Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: Why do games (as media) make so much money?
40 points by ido 8 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 79 comments
We often hear how the games industry is bigger in terms of $ than film & music put together. But looking around it's still less universal than e.g. TV (±"everyone" watches TV but not everyone plays video games).

How come games make more money as an industry than other media?




Mobile game revenue makes up for more than 50% of all game revenue, and that number is only for the US. It's much larger in Asia, which is an even bigger gaming market.

For non-mobile games, most of the revenue still comes from mobile-game-like monetization schemes such as lootboxes/gacha/battle passes/skins/etc, not from the traditional sales.

These types of monetization schemes are incredibly lucrative, with many people spending hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars over the lifetime of such games due to their addictive nature and gambling mechanics. Traditional media does not have an equivalent to these kind of monetization schemes.

It's not the size of the audience. It's the monetization scheme. The times when game revenue meant buying good old single player games without DLCs are long gone. Companies have long realized that's not where the money is.


Only bit I disagree with is that the big spenders are doing it purely because of addiction or gambling.

Most big spenders are incredibly wealthy, like buy $30,000 wristwatches for fun wealthy. Games have figured out how to 'go infinite' on their spend possibilities and capture wristwatch money from these folks.

The other thing novel to games is social aspects. Just like buying fashion to wear in public, games let you show off your money in a way other mediums don't. Music has a near equivalent with VIP passes and private shows, but scaling these are human-bound in space or time respectively, which games aren't limited by.

Second, games provide a sense of community. A lot of game revenue is monetizing people's desire to not be alone. Calling these players addicted is I think reductive. Are people addicted to church? To golf? To therapy? Maybe some of them, but it's a poor generalization.


> Only bit I disagree with is that the big spenders are doing it purely because of addiction or gambling.

People spend big in games because:

* The spending is very stimulating visually and audibly (think lootbox openings)

* The gains from their spending translates directly to game-social prestige, game power, or both (i.e. an Advantage)

* This Advantage allows them to lord over the players who have spent less (or 0 in the case for F2P players)

Whether that manifests into addiction depends entirely on the rest of the game's design (but you know, games that introduce the Advantage tend to want to make a lot of money by getting you hooked on spending...)

> Second, games provide a sense of community. A lot of game revenue is monetizing people's desire to not be alone. Calling these players addicted is I think reductive.

Yes, these games do provide a sense of community because they are purposefully designed to do so. Without an incentive to play while getting lorded over by whales, the fish will leave. Without a bunch of fish to lord over, the whales will leave. Again, this depends on the game's design, but the vast majority of them encourage addiction to the Advantage and its use against others.

Maybe you can extend this analysis to IRL stuff. I don't know because I don't participate in any of it.

Source: [Let’s go whaling: Tricks for monetising mobile game players with free-to-play](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4&t=0s)


I think game monetization is over-scrutinized for a couple of reasons.

One, it's fresh - games had a fixed cost for about 25 years. Notice I didn't say it's new, because games had similar monetization tactics if you go back far enough to arcade tokens.

Two, the most vocal players are not yet in the income-earning years of their life which makes them incredibly price sensitive. Once they get older and have a better grasp of time and money, they may decide spending $200/month on a game you enjoy daily from the toilet is on par with other hobbies they could have, and more convenient.

From another angle, consider grocery stores which purposely arrange their stock inefficiently to make you walk deeper into the store. And force you into data collection price clubs by withholding competitive prices. This stuff is just as 'exploitative' as dark patterns, but with only a fraction the digital ink spilled over it. (I'm doing my part!)


> One, it's fresh - games had a fixed cost for about 25 years. Notice I didn't say it's new, because games had similar monetization tactics if you go back far enough to arcade tokens.

Monetization schemes lay on a spectrum, but even arcade tokens lie on the tamer end in comparison to modern schemes. The biggest difference: the only Advantage most arcade tokens would give you is an extra life (i.e. a skilled player can get away with minimal pay). I am aware of 0 arcade games that give you extra speed, damage, or max HP just because you put in another coin while that is INCREDIBLY common with modern monetization schemes.

> Once they get older and have a better grasp of time and money, they may decide spending $200/month on a game you enjoy daily from the toilet is on par with other hobbies they could have, and more convenient.

Sure and I won't argue against continually spending money on games. I think its a really good thing that helps develop content and keeps the game alive (I think $60 for modern AAA games is absolutely ludicrous; it was $60 back in the 90s or 80s and it certainly hasn't kept up with inflation and dev-costs).

> I think game monetization is over-scrutinized for a couple of reasons.

My stance:

* The stuff most people spend money on (i.e. in-app-purchases for lootbox/gambling opportunities) is bad for gaming because they encourage BS game designs that artificially restricts progress and incentivizes psycologically manipulative tactics

* These BS game designs make the games worse (as a "pure" game) 99% of the time

I basically haven't touched a modern AAA game in 5+ years because of this. In terms of gameplay, indie games have been way more interesting and diverse. And I give 0 shits about graphics.


> The spending is very stimulating visually and audibly (think lootbox openings)

This reminds me of an article (which I can't find again) talking about "the toy in the interface". A good game will be fun to simply interact with on a user interface level.

Has anyone built a lootbox simulator yet? Skip the game and just do lootboxes. Give people a way to scratch their lootbox itch for free.

If done well enough, with a good toy in the interface, this could actually draw attention and profits away from those who exploit.


The best lootbox sim I found is the CSGO Case Simulator [1] mostly because it keeps tabs on how much it'd cost to buy the case, buy the key, and how much you'd be able to sell your won item for. Obviously it isn't the exact same as the Valve system of odds, etc, but it's fun to let it auto spin for a while and see just how much you've lost.

[1]: https://convars.com/case/en


> Has anyone built a lootbox simulator yet? Skip the game and just do lootboxes. Give people a way to scratch their lootbox itch for free.

Kinda reminds me of progress-quest. A level grinding RPG that grinds for you automatically.


Lootbox simulator? Of course: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-strange-satisfaction-of-loot-box...


Casino apps are exactly that, and highly profitable


> scratch their lootbox itch *for free*


What do people do to afford $30,000 throwaway wristwatches? There can't be that many of them in the world, that's the definition of the top 1%?!


The top 1% by household income in the US is about $500k a year. There are more than 100 million households in the US, so that's conservatively at least 1 million families who could afford to support a 5 figure microtransaction whale. That's a lot of money!


Lot of kids/young adults with old money is my guess. These people will never have a reason to work so will pad out their days with things like this.


If you're on a million a year, 30k is about 11 days' income.


Why are they throwaway?


Some of the people who can buy 30k watches have so much money that it can become just another throwaway item.


be born wealthy.


> Most big spenders are incredibly wealthy, like buy $30,000 wristwatches for fun wealthy. Games have figured out how to 'go infinite' on their spend possibilities and capture wristwatch money from these folks.

Do you have any data to back up this claim? I don't have data to prove the opposite either, but I don't believe this is true. I know multiple big spenders in real life. They have a very average income, but instead of putting the ~$500-1000 that's left each month into a saving accounts, they spend it on mobile games, i.e. make bad financial decisions. FOMO is probably the main driver.

I'm sure the people you refer to exist. There are whales that are so rich that they don't care about wasting $10-100k on a game, but I don't believe these are the majority of players that spend large amounts. I think the big spenders on average have below average income, they are just bad at self-restraint, and/or relatively young and inexperienced with money.


I worked in the F2P industry a decade ago and have many anecdotes. Oil sheiks with a direct line to the development team. Wire transfer support for big spenders to get around throughout restrictions on normal payment processing. Spend anomalies in graphs with 7 figure y-axes because some lawyer discovered the game while stuck home with the flu. A lot of customer support energy was put into white glove service for these players because of how important they were to the revenue graph.

Kongregate used to share data pretty liberally and had a wide view of the industry in their day. They were playing with less zeroes than the big names but the trends were the same. https://blog.kongregate.com/dont-call-them-whales-f2p-spende...

I'm out of the game for a while now but keep in touch with former colleagues and they've gotten much better rounding out the spender curve. But the folks at the tail still got that wristwatch money. If you don't have a spend stream for them you're leaving a huge piece of your revenue on the table.


Some interesting data points to back this up:

* Activision Blizzard 2022 Report: ~50% of revenue for the first six months of 2022 came from mobile

Source(PDF): https://investor.activision.com/node/35551/pdf

* Forbes: 7 Mobile Games Now Make Over $100 Million Every Month

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/08/11/7-mobil...

* NCSoft Q3 2022: ~440 KRW billion in mobile sales vs ~97 KRW billion in PC sales

Source: https://kr.ncsoft.com/en/ir/irArchive/earningsRelease.do

* Game-of-the-Year Elden Ring has sold 17.5 million copies by September 2022. Assuming a very generous $100 average per copy, thats $1.75 billion.

That put's it slightly below the 3rd highest revenue mobile game in 2021.

Sources: https://www.eurogamer.net/elden-ring-sales-surpass-175m

https://sensortower.com/blog/billion-dollar-mobile-games-202...


Keep in mind that mobile games are employing addictive mechanisms in many other styles of pretty loathsome strategies for hooking users that I don't believe will survive regulation in the next decade.

Previous strategies in Las Vegas casinos did not survive such things without being heavily heavily heavily regulated and I believe that is going to be coming to things like pay to win and other types of games where stories of addicted whales dropping tens of thousands per month abound.

What is particularly loathesome is that a lot of these strategies have made their way into children's games and it's just shocking considering the amount of regulation that went into 1970s era children's TV programming.

I think a lot of adults who are in policy positions who have any exposure to video games are from the 1970s and '80s and '90s where arguably games are made in a by much more egalitarian game designers who just wanted to make a "good game" but the last two decades has seen the rise of amoral mbas taking over game mechanics in search of revenue ar all costs


But the games industry was already bigger than movie/TV/music industry before the rise of those gambling/pay-not-to-grind/pay-to-win schemes...


> It's much larger in Asia, which is an even bigger gaming market.

Is it because Asian consumers have a lower disposable income and cannot afford gaming consoles and gaming PCs as much?


That's true for Southeast Asia, which is a pretty big gaming market as well. They essentially skipped PC gaming and went straight to smartphones.

For the wealthier East Asian countries like China, Japan, and Korea this isn't the case. It's more of a cultural thing due to various factors including

- Smartphones and mobile games became popular long before they became popular in the US. People are used to paying money for mobile games. It was this way from the very start.

- The Gacha model was popular in Japan even before mobile games. That's where the word comes from. Korea had similar machines.

- People take public transportation much more than in the US, which leads itself to playing games on the go (mobile).

- At least in Japan (less so in China and even less so in Korea), people prefer non-competitive gaming. That's why competitive games like DoTA, LoL, Counter Strike, etc, were never popular in Japan. Even Diablo with PVP never was popular.


I'd wager as much.

Consoles and gaming PCs tend to be expensive (in terms of upfront costs), require more physical space to use, and are hard to move.

Mobile phones have multiple purposes and, crucially, are mobile (shocker, right?)

This means that if you could only have 1 electronic device, you'd 100% choose a mobile phone.

And what better way to find a lot of customers than a F2P mobile game? It has 0 barrier to entry, a large audience, relatively low development costs, and little actual "game design" expectations.


Traditional casinos make a lot of money. Although the odds are heavily in the house's favor, normal casinos do pay out some percentage of the money that is wagered. Most slot machines, over time, keep over 90% of the money that is put into them, and the rest is given back to the players.

The video games that are generating these big revenues are functionally identical to slot machines in their monetization schemes. There's one key difference. These games always keep 100% of the money. There's no way to get real money back. You can get cosmetic upgrades, various fake currencies, power-ups, and all sorts of other things in exchange for the real money. None of those things actually cost the video game company anything. They're just being paid to execute UPDATE statements on their database.

The effect of this is that a video game is a casino where no matter how lucky or skilled the player is, the house always keeps 100% of the real money no matter what. And we let children play in these casinos. In many countries they are largely unregulated. Meanwhile, the traditional casino that does occasionally pay out real money, is heavily regulated.


> Most slot machines, over time, keep over 90% of the money that is put into them, and the rest is given back to the players.

You have that backwards. Slot machines give back 90%+ of what goes into them. Most strip casinos give back 99%.

It's just that they give it back by paying a single jackpot of millions of dollars, so most people walk away losers over time. It's sort of the perfect analogy of concentration of wealth.


Yes, because of strict gaming commission regulation.

For example, do you know that if you do gambling machines on cruise ships, the payouts change substantially as soon as you enter international unregulated waters because there's no longer local gaming commission regulations they need to adhere to


I did know that. That's why I never gamble outside of the USA. I got screwed on Blackjack in the Caribbean once. Never again.


If I do indeed have it backwards, that only strengthens the point. Video games are keeping 100%.


I think there's probably massive money laundering happening in these markets. Like if I was trying to do that kind of thing I'd be looking at virtual goods markets in order to get the job done.

https://cs.money/csgo/store/

Take a look at the values of some of the items on there. Prices like 10000$+ to use a model of a knife in a game that's like from a decade ago sounds like insanity to many people but thinking from the perspective of someone who has something like a lot of illgotten gift cards to wash, the markets exist... I'm sure a ton of it is legitimate but when some of these approach prices of a fourth of a new car it's kind of obvious


I find it hilarious how every time people have little knowledge of a niche lucrative market they throw "it's probably money laundering" at it.


I'm really not just talking out of my ass here, this isn't something without precedent

https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/money-laundering...


Just because CSGO is used to cash in stolen credit cards does not mean these multi thousand dollar skins are money laundering. The vast majority of people trading these high value skins are legit people. If you check their profiles, their discords, or the skin trading community in general, this is quite evident.


Online gaming isn't a niche lucrative market, and its pretty well understood given the structural similarity to traditional money laundering magnet industries like casino gambling.

And that money laundering has been drawn to it is... pretty well established.


>a game that's like from a decade ago

CSGO is still the number one most played game on Steam. Not that skins aren't being used for money laundering, but rare skins in a popular game do have intrinsic value (vanity)


I play with this one girl who keeps on giving me a hard time for not having an AWP skin and every time she ribs me for this I explain that I don't gamble on principle


To be fair, you don't need to gamble to have skins. There is the steam market.


I'm not paying 500$ for a virtual gun that's patently hilarious


Then don't? Use a $2 skin like a normal person.


> And we let children play in these casinos. In many countries they are largely unregulated. Meanwhile, the traditional casino that does occasionally pay out real money, is heavily regulated.

When you write it like that it sounds sinister, but the reason that real gambling is dangerous is because you do sometimes get your money back, and it’s possible to convince yourself you still have a chance to come out ahead. Knowing that you’re spending money without ever having a chance to get it back means you’re not gambling, you’re making a purchase.

You could say the same about buying food - no matter how lucky or skilled the player is, the house will always keep 100% of the money they spend. Because it’s not gambling.


Gambling isn't fundamentally different whether you're sometimes getting back coins or chips or a collectible card. It's still dangerous and ensnares people, even when you're buying loot boxes in a video game or packs of pokemon cards.

There's a reason hasbro sells packs of random cards with rarities instead of selling an entire set of cards for a flat price. Because they can take advantage of people and hurt them to get more money.


You can resell physical chips or collectible cards.


> The effect of this is that a video game is a casino where no matter how lucky or skilled the player is, the house always keeps 100% of the real money no matter what. And we let children play in these casinos.

I think you just described Chuck e. Cheese.


Funny, I was just at Chuck's yesterday. They actually do give back, if you play the ticket games. You can get cheap plastic things that make the kids really happy. Or in our case we got a super cute plush toy that my daughter loves.

Given the four hours of entertainment plus the plush toy and car launcher my son got, I'd say we got our money's worth.

Also their food is good now.


Food is good at Chuck E Cheese?!?! I haven’t been there since I was a kid in the 80’s. All I remember was cheese pizza, which as a kid is the greatest food on earth, but as an adult I’d imagine it’s pretty terrible. They are maximizing cheapest ingredients (because kids don’t care) at nosebleed prices. Glad to hear the food is better. I think it’s a smart business decision to appeal to the adults too.

Earning tickets is pretty priceless. Took my daughter to Great America and they had an arcade with ticket dispensing games. She loved it. She’s 3 and not very good but the staffer great sports. They’d put in a coin to show her how it was played and earned a huge strip of tickets (they were pros at all the games) and then give her the tickets.


I hadn't been in 30 years either! Until my daughter attended a birthday party there and I went along. Not sure when the food got good, but I know during the pandemic to stay in business they were selling their food togo for like $5 per pizza. Never tried it and now I'm sad I didn't!

The prices are still sky high but yeah, it's actually edible as an adult, tasty even. At least the one in Cupertino.


Play enough ski ball, get enough tickets, get the big stuffed animal or radio or whatever.

It'll probably take you $40 to get a $10 trinket, but you can get something back.

In a broader sense you're paying to play the games and when you're done you leave; in FTP the game is free, and they have to addict you, and will spam you with notifications to keep your attention.


In terms of entertainment-time per dollar, at least classic AAA “$60 for 40 hours of entertainment” games are an incredibly good deal compared to movies. Indie games are usually cheaper and higher-skill, so I guess the deal is probably even better (I mean, a higher skill game doesn’t necessarily take longer to complete but it seems likely…). Wonder how this compares to the f2p micro-transaction based model.

If the $/time is much lower and the total $ is much higher, then I think we should just conclude that the games industry is providing way more entertainment-hours to humanity as a whole.


> In terms of entertainment-time per dollar, at least classic AAA “$60 for 40 hours of entertainment” games are an incredibly good deal compared to movies

Entertainment-time might not be a good measure of utility (arguably, time is another cost, not the measure of benefit), and time-sitting-in-front-of-the-media might not be an accurate measure of entertainment-time.


It might be the wrong measure, but it is the one that is easy to make!


Most people aren't aware of the games market. You can get some brief overview here [1]. Console games make up < 30% of the market by revenue and users. Asia accounts for more revenue, and gamers, than the rest of the world combined. And that's disproportionately going to be China. So their trends dictate global trends.

Globally there are about 3 billion gamers. So it's largely just going to come down to a whole lot of people spending very little money. The average spend works out to $60/person, but that includes console gamers and mobile whales spending hundreds to thousands of dollars a year. The median spend is going to be much lower. I'd certainly take the under on $20.

And I think that's largely the answer. In terms of entertainment hours/$, there's no digital entertainment remotely close to games. So it has widespread appeal and affordability.

[1] - https://newzoo.com/insights/trend-reports/newzoo-global-game...


More recently: micro-transactions/subscriptions

But historically I'd bet it came down to the fact that games are simply more expensive than movies; a AAA game has cost $60 for the past decade and a half, while a movie ticket is ~$10 (or a DVD is ~$20, or you could just watch it on your existing cable or now streaming subscriptions)

Many of the biggest games (especially multiplayer) are now free to play + in-game purchases, but there are still plenty of big, prestige, $60 single-player games coming out every year


I think this is the right answer, big AAA games moved to seasonal/battle pass models. In-game purchases at much smaller price points for gear/cosmetics hits the disposable income decision threshold much quicker than a $60 full game you may end up not liking. You already like the game you're playing so its easier to get you to spend $10-20 here and there and those are on things you use/wear in game.

Video games are more engaging than movies because of a feedback loop. A movie is a scripted adventure that ends and its done, some are re-watchable but 2nd to Nth time thru won't ever evoke the same feelings as first time. With a video game there are adventures to go on, gear to chase, puzzles to solve, high scores to try and top and in a lot of cases you're creating or customizing something in game that gives you more of a sense of ownership. This feeling is kind of like having collectibles and your own customizable toy chest. Even playing through games a 2nd time or repeating activities in-game will have varied outcomes, especially if you're playing with others and overcome some challenge in a new way.


The interaction is a huge component of it. Shared experiences is important to a lot of people. It's why people love playing games with friends. Even single player games, people will still discuss online etc.

I think it's always more immersive than a movie, even in terms of non immersive games. "You" are the one playing after all. I also think there's such a wide variety of games that's there's something for everyone.

Music is much cheaper to consume. I have 95% of the music I ever care to listen to at my fingertips from a single music streaming subscription. That definitely contributes to the pure money factor and why games sell more.

A lot of artists make more in merch, vinyl, and touring ticket sales than they do in pure streaming numbers. Buying new video games generally cost more. Even if they don't, people tend to spend more on microtransactions.


A lot of it is scammy mobile games that predate on people.

But even if you take into account only PC+Console games, unlike shows and movies, the cash cows are free to play where value is maximally extracted based on the player's income. You can spend $0 if you can't afford anything, you can spend $20 if that's all you've got, or you can spend hundreds (even thousands). A movie can't really extract more than a couple ticket's worth regardless of how invested the person is (outside of maybe merchandising which is niche).

Also realistically you might watch at most 10 times a movie (20 hours), while these games (LoL, Fortnite, CSGO, Valorant, etc) are often played for thousands or tens of thousands of hours. So obviously it's more reasonable to spend more on something that you play every day.


The simple answer is that while there are fewer people spending on games, those that do spend more.

The details are more complex because of the variety of ways games earn money.

The simple buy-the-game model can earn more because the cost of most games is more than going to see a movie

On the darker side there are games that unethically try and leech as much money out of the players as possible, sometimes to a life destroying degree.

In the middle ground there are games with pay-to-win, pay for quality-of-life, pay for bling, and pay for additional content. Different cultures and subcultures draw different lines as to what is considered acceptable.

There are also a few things that muddy the waters, How much is the revenue generated by The Last Of Us TV series considered game industry revenue? How about Angry Birds merch?


Most top grossing games get the vast majority of their revenue from a very small % of users, referred to as “whales”. A game is a motivational system typically fulfils intrinsic needs (relatedness, autonomy, mastery and purpose). techniques which tap into rheee needs successfully compel people to pay.

TV by comparison is more passive so perhaps it’s less likely someone consuming it would experience the type of ‘flow’ and rewards you get from a game.

You can also check out Jane McGonigal’s Reality Is Broken for a bit more about the psychology of gaming or Yu-Kai Choi’s Actionable Gamification book. Choi’s book details many of the black hat persuasive techniques) commonly found in games, which also compel people to spend more than they perhaps would really want to!


If I were to hazard a guess:

1. The unit price of games is higher than any other media form. What do you pay for your TV shows? Probably not much with a subscription (or ad supported). Movies? $10-$15 a pop at the local theater. Music? Virtually nothing. And the higher price is supported by the following point:

2. Games are interactive and, hence, more engaging. You can spend dozens of hours in a game world and return back to it as desired. Even more so if it’s multiplayer where the lucrativeness is further enhanced by ongoing DLCs and other monetization schemes.


> But looking around it's still less universal than e.g. TV (±"everyone" watches TV but not everyone plays video games).

When you include mobile, I don’t think gaming is less ubiquitous than TV.


The AAA games industry has found a way to keep its product premium priced, and so when they have millions of people go out and buy the latest thing, they're not paying $15, they're paying $70 (and the long tail of discounts starts at that high price point). That yields enormous day one revenues.

On top of this companies have increasingly leveraged paid expansion Downloadable Content releases to both add value, which provides a supportive floor to the core product, and to yield further revenue from current players.


I would imagine, games are relatively less expensive to produce, so duds are less costly. That said, it's costly enough that the barrier to entry minimizes noise in the market (unlike music).

The music industry has social appeal but the truth is only a few artists do very well. So despite the volume of artists and releases there is a never ending stream of duds.


For AAA games, this is definitely an outdated view. A modern AAA game is about as expensive to make as a modern wide-release hollywood movie, on average (50-100 million USD).


But is that the rule or the rare exception? And what % of the industry is that? I understand how the blockbusters get mainstream attention. But what's being played by those playing? And where (i.e., device)?


The most recent COD/Cyberpunk/GTA productions have already blown well-beyond Avatar budget levels.


Another aspect to mention is games can add a marketplace directly to the media. Paying extra to change the costume a character wears in a TV show wouldn't work, but paying to change a costume of a game character is something people do every day.


Games are more replay able than movies and tv. Also, inapp purchases and subscriptions are the bulk of where games make their money. Non games apps are starting to catch up with the inapp and subscription schemes to increase profitability


I would guess that about the same amount of people that watch TV play games if you count mobile games.


Games have the tightest reinforcement feedback loop one could possibly imagine, second only to something like sugar or cocaine. They are made to be addictive and cost $60 for 30 hours of often thrilling engagement. Add the social element for networked games and you are talking about a ridiculously compelling experience.


> They are made to be addictive

That's quite off the mark. The biggest franchises are made to be addictive. But most games are made to be fun, and people tend to like fun.

That's the difference between someone enjoying Super Mario or 99% of games, and someone with 20k hours playing the same MMO even when they are quite aware they're not having fun. Shigeru Miyamoto didn't sit down with psychologists to create an addictive game, but you bet your ass Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft & co. routinely do.


That's not it. The number of people who a find good movie or TV series thrilling is way higher than a number of people who find AAA game thrilling. And yet, games make more money.


Wrong comparison. Compare the movie/TV viewers to the number of people playing mobile games on the subway or the toilet.


I'm pretty sure my mom threw money at candy crush at one point, it felt bad like she was getting into slots or something


They are monetising by tapping into "hidden gamblers".


>But looking around it's still less universal than e.g. TV (±"everyone" watches TV but not everyone plays video games).

What do you mean by TV?

I'm asking because I feel like by TV you meant TV + Netflix/HBO/etc...


Those are all TV apps.


Where I'm living "watching TV" often refers to "old-fashioned TV", so for streaming people say "Let's watch Netflix" for example


I think that TV series as a medium was always a bit different from other kinds of TV. But HBO, Netflix etc is carrying on with TV series the medium, so I call those TV. I watch TV but never "watch TV." even if I watch it on the TV.. :)

Nowadays I've heard the term linear TV being used for the old style. That's when you're sat infront a flow of programs without choice in which program that's being shown next on that channel.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2024

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: