Recent community posts
As we've moved out of beta, we have started asking 5 dollars for Among Us on PC. We can't put ads in the PC game like on mobile, and hats aren't popular enough to keep up with the server costs, so the previous update was our last free one. Thanks for playing and we hope you're willing to support us going forward.
There are lots of new players this weekend, so the server has been crashing with new bugs. We have been fixing it, but half of the time we're asleep when it happens so it stays down for several hours. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yeah, my goal with this thread is basically to get enough attention that someone from itch makes any comment since they don't seem willing to talk about it.
It seems weird to me that there are already scummy ways of doing microtransactions on itch (creating DLCs as separate games, looking them up via API), but it's not a problem. But if itch just made the view a bit cleaner, that would summon the scumlords?
I just want some hats in my game without having to deal with tens of "games" on my creator page and dashboard. You shouldn't want every hat, and getting every hat would be an unfair price, but a couple hats for a couple bucks should be fair for an otherwise free game where the hats don't matter. This is purely a way of getting support from fans who don't want to use Steam. But I'll probably just direct players elsewhere and that just kinda sucks.
Closing off an entire technology because you don't like it is kind of a ridiculous demand. I'm not particularly for pay-to-win or extra grinding, but there's nothing inherently wrong with paid content, subscriptions, or DLC. When creators create something, they deserve compensation. If they are willing to accept gratitude and having players, that's their choice, but if they want money, then they should be enabled to make money in a way that works for their game.
- If I make a game that's free and totally playable, then perhaps you *should* have to pay for the optional cute and/or powerful things.
- If I make a game that requires constant server access, then perhaps you *should* have to pay for the right to use the server.
- If I make a game that gives you hours of enjoyable play, then perhaps you *should* have to pay for additional hours of gameplay.
Even pay-to-win is a defensible position in non-multiplayer scenarios since it *can* (I'll admit it often doesn't...) enable players to play the way they want and at their own pace.
There are bad games, there are bad creators. But every other creator and their games shouldn't be held back because you've had a bad experience.
At the end of the day, we can both go around and around with our beliefs but neither of us will be the decider and it seems like neither of us appreciates the others' views.
I understand your predisposition against DLC/Microtransaction. They can be predatory and limit games, however there are reasonable business models based around entirely optional content that people actually want to purchase.
In an age where people won't play a game because it costs 1 or 2 dollars, or it isn't on 75% sale, there are certain small games that are wholly unmonetizable without optional paid content **after** your player enjoys your free game. Are you sure those games shouldn't be made? Should they only be made by hobbists without any hope for compensation?
I haven't played AC:O, but I expect that people are mostly mad that a game that used to be premium, buy-once is now both buy once and microtransactions. Undoubtedly those transactions also affect the gameplay itself, so it's like you're continuously paying to play. I agree that games shouldn't be monetized so aggressively, but don't you think it's a bit unfair to compare AAA games to indie games? And moreover to remove an entire source of income for everyone based on "the big boys are being bad"? Why not just lobby for people to not play AC:O? If you think the series will collapse, then maybe you don't need to lobby for anything and people are smart enough to not play with that kind of monetization anyway.
Finally, consider this: A microtransaction is mostly data already part of the game. My game already contains all of the hat sprites I want to sell. I simply can't sell them well on itch. Itch hosts thousands of games that may or may not be like this. Additionally, itch maintains the receipts for every game purchased on itch, which amount to perhaps a few hundred bytes per purchase. If itch can't host the additional bytes for a game's microtransaction receipts (which itch deservedly will take a cut of) then what makes you think they will be able to continue hosting my (and thousands of others') free game (tens of megabytes each) which they get no money from?
I don't think you understand? The "server like mmo did back in the day" is the system we indie developers don't have the resources to build. Itch.io already has most of the parts of this system, but the game pages can't be organized appropriately to sell.
If DLC didn't look like a pile of "games" on our creators page, I could probably create a library to ask itch's API about receipts and things would be fine.
I won't say it's an easy change for them (because I don't know), but there's not too much missing. This seems actively neglected and I at least wanna know why.
We aren't planning to add VOIP in-game. But if you're playing with friends, I totally recommend a Discord or Skype call. It works really well and is far better quality than anything we could make. Fewer trolls that way too. :)
Okay, so last month I tried a little bit to get a response for this on GitHub and Twitter, but maybe I should have tried here first.
Anything along these lines seems to get pushed to the side and forgotten or ignored entirely. But I'd like to apply a bit more pressure on this.
Related purchases, nested purchases, microtransactions, etc. are pretty easy to create and sell on other platforms, and are extremely helpful in monetizing free games that wouldn't get players as a premium game.
But the only advice I can find for Itch is to create a new game for each DLC, which then has no real support afterwards. It's imaginable that creators could look up the purchases via API afterwards, but ultimately one would have to deal with the extra pages separately.
Ideally, we should be able to create an item/download with an individual price and product id on the same page as a game. How the download works or whether we go through the API to pick up receipts should be up to the creators.