4 ms·

I'm pretty curious about the same thing. I think a somewhat comparable situation is in various online game platforms now that I think about it. Investors would

I'm pretty curious about the same thing. I think a somewhat comparable situation is in various online game platforms now that I think about it. Investors would love to make a game like Fortnite, and get the profits that Fortnite makes. So a ton of companies try to make Fortnite. Almost all fail, and make no return whatsoever, just lose a ton of money and toss the game in the bin, shut down the servers. On the other hand, it may have been more logical for many of them to go for a less ambitious (not always online, not a game that requires a high player count and social buy-in to stay relevant) but still profitable investment (Maybe a smaller scale single player game that doesn't offer recurring revenue), yet we still see a very crowded space for trying to emulate the same business model as something like Fortnite. Another more historical example was the constant question of whether a given MMO would be the next "WoW-killer" all through the 2000's/2010's. I think part of why this arises is that there's definitely a bit of a psychological hack for humans in particular where if there's a low-probability but extremely high reward outcome, we're deeply entranced by it, and investors are the same. Even if the chances are smaller in their minds than they were before, if they can just follow the same path that seems to be working to some extent and then get lucky, they're completely set. They're not really thinking about any broader bubble that could exist, that's on the level of the society, they're thinking about the individual, who could be very very rich, famous, and powerful if their investment works. And in the mind of someone debating what path to go down, I imagine a more nebulous answer of "we probably need to come up with some fundamentally different tools for learning and research a lot of different approaches to do so" is a bit less satisfying and exciting than a pitch that says "If you just give me enough money, the curve will eventually hit the point where you get to be king of the universe and we go colonize the solar system and carve your face into the moon." I also have to acknowledge the possibility that they just have access to different information than I do! They might be getting shown much better demos than I do, I suppose.

eru 1y ago
We see both things: almost all games are 'not fortnite'. But that doesn't (commercially) invalidate some companies' quest for building the next fortnite. Of course, if you limit your attention to these 'wanabe fortnites', then you only see these 'wannabe fortnites'.
godelski 1y ago
I'm pretty sure the answer is people buying into the scaling is all you need argument. Because if you have that framing then it can be solved through engineering, right? I mean there's still engineering research and it doesn't mean there's no reason to research but everyone loves the simple and straight forward path, right? > I think a somewhat comparable situation is in various online game platforms I think it is common in many industries. The weird thing is that being too risk adverse creates more risk. There's a balance that needs to be struck. Maybe another famous one is movies. They go on about pirating and how Netflix is winning but most of the new movies are rehashes or sequels. Sure, there's a lot of new movies, but few get nearly the same advertising budgets and so people don't even hear about it (and sequels need less advertising since there's a lot of free advertising). You'd think there'd be more pressure to find the next hit that can lead to a few sequels but instead they tend to be too risk adverse. That's the issue of monopolies though... or any industry where the barrier to entry is high... > psychological hack While I'm pretty sure this plays a role (along with other things like blind hope) I think the bigger contributor is risk aversion and observation bias. Like you say, it's always easier to argue "look, it worked for them" then "this hasn't been done before, but could be huge." A big part of the bias is that you get to oversimplify the reasoning for the former argument compared to the latter. The latter you'll get highly scrutinized while the former will overlook many of the conditions that led to success. You're right that the big picture is missing. Especially that a big part of the success was through the novelty (not exactly saying Fortnite is novel via gameplay...). For some reason the success of novelty is almost never seen as motivation to try new things. I think that's the part that I find most interesting and confusing. It's like an aversion of wanting to look just one layer deeper. We'll put in far more physical and mental energy to justify a shallow thought than what would be required to think deeper. I get we're biased towards being lazy, so I think this is kinda related to us just being bad at foresight and feeling like being wrong is a bad thing (well it isn't good, but I'm pretty sure being wrong and not correcting is worse than just being wrong).
- morleytj 1y ago
  Very interesting way of thinking through it, I agree on pretty much all the points you've stated. That aversion is really fascinating to dig into, I wonder how much of it is cultural vs something innate to people.
jjmarr 1y ago
>I think part of why this arises is that there's definitely a bit of a psychological hack for humans in particular where if there's a low-probability but extremely high reward outcome, we're deeply entranced by it, and investors are the same. Venture capital is all about low-probability high-reward events. Get a normal small business loan if you don't want to go big or go home.
- godelski 1y ago
  So you agree with us? Should we instead be making the argument that this is an illogical move? Because IME the issue has been that it appears as too risky. I'd like to know if I should just lean into that rather than try to argue it is not as risky as it appears (yet still has high reward, albeit still risky).

eru 1y ago

We see both things: almost all games are 'not fortnite'. But that doesn't (commercially) invalidate some companies' quest for building the next fortnite. Of course, if you limit your attention to these 'wanabe fortnites', then you only see these 'wannabe fortnites'.

godelski 1y ago

I'm pretty sure the answer is people buying into the scaling is all you need argument. Because if you have that framing then it can be solved through engineering, right? I mean there's still engineering research and it doesn't mean there's no reason to research but everyone loves the simple and straight forward path, right? > I think a somewhat comparable situation is in various online game platforms I think it is common in many industries. The weird thing is that being too risk adverse creates more risk. There's a balance that needs to be struck. Maybe another famous one is movies. They go on about pirating and how Netflix is winning but most of the new movies are rehashes or sequels. Sure, there's a lot of new movies, but few get nearly the same advertising budgets and so people don't even hear about it (and sequels need less advertising since there's a lot of free advertising). You'd think there'd be more pressure to find the next hit that can lead to a few sequels but instead they tend to be too risk adverse. That's the issue of monopolies though... or any industry where the barrier to entry is high... > psychological hack While I'm pretty sure this plays a role (along with other things like blind hope) I think the bigger contributor is risk aversion and observation bias. Like you say, it's always easier to argue "look, it worked for them" then "this hasn't been done before, but could be huge." A big part of the bias is that you get to oversimplify the reasoning for the former argument compared to the latter. The latter you'll get highly scrutinized while the former will overlook many of the conditions that led to success. You're right that the big picture is missing. Especially that a big part of the success was through the novelty (not exactly saying Fortnite is novel via gameplay...). For some reason the success of novelty is almost never seen as motivation to try new things. I think that's the part that I find most interesting and confusing. It's like an aversion of wanting to look just one layer deeper. We'll put in far more physical and mental energy to justify a shallow thought than what would be required to think deeper. I get we're biased towards being lazy, so I think this is kinda related to us just being bad at foresight and feeling like being wrong is a bad thing (well it isn't good, but I'm pretty sure being wrong and not correcting is worse than just being wrong).

morleytj 1y ago
Very interesting way of thinking through it, I agree on pretty much all the points you've stated. That aversion is really fascinating to dig into, I wonder how much of it is cultural vs something innate to people.

jjmarr 1y ago

>I think part of why this arises is that there's definitely a bit of a psychological hack for humans in particular where if there's a low-probability but extremely high reward outcome, we're deeply entranced by it, and investors are the same. Venture capital is all about low-probability high-reward events. Get a normal small business loan if you don't want to go big or go home.

godelski 1y ago
So you agree with us? Should we instead be making the argument that this is an illogical move? Because IME the issue has been that it appears as too risky. I'd like to know if I should just lean into that rather than try to argue it is not as risky as it appears (yet still has high reward, albeit still risky).