These game postmortems always seem so confused and aimless. I have this suspicion that game development isn't nearly as well understood as the shiny billion dollar behemoths make it look like....
These game postmortems always seem so confused and aimless. I have this suspicion that game development isn't nearly as well understood as the shiny billion dollar behemoths make it look like. It's a lot of trial and error and I doubt the few successful names in the business could articulate the things that makes them successful. And there is no space in AAA gaming for letting new hits emerge.
There isn't even a proper separation of tasks like, for example, in movies where you have a director, a writer, a producer and a bunch of actors who are reshuffled to match every new project they work on. If you want a dark sci-fi blockbuster, you hire Denis Villeneuve, if you want a stupid comedy, you hire Will Farrel. Who do you hire if you want a hit MOBA? Or a competitive FPS? Valve hired Richard Garfield to make a trading card game. It flopped.
In order for a game to be successful, it mostly has to be, either, absolutely perfect at what it tries to do or bring something fresh to the table. There's no book on how to achieve the former, that knowledge is buried deep in the collective knowledge of a talented team that emerged naturally (in other words: nobody fucking knows). The latter, on the other hand, is not something you can buy for money. It's where indies succeed by basically every single indie developer throwing themselves at a 1 in a 100 chance of figuring something out, at great personal financial risk.
There is no force in the games "industry" to seek out new and innovative game ideas (like, say, Focus Features for Universal Pictures). There is no prestige and glamour from producing low selling critical hits (like, say, winning a goddamn Oscar). The entire games publishing industry is creatively bankrupt. Maybe that's the reason Amazon throwing a billion dollars at the problem produces nothing but uninspired trash? Maybe it's about games being seen as a product that sells Amazon services rather than a creative work of art? Maybe players can taste that cynicism?
When it comes to actual products that don't involve IaaS or eCommerce, I think Amazon, as a company, mostly makes uninspired trash. Even the Kindle, while good as a thing that effectively checks...
Maybe that's the reason Amazon throwing a billion dollars at the problem produces nothing but uninspired trash?
When it comes to actual products that don't involve IaaS or eCommerce, I think Amazon, as a company, mostly makes uninspired trash. Even the Kindle, while good as a thing that effectively checks off the boxes required of a good eReader, is just kind of. . . there. Nobody gets excited about them and Amazon's poor stewardship over the product line, and eBooks market in general, has kind of strangled it in its crib.
Alexa's the only thing they've done that's actually been decently popular and even that's largely because they were first to market and had a head start on the competition.
Even many of their other side hustles, like Prime Video, only survive because they're hitched to the Prime Subscription. I doubt many people would willingly pay for it as a standalone service.
It does make me curious how they decided to get into this particular business. I figure they have some sort of plan for it. I assume they wanted the Fire phone (which failed miserably, too) to be...
It does make me curious how they decided to get into this particular business. I figure they have some sort of plan for it. I assume they wanted the Fire phone (which failed miserably, too) to be a gateway for buying more stuff from Amazon. Like, "make a device that's geared towards pushing them to buy anything they need from us." That's pretty much what the Kindle is for books, and it's a very well-regarded product in its category. Same with Alexa/Echo which I thought were going to be total failures, but aren't by any stretch of the imagination.
I still don't understand the idea of Amazon Prime. Like, I get the overnight shipping part, but what does that have to do with movies and music, and why would I associate those things? Yet, they all seem to be making money for the company. And their home-grown shows and movies are well-respected, too. They get good reviews from both critics and viewers.
So maybe they thought they could produce games to sell on Amazon Prime? It's not the craziest idea they've ever had.
Because it's an ecosystem, and the longer they can keep you within their pleasure garden, the more data they can gather about your preferences and habits. The data is valuable of course, but...
but what does that have to do with movies and music, and why would I associate those things?
Because it's an ecosystem, and the longer they can keep you within their pleasure garden, the more data they can gather about your preferences and habits. The data is valuable of course, but Amazon one of the few companies in the unique position of being able to both look at your viewing/listening patterns, and then also determine how to better advertise products they also sell. Facebook may gather your data and sell advertising, but they don't control the whole vertical (not yet anyway, they're selling VR hardware though).
Oh yeah, I totally get why Amazon wants all those things. I mean as a consumer, the product makes no sense. Saying, "Buy Prime to get overnight shipping on all your orders, and also watch movies...
Oh yeah, I totally get why Amazon wants all those things. I mean as a consumer, the product makes no sense. Saying, "Buy Prime to get overnight shipping on all your orders, and also watch movies and listen to music," is akin to saying, "Buy a Pontiac to get where you're going fast, and also go swimming and read a book." What? For a consumer, what do these things have to do with each other?
But like I say, they're apparently making a mint off of it, so they're obviously smarter than I am. It obviously makes sense to everybody else or it would have flopped by now.
These game postmortems always seem so confused and aimless. I have this suspicion that game development isn't nearly as well understood as the shiny billion dollar behemoths make it look like. It's a lot of trial and error and I doubt the few successful names in the business could articulate the things that makes them successful. And there is no space in AAA gaming for letting new hits emerge.
There isn't even a proper separation of tasks like, for example, in movies where you have a director, a writer, a producer and a bunch of actors who are reshuffled to match every new project they work on. If you want a dark sci-fi blockbuster, you hire Denis Villeneuve, if you want a stupid comedy, you hire Will Farrel. Who do you hire if you want a hit MOBA? Or a competitive FPS? Valve hired Richard Garfield to make a trading card game. It flopped.
In order for a game to be successful, it mostly has to be, either, absolutely perfect at what it tries to do or bring something fresh to the table. There's no book on how to achieve the former, that knowledge is buried deep in the collective knowledge of a talented team that emerged naturally (in other words: nobody fucking knows). The latter, on the other hand, is not something you can buy for money. It's where indies succeed by basically every single indie developer throwing themselves at a 1 in a 100 chance of figuring something out, at great personal financial risk.
There is no force in the games "industry" to seek out new and innovative game ideas (like, say, Focus Features for Universal Pictures). There is no prestige and glamour from producing low selling critical hits (like, say, winning a goddamn Oscar). The entire games publishing industry is creatively bankrupt. Maybe that's the reason Amazon throwing a billion dollars at the problem produces nothing but uninspired trash? Maybe it's about games being seen as a product that sells Amazon services rather than a creative work of art? Maybe players can taste that cynicism?
When it comes to actual products that don't involve IaaS or eCommerce, I think Amazon, as a company, mostly makes uninspired trash. Even the Kindle, while good as a thing that effectively checks off the boxes required of a good eReader, is just kind of. . . there. Nobody gets excited about them and Amazon's poor stewardship over the product line, and eBooks market in general, has kind of strangled it in its crib.
Kindle Fire? It's shit. Kindle Phone? Utter failure. Fire TV? Garbage.
Alexa's the only thing they've done that's actually been decently popular and even that's largely because they were first to market and had a head start on the competition.
Even many of their other side hustles, like Prime Video, only survive because they're hitched to the Prime Subscription. I doubt many people would willingly pay for it as a standalone service.
It does make me curious how they decided to get into this particular business. I figure they have some sort of plan for it. I assume they wanted the Fire phone (which failed miserably, too) to be a gateway for buying more stuff from Amazon. Like, "make a device that's geared towards pushing them to buy anything they need from us." That's pretty much what the Kindle is for books, and it's a very well-regarded product in its category. Same with Alexa/Echo which I thought were going to be total failures, but aren't by any stretch of the imagination.
I still don't understand the idea of Amazon Prime. Like, I get the overnight shipping part, but what does that have to do with movies and music, and why would I associate those things? Yet, they all seem to be making money for the company. And their home-grown shows and movies are well-respected, too. They get good reviews from both critics and viewers.
So maybe they thought they could produce games to sell on Amazon Prime? It's not the craziest idea they've ever had.
Because it's an ecosystem, and the longer they can keep you within their pleasure garden, the more data they can gather about your preferences and habits. The data is valuable of course, but Amazon one of the few companies in the unique position of being able to both look at your viewing/listening patterns, and then also determine how to better advertise products they also sell. Facebook may gather your data and sell advertising, but they don't control the whole vertical (not yet anyway, they're selling VR hardware though).
Oh yeah, I totally get why Amazon wants all those things. I mean as a consumer, the product makes no sense. Saying, "Buy Prime to get overnight shipping on all your orders, and also watch movies and listen to music," is akin to saying, "Buy a Pontiac to get where you're going fast, and also go swimming and read a book." What? For a consumer, what do these things have to do with each other?
But like I say, they're apparently making a mint off of it, so they're obviously smarter than I am. It obviously makes sense to everybody else or it would have flopped by now.