4 ms·

With a few exceptions when studios were much smaller, it was always about maximizing ROI. They just didn't have good delivery mechanisms at the time (yay cartri

by shados 8y ago

With a few exceptions when studios were much smaller, it was always about maximizing ROI. They just didn't have good delivery mechanisms at the time (yay cartridges!), and they didn't know what they know today (DLC and microtransactions work). The gaming industry is extremely cutthroat, has extreme competition, skyrocketing costs (for AAA-type games at least), and a model where "you make 9 games that lose money with the hope the 10th will make bank", causing companies to try and figuring out how to salvage the first 9. And it's hard to blame them: imagine being a company that pours your entire soul and being into a PC/console game with 100 hours of gameplay, beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth...just to see a stupid mobile game rakes in 10x the money from people trying to get their "waifu" out of a loot box. You can only do this so many times before you cave in.

pcwalton 8y ago
Precisely. It's about economic survival, not a cash grab.
stcredzero 8y ago
The gaming industry is extremely cutthroat, has extreme competition, skyrocketing costs (for AAA-type games at least), and a model where "you make 9 games that lose money with the hope the 10th will make bank", causing companies to try and figuring out how to salvage the first 9. The historical media industry playbook is to export your development risk to an ecosystem of smaller "independent" creators, who become the farm leagues for the big players. The big players then co-opt the independent successes. This worked in music for awhile. I'm not so sure it's working that well for movies, for the same reasons you cite for games. And it's hard to blame them: imagine being a company that pours your entire soul and being into a PC/console game with 100 hours of gameplay, beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth...just to see a stupid mobile game rakes in 10x the money from people trying to get their "waifu" out of a loot box. It's not black & white. The AAA games with the "beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth" have their own flaws, due to the level of investment involved and the resulting risk aversion.
- shados 8y ago
  Yeah for sure. I suppose the point i was trying to make is that these days, game quality and revenue have virtually no correlation. Marketing pretty much matters more (unless you pull a No Man Sky), but that's not new. These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money. If it was just a little...or even a factor, the "art" would prevail for some devs. But when it's orders of magnitude, it gets really, really hard to ignore. Some still do. Bless them.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money. To an algorithm, or a metric, even miserable feeling variable schedule or reward addiction looks like "engagement." So if there's "engagement" and money, why should companies do anything different? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c So how is it that games which have "art" don't come along, charge a bit less money, and win in the marketplace? I guess the argument can be made that they do, but they're in the minority. I wonder if there aren't also generational issues? Maybe the environment of today, where even young people have tablets and smartphones is just a different one?
    - shados 8y ago
      Possible! But there's also the whole "gambling is addicting" thing. Some of these games pray on the vulnerable to make their dough. Alternatively, it also leverages the rich vs poor divide. In gacha games for example, you'll have a very small minority of players pouring as much as several thousand dollars into a game, while the majority plays for free. The game still ends up coming out ahead than if they sold at an affordable price and had everyone paying it instead.

by shados 8y ago

pcwalton 8y ago

Precisely. It's about economic survival, not a cash grab.

stcredzero 8y ago

The gaming industry is extremely cutthroat, has extreme competition, skyrocketing costs (for AAA-type games at least), and a model where "you make 9 games that lose money with the hope the 10th will make bank", causing companies to try and figuring out how to salvage the first 9. The historical media industry playbook is to export your development risk to an ecosystem of smaller "independent" creators, who become the farm leagues for the big players. The big players then co-opt the independent successes. This worked in music for awhile. I'm not so sure it's working that well for movies, for the same reasons you cite for games. And it's hard to blame them: imagine being a company that pours your entire soul and being into a PC/console game with 100 hours of gameplay, beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth...just to see a stupid mobile game rakes in 10x the money from people trying to get their "waifu" out of a loot box. It's not black & white. The AAA games with the "beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth" have their own flaws, due to the level of investment involved and the resulting risk aversion.

shados 8y ago
Yeah for sure. I suppose the point i was trying to make is that these days, game quality and revenue have virtually no correlation. Marketing pretty much matters more (unless you pull a No Man Sky), but that's not new. These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money. If it was just a little...or even a factor, the "art" would prevail for some devs. But when it's orders of magnitude, it gets really, really hard to ignore. Some still do. Bless them.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money. To an algorithm, or a metric, even miserable feeling variable schedule or reward addiction looks like "engagement." So if there's "engagement" and money, why should companies do anything different? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c So how is it that games which have "art" don't come along, charge a bit less money, and win in the marketplace? I guess the argument can be made that they do, but they're in the minority. I wonder if there aren't also generational issues? Maybe the environment of today, where even young people have tablets and smartphones is just a different one?
  - shados 8y ago
    Possible! But there's also the whole "gambling is addicting" thing. Some of these games pray on the vulnerable to make their dough. Alternatively, it also leverages the rich vs poor divide. In gacha games for example, you'll have a very small minority of players pouring as much as several thousand dollars into a game, while the majority plays for free. The game still ends up coming out ahead than if they sold at an affordable price and had everyone paying it instead.