

Gabe Newell on monetization before game design - kevin_morrill
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/30/gabe-newell-on-monetization-before-game-design-spoiler-it-stin/

======
corin_
I didn't care when gamers on sites I read took this at face-value and nodded
along, but on HN I'm shocked nobody has yet pointed out that he's talking PR
spin.

They've started a big push marketing the game, they obviously want people to
stay excited for what it is, rather than thinking about any downsides. His
answer doesn't mean they haven't thought about it, it means one of two things:
either they are yet to come to a decision, or it won't actually be free-to-
play. Either way, answering that in this interview would have been a moronic
step to take, so he changed the subject away from it, and onto "we care more
about games than money".

I love Valve, they're a wonderful company, but they definitely think about
monetisation right from the start of a project - they're not idiots. And
making money from a game doesn't have to mean the game isn't good.

~~~
6ren
> "we care more about games than money".

He said they care about the games _first_ , i.e. ordering over time. I quote,
adding emphasis to his time-based terms (four times):

> "and _then_ we'll worry about monetization ... we're not going to worry
> about that until _later_." Further pressing the point, Newell adds, "
> _Premature_ monetization is the root of all evil."

> "I think not sucking is way more of an important thing to pay attention to
> _first_ ,"

As an example of making something cool first, and monetizing later, consider
google. They didn't do ads for several years, until they found a way to do it
that didn't conflict with what made their search cool.

BTW: kevingadd's perceptive, reasoned and evidence-based reply to you is
[dead] - this is disturbing to see on HN.

~~~
kevingadd
I'll reply here with some extra text on top in hopes that whatever caused it
to get flagged as dead doesn't flag it again. Thanks for pointing out it was
dead...

I don't think that's actually true. If you look at a lot of their past
projects, the real clever monetization comes after release, and very often
they release piles of cool content entirely for free when they could easily
have charged for it. They also spend much longer in development than is
strictly necessary, and that tends to not make sense if your goal is to earn
money efficiently. As a company they clearly understand monetization, but I
don't think it drives their development process.

------
6ren
> "I think not sucking is way more of an important thing to pay attention to
> first,"

Like "build something people want".

One way to looks at it is in terms of dependencies. Complicated problems have
a ton of dependencies, so that when you change one thing, it ripples through,
changing other things. Therefore you'd best get the most important things
right first, leaving everything else loose, flexible and uncommitted, so that
as you fiddle with the important things, you aren't tied down by other issues.
I find I can easily become overly fond of some secondary aspect that prevents
me backing out of that local minima and seeing the true (or truer) truth. Once
you've got the key things right, you can start worrying about secondary things
(secondary in that they are still important, just not as important). So it's
similar to the knuth quote alluded to
(<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrematureOptimization>). (though I'd say that the
most important thing is _understanding_ the problem and solution, rather than
having correct code).

It's really good to just completely forget about making money, and set out
purely to make the world a better place (or realize a vision). It's freeing.

------
kayoone
For a company in Valves position this is a very nice approach, and i like
their overall vision on product quality and user experience alot. Still, if
you are a smaller studio, possibly backed by investors and not making hundreds
of millions in revenue it wont sound very good to say "we dont know and dont
worry how to make money yet". If your company ever reaches a point where you
can say that before a new major product release, you probably made it ;)

------
lastkarrde
The original interview
([http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6471/the_valve_way_gab...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6471/the_valve_way_gabe_newell_and_.php))
contains more information about how Valve is approaching Dota2, and some
background around development of the game.

~~~
samlittlewood
Well worth reading - makes it clear that this is one aspect of a whole
attitude based around people enjoying working together and making cool stuff.

"I don't know about other game companies, but it's dangerous to kvetch at
Valve. You're suddenly Director of Fixing That Shit! Vice President of It's
Your Problem Now."

------
kevin_morrill
Interesting contrast at [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-
for-bigspe...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-
bigspending-whales-07072011.html)

~~~
eric-hu
"One person familiar with Zynga’s business ... says a user spent $75,000 in
one year on a single game"

------
SandersAK
I heard Gabe talk at Games For Change in NYC this year, the dude is really
really smart.

I don't look at it as money vs quality. I see it more as, more quality more
money. So start with quality.

The only way to make money is if people play your games. The perceived value
of your games is higher, and the amount of interest is higher when you make
good games.

One thing Valve has, probably more than any other game company (besides
possibly Zynga) is a ton of data on gamer behavior across all their titles.

They've looked really hard at how players interact on some of their AAA titles
like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, and more recently on Portal 2. They know
how people play, and what they're willing to spend on.

Seriously, they are running EEG brainwave scans and pupil dilation tests on
gamers during play testing to understand how their games are effecting their
players. That level of customer understanding makes it pretty easy to know
where and how to turn the money machine on.

------
jgavris
I think it was difficult for HoN to keep providing the level of service and
updates on a one-time fee of $30 to play the game. A subscription model would
fit the cost model more appropriately, for a game with continual upkeep like
HoN / DotA.

------
d_rwin
Nobody falls for the monetization, its the products. Gabe's approach without
trying duplicity messages is great design.

The product is the only selling point in Valve design.

------
kingkilr
That's all well and good, but that's kind of easy to say when there are
several established business models for your type of product. And you're a
profitable company.

~~~
kevingadd
Saying that there are several established business models for his type of
product is kind of missing the point. It's surprisingly hard to get people to
give you money for something you built in the games space, in part because
there's so much competition. Even Valve can't afford to ignore monetization;
his point is more that their focus is always on product first, not on revenue
model.

Even before Valve had ever shipped a product, this is how they worked, and you
could argue that their customers rewarded that approach.

~~~
6ren
Hi kevingadd, just a heads up that your other comment here is dead (your reply
to corin_): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940599> \- I think it's a
perceptive, reasoned and evidence-based comment, and in no way should be dead.
It's been inappropriately flagged, I believe. (I can see it because I'm
browsing with _showdead: yes_ in my profile).

Perhaps the simplest fix is to just make the same comment again.

~~~
kevingadd
Thanks, it probably got killed because the HN server threw a fit when I
submitted it - I ended up with two copies of the comment and deleted one. I
suppose I deleted the wrong one...

