Because they don't want some of the money, or even enough of the money. They want all of the money, and think all you have to do is copy a successful game to get it.
Greentext
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
Moreover, like Hollywood, the gaming industry is largely run by people who truly do not understand the thing they're there to make. All of the C-levels still think it's the early 2000s where you could shit out anything that looked like a popular game and make 20 billion dollars from it. They think their entire market is dumb kids who will mindlessly play whatever is put in front of them without regard to polish, story, or even playability.
And the market proves it's true.
How in the hell is EA still not dead?
Many studios produce barely acceptable shit, yet people buy it in droves.
How in the hell is EA still not dead?
Sports games
And chasing trends when it can take up 5 years or more to complete a project is utterly moronic.
My (completely uninformed) theory: It's competitive advantage. Indies succeed on their creativity, but that works because there are thousands of indie devs out there and we get to see the best (and luckiest) ones. It's not easy to replicate that creativity by just throwing more money at the problem. So what is a company with ooodles of money but no creativity to do? Make games that only a company with way too much money could make. No indie dev is going to make the next Far Cry or Assassin's Creed or Fortnite because they just don't have the budget to make that happen. So they know that even if they keep churning out generic crap, at least it's generic crap with very little real competition.
Of course then all of them got the bright idea to compete in a game business model that is inherently winner take all with already well established leaders. So yeah now it just seems like they're lighting money on fire for fun.
I mean... You could make a knock-off Fortnite with Minecraft level graphics, make the cosmetics unlocked by just playing, and give it away for free. That would probably be enough to topple Fortnite. It just also would net you exactly 0 profit.
Maybe. But you'd need servers. And that would cost a lot of money for something aiming to be that scale.
You do what games used to do: provide the server software to every player so they can run their own. This also means the game can never die.
I mean that's literally just Minecraft hunger games at this point.
The reason Fortnite is popular isn't it's outstanding gameplay, it's a network effect coupled with the sillyness of the various IPs interacting. People play Fortnite because their friends play Fortnite.
Sure but when you have an established successful franchises with a working recipe. Like. Just release the next ace combat I swear to God it's been 6 years without a peep about ace combat 8 despite ace combat 7 being by far the best selling in the franchise.
Let me ask, do you really want another ace combat after half a decade without information? In all likelihood, the team has been gutted twice. The only similarities to its past might end up being art direction and the name.
Like, I enjoyed the new armored core and duke nukem, but they weren’t quite continuations of the previous games. Mecha sekiro and generic cringy subpar shooter 485 weren’t worth the wait. Though, I admit, I’m a hypocrite and holding my breath for silksong.
Exactly. The team(s) that made the stuff we love are usually long gone by the time we get "the next" whatever. My go-to for that is Criterion Games going from Burnout Paradise to... well, basically not doing anything anymore. Thanks, EA.
Some of the devs left, and Wreckreation is on the docket. It's due to be a spiritual successor, but I'd he willing to bet nowhere near as charming as Burnout. Damn, I hope I'm wrong, given "Dangerous Driving"...
Heres a gamer-brained analogy:
You know how all the manosphere types describe 90% of women as only being willing to date the top 10% of men?
This is that.
90% of all the money in gaming is going toward developing a game with a 10% chance of being rhe next Minecraft, the next Fortnite, the next big huge thing that will generate a stupid amount of money by functionally acting as its own MTX ecosystem with widespread adoption.
It is: We don't sell consumer model economy cars because our financial situation is so wound up in financing (read: debt obligations) that we can actually only afford to sell high end luxury models, otherwise our profit margin is too small, and then we can't afford our operating costs and debt obligations, so then we have to downsize and fire everyone and most importantly, our shareholders don't get as much ~~wealth extraction~~, I mean profit.)
The ... problem with this obviously is that if 90% of the money in gaming is shooting for making basically the same kind of game... well then it is all competing with itself, thus causing a gametheortic prisoners dilemma situation where everyone acting out of maximum self interest actually results in the worst possible outcome.
Another problem with this is that these games are very expensive to make, and they must be made very fast... so, everything other than the MTX system in these games will be buggy and sloppy and garbage tier...
So, yeah. Game companies are the same kind of delulu that the manosphere thinks 90% of women are, chasing a wildly unrealistic outcome via wildly unlikely to work means.
(Disclaimer: I am not saying I endorse or believe in this manosphere idea, I am using it as a gamer-brained analogy, assuming it is true for sake of argument and comparison.)
I'd hate to say it, but look at any big publishers quarterly reports. Compare how much base games sell compared to micro transactions.
^ EA's
They would all like to take the lead and have "the" live service game but unfortunately even their bland attempts still bring in a lot of cash. This is why the push to live service is so aggressive.
The only thing that's been slowing the push down is these big live service failures, which is making big publishers a little stingy on what games to push.
You are correct though, the big franchises have a lot of name recognition and its really hard for a competitor to muscle in on that established space (though they do try). Established IPs is a safe bet that often pays off, despite gamers lamenting it.
Because they're run by executives that have no fucking idea what game development entails.
That and everything now needs to be "disruptive". An idea doesn't see the light of day in a tech board room without explaining how it's going to disrupt the market and create space for itself. So unless the game is pitched as a killer of whatever the competition has it won't move forward. It's the whole silicon valley mindset of move fast and break things in action.
Infinite growth mentality vs remembering the customer as a human
"I don't understand what you're calling the wallet piggies" - executives and the whole marketing dept
Capitalism ruins everything. Usually by design.
This one, right here OP.
Capitalism is, at its core: Profits > all
Profit is more important to these chucklefucks than the customers happiness, their loyalty, the staff that make the product, hell, even the product they're selling... This includes your life; profit is more important than your life. If they can bump their quarterly earnings with you doing something dangerous that turns you into a fucking grease stain, they'll fucking do it. They're psychopaths.
Only because of laws does any company do "the right thing". Everything else they do is to reduce expenses, or increase profits.
They wouldn't try to make the next fortnite, if fortnite didn't make its creators disgusting amounts of money. Games wouldn't become micro transaction hell if microtransactions didn't rake in shitloads of cash steadily.
Video Games are simply their tool to extract the maximum possible value they can from you. First it was stupid one-off horse cosmetics, then it was paid DLC, then they started shipping half of a game before it was ready (cutting dev costs so they could get their payout faster), then releasing paid "DLC" which was the rest of the fucking game.... To now, when we have little more than an idea, some mechanics, and somewhat unique art design before the steaming pile that they call a game gets to be "released", and they'll literally add everything later.
Look at halo. Let's use it as a case study. The original game had its share of problems on release, but it was at least pretending to be a full game when it came out. Full single player and multi player, with a fully fleshed out campaign, complete with working cutscenes. Halo 2 followed a similar path, for the most part... Eventually, the Halo dev team became beholden to the almighty shareholder and now we have halo infinite with an infinite amount of bullshit and no single player campaign... Unless you want to pay extra for it, or for these skins, or for.... You get the idea.
I played, and liked Halo. I fell away from it after Halo 2/3 due to life stuff, and at this point, I picked up the master chief collection for the nostalgia, but that's probably the last money I'm putting into the franchise. I just can't be bothered. It was good while it lasted.
Halo is hardly unique in this. I only used them as an example because it was easy. I could have also used Diablo....
Fiduciary duty to shareholders. Line must go up, as much as possible, as fast as possible.
The profit incentive is toxic to creativity. Try to imagine how much cultural value is lost every single day because of no UBI and having to worry about a survival job.
They honestly need to look at Fortnite as the model. It wasn’t meant to be this massive AAA game. It was a modest game with a unique concept (building). Adding battle royal was done on a whim. It just happened to click with millions of people.
No. I want an incredibly small scale indie game made by a tiny team and fills my desires for power and war/crimes. Rimworld, Kenshi, Factorio.
wtf does "AA" and "AAA" even mean, like, why do they need different batteries.?
besides, I thought, batteries were totally out...
AA is a game that is a normal full sized game, but was made on a budget that limited scope. Good examples are the Metro series or Balatro. AAA is your normal games with big budgets. AAAA is a special title for Skull and Bones, it means you spend a gigantic amount of money and make sure the whole thing sucks.
Balatro is indie, songs isn't it? Developed by a single dude with probably zero budget
Yeah, maybe not a good AA example, just couldn't think of a second one off the top of my head.
Clair obscur expedition 33
Basically everything Nintendo makes is AA, they just charge AAA+ prices for them.
They work for the shareholders, not the customers. For most publicly traded companies, the stock is completely detached from fundamentals, so they just do whatever the large investors like (often just hype the new hottest thing; such as marketplaces or "increasing efficiency" with layoffs), regardless if its good for the "real" business or not.
I've noticed that an increasing amount of games that I enjoy over the past decade have been indie games (or games with lax publishers.)
We've got the IP, why don't we make the Smash Bros. killer? We can call it "MultiVersus"!
They'd rather oversaturate the fucking market place chasing an elusive Pot of Gold than go for the sure thing.
Sadly not every deserving AA studio gets to survive in the long term nowadays. Minimi Studios is my go to example for this. They made amazing niche games with no exploitative DLC/monetization that were widely praised but rarely played. Sometimes good, honest studios can't make enough money to get by in this day and age and that's a real tragedy.
why are they like this?
Which would you rather have 1 million dollars or 100 million dollars?
That's basically the thought process, if it bombs I can blame it on some other, if it doesn't then I'm good
Which would you rather have 1 million dollars or 100 million dollars?
It's not that straightforward, unfortunately. The real culprit is allowing all giant public companies to hoover up all the small companies. Now you're not a 3 person team with a side job trying to pay the bills and getting lucky. Office rent, Unity/Unreal want their cut, app stores want their cut, Salary, IT, Healthcare. You end up needing to support quite a lot of infrastructure to make that 1 Mil game. That no longer 'moves the needle' on your company's yearly income and the stock suffers.
Then, you can't just make a game and release it anymore, you need live ops, sales, events, campaigns, otherwise you're leaving money on the table.
Because we buy the games, the microtransactions, the cosmetics, etc. Even just one purchase multiplied by millions is a win for publishers. Whales and content creators fuel the cycle even more. Meanwhile, currencies get deliberately convoluted: you need stars for a pull, which require sparkle farts, which you can’t buy directly or in exact amounts. Out of sparkle farts? $14.99 gets you 6000—enough for three whole pills! Don't worry, there's a pity system, so the most you'll spend is only $400. And then you're left with 60 stars, and if you just had 40 more!
You’re not forced to buy, but they make the grind brutal and a slog. If you're really unlucky, it can even make actually playing the came harder. And as long as this system makes money, it won’t stop. Games are turning into storefronts with a mini-game attached. Good games feel like rare blessings, and creativity is often found only indie studios. Big teams have talent—they’re just not allowed to use it, their companies don't care about that. Gotta make money, more money, all the time, forever, or you've failed.
~~I say "they" like I don't play a few gachas myself, but still.~~
Because money isn't real if you have enough to lose. You can just put the blame on someone else and then get your shareholders to fund another project that will be "different", just like all the other cash cows on the market.