2 ms·
Stuff like this is why people overestimate "market effects" and under estimate just group think in industries. Sure it is "more profitable" in some sense to do
by noobermin 4y ago
Stuff like this is why people overestimate "market effects" and under estimate just group think in industries. Sure it is "more profitable" in some sense to do it this way, but you'd imagine someone somewhere will make a small fps that doesn't have this overly controlled crap and then win big, taking a share of the big guys' profits, and then the cycle churns into a new area of phase space.
The reason that hasn't happened yet is because a) gamers are just too dumb or lead by hype to try small non-triple A titles (which isn't quite true) or b) the groupthink in the industry is too thick for anyone to even try it. I feel like it's a combination of these two, probably more of b) but enough of a) justifies developer's collective illusions about what is proftable (that is, b))
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoNew gamers with disposable income and generally little education or world experience are produced cyclically. Middle and high school students have the time to no life games long enough to become truly great at them in ways that no adult with only a few free hours every week can compete with. So the adults with jobs and families and kids drop out of the AAA games using FOMO as a crutch to prop up sales and engagement metrics. The kids, lacking fully developed PFCs get enamored by these exploitative tactics and every now and then one of these games get this perfect and print billions. With a declining population, incoming generations who grew up with modern video games and their tactics, and increasing scrutiny of psychological manipulation of children by video game companies I expect these companies to maliciously double down on their tactics instead of increasing investment into original content and novel games that present too much risk for the boring and greedy money men running the companies and investment funds.