3 ms·

Asking as an ignorant outsider, are the economics of much different from that other the movie and TV industry? At least that's where Netflix is a lot more exper

by em500 2y ago

Asking as an ignorant outsider, are the economics of much different from that other the movie and TV industry? At least that's where Netflix is a lot more experienced than Google, Meta and Microsoft. (Whether they're good at it is another question.)

sofixa 2y ago
_Somewhat_, but with film and TV you have the further releases on streaming, different countries, and keep receiving royalties for all of that, potentially years in the future. All of this without ongoing work on the project itself. Meanwhile if a game flops for whatever reason, you have to continue investing in it, adding new features, stories, fixing bugs, etc. for it to have the chance of making any new money.
- oersted 2y ago
  Indeed, they pushed hard for a few years trying to figure out recurring revenue with Live-Service models. A few early entrants did well, like Fortnite, Destiny, Division... Although they also struggled for years before hitting their stride, and most later attempts have crashed hard as soon as they landed (Suicide Squad, Concord...).
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Additionally many games are tied to a specific platform, it is not like music and films that keep being ported from medium to medium, without having to touch the original content. Sure we can discuss about emulators, which are a gray field, and in any case, contrary to film and TV, studios earn nothing with emulators, versus reselling the VHS content in DVD.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 2y ago
The consumers are far more quality-sensitive for games than they are for movies or streaming shows. With a few big-name exceptions, a crappy game won't sell. The exceptions exist because the first few games with the same name were great, but the studio process got their hands on it and pushed to churn out the next one. Money grabs with DLC everything and loot-box-of-the-week have become bad enough that some governments have begun to regulate them. Very few games can legitimately sustain a subscription model, which companies like NetFlix are accustomed to.

by em500 2y ago

sofixa 2y ago

_Somewhat_, but with film and TV you have the further releases on streaming, different countries, and keep receiving royalties for all of that, potentially years in the future. All of this without ongoing work on the project itself. Meanwhile if a game flops for whatever reason, you have to continue investing in it, adding new features, stories, fixing bugs, etc. for it to have the chance of making any new money.

oersted 2y ago
Indeed, they pushed hard for a few years trying to figure out recurring revenue with Live-Service models. A few early entrants did well, like Fortnite, Destiny, Division... Although they also struggled for years before hitting their stride, and most later attempts have crashed hard as soon as they landed (Suicide Squad, Concord...).
pjmlp 2y ago
Additionally many games are tied to a specific platform, it is not like music and films that keep being ported from medium to medium, without having to touch the original content. Sure we can discuss about emulators, which are a gray field, and in any case, contrary to film and TV, studios earn nothing with emulators, versus reselling the VHS content in DVD.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

slowmovintarget 2y ago

The consumers are far more quality-sensitive for games than they are for movies or streaming shows. With a few big-name exceptions, a crappy game won't sell. The exceptions exist because the first few games with the same name were great, but the studio process got their hands on it and pushed to churn out the next one. Money grabs with DLC everything and loot-box-of-the-week have become bad enough that some governments have begun to regulate them. Very few games can legitimately sustain a subscription model, which companies like NetFlix are accustomed to.