The video game industry can't go on like this
kotaku.com
kotaku.com
Never before has it been so easy for someone to get their game into the hands of millions. Games like Factorio, made by people who are passionate about games. With modern distribution platforms, companies like Paradox Interactive find it viable to continue adding content to their games many years after they were released.
Couldn't give two hoots about what EA and Activision are up to. They don't make games for me.
As players, for those who care about these AAA games, it is perfectly fine too. Better than fine, it is great.
The argument of the OP is that the industry is not fine. And I think that includes indie developers. It is not an easy industry to be in. Lots of stress, uncertainty, and failure for indie developers. Take a look at how hard is to make a good game after a successful Kickstarter campaign.
If you, as a player, only care about the couple of indie games that are great and don't care what's going on behind the scenes with the thousand of indie developers that are struggling, that's fine. But that's not the point of the OP
Can't this be said of any art form, really? If you look at people who tried to make indie comics in the '90's or 'zines I guess... whatever the title you wanted to give them. Painters, failed and prominent, from the 1200's to the present who had to trudge along and get jobs in coffee shops. Art is hard and people line up to take advantage of them (I say this as an art school graduate who now sits at a computer desk because, quite frankly, it's easier to make a living with code than art and I have a family who I love more than art). To be quite blunt, the gaming industry is a multiBILLION (with a B) dollar industry built on passion and artistry (and yes, coders can be artists, as well) which is being fed upon like any art industry gets fed upon.
Edit: of course that doesn't justify the terrible conditions or the way people leverage the situation because they know these people would do this kind of work for free if they had to. I think the answer, as musicians always bring up, is friends don't let friends work for free. It's not okay to work for less than your talent is worth just because you love it.
Most art forms don't require skills that could be commanding 6-figure salaries in an easy 9-5 job. (I am, of course, speaking for the programmers here.)
Tell me, why should companies pay top dollar for that talent when people are so happy to work their asses off for less? It doesn't make any business sense.
And no, we shouldn't have any sympathy for these developers (not the ones who have easily transferable skills). They're choosing this career path out of their own free will, at a time when there's tons of very boring software jobs out there practically begging them to come to work there, and offering huge salaries and good work hours too. These people just don't want those jobs because they aren't "fun", and don't involve games.
It's really simple: you have highly-sought-after software development skills, so you can either be abused and work in a game sweatshop, or you can go to work making boring CRUD apps in a nice company where the pay is high and the stress is low. If you choose the former, I have zero sympathy for you.
You don't need a conspiracy to explain this effect.
I wish people didn't think like this
Every video game dev who's unsatisfied with being a game dev is welcome to explore other opportunities.
> Artists who work on gory cinematics integral to games like Mortal Kombat suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Is it really someone else's fault if someone chooses to work on a game like Mortal Kombat and then complains about having to create graphics like this?
Can we please introduce some agency into people's lives and stop constantly blaming society for issues?
Correction, Art is a lifelong dream, and people line up to be taken advantage of.
The video game industry CAN go on like this. Easily. For every 100 that burn out of an abusive industry, there will be 200 more waiting in line.
But hey, chin up, Microsoft just threw $1B at OpenAI to make "I am Mother" into a documentary because "we can't discount the possibility of a near-term AGI." And that's some serious #DukeNukemForever optimism IMO.
Yes, probably because it's a very competitive market (why many smaller studios have such a hard time surviving) and there are lots of people out there who are passionate about making games (why so many individuals choose to tolerate crappy work environments). Given that, I have no idea what a "solution" would even look like.
The networking code, the in-depth blog posts, even the attention to things like preserving mod contracts when introducing breaking changes. The team running Factorio is a great example of a well done gaming project.
There tends to be an automatic assumption that if you didn't succeed then you did something wrong, and that if you did succeed than you did it all right. These two things are less connected than that. There is "luck" involved here (in quotes because it's more complex than the phrase "I got lucky" implies).
To draw any kind of conclusion about whether Factorio was a success because of its execution as a gaming project, we would need to examine a range of other games, successful and unsuccessful, to see how well they executed and whether that caused a matching amount of success.
I'm have more admiration for the fact that they don't have sales. The only way to get a discount is to use a third party discount system like humble monthly.
Sale (people selling stuff): "forza vendite"
sale (discount): "sconto"
Also, not related, but another interesting example:
"free" (open): "aperto"
"free" (price is zero): "gratuito", "gratis"
Doesn't mean that Italian is superior to English. Simply means that in certain languages, words are ambiguous where in others they are not.
> In this 2019 GDC talk, independent developer Jason Rohrer digs into the financial data behind the 2014-2018 "indiepocalypse" to help indie devs figure out how not to waste four years of their life on the next high-profile flop.
(Though this might also be subject to survivor bias, probably a hopeful talk on it had a better chance of getting selected for GDC)
Also for other types of ventures it's easier to get bootstrap funding. And you can get to cash flow or fail faster. Etc.
It sort of reminds me of the music industry. I used to DJ in a college radio station, and remember the boxes upon boxes of dreck we used to get from record labels. For every successful pop-band, rapper, alt-rock, or electronic-music act you can think of there are dozens of dullard derivative wannabe copycats who utterly lack the imagination to put out something novel and stimulating.
I think the same dynamic applies to computer games. The good news is that the truly innovative stuff will never die, regardless of how many AAAA games flop. People want to do this stuff. It's OK if most fail, it's OK if most can't make a living out of it.
Most people who jump into indie development are gamers themselves, and as gamers their product ideas are not always possible even with years of full time solo development. Realistically what one person with 2 years savings can make is very very small.
So it is a pipe dream. After spending some years in corporate hating it, thinking about your game designs every night, you have the capital, you have the motivation, you jump, and you sink. It's very sad.
This kind of depends on your expectations. I knew a guy who spent more than a year recording a single song. He poured hundred of hours into this, and he did the entire thing: vocals, every instrument, the mixing, everything. It was a labor of love for him, and the result sounded as good as anything on Spotify, at least to my untrained ear.
On the other hand, you have people pumping out soundtracks for their podcast every couple of weeks, using nothing more than GarageBand and a bunch of samples. A lot of these are good enough for people to purchase, too.
Same thing with game dev. You can spend years of your life, and/or thousands of dollars, tweaking Unity and developing game assets. On the other hand, Dong Nguyen developed Flappy Birds in three days.
> Most people who jump into indie development are gamers themselves, and as gamers their product ideas are not always possible even with years of full time solo development.
Business sense trumps passion here. You're right, it's totally unrealistic to expect one guy sitting in his apartment to pump out the next Breath of the Wild. But you could produce a reasonable Candy Crush type game in a few days, and polish it in a few weeks, probably even working nights and weekends.
Most people who make games aren't trying to make connect3-like games, but rather something more fun/interesting. There isn't much point competing with medium to large studios that churn out games like candy crush anyway.
Stardew Valley, a 2D pixel art farming rpg-lite, was made over the course of ~4 years, by a solo developer who learned how to program in the process.
Undertale, a 2d pixel rpg-like, took ~2.7 years to make according to Toby Fox, the sole developer afaik.
Terraria 1.0, a 2d pixel art mining/building/fighting game, was made by a small team over ~4-5 months. After ~7 months, 1.1. After another ~9 months, 1.2. (They were big content updates).
Starbound, a 2d pixel art mining/building/fighting game, took ~1.5-2 years and launched in beta, with a small team.
Cuphead took 7 years with two brothers and a part time animator iirc, because they were absolute madmen and wanted to make a game with 60fps watercolor animation. Did they end up making a lot of money? probably, but that was quite the gamble.
Making games is tough when you consider it can require programming, storywriting, composing music, designing art, etc. And that's not including the business/marketing side. It -is- true that a lot of beginner indie devs spend way too much time polishing their games and end up not publishing them, but that doesn't mean compelling games are necessarily easy to make.
It seems to me that the parent comment blithely assumes most indie devs are trying to make games solely to earn income. A lot of indie devs are trying to make games they wish existed or just seem like a cool/fun idea that other people might be interested in, too. SWORDY is one such indie game that doesn't seem like it was thought up purely to earn cash, Gang Beasts* is another, and so on.
* Gang Beasts is actually made by Doublefine Studios but it sure feels like an indie game.
I don't think that's true. There are a lot of games out there that are small single-person side projects and are interesting and fun. You don't need to quit your job to make a marketable game unless you're targeting a market with much higher expectations than you're likely to be able to deliver.
It's like if you've got a garage band, but instead of playing at house parties and dive bars you mortgage your house for a bunch of expensive lightshow kit and a tour bus or something.
I keep talking to indie game devs about Lean, basically telling them to identify the core hook in their game and develop a minimal version of this that they can test on an audience with, and then grow from there. I point to Minecraft, that did exactly this.
They never get it. They always think the game has to be complete and perfect before anyone will like it. They never playtest until they're waaaaay down the line with the game, and then usually get defensive if the testers don't like it or understand it.
It's exactly the same as startup. Build an MVP, get it in front of people, adapt it using their feedback, and you have a better chance of building something that people want. Time for the games industry to start doing the same.
The economics are just really, really bad. It's not just all the competition driving prices down so low that people will literally consider the price of a coffee to be too much to pay for several hours of entertainment. It's not just that a musician can hold down a day job and do what they love on evenings and weekends. It's also that the the potential payoff on your invested time is really, really crappy. To become a musician, you have to practice a lot when you're a kid, but, once you're there, the time it takes to produce new work is really quite low, especially considering how much replayability it has, especially if you're mostly playing standards and other traditional stuff. And, if people like it, they'll come see you perform it repeatedly.
Indie games, no matter how much I liked that game, I'm gonna play it once, and then, if you want me to be your audience again, you've got to basically go back to square one and start over.
This is true, and describes one of the huge failings of the music industry. But there's more. At the same time the record labels are pumping out this dreck, there are plenty of truly fantastic artists that just aren't getting lucky. Even those that make it to what they believe is the holy grail - a record contract - aren't getting a real break because they're hard to find in the rest of the crap.
I'm a developer in real life, but a serious photography amateur as a hobby. I happen to have fallen into a lot of music stuff, being the official photographer for an annual musical in my town, and some other stuff. I've developed relationships with a bunch of musicians through this. A few that are clearly a cut above the rest have gotten signed (and I think the labels have shown pretty good judgment at this level). But even of these, I haven't seen anybody break through into real success.
One band whose album actually charted recently called it quits because they couldn't sustain it with the day jobs necessary to survive. Another guy quit his job to pursue music full time. But what supports him (and his family) is primarily sales of his paintings, plus a little income from merch and "house concerts".
I think that the awfulness of the industry is part of the problem. But it's also that we've got an embarrassment of riches. The ability to make music - and to record it professionally - is within the reach of nearly anyone who has that dream. So it's become too competitive, and the available choices for consumers is too large to cut through the noise effectively. This is where the failures of the industry hit, I think - their business model is geared toward finding the next giant star, rather than serving an incredibly diverse range of tastes, helping each of us find what we'd individually prefer.
I think this right here is the key. Game development takes forever, especially if you're starting from scratch. Shovel Knight took 2 years to make, and that was a seasoned team with lots of professional game dev experience between them.
Compare that to another typical business venture that people with limited experience might to go out on a limb with, like opening a bar/restaurant. You can go from concept to having butts in seats in way less time than that. You'll have an idea about how well you're doing early, and it's also something you'll be able to iterate on to improve and keep working at for little additional cost.
If your game goes out the door and is a dud, though, you're kind of fucked. If it has "good bones" you can put in some extra work and get it to good, like "No Man's Sky" or "Warframe" managed to do. But if it's just fundamentally not very fun, then you're back to square one. You can't even sell your codebase and recoup some of the sunk-cost the way you could sell your space and decor.
Hollywood used to come up with tons of original IP. One of the problems is that we just don't really have many "B movies" anymore. It's either AAA or not worth bothering with. They used to front a decent amount of cash towards experimental stuff in the hopes that one of the bets would take off. Nowadays you'll be lucky to pull that off unless you have an EXTREMELY bankable name, like Chris Nolan, who has enough of a following to get some money down.
So it is with gaming. Not much in the way of "B games" out of the major studios. They seem to put all their eggs in a few baskets and hope for the best.
FWIW though, after reading "Blood, Sweat, and Pixels" I'm starting to feel like where the real innovation needs to happen is in the toolkits around making the games. Seems like tons of work goes into just setting things up to where you can start doing work that's recognizably related to a final product.
The only "big studio" I pay any attention to is Nintendo, because they make games like a midsize to indie firm: Fun gameplay
Otherwise, I think all of the things a "big studio" does now, primarily the backend for online and p2p services is going to have it's open source / platform killer app soon. Valve almost did it with HL/Garry's Mod/ etc but they've stalled out recently.
Whomever develops a truly plug and play infrastructure module, handling networking, server config, deployment, etc will own a big boat by 2029.
As will the guy who figures out distributed PnP microtransactions.
AI and ML will likely be capable of full service character design and modeling in the next 5 years.
So things will change, and democratize like almost all of the rest of tech has as things become less human capital intensive.
Zelda's looking good between BotW and an upcoming remake of a relatively-small and especially old game, Fire Emblem has something that looks like an interesting shift coming up, and Metroid... well, Metroid's been a mixed bag since Other M, but if they were willing to scrap and start over on Prime 4 then there's room to hope. So it's not all bad.
Pokemon not making the jump to a real time open world is disappointing. But I suspect they'll do it for the next generation. Now that the consumer is finally feeling burnt out on when they're offering.
They probably didn't think they could get open world right this go around.
My one big hangup is that they're so reluctant to develop a proper, system agnostic platform for their retro content. If they weren't the sworn enemy of emulator developers, I could see them in-housing a few to jumpstart the retro platform. But they won't. Though Disney got it's ass into gear about opening up the vault, so maybe Nintendo will too.
I'm certainly not upset that Mario Kart 8 plays basically the same as the old SNES Mario Kart.
Mario Kart is an example of that: Nintendo is perfectly willing to make more-of-the-same for Mario Kart, but when asked in interviews about the possibility of a new F-Zero, the answer has generally been "we don't want to just release more of the same, we want to come up with some new twist on it". It's not about novelty (or if it is, their standards for novelty are inconsistent), it's about one being a cash cow and the other not.
I used to game...a lot... constantly. But times have changed and a career, family, and I now play with my kids.
I'm quite happy to just be limited to the Nintendo Switch and for the most part Nintendo first party games, and some indie games.
I don't even know if old devs and gaming companies I used to follow religiously are any good anymore, or exist. The gaming news outlets stink at providing information that isn't a hype train about what is next... that I can't play now.. and if you're not reading them all the time so I'm just out of the loop.
Meanwhile Nintendo does a pretty good job telling me what is up in their ecosystem...
Granted that was a long long time ago, but it sort of exemplified why I quit reading those sites.
Hundreds of hours vs. maybe a dozen in games that might actually need that power.
The only game I've found in the past few years that made me really feel like I did when I was 8-17 is Divinity Original Sin 2. It's Baldur's Gate, but honestly better (BG hasn't aged amazingly if you really go back and play it. It's good, but we've learned a lot in 20 years). And the multiplayer is amazing, and lets you feel like you're playing AD&D with friends.
There are wonderful games being made and I even found new titles to call my favorites as the years go by. I do not at all believe games are getting worse.
That being said, there are a lot more games now and there's less hard curation, and some genres have shifted (RTS and classic style MMORPGs are both dormant atm).
The Talos Principle — Basically Portal but... different. Physics, timing, & world-affecting-zappy-device puzzles. No actual portals but it's pretty similar. A "there's more going on" story. Quite good.
The Witness — Myst-like I guess? In that you're exploring an island and solving puzzles and piecing together a story, kinda. But the puzzles are all variations on one sort. Elements get added, things get weird, lateral thinking becomes necessary. It's good.
Edit: Just bought Talos for the PS4! Once again, thanks! When I'm done with it, I'll check out Witness.
Has there ever been a time of the "promise of a game I will actually enjoy"?
Back in the day all you had was rare magazine articles, and one wall of a Toys R Us with flaps consisting of the front of the box on one side and the back of the box on the other.
I'm not sure I see that as preferable to the modern situation.
It does show in the production values, you don't get the same level of polish in the artwork, presentation and quantity of content. But it also shows in the creativeness of many titles, which you just don't get from big studios.
* A theme park MMO they've been milking for years, World of Warcraft.
* A space theme RTS, SC2. If you're not into sci-fi, it ain't good, and to be honest for me the RTS genre is dead (I'm too old and it isn't cooperative enough).
* A coop FPS with loot boxes, Overwatch.
* A P2W (pay 2 win) CCG, Hearthstone.
* A failed MOBA, called Heroes of the Storm.
With the latest developments being:
* A reskin on SC, for kids. Already existed from what I heard.
* A reskin of an existing game, Diablo mobile. Fanbase of Diablo isn't waiting for this. They want Diablo 4.
* A refurbish on Warcraft 3 with higher quality graphics coming end of year. The playerbase wants Warcraft 4, and are wondering why they need to pay for a game they already paid for.
Furthermore they had their best profit year last year, yet they laid off tons of staff. Nah, I'm not betting money on Blizzard.
I want Blizzard to do well. They proved in the past they were able to make quality games for a fair price. At this point, I don't believe they will. Not anymore.
Diablo 3 at release was disappointing. Titan was cancelled. Warcraft and Diablo fanbase sorely desire not new content for their current games but a new, innovative game (the Diablo Mobile game is not that, nor are the WoW bandaid). My observation is that people want Diablo 4, World of Warcraft 2, Warcraft 4. They're not getting anything remotely like that.
Consider the Warcraft movie. It was only good enough for the die-hard fans.
The problem with many RTS games from a longevity standpoint is that most RTS fans do find them at some point, they play through the single player campaign, and multiplayer is either stagnant/busted/a mere shadow of the actual singleplayer campaign/has lousy game cycle/no useful replay system. I feel like too many of the recent generation of RTS games have fallen down these paths. People always need to keep in mind when thinking about SCR/BW one of the tricks to making it competitive was running the game on the fastest speed to make it interesting and fix the game cycle. Most of the newer RTS's often do not expose such interesting knobs to help find the competitive mode in the stock game, or are missing map editors and other tools to help create new content for a game and fix perceived problems for multiplayer within the confines of the shipped game.
The reason MOBA games are popular is because they fix these issues by being a team game (very easy to play with a group of friends, and if you are not good or having a bad day, you can lean on your teammates to pick up the slack), and reducing your general focus to managing 1 hero (obviously, MOBAs have many layers and systems that make them more complicated, but at anytime you just need to focus on one hero).
You comment that in RTS 1v1 and if you are having an off day you are going to keep losing. That's true, but I find MOBA worse in overall enjoyment if you keep losing. I don't mind losing 1v1 and can stop anytime because it's just me. With a MOBA one player playing exceptionally rarely pulls the odds in your favour where one player playing exceptionally poorly swings the game entirely in the other direction. You are actively incentivized to not abandon the game (socially and mechanically) so even if a game starts going south you can't just reset the pieces on the board and start again. If I am playing an RTS I can just gg out at any time without causing a problem, with a MOBA I'm stuck with one or more player's bad decisions for the entirety of the game which could stretch to 50 minutes or more. I also find that unless you 5-man it's really a terrible experience for hours in/enjoyment out. This is more a criticism of the current generation of MOBAs than anything. As a team game there are other kinds of games others can carry the game harder in competition and make up for a player's skill/bad streak (MMO, FPS). MOBAs also don't really have any lack of complexity in being successful it just is mostly an exchange of active skills for passive/booklearned skills so it is my opinion that it is not a good defining line between the two since if you take the net skill(active+passive) from both I find most RTS and MOBAs to be comparably equivalent levels of complexity.
I would rather lose a 100 times and be responsible for 100% of it than lose 5 times and be responsible for 15% of it but be hitched to the burning wagon the entire time it falls off the cliff (and have little agency in stopping it). I do agree that there is a certain kind of player that can't handle losing 100 times in a row and learning from their mistakes, and that's probably why there are less RTS games recently than there used to be.
I totally agree about the 'being able to play again at will' part. That's what drove me away from LoL when I tried it-it was my very first game, I wanted to walk away, and the interface told me I was hurting the community by leaving early. I took the hint and decided to quit playing entirely. I don't want that kind of responsibility-the whole point of a hobby is that there aren't consequences for failure (or at least I've seen it formulated as such.)
[1] Well, one huge hit
11.
I had no idea they did more than 2.
When do you stop beating a dead horse?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Kombat_11
"Mortal Kombat 11 proceeded to be the best selling video game software in North America for the following month of May, for both Xbox One and PlayStation 4. The sales of the game is nearly doubled comparably to previous entries of the series."
Do some people genuinely find these things really enjoyable?
I see your point, but Mortal Kombat is not really the best example of a cash-cow franchise that keeps selling the same game over and over. The successive games in this series have huge differences, especially since the reboot a few years back. If you like this style of fighting games, there are plenty of reasons to buy the latest version every few years.
FIFA on the other hand is terrible in this regard. I can say with confidence because I've been buying each entry since FIFA'09, and while there have been a few major changes in 10 years that are worthwhile improvements, you are indeed more or less buying the same game every year. I sometimes wonder why I even keep doing it, I guess it's just because it's become a tradition I cannot get away from, getting the game on release date and inviting my brother to play it until deep in the night.
Probably well worth the cost just to spend the time with your brother. I wish I lived close enough to my brother to do a yearly video game night with him--and wouldn't care what the video game was or how much it cost (within sane reason of course).
Yes. Why is it difficult to understand that other people can like things that you don't like? Is your ego truly so ingrained you can't even imagine the experiences of someone just a little bit different from you?
There are much worse ways to spend your money, ie cigarettes.
> Do some people genuinely find these things really enjoyable?
Of course. But come on, you can't possibly be seriously asking this.
GP knows people buy games that interest them. In my family we buy select indie games and select AAAs just like everyone else.
Is it the fact that these things are a 'common denominator' and as such are a 'neutral' choice of something to enjoy with friends that may have otherwise diverse interests? Or do people genuinely prefer these things, even if they were the only person left on Earth?
It's fast food of entertainment. A composition optimized to appeal to senses, even though it's of questionable nutritional value. I think it's fine from time to time.
Nostalgia is also a big factor, with so many reboots and adaptations of source material to new media, today's adults will pay to see all the Marvel blockbusters because they read the comics or saw the TV show as kids. I'd bet many people that bought MK9 - which rebooted the saga - did it for nostalgia. The same probably happened with the new Tomb Raiders, also a reboot of the series. Have you heard of the new The Lion King? Or Dumbo? Or Aladdin? Or any of the 500 new remakes Disney wants to make? Same thing.
I am lucky enough to not care about spending $60 per year on a single video game. So yeah, I will happily do it and play with my friends for a year. But is it honestly worth it? I can list feature breaking bugs that have been in the game for 3+ years, never touched. I can list features which got broken by new features, never fixed, for years. Considering how much money the product makes, for me it just shows what matters for EA.
And EA's focus seem to be solely Ultimate team, on making sure that they will resell the same shitty game with minimal improvement and people will spend buttloads of money on packs, which they have to do from scratch every year (Personally I do not touch microtransactions, too easy to pay few bucks here and there and this is never worth it in the long run). (IMO the fact that they release new version every year shows how predatory their business model is)
So yeah, you can find some enjoyment out of it, but I would say that in case of FIFA it is despite EAs best efforts.
And re MK11, I do not beleive it is released every year. I think the first 4 games were came out in quick(ish) succession, than it was quiet for few years, than several others...? So it's a different case from 'I'm a footbal fan and this way I can play with my current team'
I don't blame this mentality – it's the kind of loyalty that creative and loved stories naturally engender. It's really hard to imagine Super Smash Bros. having a fraction of its appeal if it had the same mechanics but completely new non-Nintendo characters. Or even the original Super Mario Kart for that matter.
Pro tip: it's not the same people. You can buy XX on game console XYZ and buy XX3 on game console XYZ2 3 years later.
Just like cars, cameras or PC parts, they're release every year but almost no one buys the new version at release.
I imagine the competitive aspect holds water for FIFA as well.
I played MK2 and MK3 on the arcade back in the days. Looked it up, there were 2 years between those 2 versions (1993 and 1995). MK3 and MK4 I also played on PC, and MK4 is from 1997 (2 years again after MK3). So yeah, back in the 90s there were 2 years between each MK2/3/4. And MK (MK1) was from 1992...
I used to buy Call of Duty every year. I love playing FPS games, and getting the newest game meant new guns, new maps, and just new ways to enjoy an FPS. Sure, you could argue that it is just a reskin, but I really enjoy playing FPS games and I'm okay with paying the retail price.
It baffles me that you are gatekeeping the concept of fun.
Well it's not like there hasn't been any changes between Mortal Kombat and Mortal Kombat 11. If you developed original IP that continued to be popular after decades, would you toss it in the garbage on some principle of "being original"? They continue to innovate.
it also works backwards: since everyone moves to the latest and greatest, the community evaporates when a new version comes out: nobody still plays street fighter (version - 1) basically as soon as the latest comes out, as tournaments pick it up (=> you need to learn it)
the one dark horse was smash, which had insane longevity but nintendo didn't want that IP associated with the fighting game community/streams for a long while - not sure what current state is
The "masses" go consume what they are told to. The (n)th remake of some series is about to come up, the marketing ramps up, adverts, product placement, discussions, reviews, interviews. It all drives demand.
Do you really not notice this? Even if it is a "here we go again, groundhog day" type of noticing?
People (on the whole - in before 'not me I spent hours searching / reviewing my next purchase') don't put effort into their consumption, they just buy / spend how they are told. Why do you think advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry.
>Do you really not notice this? Even if it is a "here we go again, groundhog day" type of noticing?
Except not all titles are like this. Smash Bros., Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat are not franchise re-skins. There are major balance updates, character updates, game mode updates, and sometimes an entirely new mechanic to address balance issues.
Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars was the predecessor to Rocket League, but they don't play alike at all.
World of Warcraft is on it's 8th iteration. No matter if you like the the current version, each expansion brings lots of new content, balance, and class overhauls.
Are they worth it? Some people say no. Are they Madden-like re-skins? Definitely not.
Thankfully us enlightened folk aren't interested in anything mainstream!
>Why do you think advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Is your implication that only garbage products sold to the "masses" advertise?
That's not the logical corollary to the parent's statement; it's that some of the sellers of non-garbage products are interested in having "the masses" buying their stuff too.
Bad art, derivative art, and boring art are all still art. Those terrible paintings in hotel rooms and office lobbies still had to be created by someone. There's always a complex balance between the creative expression vs business side of art (especially in something like film or music).
Some people just genuinely like "safe" or "boring" art, be it music, games or films.
If they had just release MK1 11 times then sure, you could class that as "beating a dead horse".
But that is ignoring the fact that these games evolve. Sure 1 to 2 might not be a huge step or evolution, but 1 to 11? To assume they are the same is ridiculous.
That said, I don't consume many AAA-titles, I think game developer conferences are boring because they are 98% marketing vehicles and I just look up some streamers to get to the good stuff.
Factorio just offers more than call of mortal combat fantasy 85. If this market and especially the mobile segment has problems, I wouldn't really mind.
Sure, there are indie developers with good games that will feel this fragmentation. But I don't think anything can be done about it. Developing games is just a popular idea right now.
Since gamers started to finance development themselves, the result has mostly been awesome.
They're on payroll too now...
The indie portion of the games industry that will be 'perfectly fine' is a tiny fraction of the overall landscape. It's wonderful to live in an age where independent games projects can flourish, but the vast majority of people involved in the industry are going to be working in gruelling conditions on AAA titles that are largely responsible for the enormous growth the industry is seeing.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on firm sizes or game budgets.
https://youtu.be/5svAoQ7D38k?t=48 (strong profanity)
I'm sure there's plenty that didn't make it too.
I think I spent 200$ in 3 years of modern Gaming.
Consoles and AAA Games are all advertising/marketing.
It's about the reduction of single player games, nevermind it's about the the move to cloud gaming, surprise it's about Google's data center energy production, just kidding it about developer work environments, nope just the environment.
The Gizmodo media group, including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Splinter, The Root, Kotaku, Earther, and Jalopnik, were all bought for $135 million in 2016 and were recently purchased again for "much less" [0]. A generous assumption is that Kotaku is worth around $15 million back then and around $8 million now.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/08/great-hill-partners-acquir...
I think the issue with gaming "journalism" is that it's supposed to be for the consumers so that they can do informed purchases, but since it's ad-funded by the industry they are reporting on, it tends to become a corporate mouth-piece.
That particular publication also tends to be the electric bug zapper for a lot of chuds, so there's a lot of misinformation out there.
What's that mean?
This article kinda sucks, but the groups taking shots at Kotaku/Polygon/etc. at this point tend towards a default-chud stance.
I think it's fair to watch the watchmen. Journalists and outside observers shouldn't be demonized for being critical of media, and likewise people shouldn't be demonized for being critical of journalists who err in their duty in some way.
Too bad they tend to make more noise than those who criticize Kotaku/Polygon/RPS/etc. for reviews for friends. Hum I suspect the journalists are even happy that their loudest critics are besides the point.
The single player game was 'dead' because video game companies decided they were dead, not because of any market forces. They realized that games with multiplayer features sold a bit better, so they decided to focus on those, to the point of (mostly) abandoning single player games.
Big publishers decided to make fewer, bigger games. But indies (and other mid-tier devs) filled a huge market gap (Kickstarter, anyone?), so nothing really changed much.
https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-explains-assassin-s-creed-odyssey...
For instance, you could buy things like XP boosters, unique-appearance gear, map unlocks, etc. Though if I remember correctly, you could pretty easily use Cheat Engine to give yourself as much of the microtransaction currency as you wanted—after all, it was a single-player game.
yongyea and jim sterling disagree
dont know about whatever gamespot/ign have been saying but they're becoming irrelevant
I used to stay on top of new games and at least try all the top grossers, but as time went on I started playing fewer and fewer ones because of a lot of factors.
Less time in general, and I’m also more demanding, meaning I’ll skip obviously sub-par ones since I’ve already tried ones like them didn’t enjoy it. And my tasted have sharpened - I know better beforehand what I would like exploring.
So yeah all in all I think instead of partying hard and drinking whole bottles of cheap vodka, I know prefer a glass of good brandy in agreeable company now and then. To be honest I think its a good thing.
Sadly this brings also single player games which could be be easily offline, but they need access to server anyway.
1. Keeping up with latest technology (graphics) is important for games, as those create the first impression. It is difficult to market a game built on outdated technology.
2. The above means that making games gets more and more expensive, probably faster than the market expands (if it is still expanding).
3. Multiplayer games are more profitable than single-player games.
This means that getting funding to make a single-player game gets more difficult, as it may provide a very poor return on investment, if at all. Only exceptions are low-risk existing franchises, which is why we mostly see those in the single-player scene. The original Deus Ex, System Shock 2 or even Metal Gear Solid would be nearly impossible today as those projects would be considered to be too high risk / low reward.
This only applies to some genres. There's a whole category or games trying to replicate retro feel. Cadence of Hyrule could come out at least 5 years ago. (reskinned necrodancer with new mechanics) Same for crosscode.
Another category are games where the impression comes from esthetics, not from tech improvement: Ori and blind forest, Hollow Knight, Rayman, ...
Then on an intersection of that are things like Katana zero. Sure, most fps games will chug as much power out of GPUs as possible, but that's not the whole world.
3. Its harder to pirate multiplayer games than single player only, thats why they ditched them.
I don't think single player games are high risk / low reward but the games industry is defiantly laser focused on high risk / unrealistic rewards.
Pretty is a design choice (or should be). Minecraft's low resolution works well with people who appreciate low resolution worlds, aka kids. Minecraft's true genius, intended or not, is being a game that grows up with the kid as they play.
You start off singleplayer by yourself just getting by in survival mode and you end up building massive city sized projects in multiplayer learning to co-operate on a grand scale. That learning process can cover 5yr old to 16yr olds.
Photoreal is going to become cheaper and cheaper so making an artist aesthetic is going to be more important for standing out than 'better' graphics.
Who says piracy is a victimless crime?
The first Denuvo game was in 2014, more than a decade after the trend towards multiplayer games got rolling.
> Except that the duration during which the game stay protected doesn't seem to have any impact on the sales.
The game publishers who continue to pay to use Denuvo indicate otherwise. In a hit-or-miss industry like video games, publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money.
I could say that the game publishers who continue to release games without additional protections indicate exactly this, as publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money. That doesn’t seem like a good argument, does it?
The only reason, at least the one I could think of, why some publishers still push aggressive DRMs into their products is that someone is selling them this solution and management believes that they protect themselves from “bad pirates”.
If someone wants to buy the game, he will buy it. If someone wants to pirate it, he will do just that. The only 100% working way around it are multiplayer games.
The other almost as successful method seem to be just making good games, as Nintendo, From Software, CD Projekt etc show again and again.
The story of the Bandersnatch game is the basis of the Black Mirror episode of the same name. The writer, Charlie Brooker, is a big gaming fan.
I'm not sure we would ever see anything like that again. The fact of the matter is that the big names like EA and Ubisoft make boatloads of money and aren't in danger of losing it. Mass appeal games and the audiences they cater to are surprisingly un-finicky
>Esports is a phenomenon brought on by the introduction of the internet, it does not have to be run the same way that professional sports operate. Many professional sports do not expect to fill a stadium. 99% of our audience is online and prefer to sit in their rooms on their PCs so lets please focus our resources on improving the broadcast and player/talent treatment. Too many irresponsible “businessmen” have latched on to esports over the past couple of years and have convinced billionaires that they are sitting on top of a golden egg. Yes esports is new, yes it is exciting to be at the front of an emerging industry but you are setting everyone else who is to follow up for failure by creating unrealistic standards and expectations.
>The [e-sports] audience is not going to grow immensely, let’s build sustainable events so we can continue to enjoy the game we love so much.
I think if investor expectations are not well-managed, this is going to cause an e-sports 'winter' if you will. If this happens, it's definitely going to affect some major game-changing genres like MOBAs and some FPSs. I genuinely feel like it could cause a huge stumble for AAA companies.
The examples given were UK companies who had a thriving industry at the time, the video game crash was mostly an American thing. The globalization of the industry has been important to it's success.
Bandersnatch eventually came out from Psygnosis, Psyclapse was, IIRC, total vapourware - just an advert.
I can only hope shovelware EA et al go the same way. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Video_ga...
The game industry is probably in better health than book publishing, music, film or TV. For consumer the plethora of things available has never been greater.
[1] Mobile seems to be the fastest growing segment and it’s dominated by gambling and psychologically manipulative micro transactions.
I'm perfectly happy to pay a one-time price for a fun game that includes all content and is playable offline. Unfortunately they seem to be in rather short supply.
When that stuff gets banned, revenue will tank and any developer completely reliant on that will be in big trouble.
Ultima IV had a street price of $50-55; in 1985. That's ~$130 in 2019. Teams were far far smaller then. Of course a "successful" game was also a far different standard; as within 4 years of release it had sold only 400,000 copies; despite being a pretty great game.
Whenever people talk about how expensive games are I feel very very old, because games (and the systems) used to actually be expensive.
The C64 was an amazing budget system, and was originally $595. That's like $1600 today. Yes it was a "computer" as well, but people balk at the price of $300 systems today and call $1000 computers too expensive.
Ultima IV was about as big-budget as a video game got. Here are the credits for the DOS version: https://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/ultima-iv-quest-of-the-av...
19 people, total, for the original development and production on the Apple II version, plus the PC, Atari and Amiga ports.
Still it was much smaller. Witcher 3 dev team is about 250.
The $60 soft-cap makes sense. That is normally for the core game- Skyrim had three official add-ons, I think $5 each. Game developers have created bad reputations for themselves- you expect new games to be sold unfinished requiring huge updates right after release and to still be buggy for months afterwards. I tried Assassins Creed but within the first week I had multiple ~10GB updates, never made it further than the first 10 minutes of the game. Micro-transactions and in-game advertising are probably subconsciously factored into a games prices by customers now. I stopped buying EA games because every loading screen or background object had "EA" written on it (golf). $60 used to be the purchase price of a disc you bought and you owned the game, pop it in and it works. $60 is now the price for a download link to "rent" the game until the publisher or host decides to no longer keep it up and running.
I hate "cloud" gaming. Friday night at 8pm and you decide to play some videos- forced 12GB update means the game will be ready to play sometime Monday morning, assuming the update didn't mess things up. If your Internet is down, sorry, can't play the games you bought and downloaded.
Of course customers aren't going to spend more than $60 for a broken buggy game filled with ads that they don't truly own. Bethesda had moved on from Skyrim but fans have not. (Hopefully TES6 stays similar to the series) 8 years after release people are still playing the game. New mods and full add-ons created by fans are still coming out. The market is there for quality single-player games.
I stopped reading when the article started talking about energy.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[1] EDIT: Total electricity usage(for both industry AND commercial/residential) is actually a big contributor to GHG's still, but it's declining and a lot of things, like the reply points out, contribute to it, chiefly things like air conditioning and heating during the winter.
But it is still probably a win over retail distribution.
The point that the traditional games publishing model is bad for profits holds, but the point about environmentalism is ridiculous.
First, high environmental impact would mean nothing for the ability for the GaasS models to draw a profit.
Secondly, GaaS should actually be good for the environment. The alternative to computing in data centers is computing in personal computers and consoles, which leads to worse environmental outcomes both in the hardware itself and in their lower efficiency. Besides, computing in data centers leads to more opportunities for efficiency since redundant computations among different devices and users can be parallelized.
The main environmental impact here is one the author completely misses: the energy required for the bandwidth of streaming videos.
PUE is a measure of efficiency for the data centre itself — how much power is going into computing vs the data centre. It says nothing about the efficiency of the hardware itself, which can easily beat the efficiency of consumer hardware by enough of a margin that it burns overall less energy.
One obvious place for such savings is storage — there's no reason you need a separate copy of a game for each compute node that's running it!
Then they run into the problem of e-waste, which is precisely the sort of thing that cloud-based/streaming consoles would actually make better!
> When you adjust for inflation, the retail cost of video games has never been cheaper, and it’s been this way for some time. The $60 price point for a standard big-budget release has held steady for nearly 15 years...
I guess the constantly growing addressable market just doesn't matter? The human cost has nothing to do with price points or gamer expectations and everything to do with supply and demand. Lots of people want to make games. Developers/publishers take advantage.
> you’ll get a stark—if unscientific—picture of how each big publisher’s release slate has thinned out in the last five years, relying on recurring cash cows like sports games and annualized franchises and little else. In 2008, those three publishers released 98 games; in 2018 they released just 28, not including expansions.
Yeah, because the big publishers _aren't needed_. The tooling a platform like Steam provides has made it much easier to self-publish, or use a small-time publisher instead - your game doesn't need to be on retail shelves to be successful anymore, there's tons of free marking channels available today, all of which combine to make publishers less necessary.
> The foremost takeaway is that while data centers are growing in number, their energy consumption is starting to plateau out of necessity, as the dramatic increase in cloud computing has actually forced tech companies to become more efficient.
This has literally nothing to do with gaming or its sustainability. As the computing/electronics industry moves in more efficient or green directions, gaming hardware (not even the game industry) will follow.
There's problems with the game industry - gambling mechanics, exploitation of "whales", discovery/marketing/shovelwear, how to handle growing international audiences, and so on, but I don't see any of these mentioned in the article.
Obviously that is just my personal opinion, but despite games getting more graphically impressive they have been getting worse overall.
Like hearing a 4-year old talk about philosophy.
Funny thing is to the industry is doubling down on graphics graphics graphics. But damn it if I'm the only one who thinks they're just not fun anymore. I mean have you guys tried Anthem? It's awful.
Where is the goofiness that is battle toads. The narrative that is FFVI. The precision that is a flight sim. There are obviously exceptions and some amazing games. (Witcher III, BOTW, anything Mario, Stardew) But it feels like the big publishers still think it's 2003.
The indie scene, man. I've been following Failbetter Games, and they've got so much narrative over three games that are essentially about exploring a big crazy world and all the people living in it, fully fleshing out the people you meet, their pasts and presents, and what their lives say about the world they live in.
I've never been so mildly horrified with my own unintended consequences and revelations in that 'world' since I dropped the companion cube into the incinerator in Portal.
For me, dropping the companion cube just meant that the door opened and I could continue to move forward.
Its likely will look like self-contained web games, utilizing WebGL+WebAssembly and procedurally generated assets on the client side. It would be powered by ads, microtransactions and donations, without "sale" or "subscription" paradigm - just load the webpage and play.
Gaming is a huge market, there is room for lots of niches, and the quality of even a typical native indie game is way way above what a browser is capable of delivering.
Show me even one web game that is close to the quality of a mediocre graphics, reasonably expansive indie game
The web sucks horribly as a platform if you care about performance, which even relatively low power indie games do.
So, not actually for free.
I read that HZD has made a profit (after development and marketing costs) of over $300m, having sold 10m copies.
Finally played an Assassins Creed game this year. Microtransactioned to death. Never buying one of those again.
Right, but, isn't that ok? I don't want to go FIFA on games like Sekiro. I like it better when a team is given 3-5 years to churn out a dank single player experience.
People have been banging on about this for quite some time. One would figure that someone would put together a team that isn't toxic, then succeed. There must be some kind of outside force which makes the whole industry toxic. Probably the same market pressures which turn people into frenemies in other media industries.
Along with sheer sales volume, digital distribution has lowered publishing costs, created after-markets for DLC, and reduced the secondary market. Digital distribution also allows for much greater price elasticity.
If anything, you could argue that digital publishers like Steam, PlayStation Store, etc, should lower their cut, but it seems like that's starting to happen on the PC with increased competition in the space from Epic, Origin, etc.
I think the real problem with the industry is that video games are a hit business where a handful of games make almost all the profit. The best way to profit in a space like this is to crank out content as cheaply as possible.
This is evidenced by the fact that game developers have been working crunch since back in the 90s when a $50 game was worth $80 in 2018 dollars.
Edit: Why not comment instead of censoring with downvotes?
Also, as you point out, inflation has gone up so that accounts in part why the unit price has not changed much.
Even taking all that into account, perhaps it still doesn't justify the price they sell at. In that case, they may be selling it much higher than they need to because they can. People still buy games prices at $60.
In what way? The code and art/music/voice/story assets are custom for each game; the only thing that might be shareable is the engine.
How many phones, laptops, tvs, desktop pcs, consoles, music devices, cameras and other related devices have you stopped using lets say past 10 years? How many have you recycled?
The single-player game is very sustainable. It's just not as lucrative unless you double-down on in-game monetization like Ubisoft does. Devolver Digital is plenty stable, even though it makes a tiny fraction of the revenue we see from "AAA" publishers.
> In 2008, those three publishers released 98 games; in 2018 they released just 28, not including expansions.
Well there's the problem. If you focus all of your effort on a few large-scale projects, you will have to milk those projects for all you can. There's still a huge market for small and medium-scale projects, though. The indie market is thriving.
> Independent developers, meanwhile, continue to fight for the smallest slice of an impossibly crowded market.
How is this an indication of a struggling industry? This just tells me that the market is easy to break into, which should be hailed as a positive. Of course "indie" studios aren't going to individually be responsible for a large slice of the market. They don't have the budgets to fund massive projects with a ton of marketing.
However, I'd be pretty interested in seeing just how much money "indie" titles as a whole bring in and how that has compared to the rest of the market over time. I'd guess it's grown significantly over time and that's the real reason why "AAA" publishers struggle with smaller scale games. There's a reason "AAA" publishers like EA want to be associated with some of these games.
> And Sony already offers a streaming service, PlayStation Now, which is likely to expand in the next generation.
If PlayStation Now is anything to go by, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in xCloud or Stadia. There's a lot of buzz around it now, but I doubt game streaming will get any mainstream traction for a long time.
> [a bunch of talk about data center power efficiency and climate change]
And how does this compare to the amount of energy spent running games natively? I'm sure Microsoft's, Sony's, and Google's servers are configured to utilize hardware much more efficiently than my gaming PC.
This seems like an out-of-nowhere tangent to me and the article doesn't provide enough information about it to really go anywhere so it devolves into lamenting the "current political climate".
I think this article makes the mistake of conflating the state of several large "AAA" publishers with the state of the games industry as a whole. I've long-since stopped caring about almost anything the "Big Three" (EA, Activision, and Ubisoft) have a hand in, and most other "AAA" publishers have damaged their reputation so much that I have practically zero anticipation for new games.
There are many things companies in the gaming industry should do better, but I don't think the industry as a whole is in near as dire a state as the author describes. I wouldn't shed a tear if most of the "AAA" publishers disappeared tomorrow. There's still plenty of great games coming out from developers and publishers with much cleaner reputations.
This makes me wonder how surgeons and morticians manage. Surely something must be done for them too.
Medical School does some job of filtering those who can abstract it from the ones who can't (I'm sure I wouldn't be a good fit)
The problem with the indie developers is that many of them are driven by greed and only greed. But that is hidden behind a veil of "we are the underdogs, passionate people, like you!". In reality, it's just a job like any other, and the "we are passionate", is the equivalent of "we are changing the world by... uhh disrupting!" that startup kool-aid drinkers say.
Let me give you an example. I dated a twitter semi-famous indie dev a while ago. She has a day job but makes games on the side. I have a day job and I make music on the side. I remember I was in a room with her, and was looking in ordering Aztec death whistles (it's a whistle that sounds like a human scream), to use into my music. She asked me "oh and how many people will like that?" To which I answered, "Right now I have 10 listeners. After the death whistles maybe I will have 5" and grinned. I make music for me, not for anyone else. If somebody happens to like it, that's fine. It's a hobby and a form of self-expression, like people cook for themselves or practice archery for themselves. I am not looking into becoming famous. In a sense, I am free to create what i want, and I am limited only but my skills and what I can do, not by what I must do.
She looked troubled... So I stopped and observed. She was looking at how many copies a game sold, and was chatting on FB with another on-twitter-all-day indie dev, about how many copies his game sold. Then she proclaimed that the next title would be different, way more appealing to the masses. I put my guitar down, stopped trying to sing "love will tear us apart" but in tuvan throat singing! And proclaimed, wait you 're selling out? How can you be selling out, the game doesn't even exist yet!!
She replied "So what? There is no same in wanting to make a good living from your art. Not everybody is like you and is happy with just... playing. Never advancing to the next stage. Never making something meaningful.".
I WAS SHOCKED. I still am. No wonder it didn't work out in the end. But... she told me, she had started making games because the game industry was full of stereotypes. Boys are the space marine, and girls play barbie's mini games, barbie pets her horse, barbie goes on a date with Ken, bullshit. That she wanted to make a difference, it was her passion, she wanted to prove that there can be fun games that are not gender-biased and that everyone can enjoy. I thought it was a noble, experimentation, passion project, like music is for me.
No. No, making games is not the end itself. Making games is means to an end. Indie devs are greed-driven. Not passion driven.
I hanged out with a few of them in GDC this year. They all care about money. I felt like I was at a dinner with C* level people that just like gossiping about IPOs and how much money some friends, or friends of friends of friends raised. All about money. "This game sold 700k copies!!! It uses unity assets". "That guy from romania made X million dollars!?!?".
There was a guy, who put a game on early access, then delayed the game's release for 10 years, because he made enough money to buy a house in San Francisco, and just did... nothing afterwards. Just talks to people with a "holier than thou" attitude. Meanwhile the game aged so bad, it went from a 7/10 to a 3/10 when it finally got out 9 years late!!!! How dare you! All these people who paid you because they believed in you, and you just shit on them when you hit a certain $$$ in your savings account. But I guess... why wouldn't he. He already accomplished his end goal of MONEY.
Early access, what a shitty thing. No self-respecting musician would say; Here are the first 2 tracks of the album. And some drum tracks from the 3rd and 4th piece. Maybe in 5 years you will get the bass track for the 3rd piece too! No movie director would say; we released the green screen version, and when we raise enough money you will get to see the dragons and the elves. Only game devs do that.
The inherent problem I see with indie devs, is that they lie to their audience as much as themselves as well. When I see the new GTA V game, I know what I am getting into. I will pay $60 to run over some people. But with indie devs I am being schooled about the exploration and experimentation. About feelings, about difficult subjects that noone dared to mention in game medium before. I am intrigued, I am captivated, I am in love! And then... you find out that that indie-game, scooby-do-esque pulling the mask off it was Michael Bay, and Michael Bay's 30th transfomers film all along! All about money, all about making investors happy!
Music has forever changed. We musicians accepted that we won't be rich from our music, so we are liberated to scavenge for a few bucks to rent a van and go touring playing in 20-people shows. Usually when I hang out with musicians, we end up smoking weed and committing to jam sessions that may never happen. And then everyone gets really really excited when I pull the death whistle out.
>At about this time next year, we’ll have a pretty good idea of what the next generation of video games will look like.
The current Sony and Microsoft consoles seemed to have few games worth owning and then released incompatible versions recently, yet a new version is warranted?
>as studios shuttered, developers burned out, and toxic work culture fostered environments hostile to marginalized people.
The only one of these that's valid is the developer overworking. A studio closing and ''sexism'' don't even come close, but anything to conflate the real issues, I suppose.
>When you adjust for inflation, the retail cost of video games has never been cheaper, and it’s been this way for some time. The $60 price point for a standard big-budget release has held steady for nearly 15 years, unadjusted for inflation even as the cost to make big-budget video games has risen astronomically with player expectations.
Sixty dollars is already high enough for a game and yet the next few paragraphs discuss ways companies increase the price by selling an incomplete product. Well, if the price ever rises, these companies would have no reason to stop, so you'd have higher prices and the same garbage. Anyone who tells you the price of a product such as this really isn't enough is likely a mindless drone.
>In short, the single-player game was not sustainable. So why should we think the current model is?
Why should I care if a type of video game is deemed ''sustainable''; what makes this claim valid, anyway? If there are games that don't appeal to me, I won't purchase them. Why would I ever think ''Gee, there aren't any new games that appeal to me; I guess I'll buy one that doesn't.'' when there is such a breadth of video games over several decades? That would be like buying a fashion magazine because the book store didn't have any programming books you wanted. If only ''Indie'' groups are releasing games I want, why would that be an issue?
>In short, the single-player game was not sustainable. So why should we think the current model is?
If you're a capitalist, you can only figure the market will eventually correct itself, on its own, so why care? The article then spends several paragraphs discussing climate issues, which are irrelevant.
>Video games cannot do this forever. If any of these things were to collapse—the people who make them, the economy they’re sold in, the ecosystem we’re all a part of—it would be catastrophic. All of them at once? That’s a disaster we need to talk about, openly. Because there are solutions to these problems.
Again, why should anyone care, considering the breadth of current games available? Should I give a damn if a publisher is struggling, considering there are more books, and about topics I like at that, than I could ever read in my lifetime?
The article then suggests all of the children and men with nothing better to do who regularly read Kotaku call their politicians about climate issues. The last few paragraphs of this article are a mess.
>It’s unlikely that video games will ever truly go extinct. We’ll probably always have something called “video games,” but what those games will look like is still very much in flux. There’s no guarantee that the way games are currently made will remain viable for another 10 years—games aren’t even made today the same way they were 10 years ago.
This is such a stupid paragraph. This is clearly written for a lowbrow audience they expect to easily manipulate.
>They will look different. They will change because they can, and because they must. Hopefully, all the ways games change will be on our terms—otherwise disaster will change them for us.
This is an entertainment medium, one that has a lot of garbage in it, at that. This is about video games and some idiot was paid to write this.
In closing, this isn't a great critique, but the article was garbage. I dislike there were enough cretins to put this on the front page, while interesting material written by interesting people goes entirely ignored. Those are my thoughts.