I start to view the defenders of AAA publishers like battered housewifes. Equal parts pity and contempt. Pity for how they keep getting taken advantage of, and contempt for them not wanting to realize what's really happening.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;53109931]I start to view the defenders of AAA publishers like battered housewifes. Equal parts pity and contempt. Pity for how they keep getting taken advantage of, and contempt for them not wanting to realize what's really happening.[/QUOTE]
it's a bit much to say you feel contempt toward a battered housewife, don'tcha think?
[editline]5th February 2018[/editline]
i'd say frustration would be a better description in either case
Damn, he is on a roll. Even though I haven't played Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, I'm glad he made that point about the role of good publishers. That's what publishers started out life as, very similar to book publishers - if they saw a studio had a winning idea, they'd help bring it to mass audiences, grow it into the franchise while taking some money off the top.
Now the situation is akin to a publishing house chaining up authors in its basement, whipping and torturing them to type pages faster, while selling customers chapters/pages at a time instead of the whole book, all while complaining that the electrodes they've strapped to the authors to electrocute them into working harder is costing them money, and that "printing books is a difficult business these days". :rolleyes:
The whole concept for publishers needs to go away. They were really only there to provide funding and marketing. Now we live in a world where marketing can be done entirely online and you really don't have to rely as much on these publishers anymore.
If all the money was returned to the developers and not the publishers, development studios would be more successfully independent.
[QUOTE=redBadger;53110714]The whole concept for publishers needs to go away. They were really only there to provide funding and marketing. Now we live in a world where marketing can be done entirely online and you really don't have to rely as much on these publishers anymore.
If all the money was returned to the developers and not the publishers, development studios would be more successfully independent.[/QUOTE]
Then... do it?
If funding isn't needed and marketing doesn't require money either then publishers would die pretty rapidly.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;53109931]I start to view the defenders of AAA publishers like battered housewifes. Equal parts pity and contempt. Pity for how they keep getting taken advantage of, and contempt for them not wanting to realize what's really happening.[/QUOTE]
"Cost of gaming is going up we need x to fund..." Not when you fuckers release your numbers year after year. The Battlefront 2 one was disgusting as the previous game made 9x the game's development,marketing and post-launch content budget back in a year.
[QUOTE=Mobon1;53110646]it's a bit much to say you feel contempt toward a battered housewife, don'tcha think?
[editline]5th February 2018[/editline]
i'd say frustration would be a better description in either case[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53110684]A housewife is economically entangled with their abuser, gamers who let themselves get scammed refuse to have self control.
P big difference[/QUOTE]
Both of these are fair points. I could have been far more articulate about making my point.
:snip: Oops, wrong section. :v:
There are legitimate things to be angry about (loot boxes for sure), but being an educated consumer means being able to put yourself in the shoes of someone at the top of the corporate ladder to understand why they make the decisions they do. More often then not, you'll find you'd make the exact same decisions if you were given the same data. I think Jim Sterling fails to sympathize this way, and as a result, he comes off as the entitled gamer stereotype that we insist is wrong.
Just getting angry solves nothing, and wastes everyone's time. If Jim Sterling wants to make a compelling argument, he should be using data to draw conclusions and offer solutions. Unfortunately, getting people angry is much easier, and has a bigger impact.
I went to a panel at MAGfest where James Portnow (Extra Credits) was leading a discussion on the cost of making games a week or so before their episode went up. There were folks angrily yelling Jim Sterling quotes during the discussion, and that experience left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I wouldn't care so much about this if that room of people I was in could have kept a cool head during that panel. The vibe in that room was super uncomfortable. Even the panelists knew that they were dancing in a minefield, and the whole thing would go off if they said anything that sounded like they "supported lootcrates". None of them did of course, but that risk made it more difficult to carry an interesting discussion about solutions.
The more and more I watch Jim Sterling the less "annoying" his persona becomes and the more it just enhances the glory of his shitting on big AAA companies and the like, imo.
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110823]There are legitimate things to be angry about (loot boxes for sure), but being an educated consumer means being able to put yourself in the shoes of someone at the top of the corporate ladder to understand why they make the decisions they do. More often then not, you'll find you'd make the exact same decisions if you were given the same data. I think Jim Sterling fails to sympathize this way, and as a result, he comes off as the entitled gamer stereotype that we insist is wrong.
Just getting angry solves nothing, and wastes everyone's time. If Jim Sterling wants to make a compelling argument, he should be using data to draw conclusions and offer solutions. Unfortunately, getting people angry is much easier, and has a bigger impact.
I went to a panel at MAGfest where James Portnow (Extra Credits) was leading a discussion on the cost of making games a week or so before their episode went up. There were folks angrily yelling Jim Sterling quotes during the discussion, and that experience left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I wouldn't care so much about this if that room of people I was in could have kept a cool head during that panel. The vibe in that room was super uncomfortable. Even the panelists knew that they were dancing in a minefield, and the whole thing would go off if they said anything that sounded like they "supported lootcrates". None of them did of course, but that risk made it more difficult to carry an interesting discussion about solutions.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, the best solution at this point is to start a movement and get adult gamers and younger gamers to hold a stronger financial stake in the gaming industry to get a say in how it behaves. Buying the games itself isn't enough because the say is channeled, it's not unified in any way to dictate clear focus. Right now there are many, many investors who are profiting off all of this shit. Become one of them, get to the point where it's critical mass, that your investors are also the people who buy your products, and studios/publishers are more likely to lick your toes if that's what you wanted them to do. This fundamental difference of two entirely different sets of people to pander to, with entirely different objectives, is fucking over publishers and is fucking over gamers. The only one that wins is the fist with the money, so become that fist.
Best case scenario, you make money if the studio/publisher does well, because it's making a good product. Worst case scenario, you divest your shares in the company if they do something you don't like - enough of them do it with nearly any of the intent that gamers have, you short their stock that badly, they'll really sit and listen.
It's become increasingly clear that this is the only path forward, short of removing publishers from the system entirely, but that ties into other issues that plague digital distribution at the moment - bandwidth caps and ISP douchebaggery.
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110823]More often then not, you'll find you'd make the exact same decisions if you were given the same data. [/QUOTE]
That doesn't make it less shit my dude. It would be one thing to do the over-watch method, these companies are taking it above and beyond even that.
It would even be another thing if they were honest about it, they lie, that's objectively a fact.
[QUOTE]Just getting angry solves nothing, and wastes everyone's time.[/QUOTE]
Really? Because legislators have noticed. That isn't wasted time. EA noticed. That isn't wasted time either.
Wasted time is yet another game being cut into portions.
You should be angry, they were selling gambling crates to children.
[QUOTE]I went to a panel at MAGfest where James Portnow (Extra Credits) was leading a discussion on the cost of making games a week or so before their episode went up.[/QUOTE]
Video games wouldn't cost so much if they didn't blow their budget so hard and they could make a superiour product if they spend more time and effort into the project. Lets be fair too, EC is pretty terrible.
[QUOTE=snookypookums;53110842]Honestly, the best solution at this point is to start a movement and get adult gamers and younger gamers to hold a stronger financial stake in the gaming industry to get a say in how it behaves.[/quote]
The only reason you become an investor is to make money. And even if enough consumers became influential decision makers, then what alternatives would you suggest to continue growth at the same rate that "predatory practices" do?
We've already scared publishers off from raising the base price, and DLC sales though profitable, involve a longer term investment. We're also very quickly scaring them off from lootboxes as well, so what's the next thing that will let them continue to grow while being favorable by gamers? That's a question you'd have to be ready to answer if you hope to make a difference.
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110873]The only reason you become an investor is to make money. And even if enough consumers became influential decision makers, then what alternatives would you suggest to continue growth at the same rate that "predatory practices" do?
We've already scared publishers off from raising the base price, and DLC sales though profitable, involve a longer term investment. We're also very quickly scaring them off from lootboxes as well, [B]so what's the next thing that will let them continue to grow while being favorable by gamers? [/B]That's a question you'd have to be ready to answer if you hope to make a difference.[/QUOTE]
Witcher 3 didn't need any of these things, it did fine. Hows that?
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110873]The only reason you become an investor is to make money. And even if enough consumers became influential decision makers, then what alternatives would you suggest to continue growth at the same rate that "predatory practices" do?
We've already scared publishers off from raising the base price, and DLC sales though profitable, involve a longer term investment. We're also very quickly scaring them off from lootboxes as well, so what's the next thing that will let them continue to grow while being favorable by gamers? That's a question you'd have to be ready to answer if you hope to make a difference.[/QUOTE]
Realistically, though on the counts mentioned they've already done that, just in insidious ways that have already been called out. Raising the base price of the games has been masked by keeping the core game at the same price, while walling off pre-made content behind further barriers that you need to pay for, but has already been paid off because the production of the game has been complete.
Lootboxes have come dangerously close to gambling (what am I saying, they are gambling), so when the Eye of Sauron that is most countries governments (who just absolutely love either fucking casinos over or making it rain money for themselves by way of taxes) decided to glance over in their general direction, they shit bricks.
It's not that the general game consuming public has really stopped these companies from doing anything with outrage. EA's stock blipped a bit, but went right back up again. So do most publisher's stocks in the face of any scandal. They are actively getting away with everything and using the massively greased flimflam machine that is their marketing and PR division to paint this "Woe is me" picture that I don't buy for a hot second.
I worked in the video games industry as an artist - it was a thankless job that had me working 18 hour days with ridiculously talented artists but inept management. The pay and the work life was horrendous (really looking forward to that video from Jim too, btw), and a former colleague died at 27 from heart failure. I'm not even fucking kidding, he died from stress - no pre-existing condition or anything. Oh, and no health insurance, either. The only way you deal with criticism if your game tanks at that point is to have really, really thick insulation, which is usually the case. Remember the case of that girl who got wrongfully targeted after the ME: Andromeda animation debacle?
Make no mistake, the only way they'll listen at this point is with money. The gaming community right now isn't really unified in any shape way or form to decidedly stand together on any issue. Some people will rail against Fifa for being the exact same shit, charged full price year on year; some will just buy it and not see what the fuss is all about. This is what happens when your demographics are all over the place and the purchasing power doesn't often lie with the actual consumer either (referring to children who get their parents to buy their games for them).
I, for one, am really glad that they're getting ripped a new one, it's been a long time coming.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53110877]Witcher 3 didn't need any of these things, it did fine. Hows that?[/QUOTE]
Most games aren't Witcher 3. You can't expect to manufacture lightning in a bottle every time. It's easy for us to just say "Make better games", but if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.
The solution of course is not to prey on weak willed customers and kids. Until we find a way for games to remain profitable while remaining transparent and fair, this is going to continue to be an issue. Legislation will only do so much as well. They'll just find more grey areas to navigate around. I wonder if some form of self regulation like the ESRB would be an option again?
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110913]Most games aren't Witcher 3. You can't expect to manufacture lightning in a bottle every time. It's easy for us to just say "Make better games", but if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.
The solution of course is not to prey on weak willed customers and kids. Until we find a way for games to remain profitable while remaining transparent and fair, this is going to continue to be an issue.[/QUOTE]
it's funny, Jim actually mentions "lightning in a bottle"
I don't expect them to make an amazing game, I simply expect them to trust the devs to do what they know, make a game. You aren't going to make a great game every time, but you're going to make an amazing one a shit one when you add a destructive and manipulative gambling or pay2win lootbox system into it.
If the business side of, for example, Activision didn't fuck with Bungie, Destiny 2 wouldn't have the issues we have. The game would have likely made a lot more money than it is getting now. However the customers are actively being fucked around with, with really terrible deals that absolutely are not OK and make the game frustrating to play for people. If they just trusted the dudes that single handedly created the biggest shooter of many generations, everything would have been fine.
That's the cost of pissing people off so much that they stop being customers. Trust the devs instead of forcing a really tight schedule, budget, and forcing them to create a psychologically manipulative gambling system in their game. They shouldn't as many studios like EA did because that actually does massively screw the company over long term. EA is a studio vampire, they just suck all quality out of it and kill it.
Games are profitable. You just have to be patient with them. Even Ubisoft, Bethesda, etc is making money despite basically shitting out the same game once a year, imagine if they took just a little more time and spent their budget smarter. It's a CEO's job to budget correctly. So how about they do their jobs.
Hell just look at Devolver Digital, they are KILLING IT.
[editline]5th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE] Legislation will only do so much as well. They'll just find more grey areas to navigate around. I wonder if some form of self regulation like the ESRB would be an option again?[/QUOTE]
ESRB didn't do its job. BF2 had gambling, they ignored it. I'd rather ESRB did what it was made to do, keep the government out of it.
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110913]Most games aren't Witcher 3. You can't expect to manufacture lightning in a bottle every time. It's easy for us to just say "Make better games", but if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.
The solution of course is not to prey on weak willed customers and kids. Until we find a way for games to remain profitable while remaining transparent and fair, this is going to continue to be an issue.[/QUOTE]
The problem is exactly that, though - lightning in a bottle doesn't happen every time. Studios can have hits [I]and[/I] misses. But at least it's a fucking product that did something new, innovated...I mean, at the end of the day it's still a fucking game. Consumer faith in studios can be legendarily strong. Hilariously, look at Valve for this. Setting aside all their problems, when a studio says they're doing something and you know they have a track record of success, you trust them to the point where you used to go "Oh, Rare made this. Should be fun."
As opposed to this....slop we get now, an unfinished, bug ridden mess that's already left a poor impression because they haven't ported it right/just substandard to the point where you feel like they spent more on the TV spots than the actual game development, all while the game fucking advertises the availability of more DLC to you.
There is no trust anymore, there's nothing - the brands mean nothing to me, as do the publishers. I look at games now and wonder "Exactly how are you trying to fuck me today? Is it a bullshot? Is it a bait and switch where the game doesn't look anything like the E3 demo? Are you going to wall off the best bits behind a DLC? Are you going to have an always online DRM? How? How are you going to screw me today?" Couple this with the horseshit surrounding game reviews and embargos to maximize the number of people who buy the game on launch day only to find out it's a "demented monkey flinging its turd" level of horror, and you have fucking [I]negative[/I] trust in the lot of them.
It's sad that it's a pleasant surprise when I play a game and find out it's actually not as toxic as that, like Stardew Valley. It does what it says on the tin, is a mostly bug-free experience and I find value in what I paid for because I was shown exactly what I would be getting.
I would also like to point out that you seem to think that games aren't profitable, that's talked about in the video though, so is " lightning in a bottle"
The fact is that the shit goes beyond loot boxes, these companies don't care about making a game what they're doing is there creating a psychologically manipulative product designed to you trick you to purchase worthless microtransactions
Can you prove that video games aren't profitable. you're talking about numbers but where are they? If they can't make a profitable product then they don't deserve to be in the market
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110913]Most games aren't Witcher 3. You can't expect to manufacture lightning in a bottle every time.[/QUOTE]First off. Lightning in a bottle is exaggerating it by a whole lot. Being a solid game or an interesting game isn't hard enough that it doesn't happen a few times a year for most of us. But even if true...
If they can't do that, then their product shouldn't sell. It's how the market is supposed to work. Preying on addictive personalities does not make the games any better and god fucking knows i'm not a fucking charity. Either they catch lightning in a bottle and make bank or they don't and then either break even or not. There's too much of this gamer-charity going around "oh, i like what they're claiming to do here, so i'm gonna support them by buying the 1000$ edition." And then the game turns out to be an overly politicized turd, unpolished or just flat out boring. If the product can't sell enough to break even, preying on addictive people doesn't earn said game any more merit to exist in the market. It just makes it more scummy and devalues the experience it was supposed to bring.
Gamers are irresponsible, Devs are exploiting this. This is how it is right now. This is not the ideal state of things. it shouldn't be so hard to understand. Earn my money or get lost. This industry is swimming in cancer.
TL;DR: gamers are being sluts with their hype and devs are just out for some quick hankey-pankey.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;53110954]First off. Lightning in a bottle is exaggerating it by a whole lot. Being a solid game or an interesting game isn't hard enough that it doesn't happen a few times a year for most of us. But even if true...
If they can't do that, then their product shouldn't sell. It's how the market is supposed to work. Preying on addictive personalities does not make the games any better and god fucking knows i'm not a fucking charity.[/QUOTE]
Preying on those personalities is terrible and not an ethical way to conduct business, but they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. That's why I think our energies are better spent demanding better solutions rather then just yelling "This is bad" as loud as we can.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53110950]Can you prove that video games aren't profitable. you're talking about numbers but where are they? If they can't make a profitable product then they don't deserve to be in the market[/QUOTE]
I never suggested that games aren't profitable. Publishers publish to make money, that's the reality of it. If their total earnings are not steadily increasing, then they are failing at their job. Even if those earnings are in the billions, if there was no increase compared to last year, then it was a pretty poor year.
So it's not an ethical way to do business but we aren't allowed to complain about it
And you aren't saying that games aren't profitable but you are say that games aren't profitable if they don't make earnings
What
[editline]5th February 2018[/editline]
You're basically saying that it is the consumer's responsibility to create an alternative that is ethical for these companies even though it's the companies using these unethical practices
That doesn't even make any sense
if customers go after you for unethical practices and stop buying your products because you're doing unethical practices and you can't make money otherwise
Then maybe you don't deserve to make money and maybe those unethical practices aren't as effective as they seem
Maybe you shouldn't build your entire company on it being anti-consumer
I would even call that the cost of doing business. Customers get sick of you? Bye bye.
[QUOTE=TheGoodDoctorF;53110823]I went to a panel at MAGfest where James Portnow (Extra Credits) was leading a discussion on the cost of making games a week or so before their episode went up. There were folks angrily yelling Jim Sterling quotes during the discussion, and that experience left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I wouldn't care so much about this if that room of people I was in could have kept a cool head during that panel. The vibe in that room was super uncomfortable. Even the panelists knew that they were dancing in a minefield, and the whole thing would go off if they said anything that sounded like they "supported lootcrates". None of them did of course, but that risk made it more difficult to carry an interesting discussion about solutions.[/QUOTE]
yeah like we're really gonna get an interesting discussion about solutions from the guys who said we're running out of internet
To be honest I'm not even sure why people even listen to people like EC at all, another example being Game theory,
EC and Gametheory are fact channels designed for people who want to feel like they're gaming philosophers but don't care about reality.
[editline]6th February 2018[/editline]
I'm pretty sure the only way either of them could get a panel is by just wandering on the stage without even realizing it
I've seen both side of the argument enough to draw a speculation on why things will not alter for the "better" moving forward:
People against the AAA culture, most of them from the consumer side, are up in arms believing that the industry is too aggressive in terms of selling. If they are already making safe bet games and generating ludicrous profits despite their high cost and upkeep, there is no reason to ransom content and game their consumers for extra dough, in which the money supposedly aren't even funneled into funding future products but into the executives' capitalist pockets. Not only that, the publishers sway developers into making bad decisions and greenlighting questionable business ethics. Lootboxes and pay2win are insult to injury. However, they tend to focus at the bad sides of AAA games, like mentioning how they are more buggy, incomplete, lacking and overpriced, and think that they have the superior moral high ground.
People who are with the current AAA trend, most of them have an interest into the industry, or already are, don't think that the current situation warrant so much flames. While some reluctantly agree that predatory monetization is bad, most on principle believe that publishers (or developers) have the right to partition and sell their game, in which consumers are not entitled to everything just because of tradition. They understand the reality of conducting corporate business involve maximizing profits, and since the practice is already well in motion, stopping would be extremely wasteful unless the backlash is extremely severe. In addition, the AAA (and mobile) practices is what caused the exponential growth in gaming. Upon dwelling into understanding game business, selling will appear almost as important as making. However, unless management goes extremely wrong, AAA games are always projected to earn, so they technically don't need the additional revenue beyond base price to sustain themselves. Finally, cause does not excuse bad practices that hurt the consumer.
So why won't anything change? AAA games are pretty, generate big audiences, and majority simply does not care. They provide satisfactory experience, and players are willing to shell out money to improve their engagement. Microtransactions and Season Passes are not inherently bad, they have to be convinced. As long profits are up, and devs are not risking their jobs, the suits behind the industry will continue with their plan. If I'm a generic gamer stepping into this discussion, this is a very hostile cult.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53110872]Video games wouldn't cost so much if they didn't blow their budget so hard and they could make a superiour product if they spend more time and effort into the project. Lets be fair too, EC is pretty terrible.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=J!NX;53112292]To be honest I'm not even sure why people even listen to people like EC at all, another example being Game theory,
EC and Gametheory are fact channels designed for people who want to feel like they're gaming philosophers but don't care about reality.
[editline]6th February 2018[/editline]
I'm pretty sure the only way either of them could get a panel is by just wandering on the stage without even realizing it[/QUOTE]
I think I missed a memo. What's wrong with Extra Credits? I always found their videos somewhat interesting, and supposedly their team consists of actual game developers, so I thought they'd have a lot more experience than what I'm getting a vibe from here. What makes them so different from Mark Brown or any other YouTuber that discusses game development or design?
Also, isn't Game Theory is about generating theories about story Lore or applying said lore to real life. I don't think the two go hand in hand, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here?
Something that's missing in this debate is that the value of something (ie, how much we're willing to actually pay for it) is wholly unrelated to the cost of making it. It doesn't matter how much your game cost to make if you don't actually make something worthwhile. If people want to be given more money to make bigger, more impressive games then they should create a new tier of games (S-rank games?) with a higher cost and then justify why they want to price their game so. There are many games that people would be happy to pay more than $60USD for but let's not believe for a second that your game earns that privilege just because you throw more money at it.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53112292]To be honest I'm not even sure why people even listen to people like EC at all, another example being Game theory,
EC and Gametheory are fact channels designed for people who want to feel like they're gaming philosophers but don't care about reality.
[editline]6th February 2018[/editline]
I'm pretty sure the only way either of them could get a panel is by just wandering on the stage without even realizing it[/QUOTE]
I don't feel comfortable lumping Gametheory and EC into the same category.
A lot of the things they discuss on EC game design and so forth wise is entry-level sorts of discussion most of the time -- but they still hit the nail with their hammer almost all the time. They have a brisk and somewhat topical approach to the subject matter - but they make up for that by making their content entertaining to watch and thus easier to remember. (Necessary context I guess: I'm a game developer with about 10 years of experience at this point who's worked mainly for indie/A studios but have talked a lot and worked with folks from the AAA and Mobile side of things)
I haven't watched them in a while but are there particular qualms you have with their content which makes them 'for people that don't care about reality'?
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;53112786]Something that's missing in this debate is that the value of something (ie, how much we're willing to actually pay for it) is wholly unrelated to the cost of making it. It doesn't matter how much your game cost to make if you don't actually make something worthwhile. If people want to be given more money to make bigger, more impressive games then they should create a new tier of games (S-rank games?) with a higher cost and then justify why they want to price their game so. There are many games that people would be happy to pay more than $60USD for but let's not believe for a second that your game earns that privilege just because you throw more money at it.[/QUOTE]
AAA games are already the top dogs of the arms race, and how will anyone justify a game's higher base cost? Game length? Review scores? Not to mention that the pricing is in a bind right now that nobody would dare raise their standard edition price beyond 60USD which has stood for so long. Microtransactions and special editions are a way is the answer to the problem, but currently it isn't very popular with this subset of players.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
