"There is indeed pressure from the market because the standards in terms of production values, length of experience and knowledge of our medium from customers are going up," Clerc says.
This is another important piece. Games that used to be linear and 8-15 hours are now open world and 60-80 hours long (often to their detriment). Most of the biggest games are designed to be played forever, which means it's coming at the expense of buying or playing new games. And development cycles are exceeding 5 years when they probably ought to be aiming for under 3 years.
The industry is making games with riskier development cycles, adding features that arguably don't make them any better or more marketable, and they're designed to make it actively hostile to the next person trying to sell a game to the same customer. It's no wonder it can't sustain the current trajectory.
Plenty of games still rely on procedural generation to different degrees. It's a huge selling point in many cases, and in others, it's a pillar of their genre.
I've got a friend who waits for a sale and then buys games like this for White Elephant parties at the end of the year. Often times he buys them for himself because he just has a burning curiosity for bad games.
This will probably be similar to the switch from small, limited world maps in games to expansive open-worlds.
Interesting comparison, because I'd argue that that switch has, lately, been worse more often than it's been better, and that a lot of games would have been far better off if they stuck to the more limited equivalent.
I would love for some other store to give me a reason to shop with them instead. GOG is closest, and they still can't be bothered to give me a Galaxy client on Linux.
I enjoy Cyberpunk quite a lot too, but if you're going to criticize the depth of the game, it's not necessarily because the writing is subpar or anything. It would just be a reflection of how differently the game can play out with different builds. It's a little better now with the 2.0 update, but the designers still very explicitly allowed for a hacking option here, a strength option there, and so on. Compare that against something like Baldur's Gate 3 where you're free to break all sorts of rules by just casting flight or invisibility on your party and solving a problem in a way that you came up with that the designers didn't go out of their way to plan for. The latter is real depth. A deep RPG should probably feel like your experience was pretty different from others' experience.
I wish I could get into it. I'm into games that are inspired by Monster Hunter but not so much Monster Hunter itself. The monsters are too tanky, and you and the monster trade turns rendering each other unable to attack rather than having the proper push and pull of a boss fight. Plus MHW in particular (the only one I spent I any real time with) waits until you're in "the end game" before it lets you start setting your objectives by hunting something because you want its parts. Before that point, the latest thing you found is always objectively better than any other thing you found, regardless of weaknesses.
What I suggested is not ignoring the problem. Ignoring bad products makes bad products less financially viable. Buying good products instead creates more supply of good products, because producers want the money coming from consumers who only buy good products. This is not a binary boycott vs. no boycott. There is every minute step along the way. Half the industry by revenue is not coming from half the customers.
Sega’s $70M whoopsie-daisy evidently hasn’t ruined the company.
Nor does it need to. It just shows that they don't think the live service business model they made was going to work; so much so that they flushed their most expensive game to date down the toilet.
Nor has it seemed to stop their plans for Dreamcast-era nostalgia-bait games with the same abusive business model as their hilariously-late-to-the-party battle royale cancellation.
There is zero information on their nostalgic franchises play regarding business model. Many of which came from a different era of predatory monetization that came to an end without legislation (the arcades).
There is no sufficient back-pressure against publishers asking, ‘but what if more money?’
There is when you stop buying their games in the first place.
The fact that you call it ever-shrinking when there is too much to play that doesn't fit into that bucket is exactly what I was talking about. Plus you must have missed the bottom falling out of live service games this past year, perhaps due to a lack of consumer trust in the product lasting long enough to justify their time or money. Sega just spent $70M on a game that they decided was better to never even launch. Sony shrunk their live service portfolio forecast from a dozen down to half of that. These are the microtransaction-driven games.
If the only games you acknowledge are the big games committing the offense, that's why the market is taking us there. You're part of the market. Reward the other games.