Sony's always kind of been uncool like this. Before, all PSN games weren't available on PC, so it didn't affect regions that couldn't register for PSN.
So why didn’t he stop playing at level 100 or 200 or whatever but waited with this rant until almost level 300 in a stream with large attention? Pure coincidence? To me it looks like he wanted to go out with a bang and rage bait.
Seriously. Why do gamers spend thousands of hours on games they hate. Life’s full of shit to do. Go play something else. Or, God forbid, touch some grass. Why waste the little time you have on earth doing something you don’t like.
Why do gamers spend thousands of hours on games they hate.
It's because that "hate" comes from a place of love, and isn't really hate at all. From the outside, it can be hard to understand, but the people who hate certain games the most are usually the biggest fans. They hate seeing squandered potential when something they love gets ruined by updates.
They don't hate the game, itself. They love the game, and they love what it could be under different circumstances. They love the memories they've had with the game, the connections they've made, the experiences they've shared. The "hate" they seem to have isn't really hate at all; it's passion. They love the game and want to see it in a better state. That's why they're so hyper critical, because they care the most.
Yup exactly. They see wasted potential, and that pisses them off. Because there’s something they truly want to enjoy, so watching the devs make seemingly dumb decisions can be incredibly frustrating.
Which is basically the same situation as being in an abusive relationship.
And all the people who keep coming back, knowing it will never actually improve, are ultimately deluding themselves in some kind of way, and are too addicted to want to stop, or too immature or stupid to realize that dedicating a ton of time and energy to something that on net lets you down or harms you is not a healthy way to live.
Try telling that to a Warthunder player, or League of Legends, or anything like that.
They know the games are ruining their lives but uh sunken cost fallacy.
Its always amazed me that people can become addicted to an actual negative experience that has many negative side effects… but half (more?) The games industry is built on that these days.
They’re addicted to the high of winning, which happens at random intervals. That’s the core of gambling addiction and MOBA addiction. They will win again… eventually. So they keep playing even though losing sucks.
“Over here [in Heroic] it’s free-to-play friendly, by a considerable margin,” niru begins, talking over a graphic showing the player distribution between the world types, with Heroic leading in global MapleStory by some margin. “Pay-to-win is accepted here [in Interactive World], but the free-to-play experience is awful and that’s what needs to be improved right now.”
(Edit: it’s not made clear in that quote so I’ll just mention it here, they play in an Interactive world)
I get addiction is real and it’s not easy to quit for some people. What I don’t get is that the game apparently has a different world type that is just better and he’s actively choosing not to play it instead. That’s like picking to play P2W poker where you can buy better hands and then complaining that it’s not fun when you could just go play real poker at the next table instead. At some point I just lose a lot of my sympathy for them.
I think I played maple story in like 2007 and it was garbage then. My excuse at the time was I was broke, and there weren’t many good free games out. Path of Exile wasn’t until 2013. Same with Warframe. Huh I never realized those came out the same year.
i was around during the first lvl 200, fully support the player’s decision. ppl asking “why play then?” have never been in an abusive relationship. it’s a great game tbh, just filled with mtx & grinding to the brim. ima check out his latest vids @tniru to see his side of the story
Exactly. It is a really great game and the grinding can be very fun with the character skill explosions wiping out entire screens worth of mobs.
When the game released, the only micro transactions were clothing for your character and a pet that could pick up items automatically. Its really sad they didn’t just keep it that way.
A few months ago they got in deep shit because the gacha part apparently sometimes didn’t contain the low chance stuff at all. So you could pay a million dollars and you would never get it.
gamers will use what little voice they have to place the spotlight on a shit game and giving it an award, getting people to buy that game. Holy shit this is stupid
I’d rather see “gamers” vote for actual good and fitting games for these awards, starving shit games from any attention and money.
Red Dead is a work of art. It’s just shameful that Rockstar has neglected it.
Starfield is such a piece of shit, it actually gets me upset thinking about how bad of an experience it was. I finished it just so I would know how it turns over and I’m still angry about it. Thankfully I waited until it was less than $50
Yeah I hear that. At one point I was thinking why didn’t they turn the ai generator on the random shit instead of the world. Like there’s all these worlds and only one package type for everything? The immersion could have been amazing if there was 50 different packages of Chunks or whatever.
If I paid for starfield I would have felt annoyed about it. Played it on game pass so probably spent half price or less on the subscription time. It was fine, but not full price fine.
If Labor of Love had to go to a huge project, it should have gone to CyberPunk 2077. The devs had it at least as bad, if not worse, and oh they actually massively significantly improved the game.
It doesn’t need to go to a huge project, it needs to go to a project that was supported for a long time by dedicated devs who like working on the game and put in their all into it etc. Red dead was literally all crunch, devs hated working on it, and it stopped immediately after release.
Still laughing at anyone who watched Fallout 76 happen then willingly purchased a Bethesda game before two weeks after release to allow for some actual reviews to happen and the hype train to lessen.
I fully believe that particular occurrence was just people blindly voting for the games they recognized. Tbh, I’d be more disappointed if it was a coordinated effort. Highlighting a smaller game that is is great would be exponentially more effective and beneficial than using the awards to complain about a game you don’t enjoy playing. The studios aren’t going to notice, and neither will most people (like me), so it’s really just wasted effort.
Nah dude. Both cases are incredibly famous for what they were voted for. It was countless people shitposting. There were other, better recognizable games in there. Like Red Dead 2 is from 6 years ago.
MapleStory’s problems aren’t just the predatory MTX shit, which got so bad that they actually released a Reboot server that disabled a lot of this stuff, but just overall content bloat.
On top of the 5 core explorer classes (Magician, Thief, Warrior, Bowman and Pirate), there are Cygnus Knights versions of these classes, and 29 overpowered hero classes that are mostly based on the 5 aforementioned class groups
Big Bang streamlined the game excessively and ruined the overall flow of Victoria Island, making it vastly more linear. It also made Ossyria much higher levelled. Whereas for example you could probably survive in Aqua Road as a level 35, it now has a level 80 requirement. One of my characters is stuck near Ariant because they changed the second zone to be a 120 zone.
Same. This seems to be getting more common with various media and products. Too many choices which is a good thing for consumers but not good for publishers.
I’m not the person you replied to but I’ve been a first person shooter fan since Wolfenstein 3D and original doom. I had NEVER heard of it til today. First person and tower defense games are basically all I play.
They claim to have spent 40 million usd marketing it, I saw some people on twitch playing it when it first came out but it looked meh and was priced way too high so I didn’t watch much
“At a high level, Immortals was massively overscoped for a studio’s debut project,” the former employee said. "The development cost was around $85 million, and I think EA kicked in $40 million for marketing and distribution…
They must have done extremely bad marketing even though they spent so much on marketing because I’ve never heard of this game
I mean im on my ps5 every day, browse a ton of game related content on lemmy and such, and share a lot of game news with my friend group, and Ive literally never heard of or seen marketing for this game.
I’ve been hearing rumblings of people complaining about current game advertisement cycles being too long. Immortals, is a great example of one too short. Announced at Summer Game Fest and released in August(?). We don’t need long Ad campaigns for old brands but if you want to market a new IP as Triple A you have to put in the work to reach unplugged gamers, and it barely reached plugged in gamers.
And I mean, that’s maybe where the problems lie. This game is all jank and all generics, with no specific thing to present except “OMG LOOK AT OUR GRAPHICS!!!”.
This is exactly what AAA gaming is. Some guys in suits dictate projects to make money. There’s no passion behind them. They can’t do anything unique or interesting because it may not make money. They just make safe games, and they’re generic and boring as hell.
I think EA makes games like this to reinforce THEIR notion that single player games are dead so they can use that as leverage to make more “games as a service”. If they made things people actually wanted to play, they’d find that single player (yes even shooter) games are still just as popular as they ever were and poorly thought out, poorly executed, and poorly marketed games still suck.
The thing that we all keep missing about this is even though EA sucks because it is an example of late stage capitalism hollowing out everything for profit, doesn’t actually mean the idiots with MBAs from Harvard or whatever running the company are actually making intelligent choices about profit.
The system of capitalism actually perpetuates itself better when things periodically catastrophically fail from wildly incompetent leadership since it keeps worker power from organizing, wipes out competitors that aren’t also massive corporations that can be easily colluded with, and provides a perfect backdrop for the rich to say “sorrrrrry it all broke again, guess we are the only ones that can fix it, so we will maybe take this chance to buy up more of the economy :) “.
So yes in a very real way I think EA functions to devalue the labor of game developers, keep competition of smaller game development studios categorically unable to create products like EA, and serve as a vessel to ritualistically dissect smaller game companies so that companies like EA have an infinite, desperate workforce and consumers have no better choice for video games. Just because these processes are twisted and rationalized under a story about the ruthless, noble pursuit of profit doesn’t make them have any real connection with efficiency or profit. One could perhaps say this all has much more to do with violence than it does profit.
That is the thing about ideologies, whether they have any connection to reality or not is actually not very important at all to the truly successful ones that permeate the way societies think about themselves.
Additionally, anything that can help massive corporations that are strip mining the gaming industry claim the gaming industry is sliding into a tough period where it’s hard to make games that turn enough of a profit to steadily employ game developers, is EXTREMELY useful to companies like EA because they see this whole AI thing as an opportunity to deal a permanent blow to the quality of life and general leverage workers have in the game development industry. Thank god the movie industry saw it coming a mile off, but video game culture is too full of toxic conservative little boys screaming at each other to understand what is about to happen (and is already happening).
It breaks my heart, but what is happening right now will likely deal a blow to the vibrancy of video games as an art form that will reverberate for decades. After all, once a worker exits the game development industry because they can’t find a job it doesn’t matter how passionate they were about video games, how special their talent is, how creative or unique their ideas are… they sure as hell aren’t coming back once they get that a job in an industry that doesn’t hate its workers so much and besides a deep sense of burnout about something you love is truly one of the most awful experiences in the world… not many people are willing to revisit a place they experienced that.
When a company like this catastrophically fails and Baldur's Gate 3 or Palworld do gangbusters, that signals to others who also want to make money what they should be making in order to make money. Where the money does go, like a Larian or a Pocket Pair, now has profit to spend on growing their studios and making more of what actually works. They end up hiring the talent that was let go. Not all of them; this is less efficient than if the first studio that imploded had instead made something that the market actually wanted, but this is not a situation so dire that the industry will feel it for decades like you say. New studios form all the time from mismanaged large companies that lay people off after making bad bets.
Look, you are describing a perfectly rational theory for how events could play out in a theoretical universe, but you are just stependously, horrifically wrong if you think this story corresponds to reality in a meaningful way.
The truth is these companies have so much power (money) behind them that they don’t just keel over and die when they fail, they annihilate entire industries, catastrophically derail promising career trajectories for countless workers, structurally give themselves an impenetrable advantage with regulatory capture and most importantly utterly dominate the material reality of being a worker in that industry, even if the worker doesn’t work at the company.
Look at Uber, remember years ago when Uber keeled over and died once it became apparent that Uber wasn’t profitable unless drivers are exploited to an extreme degree? Then all those workers went and worked for other ride sharing companies that ran more effective businesses and treated their employees more humanely (in retrospect the by now well documented extremely sexist and toxic culture of upper management at Uber alone doomed it from the start)… The market solved the problem by rewarding rideshare companies with better technology and business models than Uber. I remember in California, Uber could have blocked legislation that was going to improve the lives of rideshare/gig workers immensely but they realized that the consequences of drivers and riders seeing Uber openly shit on their face and spend massive amounts of money to keep drivers from getting a tiny, measly amount more money and control over their work environment would spell utter disaster so they refrained. The wisdom of the market!
Wait… the exact, precise opposite of all that happened while Uber ran for years at a massive loss as a venture capital superweapon ripping millions upon millions of dollars into a gaping black hole and completely devastating the taxi industry without providing a truly humane or long term viable alternative for most workers or cities?
sigh do you really not understand what is happening right in front of you?
No, this is the reality. The likes of Activision, EA, Ubisoft, and Take Two rule the industry by market cap, but that's because their games notably sell to the type of person who only buys a few video games per year at most. If they utterly dominated the material reality of the industry, how on earth could Baldur's Gate 3 or Palworld even happen? How could Hades or No Man's Sky, made by former EA devs, happen? Your view of reality is quite overly pessimistic. How can you even measure some of the claims you're making?
How can you even measure some of the claims you’re making?
I don’t know, my ideas are so wild and I am pulling them totally out of thin air. It isn’t like there is a massive amount of scholarly work on this topic, a pre-existing history of legal cases pertaining to these issues that have caused society defining laws to be passed in most major countries and many political movements that explicitly attempt to define and critique these processes at our fingertips on the internet waiting to educate and inform us.
And you know, the funny thing is I really for once was feeling a little optimistic about this kind of material existing for me to read and educate myself with but I guess in this case my pessimism was well founded.
You slipped in an edit while I was responding, and I think the gist of it is that you and I fundamentally don't agree, especially not the hyperbolic flourish you used. I think you'll continue to see plenty of great games come out in the next decades, because people still want to buy games and other people still want to make them.
If you are only concerned about this from the perspective of having enough good games to keep you personally occupied and not a step further to the experience of human beings working in the industry (beyond the narrow range of game companies you directly buy from) that makes the art you love, then yes you and I fundamentally disagree and I would never want to be misconstrued as making the kind of argument you are making.
There will continue to be games to play because people will continue to make them. A bad experience in one place leads to a new studio designed not to repeat it.
That’s why AAA+ is failing and indie games are getting better than ever. It’s insane how good the tools and engines have gotten. Making games had become much more accessible than ever.
Making games had become much more accessible than ever.
Making music has become MASSIVELY more accessible than ever, but you know what? It’s just a hobby now, capitalism has destroyed making and recording music as a livelihood unless you manage to get a handful unicorn jobs.
Just because it is easy for a company to enter a market doesn’t mean that structural, toxic issues with that market magically are nullified as problems. Gamers as a category seem to have a REALLY hard time wrapping their head around this.
I doubt it, this kind of logic is the same as “medical costs are insane because modern medical tech is expensive.”
It completely ignores the entire economy all functioning under advanced technology to create and produce advanced goods more cheaply with the technology that costs money. It’s also mismanagement in the same way the movie and TV industry has seen, they don’t want to hire writers cause they don’t want to pay them, so instead they just spend hundreds of millions on reshoots because having a writer being paid 60k on staff 24/7 was too costly apparently and some suit got a promotion for “saving” that money.
Someone made a better version of “the day before” with a few grand in purchased assets and a couple months using UE5. If you were creating your own resources instead of buying them and you had an actual vision then you absolutely can make a game for less than hundreds of millions that will return that money back to you. How much did pal world take in? How much is helldivers 2 currently making? What were their production costs?
Just because some inept studio run by corporate bean counters can only churn out tech demos for millions of bucks doesn’t mean that’s the actual standard for cost and production of gaming.
It’s only expensive to make if studios decide to make them incredibly expensive. There are plenty of high quality indie games made by a single person.
The problem here is they went all in on “THE BEST GRAPHICS EVAR!!!” And it flopped because of the lack of story and gameplay. The lesson here is to not make it incredibly expensive to develop by focusing all efforts on graphics, and instead focus on gameplay and story and people will tolerate much less flashy visuals.
Games are getting too expensive to make because they’re adding extra shit that no one cares about, not because of the cost it takes to make a decent game. Too many admin managers in charge at companies and not enough artists or engineers at the management level.
Single player (with optional co op multiplayer) but massively successful.
Not to beat a dead horse. Its just the first example that came to mind.
A huge amount of very successful indie games are single-player and even other AAA games.
They talk about the genre being dead but they forget that most games dont charge you to play them anymore. They make money through in game purchases selling cosmetics and battle pasees.
These game genres could be described as dead by the same criteria if they cost actual money.
Uh, in this case it’s a single-player, shooter, from a brand new IP. I’m probably just commenting just to argue but I don’t think Baldur’s Gate 3 is a good comparison at all.
But in the i terest of a fairer comparison, i had a quick google and found this game “atomic heart,” a generally well received game with high ratings and the following from Steam Revenue calculator
“We estimate that Atomic Heart made $55,756,625.68in gross revenue since its release. Out of this, the developer had an estimated net revenue of $16,448,204.58.”
New ip, single-player, shooter.
Comparatively, immortals lost money and tbey apparently laid of 45% of the staff who made it to avoid losses.
No, AAA+ blockbuster games are dead. The 150 million budget is insane. Spending that much on a game, you end up having to minimize the risks and having to cater to the widest audience possible.
If you split that budget into maybe 2 larger and a few smaller games, you don’t put all your eggs in the same basket. You can take more risk, experiment with new mechanics and ideas. You can target different types of players. You can give a chance to smaller, lesser known writers who might have potential.
gamesradar.com
Aktywne