• ampersandrew
    link
    fedilink
    2911 months ago

    “There is indeed pressure from the market because the standards in terms of production values, length of experience and knowledge of our medium from customers are going up,” Clerc says.

    This is another important piece. Games that used to be linear and 8-15 hours are now open world and 60-80 hours long (often to their detriment). Most of the biggest games are designed to be played forever, which means it’s coming at the expense of buying or playing new games. And development cycles are exceeding 5 years when they probably ought to be aiming for under 3 years.

    The industry is making games with riskier development cycles, adding features that arguably don’t make them any better or more marketable, and they’re designed to make it actively hostile to the next person trying to sell a game to the same customer. It’s no wonder it can’t sustain the current trajectory.

    • @fckreddit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      1211 months ago

      There is always a market for smaller more focussed experiences. They are cheaper to make, so easy to make profit on. But, they want to turn every game into open world, microtransaction laden shit fest. A good example is Diablo 4, which literally removed genre standard features to make the game more tedious. Throwing hundreds of millions on a single massive game shouldn’t be a standard.

      I love open world games, but I wouldn’t mind playing smaller games like older CoD campaigns too.

    • Hildegarde
      link
      fedilink
      911 months ago

      If games are shorter people buy more of them.

      Back in the day, so many studios tried to unseat wow with a fantasy mmo of their own. Seems an unwise strategy when playing an mmo is nearly a full time occupation. Very few players will have the time for more than one. Bad strategy. Which is why nearly every wow killer died.

      Its clear the industry learned nothing when they started pushing perpetual live service games. Why would anyone play EA’s destiny clone when they could instead play destiny, especially when the time investment makes it infeasible to play both?

      Now the big thing is the battle pass, that demand tens of hours to complete. Same issue there. Can most players justify more than one battle pass subscription? Probably not.

      • ampersandrew
        link
        fedilink
        411 months ago

        Why would anyone play EA’s destiny clone when they could instead play destiny, especially when the time investment makes it infeasible to play both?

        There’s a big reward for being second or third to market, but not too much beyond that. A few MMOs saw plenty of success despite WoW. League of Legends and Dota are massively successful, but Smite did well too. Minecraft is huge, but so is Terraria and Starbound. PUBG, Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Warzone are huge, but Hyperscape couldn’t cut it.