5 ms·

Video games are not like movies, not like content. Since their inception, 1% of the games get 99% of the players. For example, when half-life was released, ever

Video games are not like movies, not like content. Since their inception, 1% of the games get 99% of the players. For example, when half-life was released, everybody was playing half-life. In this environment, you can't simply make another fps with a cool scenario and expect it to be a hit. You have to have real hard innovations in your product. A look at the big trends since 30 years clearly shows it. For example, in 2000, 50 games were high-grossing hits over a total of 5000 games that were produced that year [1]. You may think, well, cool story bro but what about Ubisoft for example, they are doing games like content. Most companies that did or do video games like it's content have or will disappear (the data show it all). Now, there is a business in pissing video games like content, but there is only spots for a few big conglomerates that will profits from the quantity, not the quality. This is in my opinion the reason why Valve is having a hard time doing a new game, not because they don't want to. They want to be Valve and make good games, even if it means waiting years before an opportunity presents itself. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Game-French-Nicolas-Gaume/dp/284337331X https://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Game-French-Nicolas-Gaume/dp/...

Ygg2 7y ago
While I agree some games take most of players you know who those players are and which games are those? I don't think it's the most revolutionary games. For example, EA sport franchises make more money than most of their other games. Not to mention casual cash grabs with pay to win mechanics.
Barrin92 7y ago
it's not like they should have lacked confidence though. They put out a lot of high quality games one after another. I still think the Orange box was pretty much the best game bundle ever to be sold. And given that they're a private company with lots of cash if they're not making great games, who else is supposed to?
SXX 7y ago
> Video games are not like movies, not like content. Since their inception, 1% of the games get 99% of the players. For example, when half-life was released, everybody was playing half-life. In this environment, you can't simply make another fps with a cool scenario and expect it to be a hit. You have to have real hard innovations in your product. I hope it's some kind of sarcasm. This is why Call of Duty is best-selling video game in the US 7 of 9 years since 2009: https://twitter.com/MatPiscatella/status/1134171732053331968 https://twitter.com/MatPiscatella/status/1134171732053331968 Basically most of video games market is content-driven games be it some mobile, social game or MMO. Innovations mostly occur in games for hardcore or indie audience and market share of these games are pretty small.
- personjerry 7y ago
  You ignored the parent comment's next sentence: > Now, there is a business in pissing video games like content, but there is only spots for a few big conglomerates that will profits from the quantity, not the quality.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    Sure. And if you exclude all browser vendors that have control over some ecosystem, Firefox is #1 browser. Why is eliminating largest games by revenue in his case justifiable?
    - Dobbs 7y ago
      Because the models these games use is not sustainable for all games. Sports games have several things going for them that normal games don't. Like being simulations of the real world, so as players move, etc then the game gets updated. Secondly there is an inherint monopoly on sports games. There is only one official NFL game.
      - Ygg2 7y ago
        And two popular soccer games, so there is a slight chance of a duopoly. Still. What about Call of Duty? What about Sequels?
  - SXX 7y ago
    I just tend to disagree with this sentence too. Basically there a lot of game developers even in hardcore genres who efficiently maintain content-driven games: almost all simulators, economic strategies, Paradox-interactive strategies. There is number of small companies with only 20-30 employees who maintain their projects over decades basically releasing more of the same every couple of years.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  yeh but call of duty, like madden and fifa, are year after year of reskins, not new games in any sense. it's basically a 60$ bundle of cosmetic items.

Ygg2 7y ago

While I agree some games take most of players you know who those players are and which games are those? I don't think it's the most revolutionary games. For example, EA sport franchises make more money than most of their other games. Not to mention casual cash grabs with pay to win mechanics.

Barrin92 7y ago

it's not like they should have lacked confidence though. They put out a lot of high quality games one after another. I still think the Orange box was pretty much the best game bundle ever to be sold. And given that they're a private company with lots of cash if they're not making great games, who else is supposed to?

SXX 7y ago

> Video games are not like movies, not like content. Since their inception, 1% of the games get 99% of the players. For example, when half-life was released, everybody was playing half-life. In this environment, you can't simply make another fps with a cool scenario and expect it to be a hit. You have to have real hard innovations in your product. I hope it's some kind of sarcasm. This is why Call of Duty is best-selling video game in the US 7 of 9 years since 2009: https://twitter.com/MatPiscatella/status/1134171732053331968 https://twitter.com/MatPiscatella/status/1134171732053331968 Basically most of video games market is content-driven games be it some mobile, social game or MMO. Innovations mostly occur in games for hardcore or indie audience and market share of these games are pretty small.

personjerry 7y ago
You ignored the parent comment's next sentence: > Now, there is a business in pissing video games like content, but there is only spots for a few big conglomerates that will profits from the quantity, not the quality.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  Sure. And if you exclude all browser vendors that have control over some ecosystem, Firefox is #1 browser. Why is eliminating largest games by revenue in his case justifiable?
  - Dobbs 7y ago
    Because the models these games use is not sustainable for all games. Sports games have several things going for them that normal games don't. Like being simulations of the real world, so as players move, etc then the game gets updated. Secondly there is an inherint monopoly on sports games. There is only one official NFL game.
    - Ygg2 7y ago
      And two popular soccer games, so there is a slight chance of a duopoly. Still. What about Call of Duty? What about Sequels?
- SXX 7y ago
  I just tend to disagree with this sentence too. Basically there a lot of game developers even in hardcore genres who efficiently maintain content-driven games: almost all simulators, economic strategies, Paradox-interactive strategies. There is number of small companies with only 20-30 employees who maintain their projects over decades basically releasing more of the same every couple of years.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
yeh but call of duty, like madden and fifa, are year after year of reskins, not new games in any sense. it's basically a 60$ bundle of cosmetic items.