Problems with the Game's Industry as a Whole

[Juxtapose]

I've been mentioning for a while now that the game's industry as a whole is in a bad way, and by chance I stumbled across an interesting article that goes over some of the details as to the why. I figured it'd be an interesting read for some of you.

It generally talks about changes to the publishing market over the last decade-ish, saturation, development costs, etc.

 

[Law Hero]

Normally, you'd have to pay me to read a Polygon article, but since I was already there, I bit the bullet and gave it a read anyway.

As a boomer (Millennial), the question of "why do so many video games suck these days" has often crossed my mind and dominated conversation with my friends and family members, and the article does bring up some points that are valid. For me, when I think of the 'Golden Age' of games, I think of the PS2/GCN/XBOX era, and I try to think about what the environment was like for video games then.

To the best of my surface-level understanding of the time, there was almost a video game gold rush from publishers, where leaders would greenlight just about every idea that came across their desk in the hopes of striking gold with at least one of them. Thinking about that reminds me of an article I read regarding Nike and their success which was attributed to the mobility of their business. Essentially, the article noted that Nike was not afraid to try out a myriad of ideas and strategies simultaneously in order to see what works, then focusing on cultivating those successes while continuing to experiment with new ideas at a rapid pace. Essentially, they're willing to invest in 11 bad ideas if they can strike gold with just 1. It's similar to what Blumhouse does with horror movies, and although their name may not carry much prestige, they are wildly successful.

During the aforementioned PS2 era, I think publishers had that mobility, and as a result, we got a lot of terrible, mediocre, or uninspired games, but we also got plenty of absolute gems that could only exist in an environment where experimentation was the norm. This is where the article and I agree on: major publishers are of the mind that each release NEEDS to be #1 or meet standards of all other legendary releases in order to be successful; consequently, budgets inflate to insane proportions until the only way it's possible for the game to make any profit is to actually become a #1 best seller. The movie industry is facing a similar problem where every studio has decided that a movie is only successful if it can surpass 1 billion at the box office, so now small movies that only deserve a 30mil budget are hyper inflated to 200-300mil, then when you factor in advertising and everything else, that once-little project now NEEDS to make 1 billion in order to bring home any profit at all.

That's just my limited understanding of the issue, and I don't have any easy solutions. I do think that indie games CAN compound the issue as the article stated, but I think the article definitely overestimates indie games' ability to compete with an actual studio-made game with some advertising and big-name publishers behind it. So, in short, my boomer brain says that publishers should stop trying to compete with and copy GTA or TLoU, and should instead focus on producing more lower/mid budget games in the hopes of finding the next big thing and capitalizing on that.

 

[Eji1700]

This happens in just about every budding industry, especially on the AAA side.

1. Innovation as the industry is created and new tech/toys/ideas are experimented with.
2. Massive growth as larger and larger capital gets involved and greater reach occurs.
3. Fairly heavy stagnation as massive budgets require massive profits, and thus more and more bean counting because the risks are too high to be "artsy".

Barely anyone expects some summer blockbuster film to actually be deep/unique or whatever. They're tent pole's designed to keep things up by appealing to whatever is the safest ROI on the INSANE investment. In the meantime you get things like A24 pumping out more creative stuff, or the entire horror genre literally throwing whatever it can at the wall to see what sticks in the hopes they get another SAW out of it.

The only real difference in the games industry is that the barrier to entry is lower than almost any other. Unlike movies, shows, art, etc, it is in theory quite easy to get a game up on steam, and thus it's a lot more similar to things like youtube/twitch, than film.

That said, unlike youtube, things are not automatically "free" and thus based on ad revenue, so you still need to make a product that people will pay for, rather than click on, call you an asshole in the comments, and move on. I would still argue that the number of actually "great" games coming out on a yearly basis is probably higher than ever, it's just that the AAA space has very heavily declined as more and more publishers/developers have been cashing in on their reputation.

 

[Juxtapose]

@Law Hero Good right up, though no offence, I actually laughed when you call yourself a boomer. You most certainly are not, nor are you "old."

Having said that, I've also spent time at points looking back to my own "golden age" of gaming, which I hold to be the late '90's to early 2000's. Consoles were generally "trash" back then, and everything was happening on PC (though that began to change with the original Xbox since it essentially was a PC in console form). Lots of creativity and innovation and advancement in genres. Half-Life was fantastic, id Tech was really taking off, Blizzard Entertainment was the company everyone wishes they could be with mammoth hits like Starcraft, Diablo II, and Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, etc. It was a time when things really were fresh and innovative and before gaming became "big business."

For the article, one thing I certainly agree on is there's far, far too much saturation of games. There's too many damn video games, and while some are crap, many or good, and a few are really, really great. The popularity of genres have shifted as well, and absolutely triple A companies really have "doubled down" on traditional methods for a while, but we now see both Sony and Microsoft making shifts; the latter more then the former.

Triple A companies also got caught up in the Games as a Service concept and sunk far too much time and effort into that model, which has generally not worked out for most of them.

For film and TV, don't remind me. My company is downsizing and I've spent the last few weeks in moving hell closing a floor. We just had a small round of lay offs too, including one of my dearest friends.

@Eji1700 Absolutely. The game's industry as a whole is generally really, really young.

 

[LEGEND]

all great points, all said better than I could have.

Just my 2 cents:

Too many games, too little time

Graphics and animations are probably the biggest time sinks in development and neither of them matter as long as they don't hinder gameplay. So much shit is way over designed, almost feels like people are trying to justify their job by adding so many unnecessary and unrealistic details into environments and characters.

 

[Mikemetroid]

Our interests dont align with the investors and the investors are dumb fucks that are tricked/lied to at our expense. As long as they get their money they win, in return we get really shit products with no real good service level agreements or anything

 

[xenogorgeous]

the best games are the single player one, with focus in great narrative story and good gameplay, just look at the majority of games that won GOTY since 2013 .... period

these assholes greedy as hell motherfuckers from EA, Ubisoft, etc that we have today, that think that turning everything ino GaaS, filling up with tons of MTX, season pass, etc, also releasing games with tons of bugs, glitches and lacking content, and even worse, putting woke in everything, and thinking that the fanbase will swallow this , that is the major problem with the game industry today ..... so vote with your wallet !

 

[kabelfritz]

ill go with a hot, flat take that i still believe to be true and that is that gaming suffers when marketing and finance tell devs what to create.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

It’s all slop that has to appeal to the lowest common denominator because of how expensive games are. You can’t really take real risks because they have to be very popular. The death of middleware or AA games has KILLED creativity.

That’s why I think the PS2 - PS3 era was the best. The technology was good enough for people to put their imagination into action, but it wasn’t so astronomical of a risk to make a new game. That’s why we get shit like Star Wars Outlaws and Starfield.

 

[Eji1700]

Graphics and animations are probably the biggest time sinks in development and neither of them matter as long as they don't hinder gameplay. So much shit is way over designed, almost feels like people are trying to justify their job by adding so many unnecessary and unrealistic details into environments and characters.

Since i've already got a novel in this topic:

Technically they are, but that's because they're the only ones they're willing to put serious time into.

If you look at the tech over time, creating a full 3d game now takes a fraction of the time and resources it did in the 90s, 00s, or even 10s.

Writing the PLOT for that game, takes as long today as it would have back then (minus time wasted waiting for a 1990's machine to boot).

AI is a similar chokepoint in that it's a very hard problem to solve, and we haven't gotten that much better at it.

Point being that if someone could solve those issues, or wants to try an innovate and focus on those areas, it's a spot where the AAA titles don't see enough ROI to try hard. It's why massive games like Mass Effect end in 3 color endings because it's "good enough" and much smaller projects like Wrath of the Righteous or Disco Elysium have large branching choices. They're specializing in an area that still takes serious manpower, which is arguably cheaper (sorta kinda) for a small studio than a large one.

 

[Shania Twain]

I just kind of skimmed through the article but for me and even younger kids i've noticed they seem to still play either older games like GTAV or they have already invested a lot of time in a game like that or Fortnight that it just takes a lot of time and that is why I think some of these new live service ones are DOA. like for example. I mostly play fighting and FFXIV but they can get reductive and sometimes too long and I just as an adult don't have time. and I think some people just ...you almost had to be there during the burst of the game. sorta like Pokemon. I think MK is somewhat like that to an extent. I also think that games are trying too hard to be similar to a certain art style cuz it was successful for others.

 

[Eddy Wang]

all great points, all said better than I could have.

Just my 2 cents:

Too many games, too little time

Graphics and animations are probably the biggest time sinks in development and neither of them matter as long as they don't hinder gameplay. So much shit is way over designed, almost feels like people are trying to justify their job by adding so many unnecessary and unrealistic details into environments and characters.

I Couldn't agree more with this.
Graphics and Animation are just part of the proccess, none these matter if the gameplay is shit

Ppl these days don't make games because they have passion for it, some make it because they want to make money, and corporte vision usually gets in the way.

I haven't spent money on buying games in years, and i rarely purchase games these days, mostly because games that are worth spending money into are pretty rare.

Watch Dogs legion was such a disappointment, i'm glad i didn't bought it, considering the game felt lack luster and repetitive, sadly that's how most of the games are these days, i feel sorry for those that think this is peak gaming these days, to the point when a proper game it's made, it's instantly considered a masterpiece.

 

[Komatose]

Two reasons the gaming industry sucks for me rn. 1: Microtransactions. You're no longer just actually playing to get stronger or cooler stuff, you just buy a loot crate or seasonal pass. And 2: Devs giving up on supporting the game when it doesn't come out as the next big thing as expected. Ex. being Anthem. It only failed because of the drop of several shooter looters being dropped by companies with big names which is funny because all of them pissed their fanbase off several times in different eras of the game and that would have led them right to a game like Anthem should it have continued support. That game is completely refreshing in terms of combat and mech animations but yeah. It's really happy.

I also don't remember the last time a fully developed game was released. We pay for half or a quarter and get the rest of it later via DLC. That shit wasn't a thing back then in the glory days of the much, much older consoles. I find myself wanting to play older games more the more lackluster some of these games coming out are looking. But lackluster is just my opinion. So take it or leave it. Only games I've consistently enjoyed over the years are Soulsborne games. Literally. 200+ hours on all of them except Elden Ring since I just really started to actually play it. 100+ on that. Easily 300+ hours on Dark Souls 3 and Bloodborne.

The whole industry just isn't the same. I literally agree with pretty much every post in here so just mash that shit on top of the shit I said and the gaming industry is just a big, stacked, shit sandwich, isn't it? Just a shitty, multilayered, shit sandwich. Yummy.

 

[Juxtapose]

Here's a question for everyone:

For those with current generation consoles, which games do you own that are actually only current gen? And which, if any, do you think are truly genre defining? Something so excellent not only could it not have been done last generation, but really had your jaw dropping?

For me, I only own 2 current-gen only games: A Plague Tale: Requiem and _ Mortal Kombat 1_ (which is debatable since it's on Switch). I don't consider either to be genre defining, even though A Plague Tale: Requiem well surpasses what was achieved in the original game.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Here's a question for everyone:

For those with current generation consoles, which games do you own that are actually only current gen? And which, if any, do you think are truly genre defining? Something so excellent not only could it not have been done last generation, but really had your jaw dropping?

For me, I only own 2 current-gen only games: A Plague Tale: Requiem and _ Mortal Kombat 1_ (which is debatable since it's on Switch). I don't consider either to be genre defining, even though A Plague Tale: Requiem well surpasses what was achieved in the original game.

When you mention it, not many since the last gen is still holding on. Elden Ring is cross-gen and Resident Evil 4 remake has a PS4 version. Same with God of War 5. Dead Space remake is current gen only, but it is a remake, so make of that what you will lmao. There's definitely no equivalent to Halo 3, Gears of War, or Uncharted 2 that really validates such a purchase.

Both the new consoles are affordable for most people and I enjoy both of them, but nothing that totally blows your mind. Once again why PS2/XB - PS3/360 were the best generations. Genre defining bangers were getting released almost every single year. Even early on with the PS4/XB1.

 

[ImpostorOak]

Here's a question for everyone:

For those with current generation consoles, which games do you own that are actually only current gen? And which, if any, do you think are truly genre defining? Something so excellent not only could it not have been done last generation, but really had your jaw dropping?

For me, I only own 2 current-gen only games: A Plague Tale: Requiem and _ Mortal Kombat 1_ (which is debatable since it's on Switch). I don't consider either to be genre defining, even though A Plague Tale: Requiem well surpasses what was achieved in the original game.

I have a series X and a Ps5 now so lemme answer

I have MK1. Every other "Next Gen," game I've "had," has been through Gamepass or PS+. Starfield, Returnal, Demons Souls, Ratchet and Clank, and I feel like I'm forgetting something, but yeah.

I highly recommend Returnal to anyone with a PS5. I don't play a lot of Rougue-Like games, so idk if it's genre defining, but that game is amazing. Like sucked me in immediately and I still can't put it down. If I'm not on MK, I'm playing Returnal rn.

 

[Revy]

Here's another part:

I've said this to @just_2swift profile a few months ago & talked to @Law Hero & @ReD WolF in the comments:

It boils down to ESG (Environmental, Social, & corporate Governance) & trillion dollar investors like Vanguard & Blackrock (look up every gaming company's top holders on Yahoo Finance) which is the self-defense against the whole, "Go woke, go broke" because those companies own pretty much everything. They have their filthy shit fingers in everyone's pie. Companies like Sweet Baby Inc help companies increase their ESG score with bringing in DEI. Also President Alzheimer McOldfuck passed bullshit that allows you to invest 401ks into ESG holdings. 2013-2014 was the year I started to notice changes in gaming especially with EA/BioWare since then the quality of games just dropped drastically or became so radicalized among Western AAA studios but we still had bangers like The Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption II, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus, DOOM & Baldur's Gate 3 but even CDPR is bringing in DEI to The Witcher 1 remake & supposedly cutting Geralt's manwhore ways. Look at the past GOTY winners either as most came from privately owned (Baldur's Gate) or Eastern developers where DEI really isn't a big thing (yet) (Elden Ring). We've already witnessed how ESG & DEI destroy iconic developers over the years.

There's a reason why games like Stellar Blade & The First Descendant are so popular is because they don't give a fuck about ESG & DEI, the female characters are actually gorgeous, are actually great games. Look at what happened to Concord recently, PlayStation dropped $300m on developing that game for 8 years just to cancel it before launch because nobody wants to buy a game riddled with Sweet Baby Inc's DEI bullshit so it wasn't going to sell, why the fuck would I pay to play Concord when I can play Paladins for free & actually have great looking characters? Even in Sweet Baby Inc's "good" games like Alan Wake 2, still hasn't even made it's money back & it's been nearly a year since it released.

 

[ImpostorOak]

I really hope yall don't start talking about Sweet Babies again ffs

 

[Revy]

I really hope yall don't start talking about Sweet Babies again ffs

I did. My bad. lmfao

 

[ImpostorOak]

@Revy I really can't take anyone serious that deadass just said, "x games are popular because the women are actually gorgeous."

Yall all need pussy so bad so so bad

Edit: or dick/ass for my other sexuality friends

 

[ImpostorOak]

I do think the gaming industry has nose dived, I just think it's more so Capitalism than anything else.

 

[Revy]

@Revy I really can't take anyone serious that deadass just said, "x games are popular because the women are actually gorgeous."

Yall all need pussy so bad so so bad

Edit: or dick/ass for my other sexuality friends

Those were just examples of Eastern games that actually did their female face models justice but there's a lot more & they along with others are actually good games too. A lot of gamers are tired of ugly female characters, there's a lot of controversy around it for years especially lately with Star Wars: Outlaws & Concord.

 

[Juxtapose]

Both the new consoles are affordable for most people and I enjoy both of them...

The PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X are actually expensive console, certainly in today's economy. They're priced the same as the Xbox One X, with only Xbox Series S being a "normal" console price. Guys like us with careers and such can afford them, but I've seen many people either site the higher cost as a barrier to entry, or a reason they went with the Series S.

Look at what happened to Concord recently, PlayStation dropped $300m on developing that game for 8 years just to cancel it before launch...

I had no idea it had been cancelled. Looked it up and apparently this happened 2 weeks after launch. Digital Foundry was critical of the game right from the reveal, not because of DEI stuff, but because the game looked uninspired. It was an Overwatch ripoff that looked like it's characters were designed by AI to mimic Guardians of the Galaxy. It was an unoriginal and uninteresting product.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I really hope yall don't start talking about Sweet Babies again ffs

I don’t think it’s as simple as they ruin everything or that all gaming women are ugly and that’s why games are bad. But CEO Kim Belair has said some pretty concerning shit re how they can strong arm their beliefs into games and some of the games they’ve consulted on have been just downright horrific.

However, some of them are very good like GOW 5 and objectively quality (even if I didn’t like it) like Spiderman 2. And I don’t dislike Spiderman because Mary Jane is hideous.

I think Suicide Squad is the peak of shitty subversive writing and it can only go up from here. Never seen a game be rejected so harshly.

Honestly though gaming isn’t as niche anymore, and because games have to have broad appeal, they lose the opportunity to be super unique. Even within franchises. COD is mocked for being the same shit every year, and while that was true from I’d say 2013 onwards (aside from MW3 which was basically MW2.5) is when it really started. Now every COD game launches from the same app. Cosmetics and even some guns are cross game. I’m glad I got to experience black ops 2 and be exposed to all of the horrific art people made on the custom emblems.

 

[Revy]

I had no idea it had been cancelled. Looked it up and apparently this happened 2 weeks after launch. Digital Foundry was critical of the game right from the reveal, not because of DEI stuff, but because the game looked uninspired. It was an Overwatch ripoff that looked like it's characters were designed by AI to mimic Guardians of the Galaxy. It was an unoriginal and uninteresting product.

A lot of people were livid about the character design & "progressive" bullshit due to SBI working on the game on top of Jon Weisnewski the Lead Character Designer being a total scumbag. Some of the character concept art from 6 years ago for Emari were leaked recently from a time before SBI got involved & she actually looked badass & cool.

The question is simple: Who would you rather use?

Her:


or

Her:

Also my main frontline/tank in Paladins is also a giant heavily armoured woman who carries a heavy weapon but she doesn't look fucking hideous: