Hacker News Reader

Comment by notTyler | Hacker News Reader

I don't really know if it's rose colored glasses but as a lifelong gamer it really sucks to see gaming as an industry become more and more focused around ROI rather than shipping quality games.

The latest Call of Duty and Red Dead games both shipped without microtransactions so it wouldn't affect their review scores. Call of Duty in particular has an absurd amount of them, pay to win mechanics (in Zombies), and the battle pass is so grindy that you either have to no-life or pay (more) money to get to the end. This is from a game that shipped with a 50 dollar season pass. All of this on top of the fact that since CoD is a yearly franchise anything you purchase basically disappears if you get next year's iteration. It's like, no sane game developer that loves making games enough to put up with the industry would ship a game like this. Someone ran the numbers and said we can make x$ more if we make the grind harder.

I don't want to get into the narrative that the bean counters are ruining Blizzard because I honestly don't know if it's the case. All the restructured staff from Heroes have been rumored to be working on D4. Hearthstone is hearthstone. WoW, I don't know. Overwatch is still getting regular content updates and I would expect it to go F2P soon. I think some gamers have been a tad chicken little about changes at Blizzard, but Activision is so far gone that I refuse to buy any of their games.

View on HN

I think they just lost the ability to be innovative. They had some real creative minds at the helm that got replaced by "business" people. Kind of like Steve Jobs being replaced. Blizzard was based on this cool innovative stuff and when the people who lived for it were gone they had no connection to their community anymore.

In terms of calculating grind, that was the big thing with WoW when I left a month after the latest expansion dropped. It was just so clear that the rails of the theme park ride you were on were designed to milk you. I mean all games by anyone not releasing them freely are intended to make some kind of money, but once I purchase it you better be very subtle about it.

Basically all they are doing is rehashing old games now as well.

Grind is really difficult to get right, outside of how long it takes. They stopped publishing subscription numbers, but it’s clear WoW subscriptions have fallen dramatically over time.

Personally, the Warlords of Draenor mission grind was interesting for a little while, but completely killed my interest in the franchise. Which I think is a central issue for long running games, you can drive people away vastly easier than you can pull them back.

The long term economics of video games is therefore tough, as surviving to tomorrow often means driving people away forever.

I think there are too many competing factors for them to make a "sweet spot".

The original grind appealed to people because it was hard and there wasn't anything you could do about it. It felt like an accomplishment.

The business side of the house wants a wide net so appealing to those people alone isn't enough, except that those are their core people who have paid their salaries. The faltering I believe is in part due to trying to continually grow and appease shareholders.

CoD seems to be doing fine so big business AAA games will still live on. Blizzard might pivot to doing something like this. I just believe big business is completely incompatible with the cult-like attraction of Blizzard's original IP.

From the estimates I have seen WoW subscriber count was higher at the end of vanilla than it is today. Various forms of micro transactions make up for much of the revenue difference, but I don’t think the current version has wider appeal.

It’s hard to say when peak appeal occurred as WOTLK had peak subscriptions, but slow growth. If anything Vanilla, BC, or WOTLK was the peak appeal and it’s just been down hill after that. Though their are plenty of ways to slice and dice the numbers.

Blizzard games are not necessarily known for their innovation, but for their level of polish, lore and communities behind them. I mean RPGs existed before Diablo, MMOs existed before WoW, Warcraft was not the first strategy game and so on. Somehow Blizzard managed to make these representative for their genres.

The problem is they are in the same wagon with Activision which forces them into some questionable bussiness decisions, and their focus shift toward satisfying the market rather than continuing to make polished games.

It’s hard to imagine how a company that received $15 per month from 12 million WoW subscribers for 10+ years can go bankrupt, but I guess nothing lasts forever.

AFAIK Diablo was the first 'action' or real time combat RPG. That seems pretty innovative.

Correct, but that is one example from many years ago. I think his statement overall holds water.

That was more David Brevik's Condor that was subsequently purchased by Blizzard and named Blizzard North. They also had complete autonomy from Blizzard proper.

I mean, if you forget earlier real-time combat RPGs like The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy Adventure / Secret of Mana, Shadowrun or The Elder Scrolls then yeah.

> It’s hard to imagine how a company that received $15 per month from 12 million WoW subscribers for 10+ years can go bankrupt, but I guess nothing lasts forever.

On the flip side, that may be the exact reason they are going bankrupt or facing hard time. Making $15 x a month from 12 million subscribers must have lured them into thinking it will last forever so they get sloppy, lose focus, etc.

Innovation in my context is more in appealing to the user. The mechanics. You don't have to make something new like the wheel to innovate. Look at Apple. They're called innovative all the time but have never "invented" anything from thin air. They packaged and purposed something that appealed to more people than all those pieces separately.

The games they made were unique and copied countless times by people because of a unique combination of gameplay mechanics and style.

They didn't capture the majority of their users on lore or polish. They captured them because they were fun to play.

> It’s hard to imagine how a company that received $15 per month from 12 million WoW subscribers for 10+ years can go bankrupt, but I guess nothing lasts forever.

I don’t think Activision is anywhere close to declaring bankruptcy? While the stocks of many gaming companies have been suffering as of late, many of them presumably rose too high from the hype surrounding esports gaming, etc.

Warcraft was not the first strategy game, but WCIII was hugely innovative. I can't think of any RTS game with the concept of heroes before WCIII, and it was popularized by it (Star Wars: Empire at War used the concept).

It also spun off the entire MOBA period from AOS (starcraft) and DotA.

> They had some real creative minds at the helm that got replaced by "business" people.

IBM >> Engineers at helm replaced by MBA. Goes down the drain. Plus many others I'm sure.

I think we can go on and on about how bean counters or business types or lawyers replace engineers at the helm, and end up destroying tech companies that were at the top.

I really wonder, why? Does it have to be that way?

There's this "toner heads" interview with Jobs, you've probably seen it but it fascinates me every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1rXqD6M614

Mr. Jobs was so eloquent in that interview.

But, lol. The irony.

He appoints Tim Cook to be his successor, who is NOT a product person but a supply chain specialist.

He definitely is not a product person. The same product team under Mr. Jobs may still be there, but I'd think most would agree Apple's been putting out new products that are somewhat lacking...

I'm sure Steve would have loved to put the product guy (Jony Ive) in charge but I bet Ive didn't want the job. This is why people like Steve Jobs are so rare: product guys who want to run the company and deal with all of the business stuff instead of rolling up their sleeves every day.

People criticize Steve Jobs for the fact that he was never an engineer. But he was never a suit either. He was more like Santa Claus: running around his workshop and getting so excited about all the new toys the elves come up with. He could play with your demo for a few minutes and tell you what was wrong with it, from the perspective of a non-engineer, and thus give you feedback on things that engineers take for granted.

People buy the Apple hardware but stay for the software. Scott Forstall might have been considered but he didn’t play well with a few other key design and hardware people at the time. In an alternative world where SF is CEO, you’d end up with an iPhone X that looks like iPhone 4/5 and might have had weaker hardware but largely compensated by better software (as demonstrated by iOS 12, early iPods and macs, etc.). Then with time, the skeumorphism would dial down and meet iOS 7’s extreme minimalism in the middle, like current iOSes are doing anyway. SF knew machine learning, so Siri would definitely have been his focus too.

There’s a niche of folks who are waiting for SF to make a come back the same way SJ did =)

With a few exceptions when studios were much smaller, it was always about maximizing ROI. They just didn't have good delivery mechanisms at the time (yay cartridges!), and they didn't know what they know today (DLC and microtransactions work). The gaming industry is extremely cutthroat, has extreme competition, skyrocketing costs (for AAA-type games at least), and a model where "you make 9 games that lose money with the hope the 10th will make bank", causing companies to try and figuring out how to salvage the first 9.

And it's hard to blame them: imagine being a company that pours your entire soul and being into a PC/console game with 100 hours of gameplay, beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth...just to see a stupid mobile game rakes in 10x the money from people trying to get their "waifu" out of a loot box. You can only do this so many times before you cave in.

Precisely. It's about economic survival, not a cash grab.

The gaming industry is extremely cutthroat, has extreme competition, skyrocketing costs (for AAA-type games at least), and a model where "you make 9 games that lose money with the hope the 10th will make bank", causing companies to try and figuring out how to salvage the first 9.

The historical media industry playbook is to export your development risk to an ecosystem of smaller "independent" creators, who become the farm leagues for the big players. The big players then co-opt the independent successes. This worked in music for awhile. I'm not so sure it's working that well for movies, for the same reasons you cite for games.

It's not black & white. The AAA games with the "beautiful graphics, awesome voice acting, tons of replay value and depth" have their own flaws, due to the level of investment involved and the resulting risk aversion.

Yeah for sure. I suppose the point i was trying to make is that these days, game quality and revenue have virtually no correlation.

Marketing pretty much matters more (unless you pull a No Man Sky), but that's not new. These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money. If it was just a little...or even a factor, the "art" would prevail for some devs. But when it's orders of magnitude, it gets really, really hard to ignore. Some still do. Bless them.

These days though, monetization frequently means vastly inferior games make way, way more money.

To an algorithm, or a metric, even miserable feeling variable schedule or reward addiction looks like "engagement." So if there's "engagement" and money, why should companies do anything different?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

So how is it that games which have "art" don't come along, charge a bit less money, and win in the marketplace? I guess the argument can be made that they do, but they're in the minority. I wonder if there aren't also generational issues? Maybe the environment of today, where even young people have tablets and smartphones is just a different one?

Possible! But there's also the whole "gambling is addicting" thing. Some of these games pray on the vulnerable to make their dough.

Alternatively, it also leverages the rich vs poor divide. In gacha games for example, you'll have a very small minority of players pouring as much as several thousand dollars into a game, while the majority plays for free. The game still ends up coming out ahead than if they sold at an affordable price and had everyone paying it instead.

the games industry is shifting to the casino whale poaching mindset, and taking advantage of borderline gambling addiction through loot boxes/crates to get kids to (steal their parent's money sometimes) and buy shit in the places they hang out with other kids/socialize/spend a lot of time watching professional gamers play

makes me very sad as someone who grew up with amazing RTS and the first generations of online/LAN games where $50 would buy you hundreds of hours of entertainment sans microtransactions

there are still some amazing games coming out graphics and storywise, it just sucks to see names i once respected trading in their reputation for cash - blizzard, bioware (EA), and obsidian chief among them

Obsidian is doing fine and releasing relatively great if buggy games. Unless you're counting them getting bought by Microsoft.

I'm pretty happy with what Blizzard has done for the StarCraft 2 esports community.

I'm actively trying to get better at it. I got more into following the professional scene over the last year, and I just purchased a War Chest in game this past weekend. It's a skin pack for my units, but 25% of the sale goes towards the winter WCS prize pool for professional StarCraft 2. I bought it to support the top tier competitors.

I also enjoy a game with a good single player mode, but StarCraft is deep mental challenge. There is no pay to win. I have a consistent pool of opponents near my skill level to play against, and the game is balanced enough* that I should be able to climb the ladder with any race.

* I think players will generally whine about balance in the matchups they struggle with. I do too, but this is actually part of the challenge of improving at the game.

my game of choice was WC3, i still watch it played at high levels and it's pretty amazing how well designed and entertaining the game is 15 years on with the 3 unique race systems, beautiful tilesets/models, fantastic music, etc. props to blizzard for keeping SC2/WC3 balanced and trying to bring in a new generation of fans with the graphical refresh

but lets be real about the resources expended on these old games and developing their successors vs. the new generation of money sinks. it's a simple ROI calculation and unless you have an old school game fanatic running the show, i know where you're going to put your money to sustain/grow the studio

4 races: horde, humans, undead & night elves.

you're right, 4 races for WC3. switched into SC2 thinking for a moment

For StarCraft 2, I think they're also doing a good job keeping it alive and relevant with the WCS brand. The collective prize pool for all tournaments is several million dollars. You're right that this is likely a drop in the bucket for Blizzard. I appreciate it anyways, since it's not likely to be a huge money maker for them.

makes me very sad as someone who grew up with amazing RTS and the first generations of online/LAN games

What did you find magical about those RTS? (I say this as someone who happens to have an online multiplayer engine which is best suited to RTS.)

per my comment below > it's pretty amazing how well designed and entertaining the game is 15 years on with the 3 unique race systems, beautiful tilesets/models, fantastic music, etc.

add to that: great lore borrowed from mythology/made up, fantastic voice acting, champion units with extra abilities and item usage, complicated (but not overly) resource management, competitive online community, modding ability with a full map editor/scripting engine. plus a lot of interesting/funny people play the game all over the world which always spices things up. and continuous tweaks to improve the games balance

What would you think of a multiplayer RTS, but where there is a vast ongoing struggle between various kingdoms and empires of the 4 races? (Persistent, vast MMO shared world.) The player doesn't command any side or any kingdom in its entirely, but can act as a hero unit and can command forces in his/her vicinity. (Basically, they're all like a kind of King Arthur who can reappear in a time of need.) The empires and kingdoms are entirely managed by AI and follow a cycle, where they reach a peak of their power (a morale stat follows a peaking curve) then decline and die.

The player works to increase his/her own legend by winning battles. The purpose of this design is to create an extremely complex and immersive world with depth of gameplay, but still enable players to "dip in" for a half hour session every once in awhile.

sounds a lot like Eve online set in medieval times. Guild Wars had a similar system where you could choose a faction and battle other factions to win reputation etc but was nowhere as dynamic as you're describing. also kind of sounds like Dynasty Warriors which kicked ass but followed a more traditional set path of battles

all of these are great games and a blend of them would be awesome if you had a clear vision for how to combine them, but would also probably be a massive undertaking

side note, i wouldn't consider anything a true RTS unless it has some type of resource gathering and tech/unit building element to it

> i wouldn't consider anything a true RTS unless it has some type of resource gathering and tech/unit building element to it

Then you'd be discounting the Myth series, which means you are objectively incorrect.

This is the first line in the Myth gameplay Wikipedia:

All three Myth games play very similarly. They are real-time tactics games, and as such, unlike the gameplay in real-time strategy games, the player does not engage in resource micromanagement or economic macromanagement, does not construct a base or buildings, and does not gradually build up their army by acquiring resources and researching new technologies.[9] Instead, each level begins with the player's army already assembled and ready for combat

Is base construction a requirement, so long as the player can engage in resource micromanagement or economic macromanagement?

....ok, fair enough.

sounds a lot like Eve online set in medieval times.

Except that the empires ebbing and flowing wouldn't be due to content writing and large groups of players. (At least at first.)

i wouldn't consider anything a true RTS unless it has some type of resource gathering and tech/unit building element to it

It would have that, but in the form of unit recruitment or negotiating with and giving advice to nearby lords. (Perhaps local lords could grant you use of their smithies, craftspeople, and peasants for support/logistical tasks.)

I'll tell you what I think about it: I miss games having LAN support instead of expecting me to connect to a server that won't exist in 15 years or will be nigh unusable when I go to a LAN party somewhere with a crap connection.

That's what I miss most from 90s RTSs.

The MMO system I'm developing can run the entire server cluster as 3 coroutines in a single process. (goroutines, actually) This is meant to facilitate local development, but it would be quite easy to harness this to distribute a game that automatically has a local LAN mode.

I think it is rosy retrospection.

Remember the unending supply of totally trash PC games that you could by at Incredible Universe in the giant boxes? Or the grab bag of games that were 15 on a CD for $15? I mean pretty much everything Head Games [1] put out was a rebaked version of the same terrible 3D polygon mess with trash controls, but for whatever was hot at the time.

It's always been ROI driven, with the major hits keeping the studios alive and tiny game studios just trying to get anything out that they could.

[1] https://www.mobygames.com/company/head-games-publishing-inc

Fair point. I was more talking about MTX and DLC than shovelware, but shovelware's definitely been around forever. Curiously I don't think it's as much of a problem in the core gaming sector these days due to the prevalence of reviewing, but there's a ton of it in the mobile sector.

I totally agree about it being rosy nostalgia.

Think of Chuck-E-Cheeses and arcades in the 90s. There would be a few arcade games with interesting stories and mechanics and new innovations, and there would be ticket games where you would literally pay to win tickets to buy crap that is worthless, but is fun to acquire.

It's sad because when you do DLC right, it can actually prevent layoffs. This infographic sums it up pretty well: https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DLCWo...

A good example of how this works is Paradox Development Studio. Paradox does a great job creating a constant stream of what are basically expansion packs, accompanied by free patches for those who are uninterested in what the expansions have to offer (and you don't have to buy the expansions linearly, either; if you want the third expansion but not the first two, you can just buy that one).

I'm not saying that the way they design their expansions is perfect (EU4 in particular has taken a lot of flak for missteps of this kind), but the basic model is fantastic, and when done right, it only enhances the experience.

Wow this changed my perspective on (most) Day 1 DLC. I'm surprised that this isn't shared more by devs who ship Day 1 DLC as it's a very rational explanation for its existence. Thank you for sharing this.

Another good example is GGG with Path of Exile. Great game with a ton of content, completely funded by cosmetic MTX's. I wish DIII had gone this route and I hope DIV does (if we get a DIV).

I recently started PoE and I think it's Free to Play done right. Though I wouldn't say it's completely cosmetic, you will be severely limited without paid stash tabs (especially currency) but I happily made that purchase after just a week.

Activision was able to successfully forecast a lot of today's gaming trends. When they merged with Blizzard, they saw a company that was succeeding on all fronts - e-sports (with Starcraft), subscriptions and microtransactions (in World of Warcraft), and plenty of other side-benefits (like successful expansion packs, worldwide appeal, recycled game mechanics a la DOTA...)

Since then, they have been trying to mix these elements together to make one Long Island Iced Tea of e-sport-microtransaction-lootbox-culturally significant franchise. I think Overwatch was the big bet for that, and even though I love what they did it would be impossible for that game to meet all of Activisions expectations.

The business and revenue models are just changing, similar to the music industry: The main source of income is no longer the one-time sale of a game. Just like most big artists don't earn much money with album sales. Instead big game franchises rely on recurrent small revenue streams through loot boxes, season passes, etc. Big artists rely on licensing fees from streaming services and ticket sales for concerts.

Both of these revenue sources are not viable for relatively unknown artists - they get supported either via donations (like patreon) or traditional album sales (lots of "indie" artists started selling vinyl again). I think the analogy holds for games as well. Smaller studios still live from one time sales on steam, GoG, etc. So the business model only really changes at the top and I don't feel like we as consumers are any worse off - quite the contrary actually: Playing a new game with friends required quite an investment in the late 90s, ie. everybody had to spend 50-90 bucks for the new Age of Empires. Nowadays everybody can try out Fortnite and those who don't like it simply uninstall it.

Gaming is such a wild west of an industry.

I hold out hope that the indie scene remains healthy and such, but the rise and fall of large static developers putting out quality products over time does seem questionable.

The king is dead, long live the king.

Creative products like films, games, music, etc. involve significant risk. You can put tens of millions into a thing and find out that the public just didn't like your vision. Boom, money gone. Onto the next thing. Corporations that get to a certain size find it really difficult to stomach such risk internally. Perhaps it is less size and more a certain style of governance, or lack of a visionary leader with sufficient pull. I don't know, but the problem seems endemic to large corporations, and it's been observed and commented on over and over. For contrast look at the indie game scene on Steam. Many of these titles will never make money, but you can't fault the creativity.

I don't really know if it's rose colored glasses but as a lifelong gamer it really sucks to see gaming as an industry become more and more focused around ROI rather than shipping quality games.

Isn't this the way of all media? What are movie franchise sequels but a way of reducing risk? That's just focus around ROI. Isn't this happening to news media? Everything devolves towards classical behaviorism and lower levels of psychology. Clickbait, outrage, and variable schedule of reward. Shiny, pretty pictures.

If we take the analogy farther, isn't the hope in alternative media? This is how it always worked in the past.

For more on the Call of Duty situation in particular, see Skill Up's video on deleting his previously positive review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL8HfoCzCB0

The thing that sends him over the edge is a red dot targeting reticle which you have to pay real money to unlock. The whole piece is excellent though; well worth the watch.

Virtually everything cited in this thread boils down to simple economics. The production costs for "AAA" titles have skyrocketed, driven by consumer demand for more content and better graphics. The game industry has the economics of the blockbuster-driven entertainment industry—massive capital expenditure in the hopes of eking out some kind of a profit, with flops easily leading to financial ruin. This is in contrast to the tech industry, which yields enormous profits on very little investment. Unlike Blizzard, Google doesn't need an army of artists to keep dollars coming out of the AdWords faucet.

I have a hard time understanding anger directed at game studios for doing what they need to do to survive. It's one of the toughest tech-related industries there is.

> Unlike Blizzard, Google doesn't need an army of artists to keep dollars coming out of the AdWords faucet

hahaha, look at google capex grows

https://csimarket.com/stocks/single_growth_rates.php?code=GO...

Most of Google's increased expenditure is due to headcount increases in efforts to use that enormous advertising profit to expand into other markets. Google could lay off everyone not working on search or ads tomorrow, watch its expenditures crater, and still be making enormous profits.

Needless to say, neither Blizzard nor any other game studio has anywhere near this kind of luxury.

Salary and wages would be recorded as OpEx, not CapEx, correct?

I would imagine the CapEx growth is from data centers and equipment for GCP

Are you sure it isn’t just massive waste and cost inefficiencies with all the money funneled to the top?

A large portion of the people I've talked to over the past 5-6 years have the same sort of feelings about Blizzard games. It's no longer about balance and great game design. They're basically coasting on the reputation they had from the Starcraft / Warcraft era.

I don't think it's rose colored glasses, but neither do I think gaming industry is becoming more and more focused around ROI. AAA titles developed by large companies certainly in most cases are like that, but the gaming industry is much bigger than a few corporations releasing titles with the speed of machine gun.

There are hundreds of indie developers and I believe this is where most of the innovation can be found. In that regard it is the same as in the "good old days", before the arrival of AAA corporations.

Enterprise software has come to gaming. It'll stay for the same reason, mostly non-enthusiasts who follow trends and the occasional inspirational creation that's just not possible without a massive team and financing.

Personally, I mostly stick to indie games. After 30 years gaming it's where most of the surprises are, and I value novelty over polish in general.

> bean counters are ruining Blizzard

Side topic but having known a bunch of bean counters (accountants), they aren't the ones doing this[1], the blame lies squarely with MBA's, business schools, and the finance industry.

[1] Unlike your typical CEO, corporate accountants are in it for the long game and they also see all the shit being pulled by upper management.

It has never been a better era to be a gamer. We are looking in the wrong place. Compare gaming of our childhood with today's indie scene. And then add on top of that all the AAA selection we have.

There's such an overabundance of great games today. You just have to not focus on the wrong part.

Hearthstone has been slowly weakening the classic cards (equality 2 Mana nerf) this pushes the player into going to sets that cycle out. I think it makes it more difficult for new or returning players though, so their base will decline.

Well they need to keep things exciting and changing. Do you agree with some of the other early HS critiques that they should have never have a "classic" set so Standard (equivalent to MtG Type2) play would constantly vary?

Balance would be tough (9 classes vs. 5 colors in MtG) but Blizz could do it.

I like Kibler's rotation idea, you have classics that come in and out of play. I think Baku and Genn were kind of broken and needed the changes.

I think the biggest issue is that it is a collectible card game that isn't collectible. Hearthstone is constantly changing their cards retroactively. This means the card you paid a bunch of money for can be retroactively changed into something that is worthless.

In contrast, with a game like MTG, even banned cards can still retain a decent amount their value to collectors and casual players. You get what you pay for and it's yours forever to do with as you'd like. Why pay tons of money for ever-changing pieces of digital paper you don't even actually own?

>I don't really know if it's rose colored glasses but as a lifelong gamer it really sucks to see gaming as an industry become more and more focused around ROI rather than shipping quality games.

This isn't limited to video games, it's the logical end result of the capitalist drive for profits at the expense of everything else. Look at recent criticisms of Apple for the same idea.

I recommend https://mises.org/library/left-right-and-state-0

It mentions what you call "capitalist drive for profits" (search for junk, etc.). To sum up for you: it is the will of people, has nothing to do with the system that allows their dreams or ideas to come true, other than the fact that it allows it. What is the alternative? Destroy everything that you may think we should not have?

The monopolistic triple AAA games industry requires large hit titles to satisfy their stock holders. Whether the monetization model is MTX/cosmetics, tradition sales, or the newer subscription services, games will continue to be reduced to a lowest common denominator in order to pump user numbers. Kind of reminds me of another industry...

Electronic game dev right now is the furthest from monopoly almost any industry can be.

The big AAA developers just keep rolling out rehashes of their old games as long as the revenue exceeds developments costs. Very similar model to super hero movies. Eventually it won’t work anymore. They know it, thus the emphasis on trying to milk every last dollar out of the players.

Monopolistic? If people haven't realized now that major studios prey on gaming addiction, overprioritize "storyline" and "graphics" instead of gameplay, and recycle the same mechanics, then there is basically no hope for these people. At a certain point you just have to take responsibility and stop giving them your money.

Gaming is the farthest it has ever been from monopolized, though. The indy scene is very healthy, releasing a game on steam is so easy that the real problem is getting noticed amongst the flood of releases. It's also far easier to publish to a console than in the PS1 days.

I understand your frustration with the large studio's monetization models, but the solution is to just ignore them. I was dumb enough to buy Fallout 76, but I treated that as an object lesson: even developers I 'trust' are capable of releasing absolute trash. Plus, the backlog of interesting games on my steam wishlist meant I could have very easily put the 60 bucks into 2-3 good games that aren't trying to push lootboxes or microtransactions.

In what ways is the industry monopolistic? I can think of a couple of cases (e.g. EA and the football license), but not many.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com