One fascinating development has been AI-generated game simulations—models trained to generate video game frames based on existing gameplay footage. These systems often resemble playable versions of classic titles like Minecraft or Doom, but in reality, they’re more akin to interactive videos than fully functioning games.
While visually impressive, these AI-generated experiences are fundamentally limited. They operate by predicting the next frame, rather than running a dynamic game engine. This means they perform well under predictable conditions—opening doors, shooting enemies—but can quickly “hallucinate” inconsistencies when a player moves unpredictably, leading to bizarre visual errors.
Despite their novel appeal, these AI-driven simulations are not the future of gaming. The attention they’ve received is largely driven by press releases from AI companies eager to position themselves at the forefront of technological innovation. While these projects highlight advancements in AI model sophistication, they’re far from replacing traditional game engines.
There are three key reasons why these systems are unlikely to make a lasting impact on game development:
1. Consistency Issues
These AI models generate frames based on prior footage, rather than maintaining a persistent world state. This can result in sudden shifts in location or enemies appearing out of nowhere, making gameplay unpredictable and unreliable.
2. Data and Hardware Limitations
Training these models requires vast amounts of gameplay data—often spanning years of recorded footage. Additionally, the immense computational power makes them incredibly resource-intensive and requires a prohibitively expensive graphics card. While players love running Doom on unconventional devices, this AI-driven Doom may be the most expensive version yet.
3. Game Stability and Evolution
Unlike traditional game engines, these AI models depend on static, unchanging titles for training. They can’t adapt to evolving game mechanics or updates, making them ill-suited for modern game development, which often sees drastic iteration throughout production. Old games like Doom, or the more recent Bleeding Edge have ceased development, making them good choices for this research.
As these AI-generated game simulations continue to emerge, it’s important to approach them with a degree of skepticism. While industry figures like Phil Spencer and Satya Nadella may speculate on AI’s role in game preservation, the real question is: what do the creators of these systems say? The truth is, they aren’t making bold claims about AI reshaping game development—because they understand the inherent limitations.
Video game creation and development remain largely unaffected by these experimental AI-driven projects. Even as generative AI becomes a hot topic, separating hype from reality is crucial. These systems don’t threaten traditional gaming, but they do provide a fascinating glimpse into AI’s capabilities—and its current shortcomings.
I’ve read about, or watched videos on computer game balance and find it such an interesting topic. How you can measure and perceive the strength of each character/unit, or attempt to fix the issue to rebalance the game.
Second Wind have made a video on Teamflight Tactics.
I’ve never played this game, or even similar games, but it has the same general problems to solve in its design that many games do.
So taking the transcript, and running it through AI, I’ve made a good blog on it.
Teamfight Tactics
Teamfight Tactics (TFT) by Riot Games is a strategic auto-battler, inspired by the League of Legends universe and drawing elements from Dota Auto Chess. In this competitive online game, players are pitted against seven adversaries, each vying to construct a dominant team that outlasts the rest.
In a game like League of Legends, a single overpowered champion can only be selected by one player and would be banned in competitions once discovered. In TFT, all Champions and items are available all at once creating many possibilities for players to find exploits in.
Balancing the dynamic of Teamfight Tactics (TFT) is a compelling challenge. Comparing it to card games like Hearthstone, where adjustments are made through a limited set of variables, TFT presents a stark contrast with its myriad of factors such as health, armour, animation speed to name a few.
Initially, it might seem that having numerous variables at one’s disposal would simplify the balancing process. Even minor adjustments can significantly influence the game’s equilibrium. For instance, a mere 0.25-second reduction in a character’s animation speed can transform an underperforming champion into an overwhelmingly dominant force.
The sensitivity of each variable is due to the intricate interconnections within the game. A single element that is either too weak or too strong, regardless of potential counters, can trigger a cascade of effects that alter the entire gameplay experience.
Consider the analogy of a card game where an overpowered card exists. In such a scenario, there are usually counters or alternative strategies to mitigate its impact. However, if a card is deemed too weak, it’s simply excluded from a player’s deck without much consequence. Contrast this with a game like Teamfight Tactics, where the strength of a champion is intrinsically linked to its traits and the overall synergy within a team composition. If a champion is underpowered, it doesn’t just affect the viability of that single unit; it extends to the entire trait group, potentially diminishing the strength of related champions. This interconnectedness presents a challenging balance but manageable through data analysis. Player perceptions of balance are shaped by this data.
Vladimir The Placebo, and Vain the Unappreciated
The character Vladimir in League of Legends had become notably powerful, overshadowing others in the game’s “meta”. To address this, developers proposed minor tweaks to balance his abilities. However, when the update was released, Vladimir’s dedicated players were outraged, believing their favourite character had been weakened to the point of being nonviable. But, in an unexpected turn of events, the nerf was never actually implemented due to an oversight. The players’ reactions were solely based on the anticipated changes they read about, not on any real modification to Vladimir’s capabilities. This psychological effect influenced Vladimir users to play more cautiously, while their opponents became more bold, illustrating how perception can shape reality.
Data only reflects the current state, not the potential. Particularly in a strategy game like Team Fight Tactics, which is complex and “unsolved”, players’ understanding and use of characters can be heavily swayed by their perceptions. Perception often becomes the player’s reality.
In the fifth instalment of the game, there emerged a low-cost champion named Vain. Initially, after the game’s release, the consensus was that Vain was underperforming—deemed the least desirable among her tier. The development team had reservations; they believed she wasn’t as ineffective as portrayed. Consequently, a minor enhancement was scheduled for Vain. However, before the update could go live, feedback from players in China indicated they had discovered a potent strategy for Vain. This revelation transformed her status drastically within three days, elevating her from the least favoured to potentially one of the most overpowering champions ever introduced.
This scenario underscores the limitations of relying solely on data, whether from players or developers, as it may not reveal the full picture. Balancing in gaming is often perceived in black and white terms by the player base—they view a character as either strong or weak, which leads to calls for nerfs or buffs. However, they frequently overlook the subtle intricacies and minute adjustments that can have significant impacts on gameplay.
Different Players
In competitive games like League of Legends, different balance parameters are set for various levels of play. A character might dominate in lower ranks but may not be as effective in higher tiers of play.
When it comes to balancing games like Teamfight Tactics, developers have taken an approach by balancing the game as if computers were playing it. The game is designed to test strategic thinking rather than reflexes and mechanical skill.
In Army A versus Army B, the outcome is predetermined. However, this does not mean we should nerf an army simply because it performs well at a lower skill level. Instead, it presents a learning opportunity for players to improve their skills.
Interestingly, perceived imbalances can serve as educational tools. As players engage with the game, they gain knowledge through experimentation. For example, if a player tries a certain composition with specific items and it fails, they can reflect on whether it was a misstep or an unforeseen event. Learning that a champion doesn’t synergize well with a particular item is valuable knowledge to carry into future games.
There are build combinations that could potentially disrupt the game’s balance if the perfect mix is achieved. This aspect works well in single-player modes like Roguelikes, where the aim is to become overwhelmingly powerful. However, the challenge arises in maintaining this sense of excitement while ensuring these powerful builds don’t lead to exploitation in a multiplayer setting.
Risks & Rewards
Balancing isn’t merely about pitting one army against another to see the outcome. It’s also about the risks involved in reaching that point. For instance, if there’s a build that appears once in every 10,000 games, requiring a perfect alignment of circumstances, it’s only fair that such a build is more potent than one that’s easily attainable in every game. Therefore, in games like TFT, balancing involves weighing the relative power against the rarity of acquisition, ensuring that when a player encounters a significantly rare build, it feels justified because of the risks taken or the innovative strategies employed.
TFT thrives on the abundance of possible outcomes, with a multitude of combinations and variables at play. It’s crucial for these games to offer not just a handful of ‘high roll’ moments but a wide array, potentially hundreds, allowing for diverse gameplay experiences. TFT reaches its pinnacle when players are presented with numerous potential strategies and must adapt their approach based on the augments, items, and champions they encounter in a given game, crafting their path to victory with the resources at hand.
New Content Updates
The allure of both playing and developing this game lies in its inherent unpredictability. Each session is a unique experience, a stark contrast to many Roguelike games that, despite their initial promise of variety, tend to become predictable after extensive play. Teamfight Tactics, however, stands out with its vast array of possible combinations. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, a new set is introduced, refreshing the game entirely. This happens every four months, an impressive feat that adds a fresh roster of champions, traits, and augments.
The question arises: how is it possible to introduce such a significant amount of content regularly while maintaining balance and preventing the randomness from skewing too far towards being either underwhelming or overpowering? The answer lies in ‘Randomness Distribution Systems’. These systems are designed to control the frequency and type of experiences players encounter. As a game designer, the instinct might be to embrace randomness in its purest form, but the key is to harness it. By setting minimum and maximum thresholds for experiences, we ensure that all elements of randomness fall within these bounds, creating a balanced and engaging game environment.
In Mario Party, have you ever noticed that you never seem to roll the same number on the dice four times consecutively? This isn’t a coincidence; it’s actually by design. Nintendo has implemented a system of controlled randomness to prevent such repetition, as it could lead to a frustrating gaming experience.
This concept is akin to a crafted ‘Ludo-narrative’, where game designers aim to shape player experiences through seemingly random events, but with a controlled distribution to keep the gameplay enjoyable and engaging. The goal is to allow players to encounter extreme situations, but these are skewed towards positive outcomes rather than negative ones.
This scenario might distort the essence of randomness, but surprisingly, players may not voice their dissatisfaction. Despite the statistical improbability, with millions of players engaging in a game daily, someone is bound to encounter this experience. Even odds as low as 1 in 10,000 can impact thousands of players at scale, highlighting the importance of considering player frustration as a crucial aspect of the gaming experience.
Perfectly Balanced
When discussing game balance, it’s not just about whether a feature is frustrating; it’s about recognising that frustration indicates a flaw in the design that needs to be addressed and learned from. Game balance is a complex, ever-evolving challenge that developers continuously tweak, hoping to align with player expectations. However, there will always be criticism, no matter the adjustments made.
The perception of balance is significant, and within any gaming community, you’ll find voices claiming that perfectly balanced video games don’t exist. Some players set such lofty standards for balance that they seem nearly impossible to meet. The key is establishing a solid foundation that dictates how the game should unfold, ensuring that the core gameplay aligns with the intended player experience.
In Teamfight Tactics, the ideal duration for rounds is targeted to be between 18 and 25 seconds, which is considered the standard for a well-paced battle. By setting these benchmarks, developers can align the game’s balance with this envisioned state and is key to achieving a finely-tuned game.
Conclusion
It’s essential to have a clear, balanced vision for the game and to persistently follow through with it. Balancing a game is a complex and dynamic challenge, not merely a matter of adjusting to data but also managing player perceptions and their experiences of frustration. Navigating this ever-changing landscape is no easy feat, especially when the development team must juggle multiple roles at a rapid pace. However, it’s precisely this complexity that adds to the excitement and enjoyment of Teamfight Tactics.
One of our Senior Testers wrote a blog detailing how she found an obscure bug. When I was a software tester, I often said that – even though you spend a large amount of your time writing Test Cases and running them; the majority of bugs I found were actually performing actions off-script.
The reason for this is that if you have a certain requirement, the developer writes enough code to pass that requirement as it is written. A better developer may even write some kind of automated tests to cover that scenario to prove that it works, and it won’t break in future. Therefore, running a manual test that describes that behaviour won’t find a bug now, and it won’t if you run that test in the future (during regression testing).
Being able to freestyle your steps means you can come up with obscure scenarios and experiment, and do way more testing than you would following a strict, heavily-documented process.
This was the main problem I had working as a Software Tester. Managers wanted the documentation and if you told them you had been testing without it, you sometimes got told to stop, or spend time writing Test Cases for ALL the additional scenarios you came up with. All that does is encourage people to be lazy and do the minimal amount of testing, which consists of just the basic scenarios.
You also get into scenarios where if there is a bug in live, it’s easy to make stupid claims in hindsight. I remember a colleague being absolutely furious with the criticism. They had done loads of testing but there was a bug in live in a very specific scenario:
“I’m disappointed in the level of testing” – Test Manager
Here is our Senior Tester’s blog:
I found a deliciously elusive bug last week. The feeling a tester gets when this happens is joy at your good luck, like satisfaction at solving a fiendish puzzle, and relief at preventing harm. We feel useful!
The bug was to do with online visibility data. My team is implementing the ability to right-click items and set Online Visibility. Sounds simple in theory - but data is complicated and the code base is large.
How was I going to approach this? It was an intimidating piece of work – and I was tired. My normal process would be to come up with some ideas for testing, document them, then interact with the product, make notes, fill out the report. But that day, I just couldn’t face doing the documentation and planning I would normally do before the testing. I decided to just test, not worry too much about documentation, and have fun.
I sought out a Record with a rich data set and played around, selecting things, deselecting them, selecting parent entries, child entries, single entry, multiple entries. I didn’t have any defined agenda in mind except to explore and see what would happen.
One minute in, I was rewarded with a beautiful crash!
I hadn’t taken a note of my steps – but I knew I could probably find the path again. I set up and recorded a Teams meeting with myself, as I didn’t want to have to pause to note down every step I took – that would take a long time and risk my mindset changing to a formal, rigid, structured view – which I didn’t want. I needed that playful freedom. The system crashed again! As there were so many variables at play, I didn’t know what the exact cause was, but I now had proof that it hadn’t been a magical dream.
I spent the rest of the afternoon trying to determine the exact circumstances in vain. I spoke to the programmer, and showed him my recording. He took the issue seriously, and tried to recreate it himself. We both struggled to do so, and decided to wait until the morning.
The following day, we got on a call and went over the recording again. What exactly had I done before the crash? I had selected the parent entry, then two child entries, right clicked but not changed anything, deselected the parent, selected another child, unselected it, selected a different child, selected the parent again and then right clicked and changed the Online Visibility - crash. We tried that again on the developer’s machine, on the same type of report, break points at the ready. Crash! Got it!
The developer eventually narrowed it down to two conditions: child entries had to have a GroupingDisplayOrder index beginning with 1, and the user had to select the parent entry after its child.
It seemed sheer luck that I had found this. But was it luck? No. It was luck by design – I had created a rich data set, and done lots of different actions in different orders, been creative and diverse in my testing. And it had only taken a minute to yield results!
So what did I learn? Reflecting, I noted my preference for highly structured documentation – of tables with colour highlighting, documenting each test in high detail, strictly in order, changing one condition at a time. The result of this was that I tested in a highly formal, structured way to fit the documentation, and only did informal testing as an afterthought. And yet I had most often found bugs during the informal testing!
I had made a god of documentation and lost sight of what mattered most. If you need me, I’ll be testing. And trying not to make too many pivot tables.
What Are Software Testers Really?
The same tester once came out with this quote
“testers are ultimately critics. Developers are artists. Testers are there to give information. What you do with that information is up to you.”
That’s quite an interesting perspective. I think it mainly comes from the idea that Testers can find 10 bugs but maybe you decide that you will only fix 6 of them, a few you might fix later, then 2 you think aren’t a problem, or so unlikely to happen – it’s not worth the effort and risk to fix it.
“we are the headlights of the car, driving into the darkness”
Software Testers In Game Development
“She was the one who taught me the importance of testers and how they are a critical gear in the machinery that makes-up making a game. Testers aren’t just unit tests in human form. They have a unique perspective on the game and poke not only at the bugs but also the design and the thought process of playing a game.”
Ron Gilbert, creator of Monkey Island
Another interesting discussion on the role software testers play is from Mark Darrah who has worked on games like Dragon Age Origins. He does seem to agree with this idea that the Testers are merely critics.
Mark Darrah – Don’t Blame QA
When encountering bugs during gameplay, it’s often misconceived that the quality assurance (QA) team is to blame. However, it’s more likely that the QA team identified and reported the bug, but it remained unresolved due to various factors. For instance, a more critical bug could have emerged from the attempted fix, leading to a strategic decision to tolerate the lesser bug. Additionally, project leaders may assess the bug during triage and conclude that its impact is minimal (affecting a small number of users), opting to proceed with the game’s release.
Such scenarios are more common than one might expect, and they typically occur more frequently than QA overlooking a bug altogether. If a bug did slip through QA, it’s usually not the fault of any single individual. The bug might result from a vast number of possible combinations (a combinatorial explosion) of in-game elements, making it impractical to test every scenario. Your unique combination of in-game items and actions may have simply gone untested, not due to negligence, but due to limited resources.
Complex game designs can introduce bugs that are difficult to detect, such as those that only appear in multiplayer modes. Budget constraints may force QA to simulate multiplayer scenarios solo (a single person playing all four or eight different players at once), significantly reducing the scope of testing.
Furthermore, bugs can be hardware-specific, and while less common now, they do occur. It’s improbable that QA had access to the exact hardware configuration of your high-end gaming setup.
The term ‘Quality Assurance’ (QA) can often be a misnomer within the development industry. While ‘assurance’ suggests a guarantee of quality, the role of QA is not to ensure the absence of issues but to verify the quality by identifying problems. It is the collective responsibility of the development team to address and resolve these issues.
Understanding the semantics is crucial because language shapes perception. The term ‘QA’ may inadvertently set unrealistic expectations of the role’s responsibilities. In many development studios, QA teams are undervalued, sometimes excluded from team meetings, bonuses, and even social events like Christmas parties. Yet, they are expected to shoulder the criticism for any flaws or bugs that remain in the final product, which is both unfair and inappropriate.
Developers, it’s essential to recognize that QA is an integral part of your team. The effectiveness of your QA team can significantly influence the quality of your game. Encourage them to report both qualitative and quantitative bugs, engage with them about the complexities of different systems, and heed their warnings about testing difficulties. Disregarding their insights can lead to overlooked bugs and ultimately, a compromised product.
For those outside the development sphere, it’s important to understand that if you encounter a bug in a game, it’s likely that QA was aware of it, but there may have been extenuating circumstances preventing its resolution. Treat QA with respect; they play a pivotal role in maintaining the game’s integrity.
Remember, a strong QA team is the bulwark against the chaos of a bug-ridden release. Appreciate their efforts, for they are a vital component in the creation of seamless gaming experiences.
There’s an increase in subtly (and not so subtly) including woke issues into games. Studios like “Don’t Nod Entertainment” who have made games such as Life Is Strange – have these concepts driving the story.
Some companies are actually hiring other companies to guide them to include diversity in their games, and one such company is Sweet Baby Inc (SBI). SBI offer services ranging from story consultation to “sensitivity reading”. Their goal is to ensure that diverse characters and stories are represented thoughtfully and authentically.
However, this approach has faced backlash from a segment of the gaming community, which accuses the company of forcing political correctness and “woke” culture into games, potentially to the detriment of the gaming experience.
A group on Steam did some investigation into which games used the likes of SBI. SBI has worked with the developers of Suicide Squad (whose story and portrayal of certain characters has come under criticism). The CEO of SBI, Kim Belair recently spoke to game developers and instructed them to threaten their companies unless they comply with their DEI mandates:
“put this stuff up to your higher-ups and if they don’t see the value and what you’re asking for…go have a coffee with your marketing team and just terrify them with the possibility of what’s going to happen if they don’t give you what you want .”
So this is actually how DEI works in this industry; just to blackmail the company to align with “woke” views rather than the goal being to improve the product and story.
After being called out, games journalists accused critics of SBI of harassment. This debate eventually lead to a notable, and derided statement from a Kotaku senior editor, Alyssa Mercante wrote “hi you can’t be racist against white people thanks for tuning in.”
Kim Belair also explained that her company’s mandate is to make every game political. There has to be diverse representation in all contexts even in say World War I. “bringing representation to something is trying to build a narrative and a story that include moments and elements custom made to bring representation and joy to people because that’s kind”
This example is interesting because it would be historically accurate to portray the majority of heroes as white men, and she is saying she wants to change the narrative because representation is “being kind”. Personally, I think making it clear that the game is “alternate reality” rather than historically accurate is fine.
An anti-white narrative was also shown in a recent viral clip from also derided Dani Lalonders:
“we have no white people on our team. I did that because I wanted to create a safe environment, and I know the best way for an environment to be safe is to be around people who are just like me. And I’m not saying that white people in the industry are creating unsafe environments. I’m not saying that. That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying sometimes it is hard to work with white people because they think that something may be okay, but it was really a microaggression, and no one wants to deal with that while you’re trying to make a game that they love.”
So she admits to discriminating and showing prejudice. She later claimed that she didn’t say that because she wasn’t in charge of hiring, but she clearly did say that.
So what’s with the sudden push for wokeness without it being driven by the gamers that are consuming the content? Apparently it’s partly due to “ESG financing”. The cost of producing games these days is extremely high, so game studios are looking to raise money in any way possible. Even huge companies like EA are using various sources of cheap funding including this ESG Financing. Game studios have to agree to all kinds of conditions including hiring companies like SBI to diversify their games.
I think gamers don’t really care so much about who the characters are as long as they are well written. But making changes purely based on diversity could make the world they are representing unbelievable. It wasn’t that long ago when Battlefield had many female characters, and so were criticised for not being accurate for the time period they were using.
Gamers are therefore concerned about tokenism, “phoning in” weak characters, destroying well-established IP/ignoring source material, or ignoring historical fact.
Unity have announced a new fee which they call the “Unity Runtime Fee” which is going to take effect in January. It affects all Unity developers, even people that have already released their game many years ago; which has caused mass outrage among the game development community.
I think the existing model states that once you reach a threshold of revenue, you have to pay a licence fee which works out around £1500 for the year. With the new model, once you reach a similar threshold, Unity is now going to charge a fee of 20 cents every time somebody instals your game on a new device for the first time.
The threshold is $200,000, which on the face of things, 20 cents per install doesn’t sound unreasonable when they have given you a great tool to help you create your game. They need to earn money as a business and deserve some kind of cut for their service/product. According to this tweet, it looks like they are burning through money so some drastic action is probably required
There’s a fair few aspects of why this is new model is complicated, but I still feel some of the anger is misplaced.
I think the whole scenario is similar to what I have written about recently where the CEO demanded we release our software weekly instead of monthly and we told him several reasons why it is technically, and legally impossible. Then later he then demands all our changes have a well-documented rollback plan, and again, we told him loads of reasons why it wasn’t possible. He still insisted and looked like a fool when it backfired and caused a few problems he thought he was solving.
The main Problem
The core problem stems from the idea that it is based on installations and not based on Unit Sales or Revenue. For comparison, the main competitor, Epic Games’ Unreal Engine charges you five percent of your total revenues after you’ve earned at least a million dollars on your game. Now, that can work out to be a lot of money and especially in the long run if your game is successful, but the difference is that they’re taking a cut of your money that you’ve already earned. When Unity charges you for an installation you’re being charged whether or not you’ve earned any money, or at different period of time to where you earned the money. That could turn into a cash flow problem.
Once you’re over the threshold, if somebody bought your game a long time ago and they’ve now installed your game on their brand new computer, it’s going to cost you 20 cents. I suppose if it is an old game, you probably won’t be selling $200k over the last 12 months, so it’s probably not actually going to apply.
If you decide to port your game to a new platform which is often fairly easy in the Unity engine, then all those new installations are also going to be hit with fees. I suppose if you are re-selling the game then it’s not a major problem, but sometimes developers make a free-to-play mobile version. Then you make money later with microtransactions. Often these games have 90% of players not paying a penny, but then you make your money on the 10% who often spend big. In this case, you could end up losing money on the average player of your game.
People also raised the point of bundles like the Humble Bundle where people buy a bunch of games for a small price but some of the money goes to charity. You end up selling high volumes but gain very low revenue. If you hit the threshold, and you are more likely to with a sale like this, then you could be hit with a lot of fees. I think the interesting thing with this point which people don’t seem to be mentioning; is that people often buy these games then never actually play them. So you actually have a sale, but no install, so don’t pay the fee.
Fairly similar to a bundle is a service like Xbox Game Pass, where people could play your game with an overall payment to the provider, in this case Microsoft. I think Microsoft often pays a flat fee to the publishers to gain their games but I suppose contracts can vary. But the theory is, you could get a flat fee, then either get low instals so you’ve gained, or get a surprisingly large amount of instals if it is popular and it eats into your profits.
Piracy
People who pirate games don’t pay but do install your game. This means that every time your game is pirated you’re going to be slapped with a 20 cent fee. There can be other malicious ways you could be charged, if someone abuses Virtual Machines. There’s programs that will spin up large numbers of them, so you could “Install Bomb” quickly with virtual machines, hitting the developer with a 20 cent fee. It’s like when people “Review Bomb” where you leave loads of negative reviews on a game you don’t like in a coordinated way, but in this case you need fewer people, and they directly sap the revenues of the developer instead of just hurting their online presence.
Target Price
Unity has always positioned itself as being pro Indie. They want to help new aspiring Indies learn to program, break into the gaming market, and get their career started. New developers are also much more likely to sell their games for cheap. There’s a lot of games like this on Steam which are sold for £10 or loads for £5 or less, and that’s before you apply discounts. Steam is renowned for its high discounts in sales, and so these games are being sold for just a couple of pounds. They’re going to be disproportionately hit by having to pay Unity 20 cents every time the game is installed.
In the extreme case, imagine you’ve made a Steam game or a mobile game that sells for one dollar and then you pay a sales tax of 10-20%, then Steam takes 30%, then you know you’re left with around 50 cents. If you use a Publisher, then they will take their cut too. Then Unity takes 20 cents of it for an install and then maybe another 20 cents for another install, then you could be left with basically nothing. You could then lose money if it isn’t sold for full price.
Meanwhile, if you sell a premium game for £40+ then 20 cents is nothing. So it actually hits the indies harder. Unity have ways of getting the price per install down, but they look more aimed at larger companies who will want to pay the upfront fees to use the premium Unity features.
Patch Quest
Lychee Game Labs’ Patch Quest released on 2 March 2023 and so far has reached 182,594 total key activations on Steam (people who bought the game on Steam along with everyone who got the game elsewhere like in a bundle or a giveaway or for review purposes). So if the game keeps selling, or people install on more devices, then he will be taken over the threshold then would start being charged. He did remark that “for the sake of argument, every single person who already owns the game decided to install it on a second PC, I’d be hit with a charge of $36,400. Now it’s obviously not likely that this would happen” but it does make you think how Unity are gonna deal with these outliers.
Unity Response
Within the day of the announcement, there’s a lot of angry people, and Unity has tried to clarify the points raised. However, it’s not clear if it’s actually possible to do what they claim. They reckon they have some sophisticated fraud detection technology which can prevent the “install bombing”. Then they say that they will have a process for them to submit their concerns to our fraud compliance team. So from what I understand here it sounds like the onus will be on the developer to try and somehow keep track of how many of their instals are fraudulent and then if you have concerns, you contact the fraud compliance team, and then they will hopefully give you your money back. I think the majority of people don’t have a lot of faith in such a system when Unity have to put in some work to decide if they want less money from you.
Unity have clarified that if you’re part of a bundle like Xbox game pass or you’re in a charity bundle then you’re not going to be charged for the install, although it’s not exactly clear how they’re going to know which instals come from charity bundles or game passes. They seemed to imply that for Game Pass, they would send the bill to Microsoft but I can’t imagine Microsoft will be too happy to have sprung upon them. It would probably have to be negotiated in future Game Pass deals and it might just be the case that Microsoft just doesn’t add any Unity-based games to their service.
Unity tried to justify this whole new fee structure by pointing to the thresholds and saying “if you don’t already earn loads of money on your game then you’re not gonna pay extra”. This is where I think a lot of developers are wrongfully attacking Unity, when they would never pay them anyway. I suppose in the Patch Quest example, I’m not aware of it being a major hit, and he has pretty much reached the payment threshold. But given that it’s been many months after release, you would imagine sales will now be low and he will only be liable for minor fees which he should be happy to pay.
Conclusion
There probably is a clause somewhere deep in Unity’s terms and conditions that says something like “we retain the right to change our terms and conditions”. Companies love to have that kind of future-proofing in their legal small print, but how many actually go through with major changes? It can be logistically difficult to implement drastic changes, and evidently a PR nightmare. However, despite that, many companies are against Unity for switching the Terms and Conditions with only a few months notice. When games can take years to make, you need that predictability to adequately budget, and if Unity can charge you more on a whim, then it’s unpredictable. People also wonder if they really can change the terms built on an older Unity software version as you essentially have an agreement at the time of release; but that needs to be left to the lawyers.
Switch Engines?
I think a key statement that many are using to justify their decision to abandon Unity at this time is “Is this the last time they’re gonna change their terms?
Jumping ship to another one might be possible when you’re just starting up on a new project but the deeper into development you get, the harder this becomes. Your game gradually ends up dependent on the engine it’s built in. Switching to Unreal Engine will require programming in C++ plus instead of C# which is a massive learning curve. Godot seems to be gaining popularity but people seem to say it specialises in 2D games at the moment. I think C# doesn’t have full support so their own GDScript is more popular.
Unity Pricing Thoughts...
For context, we are a small studio (7 people) with a Steam game with 3M~ players.
I'm seeing many non-developers tell developers that this pricing change is not a big deal, here is why the entire community is lighting a fire:
• Massively disproportionately punishes indies
• Only three months notice
• Double dipping (Licence fee/ads cut)
• Dangerous precedence for charging "runtime"; you no longer fully own that exported build. If Unity continues to struggle, pricing could become more aggressive
Here are a few examples:
• Unity's own example on their site has a hypothetical scenario:
-- $2M USD Gross in 12 Months
-- 300k Users/month (200k Standard/100k "Emerging Market"), $23.5K USD/month
-- This means $282K/Year in fees, 14% of gross revenue, 3x Epic's 5%.
• F2P Games that are NOT excessively monetised are penalised:
10M Players:$1M USD
1M Players:$10M USD
The first case, with a vastly less predatory set of MTX is now punished significantly worse than one purposefully building money-extraction machines.
Our team has been hard at work for 2 years on a massive update to our game, with a F2P mobile ver coming next year. We built this from the ground up to be ethically monetised/for whaling to be impossible, so we are particularly unhappy with the news.
This affects developers everywhere, of all sizes. I am grossly disappointed by any industry figures brushing this off as "developers complaining." that do not understand the severe damage this can cause smaller studios.
Unity's trust within the games industry has been steadily eroding for years now, this latest change is a testimony to how horrendously mismanaged the board is. Personally dumped all of my Unity stock after this announcement was made.
I'd bet heavily on the people making these decisions have never even opened the editor, let alone released a game.
From <https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1702189840383832408.html>
Rockstar Games created big franchises like Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Max Payne, and other games like Bully and Manhunt.
Rockstar are quite protective of their Intellectual Property, and will take game modders to court, but were recently caught selling their own games with a cracked executable created by software cracking groups “Razer 1911” and “Myth”. The cracked executable files remove anti-piracy DRM (Digital Rights Management) checks from the game. On analysis of the executable file, you can see the group’s logo in there.
Rockstar had apparently placed the games on storefronts like Steam with this cracked file for their games Manhunt, Max Payne 2, and Midnight Club 2. Ubisoft has also been caught using cracked executables as well for Rainbow Six Vegas 2.
These software cracking groups would work on “No CD cracks” for many games, which would remove the requirement of having the CD-ROM in the disc tray. It would normally be a requirement to check if you have a valid copy of the game, otherwise you could just fully install the game and return it/sell it/let your friend borrow it.
These groups could also bundle the cracked file along with the full game to be illegally downloaded and shared, which meant piracy was rife in the PC market. They obviously didn’t have the aim for software preservation, but it seems they have provided that role in the current day.
Not only do many modern PC’s not have disc trays and are digital only, but some of the other DRM methods are obsolete. This was also a problem years ago when Microsoft removed the “Games For Windows” DRM, so you had to try workarounds to bypass the checks. People that legitimately own the games can struggle to play them on modern hardware.
The alternative for game publishers is to find the old source code, rebuild without the DRM checks, then publish this on a digital store. It’s not as simple as that though, because many game’s source code goes missing over time and as game companies go bust, or be taken over. To even build the game in old tools could be problematic if you need to install and run other software which itself could be hard to locate or get running. If successful, they would need to dedicate a small team to develop and test the product. It’s probably just easier to “illegally” download their own game along with the crack file, then sell it.
It raises an interesting dilemma. Since the cracking groups have performed some work, should they get credit and maybe even receive payment? Even if the likes of Rockstar take criticism for their actions, they can probably simply ignore the criticism and keep on doing it for any old game they want to resell.
I’ve been writing a game using Unity, and I’ve just realised how rare it is to use floating point (decimal) numbers in my day job as a software developer. I remember my Computing teacher back in College stating how computers are rubbish at calculating decimal numbers, but I never really understood. Calculators work just fine. They may only have several decimal places but that is usually more decimal places than you need.
In game development, decimal numbers are frequently used for sizes and positions in a 3D space and therefore calculations with these objects involve lots of decimal maths.
After writing some logic to position my characters on the map, I tried writing a unit test. Unit testing this method could be beneficial when I add extra features later.
I wanted to compare a Vector which is composed of 3 floating point numbers. Since I already had written the logic and was happy with the character’s positioning, I just grabbed the output of the method and specified it as the expected output, but my test failed!
Expected: (-34.28, 0.00, 20.63)
But was: (-34.28, 0.00, 20.63)
I think the numbers it shows you is a text representation which involves rounding the numbers to 2 decimal places. But if you look at the actual X, one is -34.275 and the other is -34.28. So there’s a 0.005 difference. A similar problem with Z.
“Due to floating point inaccuracies, this might return false for vectors which are essentially (but not exactly) equal. Use the == operator to test two vectors for approximate equality.”
I was originally using Assert.Equals(expected, actual) so I switched to Assert.True(expected == actual) but it still wasn’t working.
I looked at the Unity source code and they are providing their own == operator for vectors that does some “square magnitude” calculation then compares if it is less than a certain number – a margin of error.
So I did something similar and increased the number. I came up with this, using Unity’s provided square magnitude function, but wasn’t sure if it made mathematical sense: It worked for my scenarios though
Looking back at this, I probably over complicated it. I suppose I should just change the expected values to have more decimal places because it’s the rounding to 2 decimal places that will be the actual problem in this case. In other cases with more decimal points, you will encounter issues due to the way computers do handle large decimal numbers which the Unity docs are alluding to.
In other situations, you also need some leeway in your calculations. If you want to move a character to a certain position, you may find that they could be 0.1 away from their destination, then on the next frame, they move their usual distance based on their movement speed – and then overshoot it. So you end up needing to write code like “if distanceRemaining < 0.2f then stop”
So floating point numbers, especially when it comes to game development, really does add extra complications to think about.
Jabrils created a game using various AI tools. Although he says it was 100% created by an AI, it required him to type in different prompts until he got something that worked, and needed to use different AI’s in order to get the code, images, and sound. So it still needs human input as a “director”.
He got David Jaffe, who worked on the likes of Twisted Metal and God of War, to harshly critique it, oblivious to the fact it wasn’t Jabril’s own game.
He initially struggles to work out what the aim of the game is, which highlights the fact that – even though it is a working game – it doesn’t have the extra polish such as a tutorial, button prompts, or subtle visual hints. Although, maybe it could have added them had Jabrils specifically asked for those features.
“I have no clue what I’m doing in this game. If I wasn’t recording this video with you – I would be done”
David Jaffe
“I also don’t know what my goal is. I assume it’s to land but you don’t really have the space marked very well.”
David Jaffe
Since David believes that Jabrils made it, he remarks on how you think your own game is obvious how to play it, but that’s why getting someone independent to play test your game is so valuable. It’s similar to any type of software development really; you can be so focussed on coding, that you don’t see the bigger picture and the various ways someone can interact with it
After he is told it was made by an AI, he becomes more positive.
“I think it is brilliant. Looking at it from that perspective, that is how games are going to get made more and more, right. The fact that you could do that, and say ‘make me a game that does X, Y and Z’ is amazing…I love it. I love that you made this. It’s terrible, but it’s kind of like criticising a one-year-old who took his first steps.”
David Jaffe
It’s going to be interesting how AI develops, and I do wonder how long it will be before human interaction will be reduced, and also if AI can “understand” game design to actually incorporate more user-friendly features.
Conner pretends to be a NPC (Non Playable Character) from a computer game. His rigid walking and limited gestures and speech are hilarious. His content is mainly under 1 minute long to qualify as a Youtube short.
Kommander Karl
I recently discovered Kommander Karl. He mainly does gun reload videos. He pretends household objects are guns in first-person-shooter computer games, and reloads them, often with the help of some great video editing and fancy effects. Here are some of my favourites so far:
Several years ago, I tried learning Unity (games development) but it took a long time to pick up the basics. I’ve been meaning to give it another go, and when Code Monkey (a Youtuber I did subscribe to) announced he was making a 10 hour free course, I thought it’s the perfect time to jump in.
Following along, rewatching and experimenting with what I was learning took ages. I ended up dedicating many weekends and a couple of hours each day to complete it.
It’s a basic Overcooked-style game. If you want to make it, you do need to sign-up to Code Monkey’s website https://unitycodemonkey.com/kitchenchaoscourse.php to download the assets (graphics and a bit of audio).
A few days ago, Code Monkey released part 2 of his free course! This time he adds multiplayer. I haven’t watched that one, but have added it to my Watch List.
I have: many Youtube videos; websites; books from Humble Bundle to go through, so I’ll keep at it.
Stranger Coding Tings 