The Defold Foundation recently announced another partnership, as they've secured a grant from Grant for the Web to bring in support for the Web Monetization API.
Currently, Web Monetization is an API that is attempting to become a standard and it's being proposed to the W3C as such. This way, developers doing any sort of web-based game would have a set API to target making things a whole lot simpler.
Since the Defold game engine, which now has the source code available, supports building games for the web with HTML5, it makes sense to get support for it integrated.
"Web Monetization is an exciting new and non-intrusive way for game developers to monetize their creations while at the same time offering premium content to their paying players. The grant we have received from Grant for the Web will allow us to explore this new way of monetizing web games and we are excited to see it adopted by Defold developers," said Defold Product Owner Björn Ritzl.
Also announced is that they will be running a Web Monetization game jam which will be hosted later this year. It's planned to have cash prizes and some "well known names" from the game industry will be involved. You can see the announcement here.
Monetization need not be a dirty word either, as I imagine plenty of people instantly think of heavy micro-transactions. It could be something as simple as "pay £5 to support the game" or anything. Will be interesting to see what becomes of the Web Monetization API.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
12 comments
How does web monetization works?
Is it relevant in a world were game developers can monetize their games by selling them? Which is the best kind of monetization.
Is it relevant in a world were game developers can monetize their games by selling them? Which is the best kind of monetization.
0 Likes
Many of them actually do still sell digital copies of their games. And remember, an EULA never overrides local law or consumer protections.How does web monetization works?Games developers actually do not sell games. They license them. They sell a license for private use.
Is it relevant in a world were game developers can monetize their games by selling them? Which is the best kind of monetization.
Last edited by tuubi on 12 June 2020 at 9:58 am UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Coinspam on GOL ;)
The idea is good, but from a quick look at the websites for "web monetazation" it seems like this isn't a industry wide initiative like this article makes it sound, but rather some obscure cryptocurrency linked project.
Maybe better promote Offset, which is also obscure, but 100% blockchain free:
https://www.offsetcredit.org/
Or GNU Taler: https://taler.net/
Last edited by Julius on 12 June 2020 at 11:08 am UTC
The idea is good, but from a quick look at the websites for "web monetazation" it seems like this isn't a industry wide initiative like this article makes it sound, but rather some obscure cryptocurrency linked project.
Maybe better promote Offset, which is also obscure, but 100% blockchain free:
https://www.offsetcredit.org/
Or GNU Taler: https://taler.net/
Last edited by Julius on 12 June 2020 at 11:08 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Coinspam on GOL ;)I don't see any reference to cryptocurrency or blockchain in their explainer: https://webmonetization.org/docs/explainer.html
The idea is good, but from a quick look at the websites for "web monetazation" it seems like this isn't a industry wide initiative like this article makes it sound, but rather some obscure cryptocurrency linked project.
Maybe better promote Offset, which is also obscure, but 100% blockchain free:
https://www.offsetcredit.org/
Or GNU Taler: https://taler.net/
From what I understand, it is merely a way to standardize money transaction thanks to an API. FWIW, if this thing is officially standardized by the W3C, it could mean a better integration of Patreon, Librapay, etc..
0 Likes
Nitpicking aside, owning a copy of a game and owning the copyright to the game are two different things. And thanks to consumer protections in many civilized markets, a copyright owner doesn't get to dictate the rules.I am not talking about the EULA. The EULA is not the license, the EULA are the license terms of use. The "digital copy" comes with a license to use it. A license is what you actually buy to use every copyrighted material from others. You do not own the copyrighted material itself.Many of them actually do still sell digital copies of their games. And remember, an EULA never overrides local law or consumer protections.How does web monetization works?Games developers actually do not sell games. They license them. They sell a license for private use.
Is it relevant in a world were game developers can monetize their games by selling them? Which is the best kind of monetization.
Last edited by tuubi on 12 June 2020 at 4:49 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Maybe this make in-game purchase easier to implement?
Hardly a good then.
Hardly a good then.
0 Likes
If this is a fancy shmancy way of saying integrated cash shop in HTML 5 then this isn't great news at all. We have way too much of that in the industry now, like 100% too much of it.
0 Likes
I don't see the point in being against a standardized API for money transactions. Is it because it is talking about money, so it has to be evil?!
I think instead this could lead to interesting new features. I'm thinking about it a bit and I actually think this could lead to more freedom for the users actually. For instance, instead of having websites forcing Paypal, the user could choose whatever transaction service he would prefer: the website is just happy to know the transaction has been done and don't care if it comes from Paypal or whatever. This could lead to more competition in the world of e-transactions, where, I don't know, we could have services providing additional insurances when using them.
Monetization in some games are perfectly fine. It's not because EA made an awful pay-to-win game that automatically all the free-to-play games are bad! Take a look at Dota 2 for instance, it's a good example IMO of a well done free-to-play game. Anything you buy in-game is purely for aesthetics. The Battle Pass gives you an extra layer of gameplay on top of your traditional games (like a challenge to have 5 wins with this or that hero).
I think instead this could lead to interesting new features. I'm thinking about it a bit and I actually think this could lead to more freedom for the users actually. For instance, instead of having websites forcing Paypal, the user could choose whatever transaction service he would prefer: the website is just happy to know the transaction has been done and don't care if it comes from Paypal or whatever. This could lead to more competition in the world of e-transactions, where, I don't know, we could have services providing additional insurances when using them.
Monetization in some games are perfectly fine. It's not because EA made an awful pay-to-win game that automatically all the free-to-play games are bad! Take a look at Dota 2 for instance, it's a good example IMO of a well done free-to-play game. Anything you buy in-game is purely for aesthetics. The Battle Pass gives you an extra layer of gameplay on top of your traditional games (like a challenge to have 5 wins with this or that hero).
3 Likes, Who?
It's clearly explained that it's not linked to any single currency, blockchain or anything. It would work with them, the same way it currently works with certain services that deal with "normal" currencies. Not sure as well why people think this is to do with crypto.Coinspam on GOL ;)I don't see any reference to cryptocurrency or blockchain in their explainer: https://webmonetization.org/docs/explainer.html
The idea is good, but from a quick look at the websites for "web monetazation" it seems like this isn't a industry wide initiative like this article makes it sound, but rather some obscure cryptocurrency linked project.
Maybe better promote Offset, which is also obscure, but 100% blockchain free:
https://www.offsetcredit.org/
Or GNU Taler: https://taler.net/
From what I understand, it is merely a way to standardize money transaction thanks to an API. FWIW, if this thing is officially standardized by the W3C, it could mean a better integration of Patreon, Librapay, etc..
An open API for such a thing would be a good thing. Imagine a super easy way for every open source project out there (or us hello :P) to integrate supporter payments into them and donations and such. Instantly thinking it's a bad idea is so weird.
4 Likes, Who?
I don't see the point in being against a standardized API for money transactions. Is it because it is talking about money, so it has to be evil?!The standardization isn't what I'm speaking to. I'm against what I see an an ever moving increasingly invasive monetization machine. It's a complex topic so I won't try and dissect it all, but I'm speaking to games with cash shops, microtransactions, and digital blind box sales and to a greater extent "Games as a Service". I feel most of this entire system is user hostile and predatory and in an attempt to make my actions match my words I've cut out from my play list most every game with a cash shop. If the industry was heavily regulated in this area then my opinion might change. Until then I'm adamantly against further advancing monetization in online entertainment. This industry desperately needs regulation and oversight in this area in my opinion.
I think instead this could lead to interesting new features. I'm thinking about it a bit and I actually think this could lead to more freedom for the users actually. For instance, instead of having websites forcing Paypal, the user could choose whatever transaction service he would prefer: the website is just happy to know the transaction has been done and don't care if it comes from Paypal or whatever. This could lead to more competition in the world of e-transactions, where, I don't know, we could have services providing additional insurances when using them.
Monetization in some games are perfectly fine. It's not because EA made an awful pay-to-win game that automatically all the free-to-play games are bad! Take a look at Dota 2 for instance, it's a good example IMO of a well done free-to-play game. Anything you buy in-game is purely for aesthetics. The Battle Pass gives you an extra layer of gameplay on top of your traditional games (like a challenge to have 5 wins with this or that hero).
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me