This Shit is Scary

[ChorizoPicozo]

Youtube's algorithm recently recommended to me this channel.

since the MSxABK acquisition drama began, you could find arguments against and in favor of the deal. The vast majority if not all, were console warrior driven (even by disguise).

Since the very beginning, I have sustained that the industry is already fucked and consolidation is just a natural process of any industry once it reaches a certain size/maturity.

I was coming from a superficial point of view:

• Normalization of games coming out broken, unfinished or/and unpolished.
• Longer dev cycles.
• Third party publishers heavy reliance on GaaS/MTXs as the main source of money making.
• Abysmal Output of new IPs and the amount of games developed by a single studio/publishers.

Looking at those videos gives me anxiety and puts in perspective the amount of pressure and stakes a single game has on the overall sustainability and health of these companies. You don't need just a good game, you need a great game, and this is only just to have a better opportunity in the market; a great game is not even a guarantee of financial success.

People love to blame Game Pass for everything when in reality the problem was how disruptive the Free to Play/Loot boxes/MTXs/GaaS model really ended up being.

the irony is that services in which "you pay money then you get access to games" could've be the savior of the industry (too bad MS fucked things up by using it as a desperate move to save their videogame brand).

But image this: (we know that coming out with brand new mechanics, ideas, tech, design philosophy/language for a new game is the most time-consuming thing).

So, if instead of spending 6+ years making a 20+ hours game, you make a 6-10 hours game in 2-3 years and use such services (as long as different price points) as a way to test the viability of new IPs. Then just iterate in all previous concepts and expedite game development for the massive sequel.

one of the issues is that gamers see lower priced games as a lesser product, if the game is 10-15 hours, then is not worth buying, and at the same time a smaller game doesn't justify a heavy marketing push. This creates a dilemma in which publishers are forced to double down in bug shit/old IPs and sequels.

(dumbass Phil Spencer writing about publisher when his two massive AAAA games are Fable and Project Dark.)

I think shit is going to get real cereal in the next 2-4 years.

 

[SLB1904]

Honestly they can all burn for all I care

 

[arvfab]

I thought I would open the thread and be greeted by a picture of Greenburger and Philocchio kissing each other. THAT shit would be reeeeally scary.

 

[Systemshock2023]

Just a run of the mill overly dramatic YouTuber looking for clicks.

 

[Sircaw]

Every day, every single news channel reminds me that we will all be dead soon due to the effects of Global warming.

so with that in mind

 

[Jim Ryan]

I'm retiring, so I don't care.

 

[Box]

Just a run of the mill overly dramatic YouTuber looking for clicks.

For years people said Nintendo is doomed, yet here we are

 

[Yurinka]

Youtube's algorithm recently recommended to me this channel.

since the MSxABK acquisition drama began, you could find arguments against and in favor of the deal. The vast majority if not all, were console warrior driven (even by disguise).

Since the very beginning, I have sustained that the industry is already fucked and consolidation is just a natural process of any industry once it reaches a certain size/maturity.

I was coming from a superficial point of view:

• Normalization of games coming out broken, unfinished or/and unpolished.
• Longer dev cycles.

Companies have a limited budget, plus assignated and signed marketing deals with platform holders, tv ads/ physical ads in special locations, deals with retail stores to highlight their games etc.

So they must hit the release date because to delay a game when close to release is really a pain in the ass and means to lose marketing deals or having to wait even more time to get another marketing slot in all their marketing areas, which often are busy with other projects. And this in case the company who markets/publishes the game doesn't have the marketing team busy with other projects.

So often they hope to fix all the meaningful issues before launch, and if not to do so with a day one patch. Sometimes isn't possible becase to make a game is very complex and implies many things devs can't control or predict, so often even if they did everything right can't have everything at launch, so try to fix remaining stuff as soon as possible.

There are only a handful companies rich enough to don't have to worrry about budgets or time, as are Nintendo or Rockstar.

• Third party publishers heavy reliance on GaaS/MTXs as the main source of money making.

AAA games get bigger ang bigger every generation, and get more and more complex with more and more features, and more detailed in terms of art and more complex in terms of tech. Which means that every generation they become more expensive to make, so also more expensive to market, but sales and prices didn't grow proportionally.

Meaning, every generation AAA games get more expensive and risky, so they need to find more revenue sources, as it is to publish in more platforms and DLC/MTX/GaaS.

• Abysmal Output of new IPs and the amount of games developed by a single studio/publishers.

AAA being more risky also means they get more conservative and more often rely on sequels of hits and proved genres and ideas. Sony and Ubisoft are rare cases where they bet on a lot of new IP, half of the over two dozen games under development at Sony.

Looking at those videos gives me anxiety and puts in perspective the amount of pressure and stakes a single game has on the overall sustainability and health of these companies.

You don't need just a good game, you need a great game, and this is only just to have a better opportunity in the market; a great game is not even a guarantee of financial success.

It's sensationalistic yellow press stuff, or simply that they don't know how the industry works.

To make games is very complex, hard, difficult, demanding and risky. To make new IPs even more. To make big ones even more. To make great ones even more. To make them financially successful even more. And nobody has a magic formula to get always huge hits, but a few are in a position where they have more money/freedom to take more time and resources and iterate more than the rest.

Quite frequently things fail, and games tank, and deals aren't closed and sometimes people needs to be fired because there isn't other solution or it's the best one for the company or the geam. Some games even get cancelled and some studios or companies shut down, and sometimes firings help to avoid that. In these cases, most of these people -who in big companies had a great salary- simply move to another gaming company.

People love to blame Game Pass for everything when in reality the problem was how disruptive the Free to Play/Loot boxes/MTXs/GaaS model really ended up being.

They are two very different things: GaaS/mtx being dominant in the market is compatible with having traditional model of non-gaaS being sold and successful.

If the GP/Netflix model (big releases day one on the sub) would be dominant it would mean that many companies and platform holders would have to shut down and the game sales wouldn't be viable (as partially happens in Xbox).

the irony is that services in which "you pay money then you get access to games" could've be the savior of the industry (too bad MS fucked things up by using it as a desperate move to save their videogame brand).

The industry is better than ever, doesn't need any savior. If a game sub becomes very successful or dominant only benefits its platform holder, because earns a lot of money and also decides what games get released that month, so would decide who are successful and who don't.

But image this: (we know that coming out with brand new mechanics, ideas, tech, design philosophy/language for a new game is the most time-consuming thing).

Very innovative games who are different take more time/budget to be made, and in almost absolutely all cases get rejected by the players, becoming totally unsuccessful. So devs try to get a pretty limited amount of innovation and instead focus on solid stuff that they see it worked in some very successful games.

So, if instead of spending 6+ years making a 20+ hours game, you make a 6-10 hours game in 2-3 years and use such services (as long as different price points) as a way to test the viability of new IPs. Then just iterate in all previous concepts and expedite game development for the massive sequel.

I'd prefer too, but shorter games -specially in AAA area- get criticism because of their length when they are that short. And in the opposite side, many players ask for longer and bigger games / praise games with a shit ton of content. So AAA devs often try to increase the size, legnth and amount of content of the new AAA games.

I think shit is going to get real cereal in the next 2-4 years.

I think that things in the next 2-4 will be like now. I think the only major change we may see in around 4 years from now is MS doing a Sega saying they quit from making more consoles and move to become a full multiplatform 3rd party publisher focusing on PC+cloud, and that they stop including new games day one on GP.

Other than that, I expect game subs to continue slowly growing, the game sales to continue slowly decreasing being replaced by add-on sales (dlc/mtx/passes), mobile gaming to continue growing faster and becoming way bigger than console or pc, and also the digital vs physical game sales ratio to continue slowly increasing.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The industry's done it to itself, creating the perception that most games not offering 50+ hours of content or AAA budgets aren't worth buying at full price (or at all). Most of the industry (sans Nintendo) have even managed to degrade the value of their own games with rapid price drops shortly after launch, and pushing them into subscription services only a few months later in many cases.

And no, multi-game subscription services were never the answer. No pricing scheme could ever cover the production & marketing costs required for having a glutton of Day 1 AAA and AA games in the service, in a scenario where such would also drastically drive down demand for B2P sales. No singular company, not even Microsoft, can sustain the pricing subsidization for Day 1 of so many AAA and AA games; we are already seeing the cutbacks with their own 1P games this year between RedFall, Starfield, and Forza Motorsport. IMO almost all the problems in these games are due to budget cutbacks primarily.

So not only can a single platform holder not successfully operate a multi-game subscription service with Day 1 access to many AAA and AA games at the quality level we've come to expect from the B2P market, but in realizing this, consolidation actually hurts everything and offers no sustainable solution. The consolidator still has a finite pool of resources to work with; to account for the increased costs in salaries, pensions, 401Ks, equipment, utility bills, travel etc. these consolidators either have to accept smaller profit margins, or cut back in areas of game production to maintain or grow margins. You can't have both.

You want to know what the real solution is? It's not Early Access, and it's not multi-game subscription services. IMO it's something in-between, and I've been saying it for a while now. Publishers - preferably through platform holders - need to introduce a pay installment model for their games. The people who can buy them at full price Day 1 will still have the option, but those who can't or don't want to? Let them pay a monthly fee and, as long as they make their payments, they can have full access to the game the same way someone buying in full Day 1 would. Those on monthly payments basically pay off their purchase over the course of say six months or one year, you can even add other payment models like a monthly plan that covers some DLC and MTX goodies in the package.

It'd be a per-game model; you are still selling a finished product (aside from any DLC or MTX items that release afterwards), so in that sense it is not Early Access. You are not subsidizing the cost at a fixed rate across an entire catalog of games where a massive influx of subscribers are needed to make the model work, so in that sense it is not like a multi-game subscription service. But, it brings the benefits of both in a manageable package.

Someone who could buy, say, Spiderman 2 or a Mario Odyssey 2 at $6 or $7 a month knows that they're going to have complete ownership of the game once they finish payments. But they also know they can get it from Day 1 like the person who pays $70 up front. With that type of flexibility, companies wouldn't need to do flash sales or drop the price of the game as often, because honestly someone who can't justify even $5 or $6 dollars a month for full Day 1 access and eventual ownership of the game, was probably not a potential customer in the first place.

 

[Killer_Sakoman]

The industry's done it to itself, creating the perception that most games not offering 50+ hours of content or AAA budgets aren't worth buying at full price (or at all). Most of the industry (sans Nintendo) have even managed to degrade the value of their own games with rapid price drops shortly after launch, and pushing them into subscription services only a few months later in many cases.

And no, multi-game subscription services were never the answer. No pricing scheme could ever cover the production & marketing costs required for having a glutton of Day 1 AAA and AA games in the service, in a scenario where such would also drastically drive down demand for B2P sales. No singular company, not even Microsoft, can sustain the pricing subsidization for Day 1 of so many AAA and AA games; we are already seeing the cutbacks with their own 1P games this year between RedFall, Starfield, and Forza Motorsport. IMO almost all the problems in these games are due to budget cutbacks primarily.

So not only can a single platform holder not successfully operate a multi-game subscription service with Day 1 access to many AAA and AA games at the quality level we've come to expect from the B2P market, but in realizing this, consolidation actually hurts everything and offers no sustainable solution. The consolidator still has a finite pool of resources to work with; to account for the increased costs in salaries, pensions, 401Ks, equipment, utility bills, travel etc. these consolidators either have to accept smaller profit margins, or cut back in areas of game production to maintain or grow margins. You can't have both.

You want to know what the real solution is? It's not Early Access, and it's not multi-game subscription services. IMO it's something in-between, and I've been saying it for a while now. Publishers - preferably through platform holders - need to introduce a pay installment model for their games. The people who can buy them at full price Day 1 will still have the option, but those who can't or don't want to? Let them pay a monthly fee and, as long as they make their payments, they can have full access to the game the same way someone buying in full Day 1 would. Those on monthly payments basically pay off their purchase over the course of say six months or one year, you can even add other payment models like a monthly plan that covers some DLC and MTX goodies in the package.

It'd be a per-game model; you are still selling a finished product (aside from any DLC or MTX items that release afterwards), so in that sense it is not Early Access. You are not subsidizing the cost at a fixed rate across an entire catalog of games where a massive influx of subscribers are needed to make the model work, so in that sense it is not like a multi-game subscription service. But, it brings the benefits of both in a manageable package.

Someone who could buy, say, Spiderman 2 or a Mario Odyssey 2 at $6 or $7 a month knows that they're going to have complete ownership of the game once they finish payments. But they also know they can get it from Day 1 like the person who pays $70 up front. With that type of flexibility, companies wouldn't need to do flash sales or drop the price of the game as often, because honestly someone who can't justify even $5 or $6 dollars a month for full Day 1 access and eventual ownership of the game, was probably not a potential customer in the first place.

The current situation originated during PS360 years because so called Journalists who would give low review scores to games that offer less than 15 hours gameplay or no multiplayer or not open world. Also, Xbots and Mictoshit contributed to this shit. Shitting on every great PS3 exclusive that was either linear or not having a multiplayer. Publishers solution was to make every game open world and fill them with 1000s of useless side quests and over blown features.

 

[flaccidsnake]

We've been living in a dream world for the last ~10 years. Near 0% interest rates for years and years while corporate profits skyrocketed. The Fed waited until they really had no choice but to raise rates precipitously, and now companies who were getting by on cheap credit have to make moves.

 

[Kokoloko]

For years people said Nintendo is doomed, yet here we are

Dont forget consoles were doomed PS3/360 gen and the PS4/XB1 was the ”last” consoles according to some bloomberh/forbes suckers

 

[rofif]

sub effect, monopolization, gaas. We see the effects here.
Studios that make NORMAL good games like Forspoke or Immortals don't even stand a chance.
People expect gaas now. Kids are grown this way now... to expect gaas and 300 hours open world games. yuck

 

[BroodCorp]

I believe Sony and Nintendo have what it takes to keep the console market interesting enough to not fail. They also produce their own software.

Everyone else may get eaten up though.

 

[flaccidsnake]

Microsoft is willing to lose money on Xbox because they believe it's their path to "consumer relevance". If they figure out some other successful path, they'll drop Xbox in a heartbeat.

 

[ethomaz]

I wonder what you watch on YT.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The current situation originated during PS360 years because do called Journalists who would give low review to games that offers less than 15 hours or no multiplayer or not open world. Also, Xbots and Mictoshit contributed to this shit. Shitting on every great PS3 ecclusive that was either linear or not having a multiplayer. Publishers solution was to make every game open world and fill them with 1000s of useless side quests and over blown features.

I can 100% believe that to be the case. Same games journalists were also tearing down a LOT of Japanese games for being "too anime" or "too Japanese" or weird, and not gritty or realistic enough.

It got really ugly at some point, and I'm sure Microsoft had their astroturfing fingers in the pie. Fast-forward to modern day and they're crying to regulators that Sony's blocking Japanese games from coming to Xbox. Like, they fail to realize their own corporate culture in the 360 & XBO years towards Japanese devs and any region that wasn't US & UK, wasn't responsible for the eventual lack of Japanese support later in the XBO's lifecycle.

 

[Killer_Sakoman]

I can 100% believe that to be the case. Same games journalists were also tearing down a LOT of Japanese games for being "too anime" or "too Japanese" or weird, and not gritty or realistic enough.

It got really ugly at some point, and I'm sure Microsoft had their astroturfing fingers in the pie. Fast-forward to modern day and they're crying to regulators that Sony's blocking Japanese games from coming to Xbox. Like, they fail to realize their own corporate culture in the 360 & XBO years towards Japanese devs and any region that wasn't US & UK, wasn't responsible for the eventual lack of Japanese support later in the XBO's lifecycle.

They definitely pushed Japanese publishers to westernize their game design style. Remember, Japanese games were the best during PS1 and PS2 era ( and I believe they still are the best). Japanese had their worst days when they tried to mimic western design during PS360 era mainly because journalists and xbots were trashing them.