also, I'm still not sure what Netflix means when it says games.

 

In my opinion, the videogame industry is getting more indie gamedevs, but at the same time, the big companies (Epic games, Ubisoft, Square Enix, even Mojang) are taking the "powerfull devices" (PC and Consoles), so, for the indies, the only device left are mobile phones, wich make less money than a PC game, so they dont have opportunity to make something big, since they will be elapsed by the big ones:
-You cant make a battle royale and spect 100000 players, since they are playing Fortnite or PUBG.
-You cant make a survival game without having to deal with the monster Minecraft is today.
-Is IMPOSSIBLE to make a FPS game and expect glory, since there are THOUSANDS of them.
-…
There are 2 options for indies:
-Make a little movile game just for fun and win 1$ in a month (if you are lucky, in a week) Thats what a ot of indies do.

-MAKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Create a new genere as PUBG did with battle royale or Minecraft with blocky games (in 3d, not pixel art). Is the unique way to be big in this world, hard, but there is no other way if you are an Indie. :s

 

Nah, unless you are making ad ridden in-app skinner boxes (and even then) mobile is more or less dead for indies.

 

I guess I should give up then. I'll never make a phone game so that's that.

 

This seems to presuppose that people don't play games on non-mobile platforms other than [One Big Game]. That is not true. That is also not to say that some niches aren't overcrowded, because some (2D platformers, open world survival sims, RPGMaker) are. But not all, and possibly not many.

 

But the unique indie game in the top 10-20 whishlisted on Steam is KARSON.
And just because Dani has over 2 million subs.

Im not saying people dont play a indie game for PC, just that probbably the 90% of the games are most commonly played are not indie.

 

And, for the Netflix part, maby isin't that bad; I mean, It will be like another Steam.

 

You dont need to target the top of the ladder to make a living...