• Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because they don’t want some of the money, or even enough of the money. They want all of the money, and think all you have to do is copy a successful game to get it.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Moreover, like Hollywood, the gaming industry is largely run by people who truly do not understand the thing they’re there to make. All of the C-levels still think it’s the early 2000s where you could shit out anything that looked like a popular game and make 20 billion dollars from it. They think their entire market is dumb kids who will mindlessly play whatever is put in front of them without regard to polish, story, or even playability.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Stephanie Sterling has been saying this for so many years, and it’s only getting worse. at least in the “”“AAA”“” space.

    • Corn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      No, going for the sure thing is why we have EA pumping out COD and a dozon sports games identical to last years every year.

      • QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago
        1. If EA is making new COD games then Activision really needs to sue for copyright infringement.

        2. Which would you rather have? Yearly releases of beloved IPs or Rare sitting on Banjo Kazooie because this is totally the year when Sea of Thieves finally becomes Pirate Fortnite? Actually given how backhanded the Battletoads reboot was…

        3. I’d rather have The Sims 4 get endless expansions if the alternative is that it’s abandoned altogether like so many other IPs EA owns like Ultima, Command and Conquer, Sim City, and Wing Commander

  • ampy@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Unrelated to the meme but I have that same monitor in the image. Pretty good monitor.

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve noticed that an increasing amount of games that I enjoy over the past decade have been indie games (or games with lax publishers.)

  • 10001110101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    They work for the shareholders, not the customers. For most publicly traded companies, the stock is completely detached from fundamentals, so they just do whatever the large investors like (often just hype the new hottest thing; such as marketplaces or “increasing efficiency” with layoffs), regardless if its good for the “real” business or not.

  • darthelmet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My (completely uninformed) theory: It’s competitive advantage. Indies succeed on their creativity, but that works because there are thousands of indie devs out there and we get to see the best (and luckiest) ones. It’s not easy to replicate that creativity by just throwing more money at the problem. So what is a company with ooodles of money but no creativity to do? Make games that only a company with way too much money could make. No indie dev is going to make the next Far Cry or Assassin’s Creed or Fortnite because they just don’t have the budget to make that happen. So they know that even if they keep churning out generic crap, at least it’s generic crap with very little real competition.

    Of course then all of them got the bright idea to compete in a game business model that is inherently winner take all with already well established leaders. So yeah now it just seems like they’re lighting money on fire for fun.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I mean… You could make a knock-off Fortnite with Minecraft level graphics, make the cosmetics unlocked by just playing, and give it away for free. That would probably be enough to topple Fortnite. It just also would net you exactly 0 profit.

    • decipher_jeanne@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sure but when you have an established successful franchises with a working recipe. Like. Just release the next ace combat I swear to God it’s been 6 years without a peep about ace combat 8 despite ace combat 7 being by far the best selling in the franchise.

      • IndescribablySad@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Let me ask, do you really want another ace combat after half a decade without information? In all likelihood, the team has been gutted twice. The only similarities to its past might end up being art direction and the name.

        Like, I enjoyed the new armored core and duke nukem, but they weren’t quite continuations of the previous games. Mecha sekiro and generic cringy subpar shooter 485 weren’t worth the wait. Though, I admit, I’m a hypocrite and holding my breath for silksong.

        • Final Remix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Exactly. The team(s) that made the stuff we love are usually long gone by the time we get “the next” whatever. My go-to for that is Criterion Games going from Burnout Paradise to… well, basically not doing anything anymore. Thanks, EA.

          Some of the devs left, and Wreckreation is on the docket. It’s due to be a spiritual successor, but I’d he willing to bet nowhere near as charming as Burnout. Damn, I hope I’m wrong, given “Dangerous Driving”…

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They honestly need to look at Fortnite as the model. It wasn’t meant to be this massive AAA game. It was a modest game with a unique concept (building). Adding battle royal was done on a whim. It just happened to click with millions of people.

      • Justdaveisfine@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think this is quite right as BRs were new at the time. When Fortnite released there was really only PUBG in the battle royale space.

        I believe it was something closer to a prototype they made in a month or two simply because they liked Battle Royales and thought it would be a fun gamemode to add a side thing.

    • InputZero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      That and everything now needs to be “disruptive”. An idea doesn’t see the light of day in a tech board room without explaining how it’s going to disrupt the market and create space for itself. So unless the game is pitched as a killer of whatever the competition has it won’t move forward. It’s the whole silicon valley mindset of move fast and break things in action.

    • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The profit incentive is toxic to creativity. Try to imagine how much cultural value is lost every single day because of no UBI and having to worry about a survival job.

      • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        No question that it’s a lot. The cost of a UBI would probably be more though, ($500/month/capita, maybe? $ 2.1 trillion per annum for the USA).

          • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            the “B” stands for basic, as in basic needs, $100/mo would not cover the average americans rent, let alone other basic needs. You’re looking for Universal stipend/Guarenteed Minimum Income/Citizens dividend or other related concept

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      This one, right here OP.

      Capitalism is, at its core: Profits > all

      Profit is more important to these chucklefucks than the customers happiness, their loyalty, the staff that make the product, hell, even the product they’re selling… This includes your life; profit is more important than your life. If they can bump their quarterly earnings with you doing something dangerous that turns you into a fucking grease stain, they’ll fucking do it. They’re psychopaths.

      Only because of laws does any company do “the right thing”. Everything else they do is to reduce expenses, or increase profits.

      They wouldn’t try to make the next fortnite, if fortnite didn’t make its creators disgusting amounts of money. Games wouldn’t become micro transaction hell if microtransactions didn’t rake in shitloads of cash steadily.

      Video Games are simply their tool to extract the maximum possible value they can from you. First it was stupid one-off horse cosmetics, then it was paid DLC, then they started shipping half of a game before it was ready (cutting dev costs so they could get their payout faster), then releasing paid “DLC” which was the rest of the fucking game… To now, when we have little more than an idea, some mechanics, and somewhat unique art design before the steaming pile that they call a game gets to be “released”, and they’ll literally add everything later.

      Look at halo. Let’s use it as a case study. The original game had its share of problems on release, but it was at least pretending to be a full game when it came out. Full single player and multi player, with a fully fleshed out campaign, complete with working cutscenes. Halo 2 followed a similar path, for the most part… Eventually, the Halo dev team became beholden to the almighty shareholder and now we have halo infinite with an infinite amount of bullshit and no single player campaign… Unless you want to pay extra for it, or for these skins, or for… You get the idea.

      I played, and liked Halo. I fell away from it after Halo 2/3 due to life stuff, and at this point, I picked up the master chief collection for the nostalgia, but that’s probably the last money I’m putting into the franchise. I just can’t be bothered. It was good while it lasted.

      Halo is hardly unique in this. I only used them as an example because it was easy. I could have also used Diablo…

      • Aspharr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Part of the reason that happened with Halo is because Bungie lost the IP to Microsoft when they separated. Everything after Halo 3 was done by another studio that was part of M$. I believe it was called 343 Studios or something like that.

  • 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because we buy the games, the microtransactions, the cosmetics, etc. Even just one purchase multiplied by millions is a win for publishers. Whales and content creators fuel the cycle even more. Meanwhile, currencies get deliberately convoluted: you need stars for a pull, which require sparkle farts, which you can’t buy directly or in exact amounts. Out of sparkle farts? $14.99 gets you 6000—enough for three whole pills! Don’t worry, there’s a pity system, so the most you’ll spend is only $400. And then you’re left with 60 stars, and if you just had 40 more!

    You’re not forced to buy, but they make the grind brutal and a slog. If you’re really unlucky, it can even make actually playing the came harder. And as long as this system makes money, it won’t stop. Games are turning into storefronts with a mini-game attached. Good games feel like rare blessings, and creativity is often found only indie studios. Big teams have talent—they’re just not allowed to use it, their companies don’t care about that. Gotta make money, more money, all the time, forever, or you’ve failed.

    I say “they” like I don’t play a few gachas myself, but still.

  • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    why are they like this?

    Which would you rather have 1 million dollars or 100 million dollars?

    That’s basically the thought process, if it bombs I can blame it on some other, if it doesn’t then I’m good

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Which would you rather have 1 million dollars or 100 million dollars?

      It’s not that straightforward, unfortunately. The real culprit is allowing all giant public companies to hoover up all the small companies. Now you’re not a 3 person team with a side job trying to pay the bills and getting lucky. Office rent, Unity/Unreal want their cut, app stores want their cut, Salary, IT, Healthcare. You end up needing to support quite a lot of infrastructure to make that 1 Mil game. That no longer ‘moves the needle’ on your company’s yearly income and the stock suffers.

      Then, you can’t just make a game and release it anymore, you need live ops, sales, events, campaigns, otherwise you’re leaving money on the table.

      • Soleos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        otherwise you’re leaving money on the table.

        This is the same argument as “would you rather have 1 or 100 mil”

        But yes, you’re right to point out large companies who need to make big money to keep the lights on and, if public, stock profile. If the market perceives modest growth, it will not react kindly, leading to downstream financial losses. Some investors invest in ideas and products, most invest in perceived potential gains. No investment–>no funding–>no games.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    People tend to chase trends because it is selling like hot cakes and therefore deemed safe. Everyone wants a piece. Executives feel the same. However, only very few realise that the market become over-saturated as it becomes more competitive because of tunnel vision towards digging any potential profits that may or may not be there.

    • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Also, even if you do realise the market is going to become over-saturated, you know that stepping out of that market will only yield space for your competitors. It’s better for you that nobody makes that money, rather than that the other guy does, and then buries you in the next cycle.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Niches exist because they’re already filled

    You’re overestimating how easy it is to convince person with 10k hours in random game to move to yours

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s the thing… You don’t need to convince them to put 10k hours into a different game. Only to buy it. Or to play it for at least 2 hours on Steam.

      If I get like at least 20 hours of enjoyment out of a game I’m probably already as happy as can be with the purchase.