The Sad Future of the Gaming Industry

[RandV]

I always scratch my head seeing stuff like this because I feel like it's been this way practically forever. You see the consolidation into a few big publisher starting in the 2000's, and once you start getting a system of big publishers running on big investments they're all going to start chasing whatever is making the most money right now. Like starting about 20 years ago, a ton of investment money was blown because everyone started trying to make a WoW clone. And predictably it didn't work because people who wanted an MMO just stuck with WoW.

Probably the big distinction of why it's a 'problem' today is they likely followed the MMO disaster with success when the focus shifted to the Call of Duty/military shooters. Between CoD and Madded they firmly had that 16-24 male gamer age hooked in. And of course for today for the past 5 years or so the model is the 'live service model' is back to being like WoW where all the kids are just playing Fortnite. Also to put Sony/Microsoft who demand endless growth into to panic the kids can play Fortnite on practically anything.

I hate equating the 'AAA' market as the 'video game industry'. For the broader market in the roughly 25+ m/f category, things are about as good as they've ever been. Personally if EA/Activision/Ubisoft all folded tomorrow I'd say good. I'd feel bad for people immediately losing there job but I would hope that would free up a lot of talent/money to focus on a greater variety of more modest sized projects.

You always have to remember that nobody forced them into these big bloated budgets. Producing a video game should be a very simple equation, there's little to no cost in producing the physical product you sell, the cost is all in development. So project your sales figures and you know how much you can spend on development. For example that more modest sized company that made the Terminator & Robocop games this should be pretty easy. The problem with the big publishers is they're not content making a game like that, the original Dead Space for example, they only want the games that make all the money selling 10M+ copies and with a constant revenue stream. And they beleive the way to get there is to more or less develop whats currently working and just throw more money at the problem.

 

[93LEAFS]

I always scratch my head seeing stuff like this because I feel like it's been this way practically forever. You see the consolidation into a few big publisher starting in the 2000's, and once you start getting a system of big publishers running on big investments they're all going to start chasing whatever is making the most money right now. Like starting about 20 years ago, a ton of investment money was blown because everyone started trying to make a WoW clone. And predictably it didn't work because people who wanted an MMO just stuck with WoW.

Probably the big distinction of why it's a 'problem' today is they likely followed the MMO disaster with success when the focus shifted to the Call of Duty/military shooters. Between CoD and Madded they firmly had that 16-24 male gamer age hooked in. And of course for today for the past 5 years or so the model is the 'live service model' is back to being like WoW where all the kids are just playing Fortnite. Also to put Sony/Microsoft who demand endless growth into to panic the kids can play Fortnite on practically anything.

I hate equating the 'AAA' market as the 'video game industry'. For the broader market in the roughly 25+ m/f category, things are about as good as they've ever been. Personally if EA/Activision/Ubisoft all folded tomorrow I'd say good. I'd feel bad for people immediately losing there job but I would hope that would free up a lot of talent/money to focus on a greater variety of more modest sized projects.

You always have to remember that nobody forced them into these big bloated budgets. Producing a video game should be a very simple equation, there's little to no cost in producing the physical product you sell, the cost is all in development. So project your sales figures and you know how much you can spend on development. For example that more modest sized company that made the Terminator & Robocop games this should be pretty easy. The problem with the big publishers is they're not content making a game like that, the original Dead Space for example, they only want the games that make all the money selling 10M+ copies and with a constant revenue stream. And they beleive the way to get there is to more or less develop whats currently working and just throw more money at the problem.

I think a major issue now is that 20 years ago the turnaround on games was around 2 years for a studio. Now they are investing like 5 to 7 years of work. The ability to pivot is non-existent. You need to be very forward thinking. Chasing trends in an industry that takes 5 to 7 years to make a AAA game is likely a terrible idea. Look at Arkane Austin. Bethesda pushed a game that was originally intended to be live service on them (ended up only being a co-op game), Microsoft continued with it, and it killed the studio.

 

[GreytWun]

Yeah, the real question here is how long it takes to unwind. It's long been rumored Sony locked up the entire FF VII trilogy shortly after the Bethesda deal. So unless Square wants to pay a ton to buy themselves out of that, it's not like they can quickly get themselves out of it.

Who knows what the contract is. For all we know there is clauses in there.

 

[Turin]

For how ass the industry is, imo it is undeniable that great games are still being pumped out- some of the best ever made in all genres, except maybe multiplayer FPS.

 

[93LEAFS]

Who knows what the contract is. For all we know there is clauses in there.

There are probably clauses in their, but it would likely be very punitive to Square to get out of it.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

AAA studio gaming are certainly cranking out some stinkers at seemingly record pace. But the great thing about gaming now is that indie games are incredibly accessible, easily marketed, and get a lot of support.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I'm curious to see how these AAA studios incorporate generative-AI into their games. It's absolutely coming. No amount of threads on reddit or youtube diatribes bemoaning it is going to prevent game studios from using this whenever possible.

 

[JaegerDice]

The unpopular truth of the matter is that most of the modern videogame financial models disappear if consumers would just accept $100 USD as the baseline price for a game.

Compare the percentage increase in price of a movie ticket in the 90s to today, now do the same for a videogame. The rise to $70 barely covers inflation, let alone the added cost of development.

The problem is that the market research shows videogame consumers en mass are more put off by the idea of paying $100 up front than they are paying less up front, and then a bit more, a bit more, a bit more, over the course of some time.

 

[93LEAFS]

The unpopular truth of the matter is that most of the modern videogame financial models disappear if consumers would just accept $100 USD as the baseline price for a game.

Compare the percentage increase in price of a movie ticket in the 90s to today, now do the same for a videogame. The rise to $70 barely covers inflation, let alone the added cost of development.

The problem is that the market research shows videogame consumers en mass are more put off by the idea of paying $100 up front than they are paying less up front, and then a bit more, a bit more, a bit more, over the course of some time.

I'd add though, while development costs have skyrocketed in gaming, so too have the amount of players. The SNES was a massive success and sold less than the PS5 already has. Add in more people are playing AAA games on PC than ever. Sadly, I agree prices might have to rise, but there are also way more consumers (especially adults with discretionary income playing) than there were in 1990. Now, Console growth has stagnated over the past 5 to 10 years or so, but PC has boomed which is beneficial to 3rd parties.

 

[Beau Knows]

The unpopular truth of the matter is that most of the modern videogame financial models disappear if consumers would just accept $100 USD as the baseline price for a game.

I doubt that if they could get players to spend $100 on a game, that they would stop pushing microtransactions on them.

 

[flyersnorth]

I doubt that if they could get players to spend $100 on a game, that they would stop pushing microtransactions on them.

EA is going to include ads in their AAA games.

They just can't help themselves. Advertising in general is so insidious - like "here's a [game/TV show/website/streaming service/app] we made for you, and we're going to make it a terrible experience by constantly bombarding you with pitches to buy someone else's products so you can't get to enjoy ours."

EA Reportedly Considering Implementing In-Game Ads in AAA Titles

EA is reportedly considering the possibility of introducing more in-game ads within the studio's AAA game releases, according to its CEO.

gamerant.com

 

[S E P H]

We'll always have Nintendo 1st party games.

Even those have gone downhill, I am not sure if any Switch game beats its competitor on the Gamecube or N64.

RE games are certainly not the AAA games lol.

They have a VERY limited fan base.

They are on the same level as the AC games IMO, and those are not AAA games.

I think the last RE game I played was one of the OG ones on the Gamecube, but I would classify RE7 most definitely as a AAA game just as AC II is also a AAA game.