• YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why would I believe anything andreesen Horowitz says about anything, let alone gaming? These people believed that NFTs were the future of gaming. Grifter bellends.

  • Gabu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 months ago

    That would be the reasonable and rational conclusion, but capitalism is neither reasonable nor rational.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can only throw away hundreds of millions of dollars on Avengers and Suicide Squad so many times before they decide to come up with something people are willing to pay for.

  • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s crazy talk, we need to make AAAA and AAAAA games, Microsoft is ready to have all their developers spend three years on a single perfect game!

    Each copy will be $7000

  • Juice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    I feel like the natural progression is to roll back to the 2000s when every company was shotgunning batshit crazy concepts for games left and right… I miss those days

    • moreeni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The history does indeed move in a spiral. We will see some of the old logic mixed with new concepts, as we do in every field of our life

  • Gamoc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is a false argument. They ARE profitable when they bother to try and make a good one. It’s when they fill it full of mtx and drag every aspect of the game except the enjoyment out for as long as possible to try and convince you to buy shit to make it actually enjoyable after you’ve already paid full price. They don’t get create poor games and then complain they’re not profitable enough - bad products aren’t profitable because they are bad products.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Even if every $200M game was good, you’re still competing against the other $200M games out there, and that’s very risky.

      • Gamoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I suspect there wouldn’t be as many releases if they were only releasing good ones.

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          True. There would also be even more layoffs in this industry if they threw out years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars at the finish line because they decided not to release a game that didn’t turn out to be as good as they’d hoped.

          • Gamoc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s just another symptom of chasing perceived profits. If they were dedicated to releasing good products they’d understand retaining good talent that has experience working together is an important part of it.

            Obviously that’s a pipe dream because they’re all vultures circling over a games publisher, picking off what they can until they can feast on its corpse, but still.

            • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              I was being facetious. If your development timeline is 7 years, you have no idea how it’s going to turn out at the end, but they all set out to make a good product, especially when it takes that much time and money to make. Guardians of the Galaxy was supposedly a very good game that bombed horribly, for instance. There’s a lot of risk when your game is that expensive to make, because there are only so many customers out there, and they’re already playing other big expensive games. Even Sony is finding that their marquis titles aren’t bringing in as many customers as they expected anymore, so they can’t keep spending more on games and expect them to be profitable.

              • schmidtster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                That’s also partly because Microsoft is buying customers with gamepass, it’s unprofitable in the long run, but they just need to do it long enough to kill off competitors. Exactly what Netflix did basically.

                Youve been able to start to see the ripples forming a few years ago. Devs aren’t making as much from the deal of being on it vs private sales as well.

                • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  What do you mean? It’s already profitable for them. I’m far more concerned with Nintendo’s online subscription than Microsoft’s. Nintendo’s already crossed the line, and Microsoft still stands to make more money by offering games for sale on Steam than to make them only available via a subscription that isn’t doing well with regards to acquiring more customers.

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, it seems like these days many AAA games are just an empty harness for housing a microtransaction powered money engine.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m just amazed that, 6 months later, they haven’t fixed any of the skill related bugs, but “fixed” the visual effects of rejuvenation ~4 times (it’s listed that many times in the changelogs, anyway). That’s bad even for Bethesda standards

      • Gabu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        From what I see, it’s a bit like Skyrim in space and, to be fair, Skyrim is a really good game, but it’s been 12 years. Bethesda has to relearn how to make other games.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          More like Fallout 4 in space, minus any interesting places to explore, worse characters, story and base building.

  • Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    this stuff really pisses me off,
    i remember recently watching a video about tekken8.

    the devs aparently made an announcement that boils down to “we need to monetize the shit out of this game now to make our monney back”
    and the streamer just went “yeah thats reasonable”

    they have the sales figures for tekken 7, and tekken 7 was an online game, so they know their active userbase.
    (and they also now charge 70 bucks)

    so they have at least a vague idea of how much monney they’ll make.

    how can you screw up your budget that bad unless you senslessly dump money at your release.

    yeah cutting edge graphics are neat,
    but thats incredibly expensive.
    and imo not that nececary for a great experience.

    maybe a game that needs to nickle and dime its playerbase shouldnt be made in the first place?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah only the massive dudes are struggling cause they’ll never figure it out. They just chase the dragon.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Appealing to the widest audience possible for the largest gross profits, rather than appealing to specific audiences with a smaller budget, is part of the issue with modern gaming.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I believe that’s the problem, AAA studios can put out shit games, the game content should dictate that.

      My eyes are getting sore from all these studios popping up claiming they are making AAA games, maybe put something out first mate.

      • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Right. What does AAA even mean? Meta spent billions on their Horizons Metaverse, but countless Indie Metaverses are way higher rated some made by just one person. Clearly AAA does not mean the size of the team or the budget.