Unfortunately in many of the games that my kids enjoy, I have noticed that the optimization path for the freemium model includes increasing the time sink required for access to game mechanics and content, and increasing the rewards for paying actual money for access to mechanics and contents.

There are some free to play games that find a good tension between this early on, but longer term, I find that the games because less enjoyable because it is too time consuming for others to keep up with my "pay to play" approach to skipping the time intensive portions of the games.

> Saying Fortnite is “optimized for profit” makes very little sense, since nothing you can do in the game requires purchases at all.

Sure, from a mechanical perspective. My son uses a portion of his allowance to keep current on his emotes and skins because his friends apply social pressure by teasing the kids that don't have them. It's been a great opportunity to teach him about peer pressure, and the relatively harmless of this version of it, in contrast to more harmful ones related to drugs, alcohol, or risky behavior for teenagers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that freemium games can't be fun or that some microtransaction models are more player-beneficial than others. But, like with any feature, if you include microtransactions than some other aspect received less attention (assuming a fixed budget, which I realize is also a consideration as game X might never have been made without the freemium component to propel the business decision).

Edit: Also, as others have said here, most freemium developers focus on extracting revenue from the "whales," not the players who play for free or pay little.

Those resources would not have existed had it not been for the sales of cosmetics.

I think the thing that people miss in their discussions of video games is that “enjoyability” or “fun” are not 1-dimensional quantities. In fact, there are many different ways to evaluate a game: meaningfulness, emotional range, decision complexity, flow state, educational/pedagogical value, literary value, societal/social impact, etc etc etc.

Furthermore, many of these criteria can be good at multiple ends of their range depending on individual taste and/or mood. For example, sometimes I’m in the mood for complex decisions to really sink my teeth into. Maybe a Zachtronics programming game or engineering game like Factorio or perhaps a challenging roguelike such as NetHack or Slay the Spire will scratch that itch for me. Other times I’m really burned out from work/studying and I’m just looking to unwind so a super relaxing, simple, flow state game like Stardew Valley is better for me.

By pursuing the free to play model, games like Genshin Impact are incentivizing their developers to optimize the game for two things only: engagement and gambling-like rewards. That is very bad. These games are the junk food of the game industry. Even worse. They’re casinos as well.

That's only true till the baseline. After that point, you need to focus on specific players, or you will risk compromising your game by catering for too many tastes, making it generic and bland. Ultimately you will drive people away anyway with your decisions, so there is no real harm in focusing on the money-pots, as long as you stay about the baseline of fun.

Earlier Battlefields had generic soldiers per side that were identifiable by weapon class and customizable by camouflage but retained a clear distinction between the two large teams. This helped players to distinguish friend v foe and to optimize their attack/defend strategy based on the class of their opponent.

Things started going downhill with Battlefield V (WW2). It has "Elites" that can be played on both sides, so it's possible to have a Japanese soldier fighting in an early battle on the Western Front. This is not great for immersion in a game realistically themed around a serious subject.

From what I know about BF2042, because it's in the future, DICE's story is that there is a mercenary war (instead of country vs country). So now DICE can allow players to use their favorite Specialist and cosmetic on either team, which completely ruins friend v foe. And the Specialists can use any weapon which eliminates some of the strategy used when attacking/defending.

Premium cosmetics are certainly harder to pull off in some game types than others. I guess EA/DICE figured the in-game purchases will more than offset any popularity losses from these gameplay sacrifices. But hopefully DICE will be able to find a sweet spot if they are willing refine their current approach.

The 442nd regiment composed mostly of Japanese Americans was deployed in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(Unite...

So what's breaking the immersion? Are they wearing the wrong uniforms?

If you can't identify someone based on uniform and coloring, you're in for some nasty team kills.

This reminds me how much I still love BF4

If it's not compromising the game design, and it's not so addictive that people are spending more than they have, I don't have a problem. I'm not against monetization, as long as the games steer away from the dark patterns / don't make casinos for children.

If you're willing to pay money to experience less gameplay, are you really enjoying the game?

How so? As far as I'm aware, the free-to-play version of Fortnite never sold loot boxes.

Hacker News strongly underestimates the appeal of cosmetics.