Hacker News Reader

Comment by samiwami | Hacker News Reader

Social conditioning? Clair Obscur is good and was very unique, but is not 100x than “the slop big studios publish”.

Infinity times better coukd be a better hyperbole, very goos game versus no good. Dividing by zero gets you infinity instead of just 100

"Let's just all make Clair Obscur/Minecraft/Blue Prince" is not a repeatable strategy (every indie dev is trying to make good games). How much did it cost to make the Beatles' albums? A piano, drums, a couple of guitars and salaries for 4 guys? Why don't the big studios today with all their money just hire another Beatles?

Same reason why Ubisoft isn't just making another Balatro. Industrializing culture isn't (yet?) a solved problem.

> How much did it cost to make the Beatles' albums? A piano, drums, a couple of guitars and salaries for 4 guys?

The Beatles did only take a few days to knock out each of their earliest LPs. However, per Wikipedia, "the group spent 700 hours on [Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]. The final cost [...] was approximately £25,000 (equivalent to £573,000 in 2023)."

So, actually, envelope-pushing cultural landmarks typically do require a lot of effort and money to complete.

On the other hand I'm kind of shocked that the big gaming studios never seem to be fast followers. It feels like we've been through multiple waves of Balatro-likes from indie developers already. Where is the Ubisoft Lethal Company or something? You'd think having a studio full of experienced developers with tons of tech they could hop on trends quickly. It seems like they think it's beneath them or something though. Or maybe they're just structurally incapable of moving quickly. It did take 11 years and like 4 redesigns to make Skull & Bones after all.

This is a conjencture, even if I do work in the industry but not AAA, but: Following the trends simply isn't part of their business model. Following current trends is a very unpredictable business. Many try, and many fail. AAA had the luxury of somewhat predictable sales. They can make big bets like working years on a game, since they know they will have millions of players. And they know smaller studios can't compete with them in that business.

But, of course, making games is hard, and sometimes they fail. And now the free tools are getting really good, and smaller studios are becoming increasingly competent. Will we soon see the big ones fall? Their only way to survive is to keep going bigger, escaping the smaller studios to a place they can't reach. Now we have AAAA games. But is there a limit where players stop caring how many As a game has?

The more people you add the slower you get, not faster. Large companies are nutorously slow moving (and particularly slow to change directions) vs small upstarts.

yeah, but at this point it's weird they just don't grab a studio, give them a funding for 2 years and say them 'copy the latest indie trends with a tad more polish' and let them cook to see what comes out.

They tried that, e.g. "EA Originals"[0] is basically that (there are similar programs at other major publishers). I suspect it proved to not be a big money maker at the scale required to move the needle at publishers of that size., and that they are keeping these on as a sort of prestige programs.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts#EA_Originals

[flagged]

Correct, a better description.

Yes, it is 100x better than the slop the big studios publish.

Enter: parasitic storytelling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFxu3Q71NvE

Reply on news.ycombinator.com