The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Penny Arcade - Comic - Second Opinion

DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
edited October 20 in The Penny Arcade Hub

imagePenny Arcade - Comic - Second Opinion

Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.

Read the full story here


Unknown User on
Skull2185Andy JoeNightslyrNotoriusBEN
«13

Posts

  • MondailmayMondailmay Registered User new member
    I come here for funny comics, not some SJW moralizing and grandstanding. You don't like what one person has said, you get offended, and you try to publicly name & shame him? I think THAT is offensive.

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    Firing dozens of people, ending support for games on the market, and effectively killing a unique (as unique as an Uncharted knockoff with Star Wars can be said to be I suppose) project to create a focus grouped Battlefield game when they have two different studios already doing that is not a social justice issue.

    Hevach on
    QuidSkull2185KoopahTroopahDarth WaiterLord_AsmodeusYoungFreyTofystedethMan in the MistsLeon2309ThawmusArtoriaKamarnonoffensiveCromartyGolden YakMaximumcloudeaglepablo_pricecB557CactusLeafMuffinatronRhesus Positive3lwap0AegeriPlatypus BeirutJB LarsMagicalGoatsRchanensuprachromatfurlionAlbino BunnyArteenDarkPrimusadmanbDjiemCalica
  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    Söderlunds actions is that of a businessman, not an artist. That he pretends to be anything else is just ridiculous.

    Rchanen
  • knitdanknitdan Land Clearer Dingleberry FarmRegistered User regular
    Mondailmay wrote: »
    I come here for funny comics, not some SJW moralizing and grandstanding. You don't like what one person has said, you get offended, and you try to publicly name & shame him? I think THAT is offensive.

    Sport, this is dumb even for someone's who uses "SJW" as a pejorative.

    For one thing, there's nothing "SJW" about this situation. It's some corporate suit who said some dumb shit about why he was shuttering a studio. That's it.

    For another, Söderlund is a public figure and a big boy, he can defend himself.

    Finally, the comic is free so if you don't like it you're not losing anything.

    I heard we were discussing how pornography makes men bad at sex and I came as fast as I could.
    QuidShadowfireSadgasmDjiemMoridin889Skull2185Andy JoeLucascraftPreacherDarth WaiterSyphonBlueLord_AsmodeusYoungFreyDelzhandDemonStaceyMichaelLCmysticjuicerTofystedethMan in the MistsdennisDescendant XVirgil_Leads_YouLeon2309RingoThawmusArtoriaJusticeforPlutoNightslyrRottonappleKamarGolden YakCommander ZoomMaximumcloudeaglecB557CactusLeafMuffinatronvalianceRhesus PositiveAegeriNothingSorceUreshiiAkumaHexmage-PAJB LarsMagicalGoatsRchanenfurlionArteenDarkPrimuskimeCalica
  • Skull2185Skull2185 Cute'thulu Registered User regular
    Yesssss, love this comic. I could kiss Jerry! Open mouth, with tongue even. PA is kind of a big deal, so you just know Soderlund is probably going to see this in some form. Though he probably wont care.
    Mondailmay wrote: »
    I come here for funny comics, not some SJW moralizing and grandstanding. You don't like what one person has said, you get offended, and you try to publicly name & shame him? I think THAT is offensive.

    Maybe figure out what the comic is about before spouting off this tired, lame bullshit?

    AegeriJB LarsRchanen
  • sawellssawells Registered User regular
    PA continues its proud and unbroken tradition of being whatever the f*** Jerry and Mike want it to be on any given day.

    Twitter: @EssayWells
    LucascraftButlerMoridin889dennisVirgil_Leads_YouLeon2309ThawmusJusticeforPlutoNightslyrRottonappleKamarcB557ShadowfireRhesus PositiveAegeriMagicalGoatsRchanenMcFodderfurlionkimeCalica
  • ShowsniShowsni Registered User regular
    But isn't the act of destroying something beautiful in itself creative, in some measure? No?

  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    Showsni wrote: »
    But isn't the act of destroying something beautiful in itself creative, in some measure? No?
    3AutbdH.jpg

    KalTorak on
    mysticjuicerTofystedethMan in the MiststastydonutsPonyVirgil_Leads_YouAndy JoeThawmusDark Raven XArtoriafortyNightslyrTheBlackWindKamarCommander ZoomMaximumcB557Lord_AsmodeusShadowfirevalianceAegeriSnicketysnickMagicalGoatsadmanbkimeJacques L'HommejoshofalltradesKoopahTroopah
  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Not on Any Podcast or Affliated Don't Even Own a MikeRegistered User regular
    edited October 20
    I just, would like to point out, in case someone is thinking of harassing the EA VP, or anyone PA criticizes.
    that no one at PA condones such an action.

    They've had a long history of their criticism within their comic being used as a launchpad by dicks, for serious harassment, and they've spoken out repeatedly against it.
    They've also have had a long history of facing harassment themselves. It's a shitty practice of escalation that can cause serious harm to someone.

    It's kinda ridiculous that my gut check to a pa comic criticizing, (an EA VP boasting of creativity while shuttering a kickass studio and game)
    ,was to remind folk to be empathetic.
    Then again it's 2017 ya'll. We know the rodeo.

    As for the comic, it's not super hilarious or anything, but Mike & Jerry do draw an interesting parallel between "inchoherent rhetorical salad bar creatvity" and a history of shuddering a long list of studios.
    Sometimes a good takedown is good for a chuckle. Though the subject matter is a studio being closed down, so it's hard to imagine the situation being "funny"

    Virgil_Leads_You on
    VayBJ4e.png
    mysticjuicerdennisLeon2309ArtoriaknitdancB557MagicalGoats
  • mysticjuicermysticjuicer I got a unicorn horn for a STOPRegistered User regular
    What's this in reference to? Googling the guy's name didn't turn anything up.

    narwhal wrote:
    Why am I Terran?
    My YouTube Channel! Featuring Yomi tournament commentary and tutorials!
    forty
  • Iron WeaselIron Weasel Dillon! You son of a bitch!Registered User regular
    What's this in reference to? Googling the guy's name didn't turn anything up.
    Visceral Studios has been shut down.

    Currently Playing:
    Crusader Kings 2, FTL, X-COM: Enemy Within, Various Boardgames
    GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    What's this in reference to? Googling the guy's name didn't turn anything up.
    Visceral Studios has been shut down.

    You could say that Jerry's reaction was


    sourced from his gut.

    steam_sig.png
    dennisDark Raven XV1mCommander ZoomShadizar0cB557Lord_AsmodeusRhesus PositiveAegeriSnicketysnickRchanenfurlionagoajIron WeaselKoopahTroopah
  • bsctgodbsctgod Registered User regular
    I guess they were making a game like Uncharted but in the Star Wars Universe. Action-Adventure.

  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    I'd love to read what he said, can't seem to find it. Will have to dig deeper later or something.

    “I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.”
    ― Bill Cosby
  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    I guess we'll never know. It's not like they'll be some sort of post to explain it or something.

  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Mondailmay wrote: »
    I come here for funny comics, not some SJW moralizing and grandstanding. You don't like what one person has said, you get offended, and you try to publicly name & shame him? I think THAT is offensive.

    Maybe figure out what the comic is about before spouting off this tired, lame bullshit?

    The game development was being headed by a woman. To some people, liking something that a woman is in charge of is "being an SJW."

  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Not on Any Podcast or Affliated Don't Even Own a MikeRegistered User regular
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Basically what happened was the studio was making a game and EA made the decision that the game couldn't be sufficiently re-monetized with additional purchasable content on a longer scale, so they shuttered the studio and transferred the game.

    On the one hand, it's a purely business decision to not do something less profitable instead of doing something more profitable. On the other hand, folks certainly look askew at the concept of only focusing on games that players return to "again and again" for another wallet dip.

    What is this I don't even.
    QuidtastydonutsNightslyrcB557Lord_AsmodeusAegeriMagicalGoatsRchanen
  • WhelmedWhelmed Registered User regular
    I was with Tycho up until the last panel. There's nothing wrong with a business making decisions that serve their business, but there's no room or reason in this era to be disingenuous about it. The theater of trying to pretend your business decision was something other than business is not a 2017 tactic that works.

    But while business can be cowardice, it doesn't have to be, and a real problem in the current gaming environment is that kind of entitled thinking that leaves no room for practicality. The argument often runs that because I, myself, wanted a thing, that when you didn't give it to me you've ceded some kind of morality. And that's the point in conversation where the consumers usually lose me.

  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Basically what happened was the studio was making a game and EA made the decision that the game couldn't be sufficiently re-monetized with additional purchasable content on a longer scale, so they shuttered the studio and transferred the game.

    On the one hand, it's a purely business decision to not do something less profitable instead of doing something more profitable. On the other hand, folks certainly look askew at the concept of only focusing on games that players return to "again and again" for another wallet dip.

    Honestly, I think Bioshock Infinite broke the industries back for big expensive single player experiences. The industry as a whole is just moving away from games with those sorts of production values but without the potential to hook a whale. It really is just unsustainable.

    It's too bad they can't just give us a single player Star Wars game with lower production values. Go with some style over detail. Make it look like the Clone Wars or Rebels cartoons or something. Or just make another X-Wing or Tie Fighter game. Not everything needs to be an endless, open world, parkour, vehicle stealing, skill point allocating skinner box sandbox.

    Commander ZoomMagicalGoatsRchanen
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Basically what happened was the studio was making a game and EA made the decision that the game couldn't be sufficiently re-monetized with additional purchasable content on a longer scale, so they shuttered the studio and transferred the game.

    On the one hand, it's a purely business decision to not do something less profitable instead of doing something more profitable. On the other hand, folks certainly look askew at the concept of only focusing on games that players return to "again and again" for another wallet dip.

    Yeah. I'm not happy to see anyone lose their job—and it seems that some talent was redistributed or whatever—but I don't see the outrage in it.

    I strongly prefer singleplayer games over multiplayer and "co-op", and I dislike seeing multi and co-op achievements in games, but those are things that people want. For me, if the revised Star Wars game is too multiplayer/co-op, it just means I won't be buying it.

    tastydonuts on
    “I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.”
    ― Bill Cosby
  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Not on Any Podcast or Affliated Don't Even Own a MikeRegistered User regular
    edited October 20
    The story of Visceral Games and the Dead Space Series are both kinda interesting, in terms of EA's history of reshaping a game to have broader appeal along with the insertion of micro-transactions from outside the developers.

    From Eurogamer & Dev interview for further reading.
    "The third (and likely final) Dead Space game traded survival horror for action, a decision many fans found frustrating. It turns out, however, this was not the original pitch. This week I've spoken with the game's creative director, Ben Wanat about the team's original vision for Dead Space 3 and how over time, it was eroded by the business interests of Electronic Arts."

    Their current statement on closing Visceral Games and this Star Wars games states
    "Throughout the development process, we have been testing the game concept with players, listening to the feedback about what and how they want to play, and closely tracking fundamental shifts in the marketplace...
    "we are shifting the game to be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency, leaning into the capabilities of our Frostbite engine and reimagining central elements of the game to give players a Star Wars adventure of greater depth and breadth to explore."

    Though in 2017, in a world of Destiny and such, it might turn out to be a more profitable story than Dead Space 3.
    Especially if they see that Star Wars Destiny money.

    Virgil_Leads_You on
    VayBJ4e.png
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Didn't a games reporter say that the EA statement was market speak to not scare investors with "the game was a mess."

    Shameless Link whoring updated Fridays starting 1/26/17
    http://exterminatorsassistant.blogspot.com/
  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Let's not forget that the game in question was Amy Hennig's Star Wars game. The Amy Hennig who worked on/was responsible for series such as The Legacy of Kain, Jak and Daxter, and Uncharted. Her name is synonymous with quality, especially on the narrative front.

    Once it became clear that her game wasn't the kind of thing you can sell a season pass/loot boxes for, they decided to shutter the studio and transfer the game to another team that will implement those things. Which is a dick move, not only to the people at Visceral who were working on it, but to fans that wanted to, after far too many years, have a single player Star Wars game whose entertainment factor goes beyond messing around with lightsabers. And to talk about what being a creator means to you when you destroy something like that? Yeah, that's worthy of a hearty "fuck you" in my book.

    PA/PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam names are the same. 3DS Friend Code: 1607-1682-2948
    camo_sig2.png
    Stack Exchange | http://www.mpdevblog.blogspot.com | Q'vehn Tia (FF XIV)
    V1mMoridin889CromartyCommander ZoomLeon2309Shadizar0Lord_AsmodeusAegeriNothingRiusMagicalGoatsRchanenSmrtnikfurlionThawmus
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    And while it's not specific to video games, it does suck to see some real world venture capitalist shit hit my hobby.

    One way to view what happened: Some executives with golden parachutes who get paid millions and millions of dollars and will never want for anything. In the interest of making more money, which is what companies do, those guys fired about 300 people because the game they were making couldn't be monetized properly in the current market.

    Sucks.

    What is this I don't even.
    QuidCommander ZoomNightslyrLord_AsmodeusAegeriRchanenDjiem
  • jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    That's our EA!
    *sad trombone*

    Naturally, PA predicted this, over ten years ago
    215554960_3FUbU-2100x20000.jpg
    and again
    270664902_ETtm3-2100x20000.jpg

    jwalk on
    Andy JoeNightslyrShadizar0Lord_AsmodeusSorceJB LarsMagicalGoatsRchanenThawmusforty
  • RatherDashing89RatherDashing89 Registered User regular
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    ObiFettNightslyrLeon2309Lord_AsmodeusAndy JoeMagicalGoatsRchanenThawmus
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    PhotosaurusNightslyrLeon2309Lord_AsmodeusMagicalGoats
  • SadgasmSadgasm Deluded doodler A cold placeRegistered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.

    RatherDashing89cloudeagleBloodySlothmilski
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.

    Do you have any evidence of this?

    Hevach
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.

    Do you have any evidence of this?

    Yeah, that's more a thing of how publishers treat studios they own than an actual thing. Activision is in no danger if the next Call of Duty only makes most of the money instead of all the money. Infinity Ward, however, might be in dire danger if that happens, but that has nothing to do with how much or little money was made but in how much the serfs were able to scratch from the dirt for their masters. If the next Call of Duty actually bombs, Activision is going to do some belt tightening and some people are going to lose their bonuses, but they are in no significant long term danger. Infinity Ward, however, in this scenario, is as good as dead.


    Yes, costs have risen and prices have not, however, sales have, and revenues have even more so thanks to proliferation of DLC, loot boxes, merchandise deals, product partnerships, etc.

    If games were really such a razor thin margin as that, we would never see a fraction of the AAA titles abandoned at the 11th hour that we do.

    Hevach on
    ObiFettShadizar0Lord_AsmodeusMoridin889
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited October 20
    Hevach wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.

    Do you have any evidence of this?

    Yeah, that's more a thing of how publishers treat studios they own than an actual thing. Activision is in no danger if the next Call of Duty only makes most of the money instead of all the money. Infinity Ward, however, might be in dire danger if that happens, but that has nothing to do with how much or little money was made.


    Yes, costs have risen and prices have not, however, sales have, and revenues have even more so thanks to proliferation of DLC, loot boxes, merchandise deals, product partnerships, etc.

    Thats kind of the point I am making and its endemic in nearly every business right now. Businesses care more about posting an unsustainable, painfully forced, and questionable short term growth number to their shareholders than they do cultivating and properly growing their customer base with more realistic long lasting growth numbers along the way. Its all about short term numbers regardless of if it hurts in the long-term rather than vice-versa.

    Loot boxes and Microtransactions are rarely implemented because "If we don't then we wont have enough money to survive" and instead are usually pushed by publishers because "If we don't then we won't make greedy/maximum levels of profit which is required to show another +X% growth so that our investors are happy."

    ObiFett on
    HevachLeon2309Lord_AsmodeusRchanenMoridin889
  • PhotosaurusPhotosaurus Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    Yeah, but that big future install base means money is coming in later. They want money coming in now.

    Edit: forgot to refresh before posting, see this point has been pretty much made. To what extent can crowd funding overcome the issue of developers being beholden to investors' profit demands?

    Photosaurus on
    "If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
  • v2miccav2micca Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    Complaining about loot crate and micro/transaction model hasn't really done any good thus far. I've heard gamers complain about them for over ten years, but they simply continue to become more pervasive. The reason is simple, they fucking work. As much as I, or every other gamer I have spoken to hates them, publishers continue to make an incredible return off of these models. Its one of the reasons mobile gaming went to shit, in my opinion. Every games mechanics began to revolve around artificial timers and events that could be monetized. Unfortunately, I see that this is likely the future for AAA games. Even Blizzard decided to eschew a single player campaign from their latest offering. The era of slickly produced, story driven experiences is likely drawing to a close. It was a good run while it lasted. Guess I'll start throwing more of my disposable income at strippers. They are better at pretending to give a crap about me than any publishers these days.

    v2micca on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.

    Do you have any evidence of this?

    Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.

    It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Sadgasm wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.

    This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.

    I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.

    The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.

    AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.

    Do you have any evidence of this?

    Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.

    It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.

    OK, but did that tank Capcom?

  • v2miccav2micca Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.

    It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.


    Yeah, I don't buy this. Films still cost more on average to produce than games and the labor involved is more Unionized, which means profit margins are even slimmer. Yet, they manage to get by just fine without a structure than continuously bilks their clientele for additional money after their initial movie ticket.

    ObiFettLeon2309Lord_AsmodeusRiusMoridin889Nightslyr
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited October 21
    Looking at Capcom's numbers, RE6 didn't hurt them. They made profit aplenty and just barely fell short of some probably optimistic projections. RE6 went on to become Capcom's second best selling game ever.

    Developers paid for the poor Metacritic score and the game failing to be their best selling game ever with lower pay and lost bonuses and jobs, but the publisher made incredible profit from it.

    So again, AAA games are not unsustainable, publishers are just dicks.

    Edit: source, to help
    http://gameranx.com/updates/id/12500/article/capcom-posts-revenue-and-profit-growth-despite-resident-evil-6-sales-not-meeting-expectations/

    RE6 and DmC both did not meet expectations, but still took Capcom to a growth in revenue and profits.

    Hevach on
    ObiFettLeon2309Virgil_Leads_YouRatherDashing89cB557Lord_AsmodeusCommander ZoomAegeriEmissary42MagicalGoatsRchanenMoridin889NightslyrKamar
  • MarcinMNMarcinMN Registered User regular
    So, I take it most of the commenters here are of the type who don't partake much of the "loot boxes" and microtransactions? I say good for you all....I wouldn't either if I was playing games that offered them, but I'm currently a couple generations behind in console gaming, so I don't run into it much. I mostly play FFXIV on my PC these days, and while I'm aware that there is extra stuff you can buy for that game, I've never really been tempted to do so.

    It seems to me that a big part of the problem is obvious: There are still plenty of gamers who are willing to pay for this stuff. If they weren't, then companies wouldn't be going down this road because it wouldn't be profitable. Unfortunately, many gamers nowadays are all about getting to the "uber" phase as quickly and efficiently as they can. For many of them, if that means paying extra to buy their way to the top, they are more than willing to do that.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Man there's been tons of successful single player games

    DOOM
    Horizon Zero Dawn
    Fallout 4
    GTA V
    Nier: Automata

    Some of them maybe didn't make gangbusters but the idea that single player games aren't profitable is sheer nonsense.

    dennisIblisLeon2309MagicalGoatsNightslyrfortycB557
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.