It’s mindblowing that the studio had 100+ people and their only game was apparently RUINER. I was convinced it was a smaller indie game, how could they have that many employees and only release one decently successful game in like 6+ years?
They are. The games industry is releasing a lot of hits in recent times, and there’s a lot of money flowing in. Just not as much as covid times and interest rates are high.
This has nothing to so with the actual industry and the people making games.
A fair point, but I do want to highlight that we’ve had plenty of companies like Bethesda releasing crap like Starfield, using tactics that specifically turned on their artist employees, and then scratching their heads on why it didn’t sell as well as Skyrim or Doom. I’m also seeing a lot of C-class laziness here.
Painful for who? I highly doubt any of the CEOs and investors interviewed are going to suffer all that much compared to the artists, programmers, and other employees that are going to be laid off because their company wants to be leaner, more dynamic, or whatever the latest buzzword is.
This would have happened sooner if it wasn’t for the cheap debt. Unsustainable businesses, hiring passionless staff and managers, mismanaging and producing sub par products.
Eventually people stop supporting these games.
When the money runs dry and it’s harder to borrow due to higher interest rates, you have to start cutting costs. And if your business is inefficient and bloated you have to downsize to survive.
Oh no, we might be making marginally less profit than we told our investors we’d be making, and none of us have the backbone to just tell them that you know, sometimes you gamble money and get little in return.
We’ve tried layoffs, we’ve tried cutting funding, revoking investments, and still they refuse to be profitable! We’ll close them now to show them how they failed.
Honestly they can just go ahead and turn off FM8. What a piece of shit that game is. It’s so bad. Like how can you literally fuck up a slam dunk that badly? They could have issued a slightly reskinned and updated FM7, and it would have been fine. But no.
GT2 and FM2 (and FM4 I guess too) for the forever win!
There really needs to be more lawsuits for this type of thing. You bought something and they didn’t make it clear that you were renting it. I get the server stuff but you know what? After you are done with the game it’s time to allow the community to host servers or at least remove DRM for offline play.
Glad I picked up Assetto Corsa instead. That sim is 11 years old and has amazing graphics, a thriving community, and isn’t “always online”… GTS is only 6 years old in comparison.
I think GTS and FMS are going to eventually be a struggle to sell once people catch on to the fact that these franchises are being turned into very expensive recurring game subscriptions, which is a shame given how much these types of games have been decreasing in popularity since the peak of the early 2000s
He has some points but the main one, mentioned in the headline, is shite.
There are plenty of gamers to go around for just about any game, if it’s worth playing.
If we wanna talk about soulless AAA bullshit like live service, or making trash out of a popular existing IP, that’s a different convo. Taking shareholders out of gaming would benefit everyone.
I don’t think private business is the issue. I think publicly traded business is the issue. In a private business, you don’t have quarterly shareholder meetings with the expectation of continuous growth, and then shareholders demanding you fuck everything up.
Many private businesses are also fucked up, but so many others work just fine. Many work great, particularly small business or employee owned business or coops or similar.
Obviously there are a lot of large privately held companies, many of them owned by billionaires, some of whom are very public assholes. Forbes maintains this US-only list (Twitter is 149th and falling): www.forbes.com/lists/largest-private-companies/ But, Twitter notwithstanding, most of these giant companies just quietly go about their business. Some of them become conspiracy theory targets (Koch) due to the flex their owners exhibit on the public sphere. And some of this is clearly incorrect in their table (ie: Cargill is not making $1M in revenue per employee – they probably used US employee count, but global revenue).
Large private companies should be paying more taxes, imo, but are not strictly the problem. Large public companies are evil almost across the whole spectrum. The large private companies don’t typically fire 25% of their staff at Christmas just to massage numbers for the quarterly report.
When you look at small companies though (for example, my company is two people, both owners, no employees), I hope you’ll see that we’re just trying to make a living :)
What’s wrong with live service games? Soulless AAA games tend to be live service, but so are good games. All of MMO’s are a live service and many are good games (if MMO’s are your thing).
All of live service games are designed to disappear once they stop making money, which is a nightmare for preservation that doesn't have to be that way. Also, their incentives are to keep you playing for longer, which is not the same as making sure you have a good time. If you find a player base absolutely angry at the developer behind a game they play, it's going to be live service, because of these incentives.
Or they don’t disappear, servers are released or reverse engineered and the community takes over. Yeah, in many cases it doesn’t happen and companies often try to prevent that, but then that’s the shitty thing. The fact the game was live service didn’t prevent preservation in itself or require the developer to make a bad game. It often goes together, yes, but it’s not an inherent property of it.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of dead live service games have had pirate or reverse engineered servers come in to save the day, but my gut feeling is that it's a very, very low number.
I got slowly beaten out of Destiny by their live service model.
I play Hearthstone, but I’ve had a full collection for 4+ years now and I recognize spending ~$300/year on a single game isn’t for everyone, I also recognize in 5 or 6 years they’ll close the game down and nothing will remain, and then in 20 or so years even websites and YouTube videos mentioning it will become scarse.
The same is not true for games like Mario 64, Goldeneye, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, even Tetris.
Any multiplayer game will die once its community moves on. Whether it’s live service or not and one could argue live service helps prolong a game’s time in the spotlight.
007 Agent Under Fire came out in 2001, and you can still play it in multiplayer as long as you have a single friend handy. Same goes for Quake, even older. Live service games offer you no way to play them once their servers are turned off.
I see lots of MMOs that become ran by the community on private servers after the developer stops supporting it. It’s crap when companies try to stop that, but the game being a live service isn’t a problem in itself.
Not servers offered by the developers/publishers (as far as I know, with the one exception of Knockout City), which makes it an unreliable option at best. You can't exactly spin up a private server for Rumbleverse.
I'm still playing Unreal Tournament 2004 just fine with bots. I don't need a community to play Project Zomboid with my SO. Your claim is factually incorrect.
It replicates it well enough for me to still be playing it regularly 20 years later and well enough to debunk the myth that every multiplayer game must automatically become unplayable with time ("die") solely due to the fact that it's multiplayer.
I can also still play UT2K4 with my friends, should I want to. I can't do either of these with a "live service" game where there is no offline mode or self-hostable servers.
Also, you ignored my mention of PZ, which is a multiplayer-enabled game which also won't die when the developer dies (or abandons the game).
Elite: Dangerous is all right. Buy once, no subscription or other crap, really cool in VR. Or World of Warcraft (I played it over 10 years ago, so not sure about now), had a really good time, don’t remember any bullshit from the devs.
Yeah, my point boils down to “nowadays live service games tend to contain lots of antifeatures and bullshit practices”, but the concept of a live service game is not inherently bad.
A strong, cogent argument can be made for having a wide variety of game developers. I don’t see ANYONE saying, “we need more companies like EA, Activision or UbiSoft.”
Games are an art form like any other, I don’t see people complaining there’s too many songs or too many movies, and it’s easier than ever to make one thanks to all the free engines, hobbyists make something, push it to itch.io and move on with their lives.
gamesindustry.biz
Aktywne