I think the data shows that advertisement is super effective, not that people prefer to be advertised. If people preferred advertising over a better product then games like Balatro, Vampire Survivors etc. literally couldn’t be successful, because those games had effectively zero marketing budget. Their success came from word-of-mouth because the game itself was great.
Of course the companies pin the graphics as a culprit. Otherwise they would have to admit the mismanagement is the reason they burn through millions of dollars. Mismanagement brings with it another aspect the author did not mention: stress and burnout. Either working too hard, or spinning wheels doing nothing is pure poison to a creative person. Constant direction changes, lack of clear communication, never knowing whether you did well or are on the verge of being laid off - all these make people work harder but output less/worse quality assets.
To me, what I dislike the most about the direction the industry is going is that consolidating more resources into fewer megagames means there's less room for experimental side projects and spinoffs. I especially miss all the kinds of B-games that used to go straight to handheld. Of course part of the reason they disappeared because we don't have handhelds to put them on, but I think that half the reason handhelds died was because publishers weren't going to make handheld games for much longer anyway.
Of course there's still a lot of cool stuff coming from indies, but there's a wide spectrum between indie with no budget and AAAA with $10 trillion budget. We're losing everything that was once in between.
Also, spinoffs. I do like seeing alternate takes on IPs and characters I like, but those are rare now because all the resources go into developing one main project. Like I've always wondered, if Splatoon had debuted a generation earlier, what kind of DS companion piece would have accompanied it?
It’s because they want to measure the creative process.
Which is impossible to do before it has happened.
So they try, and try, and try, and end up with a complex system where everything is measured, especially any kind of risk which is promptly eliminated and then the result is an expensive nothingburger they sell with extraordinary publicity budgets.
Some times they get a little bit creative and buys up a studio that has made a hit, but then they only try to capitalise on the brand name, not the creativity, while compressing costs, and monitor and remove the risks and thus the creativity.
Finally the live service bubble is popping.
I hope the developers working on these projects get put on to something else, instead of shown the door as is so often the case.
Sony specifically had to learn many harsh lessons recently.
The Bungie acquisition brought them nothing but issues. Concord being shutdown immediately after launch was a huge was of money too. Other titles under the Sony umbrella are either struggling, or gaining poor reputation due to their completely numbskull decision to enforce PSN account usage, even for single player offline games.
Had to check what movies you’re talking about because the spiderman movies have all been successful. Didn’t know that Venom, Morbius, Madam Webb and Kraven were actually Sony spiderman universe (SSMU) garbage and not MCU garbage.
Yeah live service anything was going to land like a dead fish in my area where whether or not you can get a ping through to fucking Google depends on how many people in the neighborhood are off work.
There could have been games where there was just a brilliant idea for a game that keeps having engaging content on an ongoing basis with passionate devs.
But live service so an exec could check a box for their quarterly shareholder call was always going to be DOA.
The game they killed 3 days after release might have been good but i haven’t seen a single gameplay video or have any idea of what the game was about. Are they that scared of releasing a shit game and keeping it playable but dead for a while?
I mean, they spent what 400 millions on developing it and they won’t spend 10k - 100k to keep that game running for a while? Like “NO NOT A SINGLE CENT MORE SPENT ON THAT SHIT GAME!” XD
Well, yeah. If it’s clearly never going to recover, why keep spending money on it? They already took it as a total loss by refunding everyone, so that was probably cheaper than holding out for a recovery that wasn’t going to happen.
I don’t know what the market at large wants, but I suspect its failure is based at least in part on the fact that the purchase has zero value if other people don’t also value it, so the customer is now more reserved with their time and money unless a game seems like it’s going to take off, which would theoretically make nearly every a game a huge success or total failure. What I want is for a scalable multiplayer shooter that gracefully handles 1-X players, and I hardly care what X is as long as it’s more than 3. Let me host it on a LAN and play split-screen, and give me a deathmatch mode, among other things. We used to get this kind of shooter all the time, and now I’m starving for one, to the point that I’d happily have picked up Concord if it was that game, even with its wonky-ass character designs.
I played a dead MMO where i was the only person in the game. They where shutting down the servers soon and it was an interesting experience. The game wasn’t bad honestly. As a single player experience at least. Maybe that was the issue.
It had matchmaking so if there weren’t enough players it would take a long time and you’d end up in the same lobbies with the same players every time, if you could even get in apparently. Not like you could play solo even if you wanted to.
Keeping engaging content on an ongoing basis seems to be such an unreachable target for most devs and game designs that it’s undoing large swaths of the industry.
bloomberg.com
Najstarsze