3 ms·
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 matte
by 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 agoThese 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 agoPossible! 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.