S&box situation is just sad

@man of piss and shit i'm not saying i hate policing completely at all. what i am saying is that when left largely untouched, the people will decide what is good and what is bad and they will play that. people simply won't make bad games if bad games do poorly, and if they do, they will flop. it's a non-issue like 99% of the discourse on here.

@marat119 The specific use case for s&box as a competitor to Unity is its ability to export standalone games to Steam. This can be indicated by the open source licensing, and the zero-royalty fee to export a standalone game to Steam. Sure, Valve charges 30%, but if someone uses Unity as a candidate for game design they will have to owe Steam 30% and Unity an additional 5%-10% or whatever they charge to use their engine to distribute a game over a certain revenue threshold. Are we holding the flame of quality of a standalone game to the same standard of one that is a subsidiary game mode in s&box's Roblox-style model? Context matters.

To be clear, I disagree with you, but I don't think your post is in bad faith and I appreciate that you took time to write it. Let's give the Playfund thing more time. The game has only had about 70k users total and no more than 1000 users a day at its best. It's too early to tell, marat119.

@Mi.ke marat isn't claiming this "works in theory but not in practice" for us to need more time. this shit doesn't even work in theory. it's simple common sense: if you reward playtime, you will ALWAYS incentivice addictive gameplay over authentic gameplay. 

this isn't inherently bad if you put quality constraints, but in our case we have nothing but the incentive.
beides, it's been a year already since the play fund was introduced. we experimented enough. 

@man of piss and shit

There already is quality constraint...and that constraint is: determined by the players, if it's fun enough for them to spend time playing it.

I also want to add for people who talk about how single player or similar experiences cant compete playfund wise. I think thats by design, the whole ecosystem is built around multiplayer, and I would say standalone would be the way to go with singleplayer even if playfund didnt exist.

I also think just bringing up rp cancer is bad faith to the argument, the masses are always going to aproach towards the same, and alot of the time the masses can bring cancer to what ever it touches. there were still gems that were made that found massive success example being the breach gamemode and just so many more. 

And as someone who played gmod for a decade I quite liked RP, sure it was cancer and alot of server owners had paid to win tactics, its a fun genre. I also enjoyed more unique game modes, pirate ship wars zombie survival. I think you are just as bad as these people who play these "slop gamemodes" with these takes as popular bad, niche good.

Also to man of piss and shit, Its important to know the engine isnt even released and is just  becoming stable, Its probably likley a majority of the quallity projects we will see in a year wont even begin development untill after sbox releases.

For single player games, if your game is good enough, you have the option to do a stand alone build and publish it on Steam for fixed price, or any game for that matter. Playfund is entirely optional target to aim towards.

Ardi why would ANYONE make a singleplayer game when they can make a clicksino clone and get more money? people dont do this just out of passion. they want to also put food on their plate. and they wont spend their precious time making a single player game or a full-featured fully-modeled game if idlers and slopgames get more incentives.

you think you are fighting for de-regulation but your position is to regulate the market such that it rewards addiction mechanics.

I just want @garry to make it clear how things are gonna be, so I and my dev friends could decide whether he created something special again and we definetelly should invest everything in this platform, or is it gonna be a half dead roblox rip off flop with ugly sausage men and dudes in dresses, and our sole interest here could be a simple slop money farming. fuck gmod p2w darkrp, fuck roblox brainrot tycoons, fuck everything  that disguises itself as a game , fuck all the cash-grabbing trash pretending to be fun, and fuck anyone who calls that shit "entertainment"

some people do make games out of passion

Yeah I dont think you guys understand no matter what system theres going to be slop that "abuses" what ever monetary system... story of life. But we also can learn that a passionate project long term beats out a "money grab" 90% of the time. 

@man of piss and shit

Your arguments don't make much sense to me.
Players determine if your game is worth playing or not. You determine how good you want to make it.

Players are not going to play Clicksino over your game if your game is more fun to play.

@marat119 You specifically mention addictive mechanics. Let's define what that actually means. If we're discussing addictive behavior then it means that a player or user has a compulsive inability to stop playing because the game that they are playing is too reinforcing. Addiction mechanics are specifically prevalent in games with real world pay-to-win strategies or real-world gambling where there is very real cost sunk fallacy and loss aversion which are significant drivers in addictiveness, none of which exist currently on the platform.

@Mi.ke, a passionate project won’t even make it to release because devs have lives, families, etc. Trying to make something without money as a reward will kill motivation fast, and the band will just fall apart.  Only people with shady money, aka 'investors,' will be able to fund development. But as you know, regular good games don’t interest them—they want live-service cash cows.  So don’t be surprised by what ends up at the top later.

@Braxen i said "just" out of passion. people working full-time as game devs would never do this if they can't get food on their plate. even if they have all the passion in the world.

Ive been deving in sbox for 4 years, and as a mapper, up until the playfund none of us mappers never even thought we would make a dime off our work. People I work with, braxen and so many others probably expected to make very little off our work. Also high quality projects dont require really any investment a good project could realistically be built fully in someones free time. 

I think also once more assets by facepunch are created, and librarys the development process is going to become much more streamlined, and easier to push out quallity projects. In gmod everything was already there making it much easier to make a quallity game. Given some time sbox will have more librarys and assets, right now it takes a lot more time to make a solid game experience.

And if your making a 4 hour magnum opus, put it on standalone man. Its pretty simple.

Im probably done responding, you guys are just pessimistic and believe that all devs want more money and will only produce slop. which isnt the case

@Ardi Vaba then let me explain them better by making an example.
imagine i made a 4-hour magnum opus game that literally gets 10/10 in every review aggregator website (literally the best game of all time). people play the 4 hours then leave.

little johny makes "clicky sex arena" a game thats 1:1 copy of clicksino but has sexy anime tits plastered everywhere for variation. this game can be played for an infinite amount of time cause it's  a casino.

no matter how good my game is, clicky sex arena will get more money. not even close. cause they can only play my game for 4 hours tops.

Which is why I pointed out that aiming towards Playfund funding is entirely optional. If you make a 4-hour magnum opus game that, sell that on Steam, if you don't like that, make your game replayable in single-player setting, add roguelite elements or what not.

which is market regulation. you're literally driving out originality and good games so that they escape your eco-system just to get money.

@Mi.ke I'm glad you guys are hobbyists who are making youtube videos for fun and ad sense money is a little reward for you efforts speaking in terms of yearls 2010's, but there are people who want to become professional gamedevs on the s&box platform and they wont make it without "a real job", which means they wont have enough of time to develop games, hence very small amount of high quallity fun games to play on the platform.  Not to mention that a huge number of developers simply won’t dare to invest in the platform in the first place."

truly, if everyone was like them and passion is all that's needed to make games, then a monetization system is not necessary in the first place and it should be abolished

I doubt there will ever be enough money in the play fund system to realistally support a developer full time. Maybe the top 5 devs will ever make enough. So thats just a terrible way to base your argument. Also man what are your guys arguments even, Since you guys were originally fine doing these projects for free... screw you guys you dont get to get paid, only the people who will only do it for the money.

i don't know about marat but my argument is to keep paying people but in a way that doesn't incentivize slop over substance. take a look at the discover page and you'll see what i mean. people are abandoning their passion projects because they think they'll get more money if they churn out slop

Yeah, man of piss and shit is right.  @Mi.ke lets see with how many devs will simply leave the platform with play fund system removed.  Only enthusiasts like you and devs backed by investors would stay.  You think that would be a good outcome? Maybe.  I want one-man-army s&box stars to get rich, just like cool youtubers did 

@marat119 good luck on your game design

Ok so if you dont want to develop your game on sbox because of slop games in charts what else will you do? Create a game in roblox? - but it's full with slop too. Create a single player game in unity? - but sbox will allow you to export your game same as unity. So if you're not "wasting" this time on sbox are you what wasting it on then?

D: real job I guess :(

I don't buy the argument that people with a job won't have time to develop games. All three programmers on the long-term project we're developing have full-time jobs, and we're making fast progress. You either want it enough to make time for it, or you don't want it enough

D: gary added the money incentive to grow a community of devoted developers. why learn sbox when i can enter the richer, more extensive ecosystem of unity? why make a free game in sbox when i can make a game in roblox and at least get money for my work? that's why the fund in needed. but i'm afraid that instead of attracting a community of passionate developers, it is attracting slop makers.

Maverick i'll say again, if your argument is sound we wouldn't need a play fund in the first place. let people make money with their side full-time job.

But it's filled with slop, so are you gonna be making slop too? Then whats the difference?

So you're saying that you don't like sbox dev experince and only doing it for the money torturing yourself? 

D: difference is that i want s&box to succeed instead of being a crappier copy of these two platforms. it won't succeed if the incentive is "have a roblox dev mindset to get money"