If you've been afloat of the current economic realities of games, this probably won't be anything brand new to you. But this has been one of the most comprehensive overviews of the situation that...
If you've been afloat of the current economic realities of games, this probably won't be anything brand new to you. But this has been one of the most comprehensive overviews of the situation that I've seen yet. Some topics talked about are
US cost of living, especially focused on high cost of living areas in Tech hubs
Competing with tech giants for talent, giants who make magnitudes more than game studios, as well as being a lot more stable in income than game studio releases
Government reluctance to subsidize game development
Remote work and the up/downsides of outsourcing development compared to hiring U.S. talent locally (as well as management opinions)
Ballooning game scopes and potential alternative release schedules
a long read, but well worth it especially for those that feel downtrodden on modern AAA games. Many of these factors do end up affecting the quality of a release.
Another topic touched on that I think is as important, if not more so, than those in your list is the "hit-driven sales strategy." Many of these studios are focusing almost entirely on trying to...
Another topic touched on that I think is as important, if not more so, than those in your list is the "hit-driven sales strategy." Many of these studios are focusing almost entirely on trying to get on the hype train to big bucks, it's a high-risk-high-reward strategy, but they aren't looking to change that while also lamenting lack of consistent income. Can't have it both ways.
Apparently everything is done this way now. Any investor, any financial entity, compares what they could be making with that money invested in the market to whatever their other plan is. And it...
Apparently everything is done this way now.
Any investor, any financial entity, compares what they could be making with that money invested in the market to whatever their other plan is. And it doesn't matter what the other plan is; make a movie, a game, program a game, put on a theater show, record an album, build a house, sell a product ... whatever it is, they look at it and demand it "outperform the market." If it doesn't, it's a failure.
Because as they see it, they could take that cash and dump it into a market fund or some other Wall Street financial instrument and rake in "guaranteed" returns as the market (or bond, or whatever) inevitably rises because Wall Street gonna Wall Street.
No one with money to invest, with money that can "make something happen, turn it into reality" is interested in funding a dream or offering a chance for something to happen. They just want the cash from vast success, and they want it now. When they don't get it, they're angry and pull funding or change out managers or require the project restructure or just flat end it.
As usual, none of them seem to understand that if everyone follows that strategy, everything starts grinding to a halt. That not everything can be a home run smash success, that there are modest successes and "pays the bills" successes and so on.
None of them care what happens when all the equity firms and investors and corporate owners use the same playbook and all the things that make up society begin shuttering since they can't compete with Wall Street's demands for double digit returns every quarter. When there's no stuff, no products and services and anything else, since "well, we could make more just investing."
What happens when the investors only invest and sit around waiting for someone else to, you know, do stuff that makes the world keep turning? Oh yeah, all that other stuff starts not happening anymore. The stores closes, the stuff isn't stuff anymore, and then we're all left wondering where it all went.
Opportunity cost and equilibrium have existed since the beginning of consciousness. If everyone started following that strategy of passive investing, then returns will be abysmal and starting a...
Opportunity cost and equilibrium have existed since the beginning of consciousness. If everyone started following that strategy of passive investing, then returns will be abysmal and starting a business instead will be much more attractive (and less risky).
indeed. But I feel in the last maybe 15-20 years or so it became the target. There were times where market capture, good reputation, or simply funding what you believed in drove some of the...
indeed. But I feel in the last maybe 15-20 years or so it became the target. There were times where market capture, good reputation, or simply funding what you believed in drove some of the largest businesses. Or at least pretended to care about factors like employee/customer satisfaction or brand trust. But much of that has shifted simply towards raw profit/revenue goals. A pretty deflating turn of events.
then returns will be abysmal and starting a business instead will be much more attractive (and less risky).
that's the other tricky part. Modern companies don't feel good, but I don't really see much revolt on the streets over the decreased quality. Teslas still sell. Google/Microsoft can still shove ads down everyone's throats, Amazon is still the untouchable one stop shop, etc. It can be hard to make that business when the big companies are still in that nigh-monopoly position.
That's just the reality of the gaming market. It's so brutally competitive that if you're not a hit, it's joever. The thing is that you have to compete for player's time, most of all, even more...
That's just the reality of the gaming market. It's so brutally competitive that if you're not a hit, it's joever. The thing is that you have to compete for player's time, most of all, even more than money at this point. If you aren't hit level, most people have more than enough games to play that you won't enter their conscious.
Square has tried for the past half decade or so to make "AA" games and they just sell like ass, even if many are critically acclaimed.
The other side is live service, which is where everyone wants to be for exactly the reason that they don't want to be in the hit market anymore. That's why everyone is giving live service a shot.
And yet they were still profitable (even if less so than the year before) and point the losses at MMOs, mobile games, and AAA games. Their "AA" games are the ones actually making a profit per...
Square has tried for the past half decade or so to make "AA" games and they just sell like ass, even if many are critically acclaimed.
And yet they were still profitable (even if less so than the year before) and point the losses at MMOs, mobile games, and AAA games. Their "AA" games are the ones actually making a profit per their investor reports and CEO. They're switching back to quality over quantity and going to stop having so many PlayStation exclusives/initial launches.
Have you heard of Spiderweb Software? Solo dev making classic RPGs since 1993. He's written about developing games in a sustainable way without breakout hits. It's doable, but most solo devs don't...
Have you heard of Spiderweb Software? Solo dev making classic RPGs since 1993. He's written about developing games in a sustainable way without breakout hits. It's doable, but most solo devs don't actually understand their constraints.
I don't think that's entirely true unless it's AAA. Their entire mentality is "We spent 50 million and made 300 million, so let's spend 300 million on the sequel and make 600 million!" Yeah,...
I don't think that's entirely true unless it's AAA. Their entire mentality is "We spent 50 million and made 300 million, so let's spend 300 million on the sequel and make 600 million!"
Yeah, you'll need hit after hit after hit from that point to be sustainable. Smaller studios do not live on this razor's edge. Their profit margins are smaller, but so is the cost of their projects.
Competing for time is why you see so many live services die a slow death, but time and time again with normal single player games you see that a good game gathers a healthy crowd and earns a healthy income. They aren't as strictly competing for time at all.
For developers/"programmers" in particular, the issue is that tech isn't really a selling point for games anymore. At one point it was: think of early Id, where Carmack figuring out how to get...
For developers/"programmers" in particular, the issue is that tech isn't really a selling point for games anymore.
At one point it was: think of early Id, where Carmack figuring out how to get 2.5D and 3D games running on consumer hardware changed what kind of games could be made.
But now? Rarely do you see "tech" being a selling point. Poorly optimized games sell just as well as well optimized games. Last one I can really think of is the physics/interaction engine in ToTK.
So it's harder for very expensive developers in the US to be worth it, in the end, when it's just one piece of the puzzle - and arguably a lesser piece of the puzzle compared to overall design now that things have been commoditized by engines like Unity and Unreal. That hasn't yet been the case in "Big Tech" in general - those are bigger, less competitive markets with much higher margins.
But it's the case for games, which are an brutally competitive market. A developer from Poland isn't that much worse than one in the US in the context of a video game, but they cost 1/5th.
We'll see if it actually changes anything, but this might actually change a bit if PC handhelds like the Steam Deck become popular enough. If that category gains a significant share of the market,...
But now? Rarely do you see "tech" being a selling point. Poorly optimized games sell just as well as well optimized games.
We'll see if it actually changes anything, but this might actually change a bit if PC handhelds like the Steam Deck become popular enough. If that category gains a significant share of the market, that'll make two important low-resource platforms between PC handhelds and the Switch (and whatever the Switch successor ends up being, which at best will have Deck-adjacent specs), and not paying attention to performance could be losing you money.
I mean, even the deck and the switch still allow for poorly optimized games to run decently. You won't get the glorious visuals of say, something like Doom, which was optimized to hell and back...
I mean, even the deck and the switch still allow for poorly optimized games to run decently.
You won't get the glorious visuals of say, something like Doom, which was optimized to hell and back (heh), but in general a lot of developers are opting for much lower demands anyways because it's easier to make content for.
You can't vomit out maps nearly as fast in something like Unreal as you could with decent sprite sheet. There's obviously tradeoffs, but the main point is that outside of AAA very few companies are making anything that can't run on dedicated gaming hardware like the deck or the switch.
I guess to be fair the switch is a much bigger bottleneck, and has struggled with some stuff it probably shouldn't have (cult of the lamb comes to mind), but I also expect some new nintendo console in a year or so.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. There's always more tech to sell. 90's had 3d, 00's had hyperrealism from the huge jump into HD, 10's had the whole "See that mountain? You can climb it"...
For developers/"programmers" in particular, the issue is that tech isn't really a selling point for games anymore.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. There's always more tech to sell. 90's had 3d, 00's had hyperrealism from the huge jump into HD, 10's had the whole "See that mountain? You can climb it" push into open world.
the 20's though? Sounds like the best tech selling points are 60fps and 4k. one that we lost during the 00's as a standard and the other that ultimately comes down to more resolution. Neither of these are a particularly huge push compared to other decades. There is also ray tracing lighting and faster load times, but neither of these have really been realized quite yet. It's played around here and there but I wouldn't say there's been that "skyrim" game to really show that "this is what the future is". (fast loading is really nice, but not necessarily a selling point. More like a quality/retention point).
So the tech is there but either not fully broken through yet (like VR) or is stalled/deferred. It can be a selling point, but just isn't. Those decades of layoffs are paying its toll with aplomb.
If you've been afloat of the current economic realities of games, this probably won't be anything brand new to you. But this has been one of the most comprehensive overviews of the situation that I've seen yet. Some topics talked about are
a long read, but well worth it especially for those that feel downtrodden on modern AAA games. Many of these factors do end up affecting the quality of a release.
Another topic touched on that I think is as important, if not more so, than those in your list is the "hit-driven sales strategy." Many of these studios are focusing almost entirely on trying to get on the hype train to big bucks, it's a high-risk-high-reward strategy, but they aren't looking to change that while also lamenting lack of consistent income. Can't have it both ways.
Apparently everything is done this way now.
Any investor, any financial entity, compares what they could be making with that money invested in the market to whatever their other plan is. And it doesn't matter what the other plan is; make a movie, a game, program a game, put on a theater show, record an album, build a house, sell a product ... whatever it is, they look at it and demand it "outperform the market." If it doesn't, it's a failure.
Because as they see it, they could take that cash and dump it into a market fund or some other Wall Street financial instrument and rake in "guaranteed" returns as the market (or bond, or whatever) inevitably rises because Wall Street gonna Wall Street.
No one with money to invest, with money that can "make something happen, turn it into reality" is interested in funding a dream or offering a chance for something to happen. They just want the cash from vast success, and they want it now. When they don't get it, they're angry and pull funding or change out managers or require the project restructure or just flat end it.
As usual, none of them seem to understand that if everyone follows that strategy, everything starts grinding to a halt. That not everything can be a home run smash success, that there are modest successes and "pays the bills" successes and so on.
None of them care what happens when all the equity firms and investors and corporate owners use the same playbook and all the things that make up society begin shuttering since they can't compete with Wall Street's demands for double digit returns every quarter. When there's no stuff, no products and services and anything else, since "well, we could make more just investing."
What happens when the investors only invest and sit around waiting for someone else to, you know, do stuff that makes the world keep turning? Oh yeah, all that other stuff starts not happening anymore. The stores closes, the stuff isn't stuff anymore, and then we're all left wondering where it all went.
Opportunity cost and equilibrium have existed since the beginning of consciousness. If everyone started following that strategy of passive investing, then returns will be abysmal and starting a business instead will be much more attractive (and less risky).
indeed. But I feel in the last maybe 15-20 years or so it became the target. There were times where market capture, good reputation, or simply funding what you believed in drove some of the largest businesses. Or at least pretended to care about factors like employee/customer satisfaction or brand trust. But much of that has shifted simply towards raw profit/revenue goals. A pretty deflating turn of events.
that's the other tricky part. Modern companies don't feel good, but I don't really see much revolt on the streets over the decreased quality. Teslas still sell. Google/Microsoft can still shove ads down everyone's throats, Amazon is still the untouchable one stop shop, etc. It can be hard to make that business when the big companies are still in that nigh-monopoly position.
That's just the reality of the gaming market. It's so brutally competitive that if you're not a hit, it's joever. The thing is that you have to compete for player's time, most of all, even more than money at this point. If you aren't hit level, most people have more than enough games to play that you won't enter their conscious.
Square has tried for the past half decade or so to make "AA" games and they just sell like ass, even if many are critically acclaimed.
The other side is live service, which is where everyone wants to be for exactly the reason that they don't want to be in the hit market anymore. That's why everyone is giving live service a shot.
And yet they were still profitable (even if less so than the year before) and point the losses at MMOs, mobile games, and AAA games. Their "AA" games are the ones actually making a profit per their investor reports and CEO. They're switching back to quality over quantity and going to stop having so many PlayStation exclusives/initial launches.
Have you heard of Spiderweb Software? Solo dev making classic RPGs since 1993. He's written about developing games in a sustainable way without breakout hits. It's doable, but most solo devs don't actually understand their constraints.
I don't think that's entirely true unless it's AAA. Their entire mentality is "We spent 50 million and made 300 million, so let's spend 300 million on the sequel and make 600 million!"
Yeah, you'll need hit after hit after hit from that point to be sustainable. Smaller studios do not live on this razor's edge. Their profit margins are smaller, but so is the cost of their projects.
Competing for time is why you see so many live services die a slow death, but time and time again with normal single player games you see that a good game gathers a healthy crowd and earns a healthy income. They aren't as strictly competing for time at all.
For developers/"programmers" in particular, the issue is that tech isn't really a selling point for games anymore.
At one point it was: think of early Id, where Carmack figuring out how to get 2.5D and 3D games running on consumer hardware changed what kind of games could be made.
But now? Rarely do you see "tech" being a selling point. Poorly optimized games sell just as well as well optimized games. Last one I can really think of is the physics/interaction engine in ToTK.
So it's harder for very expensive developers in the US to be worth it, in the end, when it's just one piece of the puzzle - and arguably a lesser piece of the puzzle compared to overall design now that things have been commoditized by engines like Unity and Unreal. That hasn't yet been the case in "Big Tech" in general - those are bigger, less competitive markets with much higher margins.
But it's the case for games, which are an brutally competitive market. A developer from Poland isn't that much worse than one in the US in the context of a video game, but they cost 1/5th.
We'll see if it actually changes anything, but this might actually change a bit if PC handhelds like the Steam Deck become popular enough. If that category gains a significant share of the market, that'll make two important low-resource platforms between PC handhelds and the Switch (and whatever the Switch successor ends up being, which at best will have Deck-adjacent specs), and not paying attention to performance could be losing you money.
I mean, even the deck and the switch still allow for poorly optimized games to run decently.
You won't get the glorious visuals of say, something like Doom, which was optimized to hell and back (heh), but in general a lot of developers are opting for much lower demands anyways because it's easier to make content for.
You can't vomit out maps nearly as fast in something like Unreal as you could with decent sprite sheet. There's obviously tradeoffs, but the main point is that outside of AAA very few companies are making anything that can't run on dedicated gaming hardware like the deck or the switch.
I guess to be fair the switch is a much bigger bottleneck, and has struggled with some stuff it probably shouldn't have (cult of the lamb comes to mind), but I also expect some new nintendo console in a year or so.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. There's always more tech to sell. 90's had 3d, 00's had hyperrealism from the huge jump into HD, 10's had the whole "See that mountain? You can climb it" push into open world.
the 20's though? Sounds like the best tech selling points are 60fps and 4k. one that we lost during the 00's as a standard and the other that ultimately comes down to more resolution. Neither of these are a particularly huge push compared to other decades. There is also ray tracing lighting and faster load times, but neither of these have really been realized quite yet. It's played around here and there but I wouldn't say there's been that "skyrim" game to really show that "this is what the future is". (fast loading is really nice, but not necessarily a selling point. More like a quality/retention point).
So the tech is there but either not fully broken through yet (like VR) or is stalled/deferred. It can be a selling point, but just isn't. Those decades of layoffs are paying its toll with aplomb.