Game development evolution Fork

Introduction

Game development is a complex and costly process. Long gone are the days when a handful of enthusiasts could create an advanced game. Nowadays, it is a huge industry that requires a large number of skilled professionals with rare expertise. Of course, their work needs to be funded, and someone has to take on the risks since even experienced teams have a high chance of failure. In the following discussion, I suggest considering two possible answers to the question of who should bear the expenses and risks, as well as reap the profits and opportunities.

Dev-centric system

Currently, the dev-centric game production system is considered the only correct approach. Its characteristic feature is that the developer bears the risks until the game becomes popular, after which all the risks are transferred to the player.

The argument for this system is that players will go wherever developers are, rather than vice vers. Also, players are seen as being less demanding, unaware of their rights, and quick to forget offenses. Moreover, it is almost impossible to uphold legal obligations to players in a game that consists entirely of conventions within a chaotic development process.

There is also a stereotype that the more comfortable the conditions for developers, the better game we will get, which is in the player’s interest.

Players are considered capricious, touchy, and infantile, not ready to engage in serious matters or make necessary compromises.

Crowdfunding, which was conceived as an alternative to this approach, also applies to the dev-centric system, with the only difference being that the developer sells a game concept rather than a finished game.

How does this manifest?

If a successful game needs funding, new players, or if there are mistakes in the balance or in the game, all these problems are resolved at the players’ expense.

If additional funding is needed, the previous progress is reset, the enjoyment of the gameplay is made more difficult, and players are offered the opportunity to restore the previous progress through in-game purchases.

If new players are required, the progress of existing players is reset so they don’t get in the way or spoil the experience for newcomers. The gameplay is made more casual, and it doesn’t matter that it was hardcore that brought the initial success and fame to the game.

Balance issues are also always resolved in favor of newcomers, casual players, or MMO-losers, and as a result, at the expense of players who have already invested time and effort into the game and the use of game conventions in their favor.

Player’s reaction

Over time, players comes to understand that their main opponent in the game is not the final boss but rather a greedy developer.

As a result, it turns out that skill improvement, involvement in the world, building social ties, and wise financial investments are vulnerabilities for players, that developers can exploit at any moment to extract exorbitant amounts of money.

This ultimately leads to a cautious style of play:

• We play what we already know how to play well or something very simple
• We try not to get emotional in the game
• We perceive it as entertainment for a few evenings
• We hedge by choosing games where even if the gameplay is bad, we can at least enjoy beautiful visuals, music, or atmosphere
• We minimize the time spent on the game itself and its search, striving to rely on the simplest triggers
• Using third-party programs, guides, and hints is a reasonable compromise that allows us to have the best gaming experience

The best option is to first watch a game’s playthrough instead of playing it. On this, you can finish the acquaintance with the game.

Developers’ reaction to the player’s reaction

• The gameplay becomes increasingly shallow/casual
• A lot of effort is put into creating beautiful graphics/trailers — everything that can hook the player for a couple of seconds
• The focus is on inexperienced players who may not know how to play but are unaware of the dark side of game development
• Predatory and exploitative monetization — if a rare player is caught in the net, he needs to be squeezed. What happens afterward doesn’t matter
• Diving into the narrow field — where the other player is for now (but only for now)

Yes, of course, some developers, driven by personal initiative, try to maintain their personal or corporate brand. But we all understand that when the studio is at risk of bankruptcy (which is not uncommon in the face of hyper-competition), they will try to make ends meet at the expense of the player.

External oversight is unable to delve into the nuances of gameplay, and their communication channels are usually flooded with habitual troublemakers who sometimes haven’t even played the game.

An unobvious consequence of such a system is that developers cannot put a serious gaming challenge to the player because:

• The player always doubts whether the challenge is not a difficulty setting error, as other games usually do not require such efforts
• The player wonders if the developer is not using this challenge simply as a way to extract money from him or to prolong the gameplay time
• The player can always turn to another similar game where the challenge will be more casual and won’t require as much effort

Player-centric system

In a player-centric system, the player knows for sure that everything he has acquired or achieved in the game cannot be changed except through previously known game rules.

How the developer and the game will survive is not his problem. He knows for sure that the game will be minimally functional in any case, and the game rules are good enough to remain unchanged.

It is evident that such a model is idealistic-theoretical and currently has no successful examples. However, in recent times, there has been noticeable demand from players for increasing autonomy of the game from developers, as well as the inability of the traditional development model to master some game genres. This, in turn, opens the doors for various experiments and attempts to change the established format.

Problems

The only mechanism capable of reliably recording player ownership at the moment is blockchain, which in itself carries a bunch of problems inherited from the blockchain ecosystem:

• Legal risks
• Scam risks
• Hacking/exploiting risks (including the blockchain network, bridges, DeFi, CeFi, etc.)
• Hyper-financialization and gambling
• Lack of moderation
• High technical entry threshold (which, considering the above points, is probably not so bad)

Another problem is the inability to combine game maintenance with the resistance for its capture, as any game “improvement” may simply be a way for one group of players to better themselves against another group of players. Some players may even prefer to destroy the game if the alternative is losing it (ideally, this should be impossible, but they can try).

As a result, the game will not progress until it is captured. But if it is captured, it will no longer be interesting as a game.

Capture

It may not be obvious, but any “on-chain” game will be:

a) highly competitive because real money is at stake, and no one will just give it away out of kindness

b) the culmination of this competition will be the capture of the game, resulting in the inability to enter the game without incurring guaranteed financial losses for anyone who is not part of the capturing alliance

Also, the above-mentioned points lead us to the idea that the game value, both in terms of finances and gameplay, will be proportional to the difficulty of its capture. In other words, if capturing the game requires a million dollars and 100,000 hours of play, that will roughly correspond to its value and the duration of time players can devote to it.

Counteracting capture

• The game cannot be captured by a simple majority
• What requires avoiding DAOs and other structures where some participants can gain gameplay advantage by possessing 51% of the votes
• The game cannot be captured solely by the mass effect of in-game assets
• The game should be partially tied to external assets so that whale manipulation of the in-game assets’ cost does not provide a reliable positive effect

How can the game develop in this context?

First, it’s important to say that the game needs constant updates — this is an imposed stereotype.

On the other hand, we understand that competition is constantly evolving, and it’s possible that other developers will attempt to sell the same concept repeatedly but with improvements and additions. This can ultimately blur the value of the original concept. But it is not certain.

Therefore, let’s consider several safe options that can allow the game to develop without making it easier to capture:

• Impose a development tax on the most successful players
• this way, the game can continue to improve even without being completely captured, simply by having a wealthy dominant player
• DAO treasury with veto power
• if a player with small specific weight notices that the DAO treasury is being used inefficiently or in favor of larger/privileged players, he can stop it.
• we are talking about 15–25% of the votes against
• Pre-funded development is guaranteed both by the reputation of the developers and by legal obligations (probably)

Vampire attacks

An alternative way to add new content is also vampire attacks — attempts by other developers to pull a part of the audience by offering players new gameplay that utilizes old assets they already own.

These can be worlds that operate under almost the same rules as the original one but with some fundamental changes, such as bug fixes or the way of further development for the core concept. These can also be completely different games whose developers do not want to look for their own audience and are looking for an easier and cheaper way to get into an already established ecosystem.

While this approach may be a necessary evil to a dev-centricsystem that needs, if not completely eliminated, then controlled as much as possible, then such attempts will be a clear benefit for a player-centric system since its essence is to prioritize the interests of the player, which will not be affected by new possibilities.

Conclusion or what this is all for

The dev-centric system has produced many great games in its time. And it continues to attract millions of players, driving forward, if not the games themselves, then the technology of their development.

However, its heyday is a thing of the past, and the remaining potential is fading. I think it’s not long before the era of remakes of the remakes and games made of 99% AI-generated content.

A player-centric system can breathe life into new genres and subgenres, as well as genres that the dev-centric system could not cope with for various reasons.

The main skepticism here may be related to the fact that the stereotypical player is greedy, foolish, and naive. But he will continue to be so if he is not given real power, with rage races on Metacritic as the only option left.

The player needs to be nurtured and punished for stupidity and greed but also rewarded for courage, enthusiasm, and dedication. I think the developers themselves will eventually like to obey such a player rather than corporate bosses.

Thank you for reading,
Dan Pavlenko — lead game designer in Mithraeum

Join Mithraeum community:

Website: https://mithraeum.io/
Discord: https://discord.gg/bna7WrWmBn
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MithraeumIO