2 ms·

> a chronic mismanagement problem. Like fimmaking. the mismanagement stems from the fact that it is costing too much from the onset, and "management" wants to

by chii 2y ago

> a chronic mismanagement problem. Like fimmaking. the mismanagement stems from the fact that it is costing too much from the onset, and "management" wants to ensure that the investment makes a good enough return to justify the high cost. Therefore, they dictate all of the risks have to be removed - such as not going for a risky new brand, but make a sequel. They want realistic graphics because it's more commercially viable - going for a different or uncommon aesthetic means taking risks. I would argue all of the problems in AAA development stems from this fact. it is also why indie games can be so cheap yet so successful. Not because indies are better (tho they are- at least more passionate if nothing else), but because indies are capable of taking risks to push the edge and make something new and untested. It's the same as films - creative endeavours cannot have their risks managed away. It is inherent, and there's a large chance of failure even if the team has done their best.

kevindamm 2y ago
The risk aversion in product is not a new phenomenon, though. Bigger producers have been following that track since at least the 90s. Adherence to brand, and even more so to basic game genres and mechanics, has been an issue complained about by devs at any big enough studio for decades. What changed, I think, is all of the development studios being bought up by large producers. But, then again, I see steam as being a great counterforce on this, and the ease of releasing on web or mobile has been a boon for indie devs too. So maybe that hasn't changed that much. The technology has advanced to where you can spend blockbuster budgets and get nearly film-quality results (not nearly possible in the cartridge and CD days). Meanwhile the price per AAA title has stayed relatively fixed at 50-60 USD for that same range of time, so production houses have had to try being appealing to ever-larger audiences. Fortunately, many people continue playing these games into their 30s and 40s so the market grows on its own too. I'm trying to say you're right about the risk aversion being a big part of the industry's problems but that's been an issue for a while, it has gotten terribly enhanced with the growth of the industry. Now I wonder which is worse.. extracting money one quarter a time with punishingly difficult timing tests, or extracting money via cosmetics that have no actual game impact but are marketed very compellingly.
the_snooze 2y ago
>it is also why indie games can be so cheap yet so successful. Not because indies are better (tho they are- at least more passionate if nothing else), but because indies are capable of taking risks to push the edge and make something new and untested. The cheapness also means indies simply get more "shots on goal." The barrier to entry is relatively low, so failing is lower-stakes. You have way more indies trying (and mostly failing), which means you have a greater raw number of hits. That's compared to a big company only having a handful of big-budget games in development.
- josephg 2y ago
  This also creates a better environment for learning the craft. You learn more about how to create good games by launching 3 small indie games in 3 years than 1 large game. Especially when you’re a small cog in that large game project.

by chii 2y ago

kevindamm 2y ago

The risk aversion in product is not a new phenomenon, though. Bigger producers have been following that track since at least the 90s. Adherence to brand, and even more so to basic game genres and mechanics, has been an issue complained about by devs at any big enough studio for decades. What changed, I think, is all of the development studios being bought up by large producers. But, then again, I see steam as being a great counterforce on this, and the ease of releasing on web or mobile has been a boon for indie devs too. So maybe that hasn't changed that much. The technology has advanced to where you can spend blockbuster budgets and get nearly film-quality results (not nearly possible in the cartridge and CD days). Meanwhile the price per AAA title has stayed relatively fixed at 50-60 USD for that same range of time, so production houses have had to try being appealing to ever-larger audiences. Fortunately, many people continue playing these games into their 30s and 40s so the market grows on its own too. I'm trying to say you're right about the risk aversion being a big part of the industry's problems but that's been an issue for a while, it has gotten terribly enhanced with the growth of the industry. Now I wonder which is worse.. extracting money one quarter a time with punishingly difficult timing tests, or extracting money via cosmetics that have no actual game impact but are marketed very compellingly.

the_snooze 2y ago

>it is also why indie games can be so cheap yet so successful. Not because indies are better (tho they are- at least more passionate if nothing else), but because indies are capable of taking risks to push the edge and make something new and untested. The cheapness also means indies simply get more "shots on goal." The barrier to entry is relatively low, so failing is lower-stakes. You have way more indies trying (and mostly failing), which means you have a greater raw number of hits. That's compared to a big company only having a handful of big-budget games in development.

josephg 2y ago
This also creates a better environment for learning the craft. You learn more about how to create good games by launching 3 small indie games in 3 years than 1 large game. Especially when you’re a small cog in that large game project.