Monthly Nexus November Issue
[p](When updating the article, the text cut off mid-sentence—probably because it was too long—and I nearly lost my mind. Just as I started creating a new page, I pressed the preview button one last time, and this time the text didn't cut off, which made me lose my mind.[/p][p]So if any sentences are cut off, I'll rewrite them later while losing my mind. I wish this would stop already.)[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]Hello.[/p][p]This is the November issue of Monthly Nexus.[/p][p][/p][p]Last month, we sincerely thank you for your support of our “Proving the Earth Cube Theory Association” crowdfunding campaign.[/p][p]Receiving 15 quadrillion dollars in loans from our 4 quadrillion players was incredibly encouraging. Thank you.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]TacticalNexus's game design is often described as “rolling the dice.”[/p][p]This is because the game is so complex that our group of amateurs can't properly evaluate its balance. We just throw ideas in haphazardly and deliver it to players in a state where the adjustments are pretty shoddy.[/p][p]It's essentially gambling, leaving everything to chance.[/p][p][/p][p]There is no content in this world without random elements. Right, players of TacticalNexus?[/p][p]Games where randomness is eliminated, or where the same actions yield identical results no matter how many times you repeat them, have never existed and never will. Right, players of TacticalNexus?[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]There are theories suggesting life's origins stem from various coincidences, including one where inorganic matter was struck by lightning and somehow transformed into organic matter.[/p][p]That lightning-like flash of inspiration creates the game's random nature?this is essentially how TacticalNexus was developed. Therefore, there is no doubt that the world is fundamentally a gamble. This is reality.[/p][p]Thus, the Earth Cube Theory proves that the Earth is shaped like a die, thereby elevating the social status of random numbers and achieving that certain something.[/p][p]Furthermore, even if the Earth were not a cube, science could later reshape it into one, making this theory invincible.[/p][p][/p][p]TacticalNexus is always supported by all of you, our players.[/p][p]We could never be so arrogant as to claim this new theory is something we alone created.[/p][p]The Earth Cube Theory is effectively being created by all of you, our players. We are irrelevant.[/p][p]Please look forward to the proof of the Earth Cube Theory, which you all started on your own.[/p][p]Stay tuned.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]Note: To implement the Earth Cube theory, Chapter 5-0's update is expected next month.[/p][p]Stay tuned.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]----[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]◆New Item: “Bundle Format” and Future Game Balance[/p][p][/p][p]While implementation is most likely by Chapter 5-0 (though not 100% certain...), we plan to add a “Bundle Format” type to the variety of items dropped by enemies.[/p][p]For example, items like “Red Potion ×2” or “Power Potion ×3” that provide the combined effects of multiple existing items in a single bundle.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]The sole purpose of this is to “increase the variety of stat-boosting items.” Frankly, the current item distribution is garbage.[/p][p]Seriously, just look at the ATK/DEF boost items in this game.[/p][p]They incremented slowly: 1→2→3→5. Then suddenly jump: 5 (Cards) → 15 (Deck) → 50 (Pulse Book). This is pretty lame.[/p][p]Originally, TacticalNexus was a game I made on a whim. Around stage 5, I started bringing in other staff to work on various things. However, I was actually the one who handled these parameter adjustments, which is why I've gotten quite a bit of flak from the game designers.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]Because of that, the idea of “implementing new items that boost stats” had been floating around for a while. This game has a potion encyclopedia, and implementing encyclopedia-style items was decided pretty early on.[/p][p]As players probably know, using the potion encyclopedia is actually pretty fun, right? Getting +1 ATK from a red potion or +1 DEF from a blue potion?it's kind of satisfying.[/p][p]Having that kind of fun, then suddenly new items appear, existing items become less common, and their effects weaken... that would be frustrating. If I were a player, I'd hate it.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]So, we kept brainstorming ideas about how to handle this, and this time, we decided to implement a new type of item: bundle items.[/p][p]For example, the Heavenly Potion 4 Bundle gives HP +12000 and ATK/DEF each +12. Using the will naturally boost these effects significantly.[/p][p]Chapter 5-0 is still undecided on whether to include the Mystic Gate, so it's unclear if it will be a stage where you can fully experience it. For now, it's a stage where you can significantly boost your stats through enemy drop items.[/p][p]We hope you'll find this new item type refreshing compared to what we've had before.[/p][p]Well, implementation is next month or later.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]----[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]◆Announcing the Unique Achievement System: “Badges” and Microtransactions (Payment Feature)[/p][p][/p][p]As previously announced on Twitter, we plan to implement a new system called ‘Badges’ around January to March. (It might end up being “Medals” instead...)[/p][p]Additionally, around this time, the concept for a “completely non-essential, optional payment feature (i.e., only for players who are genuinely satisfied with the game)” has largely been finalized.[/p][p][/p][p]We've had quite a few discussions about “a payment system that holds absolutely no appeal for players,” at a level of detail close to stage development. This new system is probably the most polished version of that concept.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]Below is a bullet-point list outlining the general specifications.[/p][p][/p][p]・A “Badge Shop” will appear on the stage selection screen, allowing players to purchase “badges that meet the purchase conditions” described later using microtransactions (in-game currency: “EN”).[/p][p][/p][p]・All badges cost 5 EN. This in-game currency (EN) can be earned quickly?playing a free game like Cookie Clicker for just 5 seconds will typically earn enough to buy all items.[/p][p]→The shop screen features a button that grants 1 EN per click. Once you reach 10 EN, you automatically earn 60 EN per second without any action required.[/p][p][/p][p]・Microtransactions are planned at $1, $5, and $30, granting 100 million EN, 500 million EN, and 3 billion EN respectively.[/p][p]However, if we fall behind on stage updates or implement adjustments like nerfs to score balance, 100 million to 1 billion EN will be distributed as apology EN.[/p][p]To reiterate, microtransactions are intended for those who cannot spare 5 seconds.[/p][p][/p][p]・No matter how much in-game currency (EN) you possess, you cannot purchase a badge unless you have fulfilled its specific unlock conditions.[/p][p][/p][p]・After the badge system implementation, you will be able to purchase corresponding “Badges” by fulfilling various conditions such as “Defeating a specific enemy in a specific stage,” “Achieving a score ending in 777,” or “Possessing over 100 Sunstones.”[/p][p][/p][p]・Each badge has a grade (rarity), ranging from ★0 to ★15.[/p][p]The total rarity of purchased badges (i.e., achievements unlocked so far) will be displayed on the stage selection screen.[/p][p](Implementation of “reward badges” obtainable through in-app purchases is undecided; if implemented, they will always be ★0).[/p][p][/p][p]・For every multiple of 10 that the total rarity count reaches, you will additionally receive 1 Sunstone.[/p][p](However, the amount of Sunstone obtained relative to the badge difficulty is extremely minimal, and collecting badges solely for Sunstone is not recommended).[/p][p][/p][p]・Some badges have unrealistic/extremely high difficulty requirements.[/p][p][/p][p](For example: “Make the last 7 digits of your score 7777777” or “Clear Pop Tactical Lord using only 12 Nexusmedals costing 45 Sunstone or less and being Diamond or lower”)[/p][p]→ We plan to create a large number of badges in the future.[/p][p]If players perform interesting gameplay on Discord, corresponding badges may be added.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]・Our policy is that “TacticalNexus is a game for passing the time, and we want to avoid making players waste time on achievements or similar.”[/p][p]Therefore, badges and Steam achievements are not synchronized (Steam achievements will likely never be implemented).[/p][p]→Many badge conditions require DLC, and some Steam players play games solely to unlock achievements.[/p][p][/p][p]Given that this game offers thousands of hours of play, this is not our intention. We want badges to be treated as “content collected purely as a hobby by people who simply enjoy TacticalNexus and have free time.”[/p][p][/p][p]・You will be able to display up to 24 of your favorite badges on the stage selection screen.[/p][p]You might be able to show off your favorite badges to friends and the community.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]----[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]That's the gist of it. In short, badges are a “slightly rewarded achievement system,” and you can earn them without using any microtransactions whatsoever.[/p][p][/p][p]Future DLC will be priced at a fixed $1. We hope that among players who've put in thousands of hours, only those who genuinely want to pay will purchase it.[/p][p]However, as mentioned earlier, this microtransaction system holds absolutely no meaning or value for players. It's a completely worthless system designed solely to extract money from you.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]The only real concern is the microtransaction-related terms of service.[/p][p]Looking at other games, we believe this system should implement without issues. But if it violates the terms and all alternatives are impossible, this becomes completely worthless.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]The “Badge” system itself was actually something we'd considered since TacticalNexus's early days.[/p][p](Originally, we planned not to implement it due to translation issues, but given the absurdly complicated spells and legacy systems already implemented, we concluded translation problems shouldn't be a concern.)[/p][p][/p][p]So, we will definitely implement this system itself. However, our real worry is whether we can actually implement these microtransactions properly.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]----[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]◆Various Thoughts on Microtransactions and Community[/p][p][/p][p]Since the rest of this article continues this discussion for hundreds of lines, the talk about TacticalNexus's future systems effectively ends here.[/p][p]We'll have the cactus dance for good measure.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p][/p][p] ((🌵))[/p][p]An enticing dance signifying that what follows isn't particularly significant[/p][p]
Now, ever since drafting this microtransaction system, I've consistently felt that, as our envisioned sales approach, it's a remarkably well-designed system.
This is because adopting this format for future sales will enable a “pay-later” model for game distribution.
Meaning we can sell the game for free or $1, and after players finish playing, they can pay an amount based on their satisfaction.
TacticalNexus is overwhelmingly a game you can play for a very long time, but “time spent playing a long game” doesn't necessarily equate to “time well spent.”
I think many of us have experienced playing a game thinking, “This is clearly a terrible game, but since I bought it, I feel compelled to finish it,” or “I want to complain after I finish it.”
That's unpleasant, right? Sure, you finished it, but there's no real reward. All that happens is that several tens of dollars just vanish.
In work, knowing when to cut your losses is crucial. So, yes, you could argue this is “your own fault for playing something you find boring.”
But when you see reviews saying “it's so highly rated, maybe something good happens if I push through to the end,” that curiosity and expectation make it impossible to quit.
The result is a waste of dozens to over a hundred hours. My mood has gone from “Give me my money back” to “Give me more money.”
I totally get this feeling, so it's only natural that negative reviews come not just from players who played briefly, but also from those who invested a lot of time.
I didn't clear this game for the developers' sake—I did it for myself.
A game that failed to meet that expectation I simply can't consider it “recommendable.”
(I fully understand the view that giving a low-rated review to a game by someone with only indie experience is unfair to the developer, and I personally only write reviews for games I genuinely want to recommend.
However, regarding our game, I want people to honestly say it's boring where it's boring. Player reviews are for the players.)
We operate with that sensibility, so ideally we wanted to do it this way: “If you didn't enjoy it, you don't have to pay; if you did enjoy it, you can pay whatever you like.”
For us, this feels like a very good approach, based on “when we were players ourselves.”
Fundamentally, we don't particularly like systems that “make you pay before you even play.” We believe only players who are satisfied after playing should pay afterward.
However, we didn't know how to implement this concretely.
We're sure some companies out there are already using better methods, but they're just not within our field of vision.
Of course, “talking to various people” is one approach, but we have our own strong convictions, and suggestions we receive are often quite difficult to adopt.
Even with people we're reasonably close to, it feels awkward to directly say something like, “There's not even a 1% chance we'll use this, but if you know about something like this, please tell me.”
Systems allowing casual fund transfers could potentially be treated as “money laundering” in Japan, depending on the circumstances.
After considering and discussing various systems, we concluded that the “worthless microtransaction” model skillfully navigated those issues. It exploited loopholes in various regulations while ensuring neither players nor developers were disadvantaged.
----
To be clear, for items sold on Steam, 30% of the sales revenue after taxes is taken as their margin.
However, we personally don't really care about that, or rather, we consider it reasonable for ourselves.
Last year, we built servers for another project and created a small-scale metaverse. This work was incredibly tough.
Bugs kept popping up, and I went crazy when “local IP communication tests” I ran alone yielded different results than “global IP communication tests” done with other staff. Out of sheer frustration, I even imagined blasting Tokyo Tower with beams or heat rays to destroy it.
System development was genuinely tedious, so having Steam (Valve) handle that side of things and take their margin is perfectly fine for us, since we're developing games more as a hobby.
That work is seriously tough. Anyway, crappy maintenance pops up way too often. Honestly, I don't even want to think about doing that day in and day out at a major company for decades.
Sure, Steam servers go down and get fixed within tens of minutes to a few hours, but I imagine that kind of work is tough unless you have staff with a certain level of technical skill.
In other words, I suspect that every time the servers go down, those people get suddenly woken up and made to work until it's fixed.
Of course, the profits probably don't go directly to those hardworking folks, and Steam's environment might not be the hell I imagine.
But I'm self-centered and tend to think based on my own experiences. So, when I consider things from the perspective of “what if it were me?”, I feel like I'd be happy to give them a decent margin.
Having a proper cooling-off period (return policy) for games might be complicated for developers, but from the player's perspective, it's incredibly valuable.
Being able to return a game if it's seriously problematic is a system that gives buyers significant peace of mind.
On the other hand, for small-scale developers, implementing that kind of feature is incredibly difficult. We're really grateful that Steam handles support for things we can't do ourselves.
My personal gripe with Steam is that I wish they'd either stop doing UI adjustment updates so much or at least leave a diff file so we can revert to the original version.
Also, please stop this habit of demanding SMS verification with every update, which then has a lag or is off by about a minute, meaning fixing all the DLC data easily takes over 10 minutes.
When I'm finally ready to update a stage and get stuck waiting an extra 20-30 minutes for the update process, it makes me want to lose my mind.
Seriously, please stop that. Please, please stop. You already require SMS verification just to log in—why force extra authentication?
I occasionally try to find the settings page, but there are so many pages I can't make heads or tails of it. It's like TacticalNexus. Probably because they're also following the Earth Cube theory.
Please don't do weird things with the UI. I beg you. Changing the subject, I also won't tolerate Discord's UI changes. Just give us a subscription option to revert to the old UI.
I even hate the fact that I'm starting to get used to the new UI. This is how hatred, which shouldn't be a big deal, gets amplified over time and etched into people's hearts.
----
Before continuing, there are two things I want to write down.
First, as a premise: this isn't about business, and doing this commercially would be utterly foolish.
In business strategy, at least at this point, adopting a “post-payment model” would cause revenue to plummet to a fraction of what it would be with upfront payment.
Unless the “post-payment model” culture becomes so dominant that everyone is forced to imitate it (or even if it does), decent profits won't be possible.
About 25 years ago, “shareware” software was circulating, but in Japan, this has drastically decreased.
In business, the most important thing for making money isn't “creating a good product,” but “creating a product people want to buy.”
If you want to make money, learning marketing is far more important than polishing your product.
In that context, over-polishing a product is a foolish waste of resources in commercial terms.
Most people harbor a desire to be good. However, they lack consistency with that spirit.
Almost everyone just says things like “I'll do it if you ask me,” but they never take the initiative to do it themselves.
That kind of appeal efficiently satisfies their desire to “act like a good person,” so they just pay lip service.
If a developer wants to pursue this without any special, grounded experience, I think they should first abandon any expectation of relying on people's goodwill. People aren't paying as much attention to you as you think they are.
If you're going to do it, methods like crowdfunding or announcing “We'll be doing this going forward” are better. That's because it creates a balance where there's “mutual reward” rather than “free labor.”
If the world ran on goodwill alone, “business”—where things are exchanged for money—wouldn't exist, and the world would have achieved peace long ago.
Everyone possesses goodwill, but they don't exercise it because doing so would mean losing out or making things harder for themselves. That's just human nature.
And since news thrives on sensationalism, the world seems flooded with stories of corruption and villains. Yet, even among those who attain positions of power, there are still good people, or those desperately trying to be good.
However, even with such people existing, the world doesn't improve as much as one might hope. Or, even if it does improve, it often goes largely unnoticed.
----
“If only someone's kindness could spread...” is a thought everyone has.
On the other hand, if you want to spread someone's kindness or make it known to the world, you must promote it in a way that reaches people's hearts. You also need to build connections with others who will help spread it.
To do this “consistently,” you need thousands of hours studying writing and thousands more studying how to build relationships.
Above all, you must also study “whether someone's kindness is truly kind, and what makes it exceptional.”
When told to expend enormous effort not on actually performing good deeds, but merely on spreading others' good deeds, almost no one will do it.
Nowadays, the “retweet” function on social media makes it easier for things to spread, whether out of goodwill or malice, but there is no “scrutiny of information” involved.
This is why fake news and rumors become news.
Even if people have the desire to spread something, almost no one scrutinizes whether the content they wish to spread is truly correct or beneficial. This holds true even for those who already possess the ability to scrutinize it.
Therefore, goodwill does not spread.
When attempting grand or unrealistic endeavors, one's thoughts drift further from reality, fostering desires completely detached from it.
When you walk a path expecting people's goodwill while great figures themselves struggle, you'll likely get crushed, grow to hate humanity, and end up accomplishing nothing.
Coming from a family of doctors and politicians, I've heard about this parched part of the human heart countless times and experienced it myself.
Amidst this, the reason I want to do this within Team-Nexus, which I lead, is simply because I want to.
----
As additional information, let's post the sales figures for the last two weeks here.
![]()
It's $141 Then, Steam takes about 40% from this for taxes and their margin.
(That said, this is a record from a particularly slow period; sales are usually a bit higher.)
Now, lately I've been posting ridiculous amounts of weird documents on Steam every month. In terms of typing speed, I'm roughly in the top 0.001% in Japan.
Even just doing keypunching (typing-based part-time work), I can easily achieve about 2-3 times the efficiency of the average person.
Therefore, the amount left after deducting the margin from $141 is roughly what I could earn by working casually for a few hours.
Furthermore, professional writers typically earn around 5 to 20 yen per character.
Monthly Nexus articles run about 10,000 to 25,000 characters. Having a pro writer handle this would cost roughly $1,000 per article.
(Regarding writing skill, mine is even rarer than my typing speed. Depending on the field, I suspect the per-character rate would be at least ten times higher.)
Players who follow Discord will recall around Chapter 8-3 (Mirror) of Promoted-feedback: I worked nearly 40 hours straight without sleep, reporting progress every few hours.
If I'd done that kind of work as a keypuncher, I could have secured at least a month's worth of income.
And regarding the breadth of skills here, the staff are basically the same. Or rather, the average IQ score of the staff remaining since TacticalNexus's development is 80.
TacticalNexus saw its player base increase tenfold after going free-to-play, but revenue hasn't changed.
We're fine with that, but I should note that “post-payment systems” and “free main packages” are commercially ineffective.
----
Now, before discussing microtransactions, there's one more thing I want to address upfront.
We've written extensively about the “post-purchase system” up to this point, but TacticalNexus's original pricing had a different intention, and this approach completely contradicts that.
TacticalNexus originally had DLC priced several times higher than it is now. This was partly intended to “avoid competition with superior follow-up games released after TacticalNexus.”
The idea of “pricing this game high to ensure the sequel sells” clearly contradicts the current approach of “making the game accessible to everyone by selling it on a pay-as-you-go basis.”
Claiming this isn't contradictory is simply impossible.
However, to be frank, if you want to make a game better than TacticalNexus, implementing “Magic and Legacy” and “Extended Screen” are fundamental prerequisites.
At present, heavy users can chat endlessly about “the upcoming implementation of magic and legacy.” They no longer need to actually play TacticalNexus to engage with their TacticalNexus.
This is because magic and legacy offer so much room for imagination, and it's genuinely quite enjoyable.
And I believe there are almost no other games that have developed these two systems to this extent.
There are 43 stages featuring Legacy and Magic, with only 14 currently implemented. That means just one-third is live, yet even in this state...
As for Extended Screen, it goes without saying that feature has been a massive help to most players.
On the other hand, developing Extended Screen made me realize demanding someone else implement it would be a crime worthy of life imprisonment.
This game is ridiculously buggy, and since I haven't done everything I could, this might lack persuasiveness.
I'm the sole programmer at Team-Nexus, but even before releasing this game, I possessed skills sufficient to be told, “Teaching a major programming language could earn you a million dollars a year.”
Over a decade ago, I actually improved the engine part of a program built at a cost of 11 million yen using Excel VBA. Furthermore, by implementing a custom system using C++, I increased both processing accuracy and processing speed by over tenfold. This took three months.
I also created and sold software for B2B use priced at 500,000 yen. This took about four months.
Furthermore, TacticalNexus's source code currently stands at 157,000 lines, written in SJIS format, yet it only takes up about 4MB of space.
It's expected to exceed 200,000 lines next year or the year after.
Even so, I genuinely grew to hate developing Extended Screen.
The stages I (the programmer) found particularly grueling to implement were Dawn (I was heavily involved in its game design myself), OLD (took forever and was finished without the team settling on a clear “This is it!” idea), Phantom (simply had an insane amount of work), and Mirror (I rebuilt the stage from scratch over five times).
However, Extended Screen brought me several times more pain than any of those.
It was also hard to share QoL-related work with other staff, making it difficult to vent in a way others would understand.
I used to complain about how hard undo-related bugs were to fix, but the workload Extended Screen demanded was on a completely different level.
If you look at the implementation logs on Discord, you'll see I stated at the time, “That work was absolute hell. Even if requested, I won't touch it for six months.”
Regarding programming tasks, I often say things like “I'll take a few days off” or “I'll push it to next week,” and I might postpone minor bugs for a few weeks. But rejecting something this strongly was probably a first. That's how much I hated it.
(I've recovered now, so I occasionally work on ES feature improvements.)
It might be different if the development environment or such were better, and I do think programming is exponentially easier now.
But if someone tells another developer with less than 10 years and 25,000+ hours of programming experience to implement ES, I'd go slaughter that person.
----
Furthermore, magic and legacy systems are dangerous too.
It's nearly impossible to implement them properly and maintain a decent balance, not just with scripts.
Not only is the actual scripting work for those things incredibly tedious, but coming up with the ideas in the first place is genuinely tough.
I'm constantly filling in “kill points,” “guaranteed kill points,” and “absolutely kill points” for game designers, but I totally get how hard it is to come up with ideas.
Fundamentally, this game is content that both developers and players have poured thousands to tens of thousands of hours into.
And the more magic and legacy elements you add, the more scrutiny you need to apply to how they compare with existing effects.
TacticalNexus saw both players and developers escalating against each other, but that was only possible because it was an exceptionally fortunate environment. Normally, some kind of trouble is bound to happen.
As mentioned later, the fact that Discord maintained this atmosphere for five and a half years is itself unbelievable. It's like a Tower of Babel floating in mid-air, leaning at an angle—more horizontal than vertical, perhaps a bridge? Where does it lead?
Therefore, I apologize to those who come after, but I've decided not to dwell on those matters anymore.
I wrote the source code from scratch using an old programming language. While many convenient development languages exist now, TacticalNexus might not actually be that complex a system. But based on experience, it probably requires about five programmers.
Anyway, the Legacy, Magic, and Extended Screen mechanics are just too insane to handle. Plus, the stage gimmicks from Chapter 6 onwards.
For players who only knew up to Chapter 5, Chapter 6-3 must have been incredibly shocking. Yet by Chapter 8, systems of that level are implemented in every single stage.
----
Now, having written about how our proposed post-payment system is commercially unsustainable and how TacticalNexus already contains contradictions, let's revisit what we've covered so far.
(We've digressed quite a bit, and we'll digress further here, but this discussion is about our stance on microtransactions and money.)
Originally, TacticalNexus was conceived with the idea that “each stage has the content of a full game, and there are 60 stages.” Back then, games cost over four times what they do now.
For example, Tactical Tower P is a relatively average-sized stage among those released so far.
A game offering that much playtime would have cost around $5 to $10 as a standalone title just a short while ago.
Furthermore, with each new stage released in TacticalNexus, it creates “additional playable content” for past stages as well.
And the fun of the “Legacy Magic” introduced starting in Chapter-6 is immeasurable.
Considering how much each new stage transforms the game, I believe $15 per stage is actually quite reasonable.
We were developing this with serious dedication, so we thought only the very few players who truly understood this would need to buy the game.
On the other hand, this stems from a Japanese perspective. At the time of the game's release, we weren't fully aware of how Japan was relatively privileged in terms of “equality.”
In Japan, regardless of region, any adult working part-time jobs diligently can earn around $1000 to $1500 per month.
While many of my relatives are wealthy, personally, I have considerable leeway in terms of being able to save money.
Over the past three years, my monthly expenses have never exceeded $1000. From living expenses to hobbies, roughly $700 total is enough for a pretty healthy life.
The biggest expense here is supplements, which cost me about $200. Excluding that, I can get by on about one-third of the average annual income.
----
However, we didn't realize that unlike Japan, many countries abroad have slums.
Japan is considered a relatively advanced nation, yet compared to other developed countries, it isn't economically wealthy.
Still, our lives have become increasingly affluent year after year.
While the “subscription” system is relatively controversial abroad, in Japan it also has the aspect of being “a system that allows you to experience vast amounts of your favorite content extremely cheaply, without worrying about economic or regional disparities.”
For example, subscribing to anime or drama services allows you to watch thousands of titles for just $5 to $10 per month. Renting a single title would typically cost several to over ten dollars.
Especially in rural areas, finding DVDs or videotapes (though these are now outdated formats) for niche or older works is often difficult.
Additionally, smartphones (mobile phones) commonly used by Japanese people incorporate the concept of “model change” (Kisyuhen).
This system allows users to upgrade to a new smartphone relatively cheaply when newer models are released after several years.
(I recall getting my current smartphone for free during some event or promotion.)
Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, but this system can also be interpreted as “allowing users who have already purchased a smartphone to continue receiving the latest models for free or at a low cost.”
For example, imagine a system where “people who own a laptop over five years old could acquire the latest model for almost free.” That would be an exceptionally good system.
For “essential items (lifelines)” like smartphones, such a system is actually a reality.
Of course, smartphone companies generate revenue through ongoing costs like service plans (continuous usage fees), and I doubt that would happen with PCs.
And whether the device upgrade system was created with good intentions is another matter entirely.
However, as a result of intense market competition between companies, such systems have become widespread in Japan.
Monthly payment plans are a system accessible even to those with lower incomes, and virtually all citizens can use them if they choose to.
----
Due to this aspect of Japanese culture, we assumed that economically prosperous countries meant “almost all citizens” would be wealthy.
For Japan, “the nation becoming wealthy” inherently meant “citizens also becoming wealthy.”
Especially since Japan is a capitalist country, we vaguely assumed all capitalist nations functioned this way, and that socialist systems operated differently.
However, in reality, even if a country is wealthy, if it has significant inequality, its structure meant that “almost all its citizens” did not necessarily benefit equally from that wealth.
Now, we understand that abroad, “a country becoming wealthy does not necessarily mean its citizens become wealthy.” We also understand that even if a country's GDP doubles, it doesn't necessarily mean the slums are saved.
But back then, we rarely looked up objective facts (data) about unfamiliar cultures, so we knew almost nothing about such things.
Japan has a population of 120 million, with roughly 200-300 homicide victims annually. Yet news about “murder cases” airs almost daily, with tabloid shows sensationalizing content that fuels social anxiety.
On the other hand, consider the United States: with a population of 340 million, the annual number of homicide victims is 19,000. Even when adjusted to a per-100-million-people ratio, the rate of homicide is 20 to 30 times higher.
This is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.
(Incidentally, while homicide rates differ greatly, data shows Japan and the US have roughly the same suicide rate per capita.
I have various thoughts on this, but I'll save that discussion for next month's issue or later).
----
Unaware of such cultural differences with other countries, we sold our game like this.
With such stark class divisions and a correspondingly high murder rate, it's only natural that people from other countries wouldn't trust individuals or sellers.
Or rather, given such fundamentally different cultural backgrounds, mutual understanding between countries is fundamentally impossible.
Even the very image of “a country becoming wealthy” differs this much. The lines defining ‘safety’ and “danger” are also far too distant.
However, around April 2020 (and even slightly earlier), this game was being promoted by English-speaking players who had started playing it immediately after release.
Articles were posted, using copious screenshots and spanning over 100 lines, essentially saying: “The sales model is bizarre, and the game is strange, but it's an amazing game.”
A tremendous amount of effort had clearly gone into this game. Unaware of the cultural differences, we were surprised but thought things like “See, I told you so” or “It's something only those who get it will appreciate.” But the real shock came after we learned about that cultural background.
[dynamiclink][/dynamiclink]I've covered the details extensively in an older article, so I'll skip some parts here, but even with that context, the fact that players genuinely played the game and tried to spread it with such sincerity was completely unexpected for us.
This “sincerity” wasn't directed at the developers, but towards the players themselves.
They wrote with great care and detail, operating on the premise that “just because I like something doesn't mean others will accept it.”
This level of thoughtfulness wasn't limited to that one player. As the player base grew, several others emerged who wrote remarkably sincere and thoughtful posts for fellow players.
This is quite rare in Japan, where even minor games often spark nasty arguments on strategy sites.
Since players were taking the game more seriously than its price suggested, we felt we needed to take them seriously to some extent as well.
After much consideration about “good business practices” in this regard, the result was the aforementioned worthless microtransaction system.
Honestly, regarding sales, “I really couldn't care less” is close to the truth. It doesn't matter if they happen or not.
But, for example, if a player who'd played 5000 hours suddenly sent us $5000, we'd be totally freaked out. Unless they were some incredibly wealthy person, that level of sincerity would border on terrifying.
Plus, we've often stated, “Team-Nexus can keep going with zero revenue from this game for at least another five years.” This is also basically true.
Unless staff suddenly get destroyed, or their families or dogs get killed in some diabolically cruel, utterly unearthly dark manner, leaving the surviving staff to become dark avengers or John Wicks... but unless that happens, we can keep going.
(Also, developing TacticalNexus has significantly improved our operational efficiency. We rarely get that serious about sharing information with each other to that extent.
Regarding “providing inspiration for excellent business models,” we actually reference player conversations quite a bit and receive indirect benefits from them.)
----
This “pay later” system is absolutely exhilarating. It's genuinely enjoyable and uplifting for both players and developers.
Considering this, you might think, “Just make all DLC free now and implement this payment system!” But another major issue is the sheer difficulty of handling individual requests.
Regarding changes in community “vibe,” our biggest fear is a “sudden influx of players.”
Communities tend to see their established atmosphere collapse instantly when players keep pouring in at a certain rate.
When the main package went free, player numbers swelled over fivefold within a month, and Discord membership doubled.
However, thanks to existing players stepping in to help, the pre-free atmosphere was largely preserved.
(Though there was a change limiting the feedback channel to players who had played the game to some extent).
Considering this, I suspect that outside Japan, even if DLC were made free (or perhaps more accurately, priced at $1), the original atmosphere probably wouldn't be significantly damaged.
Since the main package is already free, the player base would likely only increase by about 1.5 to 2 times within a month. Within that range, I don't think the community would change much.
But Japan is tough. Seriously, it's impossible.
Just to be clear and avoid misunderstanding: we really like Japan.
As mentioned earlier, it's a country where national wealth translates to citizen wealth, and it has an overwhelmingly lower death rate compared to others.
Healthcare is robust. With a health insurance card (recently replaced by the My Number Card), about 70% of hospital costs are covered by the government it's practically a party.
Social welfare is also robust. Most areas have tap water you can gulp down without worry. Japan rocks!
That said, if a community gets hit with a whole group of people who “don't listen,” “have never had proper communication with others,” and “have expansionist tendencies,” it's over.
Having lived under dictatorship for over a decade, I consider this an indisputable truth in Japan. I'm firmly resolved to enforce it.
If they come individually, such people will gradually be influenced by observing others' interactions—learning “this way of talking is good” or “that way is bad.” They also have room to develop these skills simply through real-world experience.
However, when they come as a group, there's no way around it.
When an outsider points out, “This approach is unacceptable,” instead of reflecting or improving, they start licking each other's wounds internally, saying things like, “It's fine,” or “That's too harsh.”
Truthfully, “comforting someone who's hurt” is natural for anyone. With friends or family, you naturally want to encourage them.
However, there are different types and directions for comforting or encouraging. There's the type that acknowledges the failure and says, “Let's try harder next time,” and there's the type that denies the failure itself, saying, “That wasn't a failure.”
People who make the latter their emotional anchor will have their lives stall there.
----
I might write about this in detail in the December issue of Monthly Nexus or the February 2026 issue, but I know from personal experience that “if you remain ignorant and refuse to learn, you'll never truly change.”
To heal wounds, solve problems, and get back up, escaping or withdrawing isn't inherently bad or shameful.
However, there is no future in continuously fleeing without solving problems, or in perpetual withdrawal.
Whether for the person themselves or those who accept it, if “standing up” is not anticipated, the place of escape or withdrawal gradually becomes a place that drains one's vitality.
For the past decade or more, or even longer, Japan has been in the midst of a transitional period towards becoming a “country where people don't have to die.”
During such transitional periods, various success stories and failures emerge.
Only by establishing countermeasures for failures and paving pathways for success can we finally mature and conclude the transition.
We are no longer in a state like decades ago where “there were only places you couldn't escape from,” but regarding “how to rise again after escaping,” we are still in the exploratory phase.
Society cannot undergo multiple changes simultaneously. Only after a certain number of people die or issues become societal problems do they finally gain widespread awareness and begin to evolve.
(To avoid misunderstanding: this isn't some kind of complaint about modern society, and at least I don't know of any realistic way to solve this better than how it's done now.)
Consequently, while some people “survived and achieved great success because they could escape,” many others “aged without ever thinking about life after escape, losing opportunities for growth.”
If one can live repeating the same daily routine without growing, they may harbor dissatisfaction but never truly desire growth.
Single-player games tend to appeal strongly to introverted tendencies.
And English-speaking players, in my impression, tend to have more experience collaborating with others, even when dealing with such introverted tendencies.
I suspect this stems from a cultural awareness of “hierarchy,” where individuals within the same hierarchy naturally gravitate toward cooperation.
(Of course, many individuals may defy this pattern when viewed individually, but as a general tendency, I feel this observation holds true.)
However, Japan lacks such a culture, and the emphasis on cooperation and coordination isn't as strong.
Consequently, there's often a pattern where people act without realizing they lack these skills.
----
The most dangerous and difficult to handle within this type are those who act under the guise of “for others,” “for you,” or “for the game,” despite lacking deep knowledge.
I've had enough varied experiences to be able to write about these matters fairly fluently.
The primary reason is that actions “for others” often come with a desire for recognition.
Let me state upfront: the desire for recognition itself isn't bad. No matter how strong the desire, if you “look at the other person even more carefully than that desire,” both parties can benefit.
As long as you truly see the other person and act in a way that benefits them, even if your motives are somewhat clouded, the outcome is still positive. And cloudiness itself isn't inherently bad.
Some people want to be seen; others want to see. Some prefer clarity; others prefer complexity.
The desire to value yourself is important and shouldn't be dismissed.
I think it's fine to hold the belief that “I like myself, and I like the other person” to a certain extent, based on reason.
Goodness or such things are hard to achieve without both knowledge and grit, and even with them, there's no guarantee you can do it.
You gain a real sense that “goodness is something everyone possesses, but even so, it's hard to achieve” through repeatedly experiencing things like acting completely with the other person in mind, yet still causing them trouble.
I won't say it never happens that someone tries to do good solely for themselves, but it's extremely rare.
Everyone has their own sense of ethics, yet conflicts with their abilities or effort often prevent them from fully following that ethical path. This “incomplete goodness” is what gets called evil or harm.
Conversely, what is evil for one person can be good for another. And sometimes, something that brings happiness to people can still be considered evil or harmful.
I'll elaborate on this in next month's issue if space permits, but communication skills actually rely heavily on mathematical aptitude. You can apply the “tips for studying university-level math” almost directly.
I can't guarantee it works 100%, and it requires significant effort, but it probably works about 85% to 90% of the time.
This approach hasn't been widely shared outside the realm of those scoring 80-85 on standardized tests (top 0.2%+), but once you grasp the logic, even those scoring 65-70 can likely master it.
Nowadays, with platforms like SNS, people with expansive ambitions usually maintain public accounts. By tracking their logs for several months to a year using such techniques, you can gain significant insight into how they interact with others.
With experience in reading people, you can discern a great deal—though not 100%. You can see how they're treated at work and gauge their communication skills.
Goodness, without accompanying communication skills, doesn't become goodness for others.
No matter how beneficial it may be for the person themselves, if they can't convey their heart or feelings, that goodness won't reach anyone beyond them. It inevitably ends up as mere self-righteousness.
In stories and creative works, “goodness lacking communication skills” is often portrayed as positive, but in reality, it usually leads to disaster.
Regarding this matter, no matter how one acts, only hell awaits. The moment “such a person happens to be favored by others,” it's already game over. Therefore, I currently believe the best course is to cut ties early.
----
The more you act, the more you realize you can't escape failure. Those who stop because they dislike failure can't accomplish anything in the first place.
But people without that life experience don't know this.
As you grow older, younger people who know nothing of the past before you are born. These inexperienced individuals then convince themselves they are “respectable people.”
It becomes a kind of perpetual motion machine: “If you can survive by repeating the same things, you can convince yourself you're respectable.”
Very few people grow without ever being corrected or reprimanded.
Those who never built such relationships won't be corrected or reprimanded, but they'll end up capable of far less than their peers.
Just as two are stronger than one, building the skill of “mutually beneficial communication” makes things proceed far more smoothly.
Even in the internet world, failing to make such efforts means you'll fall further behind others.
“Not being able to do ordinary things” isn't inherently bad, but a causal relationship exists.
If you can't grasp the cause-and-effect link – “Because I couldn't do this, I couldn't do ordinary things” – your future life will be filled with things you can't do.
People have strengths and weaknesses. It is absolutely essential to be aware of “what you can't do” and “where you're not good,” and taking countermeasures is also crucial.
Living without this awareness usually means continuously burdening others.
Even if you can't do something, or things don't go well, being aware and taking countermeasures is extremely important.
Japan is in the midst of a transitional period, and even such people can live comfortably thinking “I'm just a normal person.”
That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but communities built by such people can be quite hellish.
When people whose lives never improve gather together, it becomes a space where they merely await a slow death. Making that your base and living there long-term is akin to becoming a ghost.
Furthermore, if people from such places try to engage with other communities “as a community unit,” an even greater hell begins.
----
Most people don't want to reject others. They don't want to see someone uncomfortable, nor do they want to be the bad guy.
However, when someone incapable of sound judgment and prone to spouting nonsense appears in a community, leaving them unchecked usually leads to their arrogance growing.
This is because “they can't build proper relationships with others to the extent they spout nonsense,” and “by not being rejected, they convince themselves they're a meaningful person here.”
If such a person is alone, a warning might suffice. But if you offer something for free, dangerous people will bring other dangerous people and form gangs.
Typically, these people act without deep thought and aren't used to being reprimanded. So, if you intimidate them, you can usually handle them if they come alone.
As mentioned earlier, we have quite a systematic approach to identifying and dealing with such individuals.
However, the TacticalNexus community does attract people from various countries, and many are genuinely decent folks. Some might even want to accept such individuals.
But they lack the high communication skills of players from other countries. If they feel “accepted,” they start acting completely recklessly.
Growing up in an environment where they “aren't scolded” or “aren't reprimanded” is, in the end, terrifying in its own way.
To reiterate, the vast majority of Japanese people are decent. However, the freedom to live as they please also means it's easy for the bottom 1% or even the bottom 0.1% to gather together.
And while these lower-tier individuals in Japan may have weaker harmful tendencies in terms of criminal activity, their harmful impact on the community is extremely high.
Things that would teach a painful lesson if done abroad are never learned because they never suffered that pain.
Of course, just as most people understand “killing someone isn't exactly a good thing” without being told, most learn without needing to be told. But some cannot.
----
However, given my writing ability, I suspect that no matter how much I write about Japanese cultural traits here, it would be difficult to properly convey the true gravity of this issue to players abroad. The cultures are simply too different.
(Even among Japanese people, the gap between ordinary individuals and those who aren't ordinary is vast, something you might not grasp without observing them for a while.)
In fact, the more I write, the less persuasive it likely becomes.
Also, I don't want to engage in some kind of negative campaign against Japan. While TacticalNexus and some terrible communities have many awful examples, Japan is a fun and enjoyable country.
So, regarding this “community” topic, I'll touch on it in a different way, including why we place such significant importance on the TacticalNexus community.
Suddenly, but good and evil are like a crappy Rubik's Cube – it's hard to get all sides uniformly aligned.
Therefore, to return to the earlier point: if the sides that should be aligned “for the other person's sake” are in place, then even if the “desire for approval” piece is a bit messy, it generally counts as good.
(While a Rubik's Cube itself requires one side to be solved before you start, in reality, not everything requires all six sides to be perfectly aligned all the time.)
However, their “good intentions”—which cause significant harm so casually—are extremely skewed toward “for their own sake.” And precisely because they don't properly recognize this, they keep endlessly doing things we wish they'd stop.
In a Rubik's Cube, the center face is always fixed to one color. Yet they insist on forcing a Rubik's Cube where all eight pieces outside the center face are different colors onto you, claiming “this is good.” At the very least, I wish they'd show you the side with at least two matching pieces.
The real problem is that the person doesn't recognize the issue. If they don't even understand “why it's wrong” (what the standard for ‘improvement’ is), let alone “what's wrong (where improvement is needed),” then there's nothing you can do.
Telling someone who doesn't understand the standard, “Fix this part like this,” won't work. That's just treating the symptoms. Without a fundamental understanding of the criteria, if that person stays in place, the situation will only continue to deteriorate.
Even if you spend a day or two having serious talks with such people, they rarely improve to an average level. Because the breakdown is so deep-rooted, the only solution is for them to spend years learning for themselves, “This is how things are.”
(For others, even if a major problem surfaces, about ten hours of intense discussion can help them grasp the cause, leading to significant improvement afterward.)
This isn't something a small, insignificant indie team like ours can handle; it's the role of broader social welfare institutions, starting with schools.
----
The Rubik's Cube is just an analogy, but I find it incredibly illustrative, so let me elaborate on this point.
As any beginner who actually tries it will discover, the Rubik's Cube plunges you into the depths of despair on that very first day.
Randomly twisting the cube to solve all six sides is practically impossible, and by the end of that first day, it starts to look like some kind of cursed artifact. By the second day, you start suspecting the cube itself might be possessed.
To solve it reliably, you must deeply memorize the cube's patterns and rules, while also training your ability to anticipate moves—like “if I move this and this, it will shift like this.”
In short, solving it quickly only becomes possible through a massive accumulation of tricks, experience, and repetition that builds speed.
We advocate the Earth = Cube Theory, but simultaneously propose the Social = Rubik's Cube Theory. Primarily me.
Once you turn it and improve one aspect, things worsen elsewhere—like the sides or back. And when you do things like the “three-turn swap” common in the latter stages of a Rubik's Cube, even if it ultimately improves the situation, significant backlash occurs during the process.
When a politician says, “We need three turns to change positions, so let's start with this one,” and makes the first turn, if another politician then says, “No, no, undo that,” or “Turn it like this,” it's over, right?
(Well, in reality, a single politician often misses many things, so in that world, it's probably impossible to “turn it alone.”)
“Cooperation” is a wonderful thing, but it requires skill.
Imagine a “turn-based Rubik's Cube of failure” where every time you make a turn, someone else must also make a turn. What you'll find there is pure chaos.
If either party is inexperienced, I believe the Rubik's Cube called “human relationships” will collapse.
The next Rubik's Cube they turn will likely be one made from someone's skull.
I described a Rubik's Cube with individual players taking turns to make it easier to understand, but in society, the rights primarily belong not to “individuals” but to “political parties.”
Now, imagine holding an “election” where people who've never touched a Rubik's Cube decide by vote which part of the cube to turn. I think you'd end up with a pretty outstanding image of utter garbage in this world.
Society is doing this with a look of resignation and despair. Well, of course, the colors will eventually look somewhat right, and it's definitely better than doing nothing.
However, I don't think “completion” is ever truly achievable.
The best way to achieve “unity” is probably not to rotate once per turn, but to rotate several times before switching. But if the person who takes over then messes everything up, discarding all the previous effort, then pure chaos is forged once again.
Therefore, ultimately, both steering the ship and letting someone else steer it are difficult.
Regardless of good or evil, I feel that governing society itself is just genuinely tough.
Fundamentally, if society were truly governed in a way that satisfied everyone, then no matter what form the country took, there would be no such thing as “dissatisfaction.”
I'm no politician, but if forced to do the same thing, I'd conclude: “Just make me solve a Rubik's Cube alone from the start.” That's why I've been a small-scale dictator for years.
Of course, I do explain the reasoning behind how things operate and strive to make my intentions transparent. But a larger-scale, rotating Rubik's Cube system? That's terrifyingly impossible.
Team-Nexus can operate this way precisely because there's no baton to pass to the next generation, no handover process for successors.
----
Currently, the TacticalNexus Discord community manages the Rubik's Cube metaphor quite effectively—both the player side and the developer (game design) side—and actually better than either side could alone. (metaphor).
I think the analogy I just used conveys my point well enough, but I truly believe this is nothing short of a miracle.
If some amateur suddenly came along and started messing with the Rubik's Cube (metaphor) like, “Nah, this is how it should be lol,” it would be the end.
There exists a breed of people described as manipulators. They are the type who try to handle large numbers of people or situations exactly as they see fit.
Many manipulators have weak empathy skills, and fundamentally, I probably belong to that category myself.
(When you master one thing and structure/systematize information, you can also apply it in the opposite direction.
I often apply my dictator-like or manipulator-like nature, flipping it completely depending on the situation.)
Manipulators want to twist the Rubik's Cube (metaphor) exactly as they see fit. And when that situation arises, it's over.
To prevent that, we ultimately have to maintain a significant level of suspicion towards the players.
This applies to all human relationships: we must maintain that tension and pressure of “not knowing when or what might happen.”
If we're all twisting the Rubik's Cube, we constantly need to stay alert to prevent shady characters from manipulating it.
On the other hand, if developers harbor suspicion, players will naturally become suspicious of developers too.
However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In a way, such suspicion and tension are probably necessary for both sides to maintain.
But if only suspicion and tension exist, those participating will naturally become mentally exhausted.
For both sides to coexist, not just one, there needs to be something that makes each feel, “Yes, there's tension and pressure, but there's also something else.”
That said, maintaining that level of tension is essentially like playing Jenga.
That this has continued is truly miraculous.
It's something politicians are itching to do, and an environment certain groups desperately crave.
Right now, we're taking turns twisting Rubik's Cubes while also playing Jenga. Oh, and Tactical Nexus.
It's only working right now because our heavy users are incredibly sharp—they intuit our intentions—and they trust us. Plus, we've built a relationship where we can look closely at the players' moves, thinking, “They probably have a solid strategy here.”
Having witnessed broken Rubik's Cubes (metaphorically) collapse in other fields countless times, we never expected this miraculous relationship to last until TacticalNexus is complete.
We're absolutely certain some fatal misalignment will occur midway, leading to its collapse.
Even now, we believe it wouldn't be strange at all if something fatal happened today or tomorrow, creating a decisive fracture.
----
So, we probably won't make all DLC free until about six months after the game's release. Frankly, the developers think this is just plain shitty.
Therefore, if you see this officially sanctioned shitty system where a clearly superior solution exists but isn't implemented, please feel free to write negative reviews. We're convinced we're shitty, so we won't think “What the hell~”.
(Honestly, reviews saying “I can't recommend this game now since it'll eventually be free!” feel perfectly reasonable from a player's perspective.)
I wrote this with a tone that might seem like I'm agonizing over it, but honestly, aside from community-related issues, I feel like whether we keep the pricing as-is or make it free doesn't really matter much.
Truly, either way is fine. We'll likely base our decision on what players say in communities and such.
In terms of passion and effort, we're developing TacticalNexus with more drive than a regular job, but fundamentally, it's hobbyist development.
This world isn't a hobby anime world, so there's no secret society ruling the world via TacticalNexus, nor a young hero fighting back against them using TacticalNexus.
Personally, I'm just researching various data and verbalizing information and structures. When it comes to ethical discussions, I'm mostly in a “Oh, I see” kind of mood.
This game never involved money to begin with. Therefore, society doesn't move either.
On the other hand, lives and livelihoods are moving along as they should. Developers and top-tier players are each investing enormous amounts of time.
Our primary goal is “to create a game that's fun for us.” Ethical considerations or what's best for players come second or third.
I can't predict the future, but so far, the heavy users seem to have sought and pioneered a “fun” aligned with our direction.
Having played for several years, they can communicate information to each other quite effectively. Considering the “fun” of the game, the ideal environment is one where they enjoy themselves and actively share information.
----
Even through translation software, we've had dozens of players—not just one or two, but well into double digits—who've spent tens of hours or more chatting with us.
Quite a few have been with us for over five years. Honestly, even if some critical community conflict were to occur, I believe we could ultimately find a resolution that satisfies everyone.
We have our goals, and players have theirs.
While we can't know exactly what players think, when we discuss things and reach a certain level of mutual understanding, the emotions that remain when we still can't fully agree are far stronger feelings of affirmation, resignation, or acceptance than anger, hatred, or dissatisfaction.
Even if TacticalNexus ended up in some chaotic, messy, all-out clash between the community and developers that was just... wow.
Ten years down the line, I think the majority of players who were passionate about it back then would probably lean towards positive feelings like, “Well, the time leading up to that was fun.”
You might feel something while your emotions are still raw, but once you've processed it, I think it will become a memory with quite a few positives.
From April 2020, when TacticalNexus was heavily promoted by players, the community lasted five and a half years.
We believe these five and a half years, sustained without major collapse, are at least a Guinness-record level achievement in game development.
Of course, this way of thinking is unhealthy. As players, it's only natural to want to enjoy the game comfortably until the very end.
However, for us personally, it's more like, “Well, something will probably happen somewhere and cause it to collapse, and even if that happens, it'll be somewhat acceptable.”
Fundamentally, the environment and culture are too different. On top of that, we are extremely unique even among Japanese people, and the programmer leading Team-Nexus has a very different sense of right and wrong compared to most people.
As briefly mentioned in the “Next Time” preview at the end of this article, he's not exactly a yakuza, but he's not exactly a law-abiding citizen either.
Given this background, and considering the game has already been in development for an absurdly long time, the entire staff views TacticalNexus development not as a quest with the premise of “reaching the final stage with high polish,” but more like a “score attack where you keep going until game over.”
It's highly likely that conflicts or breakdowns will occur somewhere before the game is finished.
But at this point, even if it breaks down, the sense of enjoyment outweighs the frustration, so in a way, we're developing it quite casually.
----
Honestly, I'd like to make all DLC free exclusively outside Japan, but I feel it's questionable to create such a disparity between countries.
As mentioned earlier, the majority of Japanese people are decent. It's just that the actions of the unreasonable ones are too extreme, so as a small development team, we have to make rational decisions based on that reality.
On the other hand, well, Japan really doesn't have the same level of economic disparity as other countries. And since future DLC will be $1 anyway, we're unlikely to get money from players who've already invested significantly.
Overall, Japanese sales total about $20,000, which is significantly lower than the average annual income for Japanese people in their 30s.
Setting aside the unexpectedly tough overseas market, Japan is a country where national prosperity translates to citizen prosperity—far more so than elsewhere.
Considering that, I'm starting to think it might be acceptable to just drop a line like “Japan will go free after six months of completion...” and make all DLC free outside Japan, even if it means preparing for some backlash or criticism.
Of course, doing something like that would invite trouble. But in my experience as a dictator, the most troublesome people aren't those who dislike you and cause trouble; it's those who like you and cause trouble.
While it depends somewhat on the situation, anger towards strangers or people you've never interacted with doesn't last very long.
Online backlashes and news stories become hot topics in the moment, leading to criticism or trouble, but they're forgotten within days. Besides, truly dangerous situations (especially within the same country) might be better handled by involving the police.
And since it's confirmed that DLCs after Chapter 9 will cost $1, players who currently own all DLCs won't lose out.
So, well... I've written quite a bit, but ultimately, my core feeling is “I could do it, or I could just not bother.”
In fact, something might trigger me to suddenly announce something like “All DLCs will be free starting in two weeks!” on a whim.
I'm not sure if this is compliant, but after implementing microtransactions, if the total microtransaction purchases exceed $3,000, I might occasionally share information about how much revenue we're generating.
(If it's less than that, it would feel like we're begging for it, so I won't do it.)
So, if the total microtransaction purchases from outside Japan exceed $20,000, I might consider making all DLC $1 only for overseas players at that point. For now, this is a definite plan, but I'll also make decisions based on my mood.
(As mentioned earlier, players are currently putting in over ten times the game's price in actual playtime, and we're satisfied with that.)
Japan is a bit tough. The response is just plain rough.
We've experienced quite a few situations where things just don't work out, even though there shouldn't be a need for translation software. It's pretty much ongoing right now.
Honestly, we won't feel motivated to do anything unless we get around $700,000 from Japan.
But anyway, we're trash. You all have the right to call trash trash. We're waiting for the downvotes.
----
◆Long Preview for the Next Long Article
There's actually a substantial continuation to this, but I'll postpone it until next month or later, when I have space to write it out properly.
Truthfully, I have about 1500 more lines of long-form content drafts piled up. This article is roughly 1000 lines.
(I don't recall being able to write this much in a single article last year—has the character limit been expanded?)
So, I'll write the preview for the next article here.
(Originally, I planned to write various things about “desires,” but since that brought up other topics to cover, continuing last month's discussion about “Looking at Tactical Nexus Strategy Guides” will likely be delayed by 3-4 months.)
Wow, it's amazing—not just the game, but even the articles are starting to get delayed previews.
The previews for the next two articles? Their theme is “postponement.”
The theme of the article announcing postponements is postponement, and I'm about to write a lengthy preview for that lengthy preview. How about it, everyone? Are you still with me?
----
This aspect comes through quite a bit in this article too, but fundamentally, we—or rather, I—have a distinctly different, discriminatory sense of good and evil.
I aim to address about 98% of things (well, realistically maybe 95% or less), but I clearly cut out about 2%. And emotionally, I rarely feel guilty about that exclusion.
On the other hand, I've had my life nearly ended by a car running a red light, and fundamentally, I've always had a relatively difficult daily life due to sensory sensitivity that's probably in the bottom (or top) 0.x% range.
In other words, I take this exclusionary stance from a position where I myself would likely be on the excluded side. This isn't about thinking “they can probably help themselves, so it's okay to exclude them” – it's just plain exclusion.
This article touched a bit on TacticalNexus's history. Before TacticalNexus went free-to-play, the player count was around a thousand or so.
The average playtime back then was 250 hours. This means a significant percentage of players who bought the game back then were actually playing it quite intensively.
Six years have passed since development began.
In Japan, the mortality rate for people aged 30 to 50 is said to be around 2%.
In the US, the mortality rate for the same age group is said to be around 7%.
Many players stop playing games, and I actually think that's perfectly fine.
However, statistically speaking, it is almost certain that around 30 players have passed away during these six years.
No matter how much better this game becomes in the future, those players who have already passed away cannot play it.
After five more years, another 30 or so of them will pass away.
The mortality rate increases with age. After another five years, around 40 to 50 will likely pass away.
Or perhaps accidents or illness could take the lives of myself or staff members.
Both you players and we staff are essentially drawing a lottery ticket every day, with odds of one in a hundred thousand to one in several hundred thousand.
Over ten years, several percent of people will die. I did various things to explore efficient ways of living within that reality, and I cared for my own relatives, witnessing their final years and their faces at death.
This proved remarkably effective for efficient effort, and since then I've approached everything based on “how people die.”
My lack of attachment to money stems from the fact that “the value of money” is only valid up to a certain point before death—it's useless after becoming bedridden or at the moment of death.
Stories about taking money after death exist in every country, but they're all the wishful thinking of people who've never died.
Doctors smooth the terrified death mask, and family members call it a “good death face,” while the person's most terrifying experience—the moment right before death—remains unknown to anyone. This is especially true for the elderly.
I believe that at the moment of death, the memories one carries with them are stronger than money (though of course, there's no guarantee against dementia, etc.). Therefore, I focus primarily on how to live pleasantly.
However, as mentioned earlier, I have sensory hypersensitivity. Having become an adult with almost no coping strategies, my tolerance for stress beyond my dislikes is extremely high. My “range of warmth that feels pleasant” is basically the temperature at which most people would suffer scalding or burns.
----
I've thought quite a bit about “death in everyday life,” and after reviewing several statistics, I've become convinced that roughly a few percent of the time, people are killed by accidents or illness before they can accomplish anything.
Or rather, human life is a consumable item, and there's no guarantee it will continue.
In my twenties, I spent considerable time pondering “what constitutes my own sense of goodness.” This ultimately led me to the notion that “stealing someone's time with meaningless things is a crime on par with physical harm,” and “failing to grow or progress is equally criminal.”
Since time and reality kill people, my view was that without ability, you become “a villain who drags others into inefficient pursuits, stealing their time and effectively killing them.”
If you want to “save many people” or “help all kinds of people,” the prerequisite is to avoid failure and not waste time.
Therefore, while valuing morality and ethics, I held a terrifying view: people who fail or waste time must first be broken down completely, never allowed to rise again until their failures are corrected.
And I believed doing this was a “virtuous act to increase the number of good people.”
Since I was originally in a position where I “made people expend effort and time,” I treated it as “a tribute to comrades lacking ability while demanding morality.” I would first push them to the point where they couldn't do anything for a while, to gauge their endurance and force them to improve.
I didn't understand it back then, but I think over 98% of you probably do.
This is simply an act of producing hell.
Even though I “stopped imposing it externally,” this remains the core of my concept of good and evil, virtually unchanged.
To summarize, it's the notion that “the cruelty of reality is stronger than the beauty of human desires, so let's see that first.” Taken to its extreme, this is what it becomes.
(My family lineage includes former lawmakers and ministers who were top-tier at Tokyo University, yet I'm still called “the most violent and harsh within this lineage” and “embodying pre-war severity”).
On the other hand, I quite like living by recognizing such terrifying notions as self-righteousness and choosing to develop them only within our own circle.
It was tough until I could do it, but once I could, it boils down to one word: “delightful.” Because things I once thought impossible have become quite easy to do.
Moreover, this stems more from a passive mindset, preceding any notion of “manners expected of someone born into such a family.”
I've witnessed the death faces of those who died alone, and most living people don't contemplate the agony of the most terrifying time: “the moment just before death” or “the time left only with death.”
I simply had high endurance, and my “I can do it, so I'll do it” threshold was absurdly high, which is why I ended up that way. Without that, I'd happily just live a life of simple hobbies.
The fact that this mindset is self-righteous and doesn't need to be forced on others is a relief to me too. We're introverted too, so doing things with like-minded people is the most enjoyable.
Long ago, universities were “institutions that produced geniuses by creating masses of broken people,” and creators often had that kind of atmosphere too.
Whether good or bad, that was part of the culture back then.
But as Japan changes like this, such people must be excluded from public spaces.
We've discussed various negative aspects of goodness, but even if unrealistic, the spirit of helping others or striving to be good often creates salvation by “easing tension.”
Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it just doesn't work. In those moments, “kindness” is needed to acknowledge such people.
(I had an abnormally high tolerance and assumed others were similar because I was fine with it myself)
At the very least, on the scale of a nation, it's better to “voice kind wishes, even if irresponsible.”
As mentioned earlier, Japanese society is currently in the midst of twisting a Rubik's Cube as it transitions toward a “world where people don't have to die.” If I participate in this, things will get dangerous.
Because I'll start slowly turning the Rubik's Cube society is twisting in the opposite direction. And quite forcefully at that.
I'm not a yakuza, but I'm not an ordinary person either.
I firmly believe we work and think far more than the average person.
Yet, while I write that “time is life” and “life is a consumable,” I'm still doing unnecessary things right now. This article itself is quite a waste of time.
Furthermore, there are days when I barely work and just play, and there are even more things I can't touch because I'm occupied with other tasks.
(Non-programmers are also basically juggling several other projects simultaneously.)
If we're doing something “for the players,” then simply developing is the right thing to do.
Given this mindset, why do we keep making so many “delays”?
I also plan to write about what happened to change my thinking, and the logical structure behind this way of thinking.
...If there's space left.
----
Well then, I'll be heading off to a lecture on the Earth Cube theory. Good work today.
[/p][p][/p]
Now, ever since drafting this microtransaction system, I've consistently felt that, as our envisioned sales approach, it's a remarkably well-designed system.
This is because adopting this format for future sales will enable a “pay-later” model for game distribution.
Meaning we can sell the game for free or $1, and after players finish playing, they can pay an amount based on their satisfaction.
TacticalNexus is overwhelmingly a game you can play for a very long time, but “time spent playing a long game” doesn't necessarily equate to “time well spent.”
I think many of us have experienced playing a game thinking, “This is clearly a terrible game, but since I bought it, I feel compelled to finish it,” or “I want to complain after I finish it.”
That's unpleasant, right? Sure, you finished it, but there's no real reward. All that happens is that several tens of dollars just vanish.
In work, knowing when to cut your losses is crucial. So, yes, you could argue this is “your own fault for playing something you find boring.”
But when you see reviews saying “it's so highly rated, maybe something good happens if I push through to the end,” that curiosity and expectation make it impossible to quit.
The result is a waste of dozens to over a hundred hours. My mood has gone from “Give me my money back” to “Give me more money.”
I totally get this feeling, so it's only natural that negative reviews come not just from players who played briefly, but also from those who invested a lot of time.
I didn't clear this game for the developers' sake—I did it for myself.
A game that failed to meet that expectation I simply can't consider it “recommendable.”
(I fully understand the view that giving a low-rated review to a game by someone with only indie experience is unfair to the developer, and I personally only write reviews for games I genuinely want to recommend.
However, regarding our game, I want people to honestly say it's boring where it's boring. Player reviews are for the players.)
We operate with that sensibility, so ideally we wanted to do it this way: “If you didn't enjoy it, you don't have to pay; if you did enjoy it, you can pay whatever you like.”
For us, this feels like a very good approach, based on “when we were players ourselves.”
Fundamentally, we don't particularly like systems that “make you pay before you even play.” We believe only players who are satisfied after playing should pay afterward.
However, we didn't know how to implement this concretely.
We're sure some companies out there are already using better methods, but they're just not within our field of vision.
Of course, “talking to various people” is one approach, but we have our own strong convictions, and suggestions we receive are often quite difficult to adopt.
Even with people we're reasonably close to, it feels awkward to directly say something like, “There's not even a 1% chance we'll use this, but if you know about something like this, please tell me.”
Systems allowing casual fund transfers could potentially be treated as “money laundering” in Japan, depending on the circumstances.
After considering and discussing various systems, we concluded that the “worthless microtransaction” model skillfully navigated those issues. It exploited loopholes in various regulations while ensuring neither players nor developers were disadvantaged.
----
To be clear, for items sold on Steam, 30% of the sales revenue after taxes is taken as their margin.
However, we personally don't really care about that, or rather, we consider it reasonable for ourselves.
Last year, we built servers for another project and created a small-scale metaverse. This work was incredibly tough.
Bugs kept popping up, and I went crazy when “local IP communication tests” I ran alone yielded different results than “global IP communication tests” done with other staff. Out of sheer frustration, I even imagined blasting Tokyo Tower with beams or heat rays to destroy it.
System development was genuinely tedious, so having Steam (Valve) handle that side of things and take their margin is perfectly fine for us, since we're developing games more as a hobby.
That work is seriously tough. Anyway, crappy maintenance pops up way too often. Honestly, I don't even want to think about doing that day in and day out at a major company for decades.
Sure, Steam servers go down and get fixed within tens of minutes to a few hours, but I imagine that kind of work is tough unless you have staff with a certain level of technical skill.
In other words, I suspect that every time the servers go down, those people get suddenly woken up and made to work until it's fixed.
Of course, the profits probably don't go directly to those hardworking folks, and Steam's environment might not be the hell I imagine.
But I'm self-centered and tend to think based on my own experiences. So, when I consider things from the perspective of “what if it were me?”, I feel like I'd be happy to give them a decent margin.
Having a proper cooling-off period (return policy) for games might be complicated for developers, but from the player's perspective, it's incredibly valuable.
Being able to return a game if it's seriously problematic is a system that gives buyers significant peace of mind.
On the other hand, for small-scale developers, implementing that kind of feature is incredibly difficult. We're really grateful that Steam handles support for things we can't do ourselves.
My personal gripe with Steam is that I wish they'd either stop doing UI adjustment updates so much or at least leave a diff file so we can revert to the original version.
Also, please stop this habit of demanding SMS verification with every update, which then has a lag or is off by about a minute, meaning fixing all the DLC data easily takes over 10 minutes.
When I'm finally ready to update a stage and get stuck waiting an extra 20-30 minutes for the update process, it makes me want to lose my mind.
Seriously, please stop that. Please, please stop. You already require SMS verification just to log in—why force extra authentication?
I occasionally try to find the settings page, but there are so many pages I can't make heads or tails of it. It's like TacticalNexus. Probably because they're also following the Earth Cube theory.
Please don't do weird things with the UI. I beg you. Changing the subject, I also won't tolerate Discord's UI changes. Just give us a subscription option to revert to the old UI.
I even hate the fact that I'm starting to get used to the new UI. This is how hatred, which shouldn't be a big deal, gets amplified over time and etched into people's hearts.
----
Before continuing, there are two things I want to write down.
First, as a premise: this isn't about business, and doing this commercially would be utterly foolish.
In business strategy, at least at this point, adopting a “post-payment model” would cause revenue to plummet to a fraction of what it would be with upfront payment.
Unless the “post-payment model” culture becomes so dominant that everyone is forced to imitate it (or even if it does), decent profits won't be possible.
About 25 years ago, “shareware” software was circulating, but in Japan, this has drastically decreased.
In business, the most important thing for making money isn't “creating a good product,” but “creating a product people want to buy.”
If you want to make money, learning marketing is far more important than polishing your product.
In that context, over-polishing a product is a foolish waste of resources in commercial terms.
Most people harbor a desire to be good. However, they lack consistency with that spirit.
Almost everyone just says things like “I'll do it if you ask me,” but they never take the initiative to do it themselves.
That kind of appeal efficiently satisfies their desire to “act like a good person,” so they just pay lip service.
If a developer wants to pursue this without any special, grounded experience, I think they should first abandon any expectation of relying on people's goodwill. People aren't paying as much attention to you as you think they are.
If you're going to do it, methods like crowdfunding or announcing “We'll be doing this going forward” are better. That's because it creates a balance where there's “mutual reward” rather than “free labor.”
If the world ran on goodwill alone, “business”—where things are exchanged for money—wouldn't exist, and the world would have achieved peace long ago.
Everyone possesses goodwill, but they don't exercise it because doing so would mean losing out or making things harder for themselves. That's just human nature.
And since news thrives on sensationalism, the world seems flooded with stories of corruption and villains. Yet, even among those who attain positions of power, there are still good people, or those desperately trying to be good.
However, even with such people existing, the world doesn't improve as much as one might hope. Or, even if it does improve, it often goes largely unnoticed.
----
“If only someone's kindness could spread...” is a thought everyone has.
On the other hand, if you want to spread someone's kindness or make it known to the world, you must promote it in a way that reaches people's hearts. You also need to build connections with others who will help spread it.
To do this “consistently,” you need thousands of hours studying writing and thousands more studying how to build relationships.
Above all, you must also study “whether someone's kindness is truly kind, and what makes it exceptional.”
When told to expend enormous effort not on actually performing good deeds, but merely on spreading others' good deeds, almost no one will do it.
Nowadays, the “retweet” function on social media makes it easier for things to spread, whether out of goodwill or malice, but there is no “scrutiny of information” involved.
This is why fake news and rumors become news.
Even if people have the desire to spread something, almost no one scrutinizes whether the content they wish to spread is truly correct or beneficial. This holds true even for those who already possess the ability to scrutinize it.
Therefore, goodwill does not spread.
When attempting grand or unrealistic endeavors, one's thoughts drift further from reality, fostering desires completely detached from it.
When you walk a path expecting people's goodwill while great figures themselves struggle, you'll likely get crushed, grow to hate humanity, and end up accomplishing nothing.
Coming from a family of doctors and politicians, I've heard about this parched part of the human heart countless times and experienced it myself.
Amidst this, the reason I want to do this within Team-Nexus, which I lead, is simply because I want to.
----
As additional information, let's post the sales figures for the last two weeks here.
(That said, this is a record from a particularly slow period; sales are usually a bit higher.)
Now, lately I've been posting ridiculous amounts of weird documents on Steam every month. In terms of typing speed, I'm roughly in the top 0.001% in Japan.
Even just doing keypunching (typing-based part-time work), I can easily achieve about 2-3 times the efficiency of the average person.
Therefore, the amount left after deducting the margin from $141 is roughly what I could earn by working casually for a few hours.
Furthermore, professional writers typically earn around 5 to 20 yen per character.
Monthly Nexus articles run about 10,000 to 25,000 characters. Having a pro writer handle this would cost roughly $1,000 per article.
(Regarding writing skill, mine is even rarer than my typing speed. Depending on the field, I suspect the per-character rate would be at least ten times higher.)
Players who follow Discord will recall around Chapter 8-3 (Mirror) of Promoted-feedback: I worked nearly 40 hours straight without sleep, reporting progress every few hours.
If I'd done that kind of work as a keypuncher, I could have secured at least a month's worth of income.
And regarding the breadth of skills here, the staff are basically the same. Or rather, the average IQ score of the staff remaining since TacticalNexus's development is 80.
TacticalNexus saw its player base increase tenfold after going free-to-play, but revenue hasn't changed.
We're fine with that, but I should note that “post-payment systems” and “free main packages” are commercially ineffective.
----
Now, before discussing microtransactions, there's one more thing I want to address upfront.
We've written extensively about the “post-purchase system” up to this point, but TacticalNexus's original pricing had a different intention, and this approach completely contradicts that.
TacticalNexus originally had DLC priced several times higher than it is now. This was partly intended to “avoid competition with superior follow-up games released after TacticalNexus.”
The idea of “pricing this game high to ensure the sequel sells” clearly contradicts the current approach of “making the game accessible to everyone by selling it on a pay-as-you-go basis.”
Claiming this isn't contradictory is simply impossible.
However, to be frank, if you want to make a game better than TacticalNexus, implementing “Magic and Legacy” and “Extended Screen” are fundamental prerequisites.
At present, heavy users can chat endlessly about “the upcoming implementation of magic and legacy.” They no longer need to actually play TacticalNexus to engage with their TacticalNexus.
This is because magic and legacy offer so much room for imagination, and it's genuinely quite enjoyable.
And I believe there are almost no other games that have developed these two systems to this extent.
There are 43 stages featuring Legacy and Magic, with only 14 currently implemented. That means just one-third is live, yet even in this state...
As for Extended Screen, it goes without saying that feature has been a massive help to most players.
On the other hand, developing Extended Screen made me realize demanding someone else implement it would be a crime worthy of life imprisonment.
This game is ridiculously buggy, and since I haven't done everything I could, this might lack persuasiveness.
I'm the sole programmer at Team-Nexus, but even before releasing this game, I possessed skills sufficient to be told, “Teaching a major programming language could earn you a million dollars a year.”
Over a decade ago, I actually improved the engine part of a program built at a cost of 11 million yen using Excel VBA. Furthermore, by implementing a custom system using C++, I increased both processing accuracy and processing speed by over tenfold. This took three months.
I also created and sold software for B2B use priced at 500,000 yen. This took about four months.
Furthermore, TacticalNexus's source code currently stands at 157,000 lines, written in SJIS format, yet it only takes up about 4MB of space.
It's expected to exceed 200,000 lines next year or the year after.
Even so, I genuinely grew to hate developing Extended Screen.
The stages I (the programmer) found particularly grueling to implement were Dawn (I was heavily involved in its game design myself), OLD (took forever and was finished without the team settling on a clear “This is it!” idea), Phantom (simply had an insane amount of work), and Mirror (I rebuilt the stage from scratch over five times).
However, Extended Screen brought me several times more pain than any of those.
It was also hard to share QoL-related work with other staff, making it difficult to vent in a way others would understand.
I used to complain about how hard undo-related bugs were to fix, but the workload Extended Screen demanded was on a completely different level.
If you look at the implementation logs on Discord, you'll see I stated at the time, “That work was absolute hell. Even if requested, I won't touch it for six months.”
Regarding programming tasks, I often say things like “I'll take a few days off” or “I'll push it to next week,” and I might postpone minor bugs for a few weeks. But rejecting something this strongly was probably a first. That's how much I hated it.
(I've recovered now, so I occasionally work on ES feature improvements.)
It might be different if the development environment or such were better, and I do think programming is exponentially easier now.
But if someone tells another developer with less than 10 years and 25,000+ hours of programming experience to implement ES, I'd go slaughter that person.
----
Furthermore, magic and legacy systems are dangerous too.
It's nearly impossible to implement them properly and maintain a decent balance, not just with scripts.
Not only is the actual scripting work for those things incredibly tedious, but coming up with the ideas in the first place is genuinely tough.
I'm constantly filling in “kill points,” “guaranteed kill points,” and “absolutely kill points” for game designers, but I totally get how hard it is to come up with ideas.
Fundamentally, this game is content that both developers and players have poured thousands to tens of thousands of hours into.
And the more magic and legacy elements you add, the more scrutiny you need to apply to how they compare with existing effects.
TacticalNexus saw both players and developers escalating against each other, but that was only possible because it was an exceptionally fortunate environment. Normally, some kind of trouble is bound to happen.
As mentioned later, the fact that Discord maintained this atmosphere for five and a half years is itself unbelievable. It's like a Tower of Babel floating in mid-air, leaning at an angle—more horizontal than vertical, perhaps a bridge? Where does it lead?
Therefore, I apologize to those who come after, but I've decided not to dwell on those matters anymore.
I wrote the source code from scratch using an old programming language. While many convenient development languages exist now, TacticalNexus might not actually be that complex a system. But based on experience, it probably requires about five programmers.
Anyway, the Legacy, Magic, and Extended Screen mechanics are just too insane to handle. Plus, the stage gimmicks from Chapter 6 onwards.
For players who only knew up to Chapter 5, Chapter 6-3 must have been incredibly shocking. Yet by Chapter 8, systems of that level are implemented in every single stage.
----
Now, having written about how our proposed post-payment system is commercially unsustainable and how TacticalNexus already contains contradictions, let's revisit what we've covered so far.
(We've digressed quite a bit, and we'll digress further here, but this discussion is about our stance on microtransactions and money.)
Originally, TacticalNexus was conceived with the idea that “each stage has the content of a full game, and there are 60 stages.” Back then, games cost over four times what they do now.
For example, Tactical Tower P is a relatively average-sized stage among those released so far.
A game offering that much playtime would have cost around $5 to $10 as a standalone title just a short while ago.
Furthermore, with each new stage released in TacticalNexus, it creates “additional playable content” for past stages as well.
And the fun of the “Legacy Magic” introduced starting in Chapter-6 is immeasurable.
Considering how much each new stage transforms the game, I believe $15 per stage is actually quite reasonable.
We were developing this with serious dedication, so we thought only the very few players who truly understood this would need to buy the game.
On the other hand, this stems from a Japanese perspective. At the time of the game's release, we weren't fully aware of how Japan was relatively privileged in terms of “equality.”
In Japan, regardless of region, any adult working part-time jobs diligently can earn around $1000 to $1500 per month.
While many of my relatives are wealthy, personally, I have considerable leeway in terms of being able to save money.
Over the past three years, my monthly expenses have never exceeded $1000. From living expenses to hobbies, roughly $700 total is enough for a pretty healthy life.
The biggest expense here is supplements, which cost me about $200. Excluding that, I can get by on about one-third of the average annual income.
----
However, we didn't realize that unlike Japan, many countries abroad have slums.
Japan is considered a relatively advanced nation, yet compared to other developed countries, it isn't economically wealthy.
Still, our lives have become increasingly affluent year after year.
While the “subscription” system is relatively controversial abroad, in Japan it also has the aspect of being “a system that allows you to experience vast amounts of your favorite content extremely cheaply, without worrying about economic or regional disparities.”
For example, subscribing to anime or drama services allows you to watch thousands of titles for just $5 to $10 per month. Renting a single title would typically cost several to over ten dollars.
Especially in rural areas, finding DVDs or videotapes (though these are now outdated formats) for niche or older works is often difficult.
Additionally, smartphones (mobile phones) commonly used by Japanese people incorporate the concept of “model change” (Kisyuhen).
This system allows users to upgrade to a new smartphone relatively cheaply when newer models are released after several years.
(I recall getting my current smartphone for free during some event or promotion.)
Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, but this system can also be interpreted as “allowing users who have already purchased a smartphone to continue receiving the latest models for free or at a low cost.”
For example, imagine a system where “people who own a laptop over five years old could acquire the latest model for almost free.” That would be an exceptionally good system.
For “essential items (lifelines)” like smartphones, such a system is actually a reality.
Of course, smartphone companies generate revenue through ongoing costs like service plans (continuous usage fees), and I doubt that would happen with PCs.
And whether the device upgrade system was created with good intentions is another matter entirely.
However, as a result of intense market competition between companies, such systems have become widespread in Japan.
Monthly payment plans are a system accessible even to those with lower incomes, and virtually all citizens can use them if they choose to.
----
Due to this aspect of Japanese culture, we assumed that economically prosperous countries meant “almost all citizens” would be wealthy.
For Japan, “the nation becoming wealthy” inherently meant “citizens also becoming wealthy.”
Especially since Japan is a capitalist country, we vaguely assumed all capitalist nations functioned this way, and that socialist systems operated differently.
However, in reality, even if a country is wealthy, if it has significant inequality, its structure meant that “almost all its citizens” did not necessarily benefit equally from that wealth.
Now, we understand that abroad, “a country becoming wealthy does not necessarily mean its citizens become wealthy.” We also understand that even if a country's GDP doubles, it doesn't necessarily mean the slums are saved.
But back then, we rarely looked up objective facts (data) about unfamiliar cultures, so we knew almost nothing about such things.
Japan has a population of 120 million, with roughly 200-300 homicide victims annually. Yet news about “murder cases” airs almost daily, with tabloid shows sensationalizing content that fuels social anxiety.
On the other hand, consider the United States: with a population of 340 million, the annual number of homicide victims is 19,000. Even when adjusted to a per-100-million-people ratio, the rate of homicide is 20 to 30 times higher.
This is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.
(Incidentally, while homicide rates differ greatly, data shows Japan and the US have roughly the same suicide rate per capita.
I have various thoughts on this, but I'll save that discussion for next month's issue or later).
----
Unaware of such cultural differences with other countries, we sold our game like this.
With such stark class divisions and a correspondingly high murder rate, it's only natural that people from other countries wouldn't trust individuals or sellers.
Or rather, given such fundamentally different cultural backgrounds, mutual understanding between countries is fundamentally impossible.
Even the very image of “a country becoming wealthy” differs this much. The lines defining ‘safety’ and “danger” are also far too distant.
However, around April 2020 (and even slightly earlier), this game was being promoted by English-speaking players who had started playing it immediately after release.
Articles were posted, using copious screenshots and spanning over 100 lines, essentially saying: “The sales model is bizarre, and the game is strange, but it's an amazing game.”
A tremendous amount of effort had clearly gone into this game. Unaware of the cultural differences, we were surprised but thought things like “See, I told you so” or “It's something only those who get it will appreciate.” But the real shock came after we learned about that cultural background.
[dynamiclink][/dynamiclink]I've covered the details extensively in an older article, so I'll skip some parts here, but even with that context, the fact that players genuinely played the game and tried to spread it with such sincerity was completely unexpected for us.
This “sincerity” wasn't directed at the developers, but towards the players themselves.
They wrote with great care and detail, operating on the premise that “just because I like something doesn't mean others will accept it.”
This level of thoughtfulness wasn't limited to that one player. As the player base grew, several others emerged who wrote remarkably sincere and thoughtful posts for fellow players.
This is quite rare in Japan, where even minor games often spark nasty arguments on strategy sites.
Since players were taking the game more seriously than its price suggested, we felt we needed to take them seriously to some extent as well.
After much consideration about “good business practices” in this regard, the result was the aforementioned worthless microtransaction system.
Honestly, regarding sales, “I really couldn't care less” is close to the truth. It doesn't matter if they happen or not.
But, for example, if a player who'd played 5000 hours suddenly sent us $5000, we'd be totally freaked out. Unless they were some incredibly wealthy person, that level of sincerity would border on terrifying.
Plus, we've often stated, “Team-Nexus can keep going with zero revenue from this game for at least another five years.” This is also basically true.
Unless staff suddenly get destroyed, or their families or dogs get killed in some diabolically cruel, utterly unearthly dark manner, leaving the surviving staff to become dark avengers or John Wicks... but unless that happens, we can keep going.
(Also, developing TacticalNexus has significantly improved our operational efficiency. We rarely get that serious about sharing information with each other to that extent.
Regarding “providing inspiration for excellent business models,” we actually reference player conversations quite a bit and receive indirect benefits from them.)
----
This “pay later” system is absolutely exhilarating. It's genuinely enjoyable and uplifting for both players and developers.
Considering this, you might think, “Just make all DLC free now and implement this payment system!” But another major issue is the sheer difficulty of handling individual requests.
Regarding changes in community “vibe,” our biggest fear is a “sudden influx of players.”
Communities tend to see their established atmosphere collapse instantly when players keep pouring in at a certain rate.
When the main package went free, player numbers swelled over fivefold within a month, and Discord membership doubled.
However, thanks to existing players stepping in to help, the pre-free atmosphere was largely preserved.
(Though there was a change limiting the feedback channel to players who had played the game to some extent).
Considering this, I suspect that outside Japan, even if DLC were made free (or perhaps more accurately, priced at $1), the original atmosphere probably wouldn't be significantly damaged.
Since the main package is already free, the player base would likely only increase by about 1.5 to 2 times within a month. Within that range, I don't think the community would change much.
But Japan is tough. Seriously, it's impossible.
Just to be clear and avoid misunderstanding: we really like Japan.
As mentioned earlier, it's a country where national wealth translates to citizen wealth, and it has an overwhelmingly lower death rate compared to others.
Healthcare is robust. With a health insurance card (recently replaced by the My Number Card), about 70% of hospital costs are covered by the government it's practically a party.
Social welfare is also robust. Most areas have tap water you can gulp down without worry. Japan rocks!
That said, if a community gets hit with a whole group of people who “don't listen,” “have never had proper communication with others,” and “have expansionist tendencies,” it's over.
Having lived under dictatorship for over a decade, I consider this an indisputable truth in Japan. I'm firmly resolved to enforce it.
If they come individually, such people will gradually be influenced by observing others' interactions—learning “this way of talking is good” or “that way is bad.” They also have room to develop these skills simply through real-world experience.
However, when they come as a group, there's no way around it.
When an outsider points out, “This approach is unacceptable,” instead of reflecting or improving, they start licking each other's wounds internally, saying things like, “It's fine,” or “That's too harsh.”
Truthfully, “comforting someone who's hurt” is natural for anyone. With friends or family, you naturally want to encourage them.
However, there are different types and directions for comforting or encouraging. There's the type that acknowledges the failure and says, “Let's try harder next time,” and there's the type that denies the failure itself, saying, “That wasn't a failure.”
People who make the latter their emotional anchor will have their lives stall there.
----
I might write about this in detail in the December issue of Monthly Nexus or the February 2026 issue, but I know from personal experience that “if you remain ignorant and refuse to learn, you'll never truly change.”
To heal wounds, solve problems, and get back up, escaping or withdrawing isn't inherently bad or shameful.
However, there is no future in continuously fleeing without solving problems, or in perpetual withdrawal.
Whether for the person themselves or those who accept it, if “standing up” is not anticipated, the place of escape or withdrawal gradually becomes a place that drains one's vitality.
For the past decade or more, or even longer, Japan has been in the midst of a transitional period towards becoming a “country where people don't have to die.”
During such transitional periods, various success stories and failures emerge.
Only by establishing countermeasures for failures and paving pathways for success can we finally mature and conclude the transition.
We are no longer in a state like decades ago where “there were only places you couldn't escape from,” but regarding “how to rise again after escaping,” we are still in the exploratory phase.
Society cannot undergo multiple changes simultaneously. Only after a certain number of people die or issues become societal problems do they finally gain widespread awareness and begin to evolve.
(To avoid misunderstanding: this isn't some kind of complaint about modern society, and at least I don't know of any realistic way to solve this better than how it's done now.)
Consequently, while some people “survived and achieved great success because they could escape,” many others “aged without ever thinking about life after escape, losing opportunities for growth.”
If one can live repeating the same daily routine without growing, they may harbor dissatisfaction but never truly desire growth.
Single-player games tend to appeal strongly to introverted tendencies.
And English-speaking players, in my impression, tend to have more experience collaborating with others, even when dealing with such introverted tendencies.
I suspect this stems from a cultural awareness of “hierarchy,” where individuals within the same hierarchy naturally gravitate toward cooperation.
(Of course, many individuals may defy this pattern when viewed individually, but as a general tendency, I feel this observation holds true.)
However, Japan lacks such a culture, and the emphasis on cooperation and coordination isn't as strong.
Consequently, there's often a pattern where people act without realizing they lack these skills.
----
The most dangerous and difficult to handle within this type are those who act under the guise of “for others,” “for you,” or “for the game,” despite lacking deep knowledge.
I've had enough varied experiences to be able to write about these matters fairly fluently.
The primary reason is that actions “for others” often come with a desire for recognition.
Let me state upfront: the desire for recognition itself isn't bad. No matter how strong the desire, if you “look at the other person even more carefully than that desire,” both parties can benefit.
As long as you truly see the other person and act in a way that benefits them, even if your motives are somewhat clouded, the outcome is still positive. And cloudiness itself isn't inherently bad.
Some people want to be seen; others want to see. Some prefer clarity; others prefer complexity.
The desire to value yourself is important and shouldn't be dismissed.
I think it's fine to hold the belief that “I like myself, and I like the other person” to a certain extent, based on reason.
Goodness or such things are hard to achieve without both knowledge and grit, and even with them, there's no guarantee you can do it.
You gain a real sense that “goodness is something everyone possesses, but even so, it's hard to achieve” through repeatedly experiencing things like acting completely with the other person in mind, yet still causing them trouble.
I won't say it never happens that someone tries to do good solely for themselves, but it's extremely rare.
Everyone has their own sense of ethics, yet conflicts with their abilities or effort often prevent them from fully following that ethical path. This “incomplete goodness” is what gets called evil or harm.
Conversely, what is evil for one person can be good for another. And sometimes, something that brings happiness to people can still be considered evil or harmful.
I'll elaborate on this in next month's issue if space permits, but communication skills actually rely heavily on mathematical aptitude. You can apply the “tips for studying university-level math” almost directly.
I can't guarantee it works 100%, and it requires significant effort, but it probably works about 85% to 90% of the time.
This approach hasn't been widely shared outside the realm of those scoring 80-85 on standardized tests (top 0.2%+), but once you grasp the logic, even those scoring 65-70 can likely master it.
Nowadays, with platforms like SNS, people with expansive ambitions usually maintain public accounts. By tracking their logs for several months to a year using such techniques, you can gain significant insight into how they interact with others.
With experience in reading people, you can discern a great deal—though not 100%. You can see how they're treated at work and gauge their communication skills.
Goodness, without accompanying communication skills, doesn't become goodness for others.
No matter how beneficial it may be for the person themselves, if they can't convey their heart or feelings, that goodness won't reach anyone beyond them. It inevitably ends up as mere self-righteousness.
In stories and creative works, “goodness lacking communication skills” is often portrayed as positive, but in reality, it usually leads to disaster.
Regarding this matter, no matter how one acts, only hell awaits. The moment “such a person happens to be favored by others,” it's already game over. Therefore, I currently believe the best course is to cut ties early.
----
The more you act, the more you realize you can't escape failure. Those who stop because they dislike failure can't accomplish anything in the first place.
But people without that life experience don't know this.
As you grow older, younger people who know nothing of the past before you are born. These inexperienced individuals then convince themselves they are “respectable people.”
It becomes a kind of perpetual motion machine: “If you can survive by repeating the same things, you can convince yourself you're respectable.”
Very few people grow without ever being corrected or reprimanded.
Those who never built such relationships won't be corrected or reprimanded, but they'll end up capable of far less than their peers.
Just as two are stronger than one, building the skill of “mutually beneficial communication” makes things proceed far more smoothly.
Even in the internet world, failing to make such efforts means you'll fall further behind others.
“Not being able to do ordinary things” isn't inherently bad, but a causal relationship exists.
If you can't grasp the cause-and-effect link – “Because I couldn't do this, I couldn't do ordinary things” – your future life will be filled with things you can't do.
People have strengths and weaknesses. It is absolutely essential to be aware of “what you can't do” and “where you're not good,” and taking countermeasures is also crucial.
Living without this awareness usually means continuously burdening others.
Even if you can't do something, or things don't go well, being aware and taking countermeasures is extremely important.
Japan is in the midst of a transitional period, and even such people can live comfortably thinking “I'm just a normal person.”
That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but communities built by such people can be quite hellish.
When people whose lives never improve gather together, it becomes a space where they merely await a slow death. Making that your base and living there long-term is akin to becoming a ghost.
Furthermore, if people from such places try to engage with other communities “as a community unit,” an even greater hell begins.
----
Most people don't want to reject others. They don't want to see someone uncomfortable, nor do they want to be the bad guy.
However, when someone incapable of sound judgment and prone to spouting nonsense appears in a community, leaving them unchecked usually leads to their arrogance growing.
This is because “they can't build proper relationships with others to the extent they spout nonsense,” and “by not being rejected, they convince themselves they're a meaningful person here.”
If such a person is alone, a warning might suffice. But if you offer something for free, dangerous people will bring other dangerous people and form gangs.
Typically, these people act without deep thought and aren't used to being reprimanded. So, if you intimidate them, you can usually handle them if they come alone.
As mentioned earlier, we have quite a systematic approach to identifying and dealing with such individuals.
However, the TacticalNexus community does attract people from various countries, and many are genuinely decent folks. Some might even want to accept such individuals.
But they lack the high communication skills of players from other countries. If they feel “accepted,” they start acting completely recklessly.
Growing up in an environment where they “aren't scolded” or “aren't reprimanded” is, in the end, terrifying in its own way.
To reiterate, the vast majority of Japanese people are decent. However, the freedom to live as they please also means it's easy for the bottom 1% or even the bottom 0.1% to gather together.
And while these lower-tier individuals in Japan may have weaker harmful tendencies in terms of criminal activity, their harmful impact on the community is extremely high.
Things that would teach a painful lesson if done abroad are never learned because they never suffered that pain.
Of course, just as most people understand “killing someone isn't exactly a good thing” without being told, most learn without needing to be told. But some cannot.
----
However, given my writing ability, I suspect that no matter how much I write about Japanese cultural traits here, it would be difficult to properly convey the true gravity of this issue to players abroad. The cultures are simply too different.
(Even among Japanese people, the gap between ordinary individuals and those who aren't ordinary is vast, something you might not grasp without observing them for a while.)
In fact, the more I write, the less persuasive it likely becomes.
Also, I don't want to engage in some kind of negative campaign against Japan. While TacticalNexus and some terrible communities have many awful examples, Japan is a fun and enjoyable country.
So, regarding this “community” topic, I'll touch on it in a different way, including why we place such significant importance on the TacticalNexus community.
Suddenly, but good and evil are like a crappy Rubik's Cube – it's hard to get all sides uniformly aligned.
Therefore, to return to the earlier point: if the sides that should be aligned “for the other person's sake” are in place, then even if the “desire for approval” piece is a bit messy, it generally counts as good.
(While a Rubik's Cube itself requires one side to be solved before you start, in reality, not everything requires all six sides to be perfectly aligned all the time.)
However, their “good intentions”—which cause significant harm so casually—are extremely skewed toward “for their own sake.” And precisely because they don't properly recognize this, they keep endlessly doing things we wish they'd stop.
In a Rubik's Cube, the center face is always fixed to one color. Yet they insist on forcing a Rubik's Cube where all eight pieces outside the center face are different colors onto you, claiming “this is good.” At the very least, I wish they'd show you the side with at least two matching pieces.
The real problem is that the person doesn't recognize the issue. If they don't even understand “why it's wrong” (what the standard for ‘improvement’ is), let alone “what's wrong (where improvement is needed),” then there's nothing you can do.
Telling someone who doesn't understand the standard, “Fix this part like this,” won't work. That's just treating the symptoms. Without a fundamental understanding of the criteria, if that person stays in place, the situation will only continue to deteriorate.
Even if you spend a day or two having serious talks with such people, they rarely improve to an average level. Because the breakdown is so deep-rooted, the only solution is for them to spend years learning for themselves, “This is how things are.”
(For others, even if a major problem surfaces, about ten hours of intense discussion can help them grasp the cause, leading to significant improvement afterward.)
This isn't something a small, insignificant indie team like ours can handle; it's the role of broader social welfare institutions, starting with schools.
----
The Rubik's Cube is just an analogy, but I find it incredibly illustrative, so let me elaborate on this point.
As any beginner who actually tries it will discover, the Rubik's Cube plunges you into the depths of despair on that very first day.
Randomly twisting the cube to solve all six sides is practically impossible, and by the end of that first day, it starts to look like some kind of cursed artifact. By the second day, you start suspecting the cube itself might be possessed.
To solve it reliably, you must deeply memorize the cube's patterns and rules, while also training your ability to anticipate moves—like “if I move this and this, it will shift like this.”
In short, solving it quickly only becomes possible through a massive accumulation of tricks, experience, and repetition that builds speed.
We advocate the Earth = Cube Theory, but simultaneously propose the Social = Rubik's Cube Theory. Primarily me.
Once you turn it and improve one aspect, things worsen elsewhere—like the sides or back. And when you do things like the “three-turn swap” common in the latter stages of a Rubik's Cube, even if it ultimately improves the situation, significant backlash occurs during the process.
When a politician says, “We need three turns to change positions, so let's start with this one,” and makes the first turn, if another politician then says, “No, no, undo that,” or “Turn it like this,” it's over, right?
(Well, in reality, a single politician often misses many things, so in that world, it's probably impossible to “turn it alone.”)
“Cooperation” is a wonderful thing, but it requires skill.
Imagine a “turn-based Rubik's Cube of failure” where every time you make a turn, someone else must also make a turn. What you'll find there is pure chaos.
If either party is inexperienced, I believe the Rubik's Cube called “human relationships” will collapse.
The next Rubik's Cube they turn will likely be one made from someone's skull.
I described a Rubik's Cube with individual players taking turns to make it easier to understand, but in society, the rights primarily belong not to “individuals” but to “political parties.”
Now, imagine holding an “election” where people who've never touched a Rubik's Cube decide by vote which part of the cube to turn. I think you'd end up with a pretty outstanding image of utter garbage in this world.
Society is doing this with a look of resignation and despair. Well, of course, the colors will eventually look somewhat right, and it's definitely better than doing nothing.
However, I don't think “completion” is ever truly achievable.
The best way to achieve “unity” is probably not to rotate once per turn, but to rotate several times before switching. But if the person who takes over then messes everything up, discarding all the previous effort, then pure chaos is forged once again.
Therefore, ultimately, both steering the ship and letting someone else steer it are difficult.
Regardless of good or evil, I feel that governing society itself is just genuinely tough.
Fundamentally, if society were truly governed in a way that satisfied everyone, then no matter what form the country took, there would be no such thing as “dissatisfaction.”
I'm no politician, but if forced to do the same thing, I'd conclude: “Just make me solve a Rubik's Cube alone from the start.” That's why I've been a small-scale dictator for years.
Of course, I do explain the reasoning behind how things operate and strive to make my intentions transparent. But a larger-scale, rotating Rubik's Cube system? That's terrifyingly impossible.
Team-Nexus can operate this way precisely because there's no baton to pass to the next generation, no handover process for successors.
----
Currently, the TacticalNexus Discord community manages the Rubik's Cube metaphor quite effectively—both the player side and the developer (game design) side—and actually better than either side could alone. (metaphor).
I think the analogy I just used conveys my point well enough, but I truly believe this is nothing short of a miracle.
If some amateur suddenly came along and started messing with the Rubik's Cube (metaphor) like, “Nah, this is how it should be lol,” it would be the end.
There exists a breed of people described as manipulators. They are the type who try to handle large numbers of people or situations exactly as they see fit.
Many manipulators have weak empathy skills, and fundamentally, I probably belong to that category myself.
(When you master one thing and structure/systematize information, you can also apply it in the opposite direction.
I often apply my dictator-like or manipulator-like nature, flipping it completely depending on the situation.)
Manipulators want to twist the Rubik's Cube (metaphor) exactly as they see fit. And when that situation arises, it's over.
To prevent that, we ultimately have to maintain a significant level of suspicion towards the players.
This applies to all human relationships: we must maintain that tension and pressure of “not knowing when or what might happen.”
If we're all twisting the Rubik's Cube, we constantly need to stay alert to prevent shady characters from manipulating it.
On the other hand, if developers harbor suspicion, players will naturally become suspicious of developers too.
However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In a way, such suspicion and tension are probably necessary for both sides to maintain.
But if only suspicion and tension exist, those participating will naturally become mentally exhausted.
For both sides to coexist, not just one, there needs to be something that makes each feel, “Yes, there's tension and pressure, but there's also something else.”
That said, maintaining that level of tension is essentially like playing Jenga.
That this has continued is truly miraculous.
It's something politicians are itching to do, and an environment certain groups desperately crave.
Right now, we're taking turns twisting Rubik's Cubes while also playing Jenga. Oh, and Tactical Nexus.
It's only working right now because our heavy users are incredibly sharp—they intuit our intentions—and they trust us. Plus, we've built a relationship where we can look closely at the players' moves, thinking, “They probably have a solid strategy here.”
Having witnessed broken Rubik's Cubes (metaphorically) collapse in other fields countless times, we never expected this miraculous relationship to last until TacticalNexus is complete.
We're absolutely certain some fatal misalignment will occur midway, leading to its collapse.
Even now, we believe it wouldn't be strange at all if something fatal happened today or tomorrow, creating a decisive fracture.
----
So, we probably won't make all DLC free until about six months after the game's release. Frankly, the developers think this is just plain shitty.
Therefore, if you see this officially sanctioned shitty system where a clearly superior solution exists but isn't implemented, please feel free to write negative reviews. We're convinced we're shitty, so we won't think “What the hell~”.
(Honestly, reviews saying “I can't recommend this game now since it'll eventually be free!” feel perfectly reasonable from a player's perspective.)
I wrote this with a tone that might seem like I'm agonizing over it, but honestly, aside from community-related issues, I feel like whether we keep the pricing as-is or make it free doesn't really matter much.
Truly, either way is fine. We'll likely base our decision on what players say in communities and such.
In terms of passion and effort, we're developing TacticalNexus with more drive than a regular job, but fundamentally, it's hobbyist development.
This world isn't a hobby anime world, so there's no secret society ruling the world via TacticalNexus, nor a young hero fighting back against them using TacticalNexus.
Personally, I'm just researching various data and verbalizing information and structures. When it comes to ethical discussions, I'm mostly in a “Oh, I see” kind of mood.
This game never involved money to begin with. Therefore, society doesn't move either.
On the other hand, lives and livelihoods are moving along as they should. Developers and top-tier players are each investing enormous amounts of time.
Our primary goal is “to create a game that's fun for us.” Ethical considerations or what's best for players come second or third.
I can't predict the future, but so far, the heavy users seem to have sought and pioneered a “fun” aligned with our direction.
Having played for several years, they can communicate information to each other quite effectively. Considering the “fun” of the game, the ideal environment is one where they enjoy themselves and actively share information.
----
Even through translation software, we've had dozens of players—not just one or two, but well into double digits—who've spent tens of hours or more chatting with us.
Quite a few have been with us for over five years. Honestly, even if some critical community conflict were to occur, I believe we could ultimately find a resolution that satisfies everyone.
We have our goals, and players have theirs.
While we can't know exactly what players think, when we discuss things and reach a certain level of mutual understanding, the emotions that remain when we still can't fully agree are far stronger feelings of affirmation, resignation, or acceptance than anger, hatred, or dissatisfaction.
Even if TacticalNexus ended up in some chaotic, messy, all-out clash between the community and developers that was just... wow.
Ten years down the line, I think the majority of players who were passionate about it back then would probably lean towards positive feelings like, “Well, the time leading up to that was fun.”
You might feel something while your emotions are still raw, but once you've processed it, I think it will become a memory with quite a few positives.
From April 2020, when TacticalNexus was heavily promoted by players, the community lasted five and a half years.
We believe these five and a half years, sustained without major collapse, are at least a Guinness-record level achievement in game development.
Of course, this way of thinking is unhealthy. As players, it's only natural to want to enjoy the game comfortably until the very end.
However, for us personally, it's more like, “Well, something will probably happen somewhere and cause it to collapse, and even if that happens, it'll be somewhat acceptable.”
Fundamentally, the environment and culture are too different. On top of that, we are extremely unique even among Japanese people, and the programmer leading Team-Nexus has a very different sense of right and wrong compared to most people.
As briefly mentioned in the “Next Time” preview at the end of this article, he's not exactly a yakuza, but he's not exactly a law-abiding citizen either.
Given this background, and considering the game has already been in development for an absurdly long time, the entire staff views TacticalNexus development not as a quest with the premise of “reaching the final stage with high polish,” but more like a “score attack where you keep going until game over.”
It's highly likely that conflicts or breakdowns will occur somewhere before the game is finished.
But at this point, even if it breaks down, the sense of enjoyment outweighs the frustration, so in a way, we're developing it quite casually.
----
Honestly, I'd like to make all DLC free exclusively outside Japan, but I feel it's questionable to create such a disparity between countries.
As mentioned earlier, the majority of Japanese people are decent. It's just that the actions of the unreasonable ones are too extreme, so as a small development team, we have to make rational decisions based on that reality.
On the other hand, well, Japan really doesn't have the same level of economic disparity as other countries. And since future DLC will be $1 anyway, we're unlikely to get money from players who've already invested significantly.
Overall, Japanese sales total about $20,000, which is significantly lower than the average annual income for Japanese people in their 30s.
Setting aside the unexpectedly tough overseas market, Japan is a country where national prosperity translates to citizen prosperity—far more so than elsewhere.
Considering that, I'm starting to think it might be acceptable to just drop a line like “Japan will go free after six months of completion...” and make all DLC free outside Japan, even if it means preparing for some backlash or criticism.
Of course, doing something like that would invite trouble. But in my experience as a dictator, the most troublesome people aren't those who dislike you and cause trouble; it's those who like you and cause trouble.
While it depends somewhat on the situation, anger towards strangers or people you've never interacted with doesn't last very long.
Online backlashes and news stories become hot topics in the moment, leading to criticism or trouble, but they're forgotten within days. Besides, truly dangerous situations (especially within the same country) might be better handled by involving the police.
And since it's confirmed that DLCs after Chapter 9 will cost $1, players who currently own all DLCs won't lose out.
So, well... I've written quite a bit, but ultimately, my core feeling is “I could do it, or I could just not bother.”
In fact, something might trigger me to suddenly announce something like “All DLCs will be free starting in two weeks!” on a whim.
I'm not sure if this is compliant, but after implementing microtransactions, if the total microtransaction purchases exceed $3,000, I might occasionally share information about how much revenue we're generating.
(If it's less than that, it would feel like we're begging for it, so I won't do it.)
So, if the total microtransaction purchases from outside Japan exceed $20,000, I might consider making all DLC $1 only for overseas players at that point. For now, this is a definite plan, but I'll also make decisions based on my mood.
(As mentioned earlier, players are currently putting in over ten times the game's price in actual playtime, and we're satisfied with that.)
Japan is a bit tough. The response is just plain rough.
We've experienced quite a few situations where things just don't work out, even though there shouldn't be a need for translation software. It's pretty much ongoing right now.
Honestly, we won't feel motivated to do anything unless we get around $700,000 from Japan.
But anyway, we're trash. You all have the right to call trash trash. We're waiting for the downvotes.
----
◆Long Preview for the Next Long Article
There's actually a substantial continuation to this, but I'll postpone it until next month or later, when I have space to write it out properly.
Truthfully, I have about 1500 more lines of long-form content drafts piled up. This article is roughly 1000 lines.
(I don't recall being able to write this much in a single article last year—has the character limit been expanded?)
So, I'll write the preview for the next article here.
(Originally, I planned to write various things about “desires,” but since that brought up other topics to cover, continuing last month's discussion about “Looking at Tactical Nexus Strategy Guides” will likely be delayed by 3-4 months.)
Wow, it's amazing—not just the game, but even the articles are starting to get delayed previews.
The previews for the next two articles? Their theme is “postponement.”
The theme of the article announcing postponements is postponement, and I'm about to write a lengthy preview for that lengthy preview. How about it, everyone? Are you still with me?
----
This aspect comes through quite a bit in this article too, but fundamentally, we—or rather, I—have a distinctly different, discriminatory sense of good and evil.
I aim to address about 98% of things (well, realistically maybe 95% or less), but I clearly cut out about 2%. And emotionally, I rarely feel guilty about that exclusion.
On the other hand, I've had my life nearly ended by a car running a red light, and fundamentally, I've always had a relatively difficult daily life due to sensory sensitivity that's probably in the bottom (or top) 0.x% range.
In other words, I take this exclusionary stance from a position where I myself would likely be on the excluded side. This isn't about thinking “they can probably help themselves, so it's okay to exclude them” – it's just plain exclusion.
This article touched a bit on TacticalNexus's history. Before TacticalNexus went free-to-play, the player count was around a thousand or so.
The average playtime back then was 250 hours. This means a significant percentage of players who bought the game back then were actually playing it quite intensively.
Six years have passed since development began.
In Japan, the mortality rate for people aged 30 to 50 is said to be around 2%.
In the US, the mortality rate for the same age group is said to be around 7%.
Many players stop playing games, and I actually think that's perfectly fine.
However, statistically speaking, it is almost certain that around 30 players have passed away during these six years.
No matter how much better this game becomes in the future, those players who have already passed away cannot play it.
After five more years, another 30 or so of them will pass away.
The mortality rate increases with age. After another five years, around 40 to 50 will likely pass away.
Or perhaps accidents or illness could take the lives of myself or staff members.
Both you players and we staff are essentially drawing a lottery ticket every day, with odds of one in a hundred thousand to one in several hundred thousand.
Over ten years, several percent of people will die. I did various things to explore efficient ways of living within that reality, and I cared for my own relatives, witnessing their final years and their faces at death.
This proved remarkably effective for efficient effort, and since then I've approached everything based on “how people die.”
My lack of attachment to money stems from the fact that “the value of money” is only valid up to a certain point before death—it's useless after becoming bedridden or at the moment of death.
Stories about taking money after death exist in every country, but they're all the wishful thinking of people who've never died.
Doctors smooth the terrified death mask, and family members call it a “good death face,” while the person's most terrifying experience—the moment right before death—remains unknown to anyone. This is especially true for the elderly.
I believe that at the moment of death, the memories one carries with them are stronger than money (though of course, there's no guarantee against dementia, etc.). Therefore, I focus primarily on how to live pleasantly.
However, as mentioned earlier, I have sensory hypersensitivity. Having become an adult with almost no coping strategies, my tolerance for stress beyond my dislikes is extremely high. My “range of warmth that feels pleasant” is basically the temperature at which most people would suffer scalding or burns.
----
I've thought quite a bit about “death in everyday life,” and after reviewing several statistics, I've become convinced that roughly a few percent of the time, people are killed by accidents or illness before they can accomplish anything.
Or rather, human life is a consumable item, and there's no guarantee it will continue.
In my twenties, I spent considerable time pondering “what constitutes my own sense of goodness.” This ultimately led me to the notion that “stealing someone's time with meaningless things is a crime on par with physical harm,” and “failing to grow or progress is equally criminal.”
Since time and reality kill people, my view was that without ability, you become “a villain who drags others into inefficient pursuits, stealing their time and effectively killing them.”
If you want to “save many people” or “help all kinds of people,” the prerequisite is to avoid failure and not waste time.
Therefore, while valuing morality and ethics, I held a terrifying view: people who fail or waste time must first be broken down completely, never allowed to rise again until their failures are corrected.
And I believed doing this was a “virtuous act to increase the number of good people.”
Since I was originally in a position where I “made people expend effort and time,” I treated it as “a tribute to comrades lacking ability while demanding morality.” I would first push them to the point where they couldn't do anything for a while, to gauge their endurance and force them to improve.
I didn't understand it back then, but I think over 98% of you probably do.
This is simply an act of producing hell.
Even though I “stopped imposing it externally,” this remains the core of my concept of good and evil, virtually unchanged.
To summarize, it's the notion that “the cruelty of reality is stronger than the beauty of human desires, so let's see that first.” Taken to its extreme, this is what it becomes.
(My family lineage includes former lawmakers and ministers who were top-tier at Tokyo University, yet I'm still called “the most violent and harsh within this lineage” and “embodying pre-war severity”).
On the other hand, I quite like living by recognizing such terrifying notions as self-righteousness and choosing to develop them only within our own circle.
It was tough until I could do it, but once I could, it boils down to one word: “delightful.” Because things I once thought impossible have become quite easy to do.
Moreover, this stems more from a passive mindset, preceding any notion of “manners expected of someone born into such a family.”
I've witnessed the death faces of those who died alone, and most living people don't contemplate the agony of the most terrifying time: “the moment just before death” or “the time left only with death.”
I simply had high endurance, and my “I can do it, so I'll do it” threshold was absurdly high, which is why I ended up that way. Without that, I'd happily just live a life of simple hobbies.
The fact that this mindset is self-righteous and doesn't need to be forced on others is a relief to me too. We're introverted too, so doing things with like-minded people is the most enjoyable.
Long ago, universities were “institutions that produced geniuses by creating masses of broken people,” and creators often had that kind of atmosphere too.
Whether good or bad, that was part of the culture back then.
But as Japan changes like this, such people must be excluded from public spaces.
We've discussed various negative aspects of goodness, but even if unrealistic, the spirit of helping others or striving to be good often creates salvation by “easing tension.”
Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it just doesn't work. In those moments, “kindness” is needed to acknowledge such people.
(I had an abnormally high tolerance and assumed others were similar because I was fine with it myself)
At the very least, on the scale of a nation, it's better to “voice kind wishes, even if irresponsible.”
As mentioned earlier, Japanese society is currently in the midst of twisting a Rubik's Cube as it transitions toward a “world where people don't have to die.” If I participate in this, things will get dangerous.
Because I'll start slowly turning the Rubik's Cube society is twisting in the opposite direction. And quite forcefully at that.
I'm not a yakuza, but I'm not an ordinary person either.
I firmly believe we work and think far more than the average person.
Yet, while I write that “time is life” and “life is a consumable,” I'm still doing unnecessary things right now. This article itself is quite a waste of time.
Furthermore, there are days when I barely work and just play, and there are even more things I can't touch because I'm occupied with other tasks.
(Non-programmers are also basically juggling several other projects simultaneously.)
If we're doing something “for the players,” then simply developing is the right thing to do.
Given this mindset, why do we keep making so many “delays”?
I also plan to write about what happened to change my thinking, and the logical structure behind this way of thinking.
...If there's space left.
----
Well then, I'll be heading off to a lecture on the Earth Cube theory. Good work today.
[/p][p][/p]