Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: Sony: Blockbuster Games Are "A Death Sentence"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:11:31 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <ostehj191vdi727tjgjorf3qf6dna33bg6@4ax.com>
References: <56s7hjljk54fnbeph1bhfp4hli3cd8dto1@4ax.com> <88cchjl1jvhddn9r5us7d48q0dqo0kcs81@4ax.com> <pnochjh6thbmt936ee7q66mnql7ucrnopg@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:14:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8cf3f9cbdf931121ec6c21e7c1639452";
	logging-data="1524772"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SKfxviKovy9aaqZp0eMSq"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9W8XJURSvMHzH1nZ4Nd/8Rdyj9s=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.640
Bytes: 7358

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:06:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>>say:
>>
>><Big Snip>
>>>[Shawn Layton doesn't mention this, but smaller games with shorter
>>>development cycles would probably also alleviate the necessity for
>>>mass layoffs after a big game completes, because rather than laying
>>>off all those artists while the years-long pre-production and
>>>programming for  your AAA game takes place, you can just shift them
>>>all over to a smaller project.]
>>
>>Ahh but firing them all means more bonus money for the executives.
>
>True. The biggest problem with Layton's argument is that it depends on
>long-term thinking by C-level execs. It requires them to consider the
>future of the company _beyond_ the immediate quarter. Too often, their
>concern is only, "what will pop the stock price up a few ticks" and
>not "what's good for the long-term health of the corporation?"...
>especially since they're protected by too-high salaries and golden
>parachutes.

Even without the parachutes and such, there's no loyalty to a company
anymore.
The days of working your entire life in the same company are long gone,
so it's what will boost our stock value the most this year and therefore
make my stock options worth more, then I bail out and work for the
competition (which also forces them to divest their shares in the old
company before the long term pain sets in.)

>Releasing huge games makes for great Wall Street fodder.
>"ElectroActiUbiVisionSoft has released Call of Halocraft XXVI, which
>required $400 million to develop and is one of the most anticipated
>games on the market today!" sounds a lot more exciting to investors
>than, "For the twentieth time this year, MicroBlizzArthesda which is
>expected to easily recoup its $10 million development costs". The
>former makes the stock bell go ding-ding-ding while the other is just
>boring business-as-usual that barely gets noticed... even though the
>latter is safer and more likely to bring in continued revenue.

But the numbers are so much smaller, they seem insignificant.

Kinda like television, the execs are always wanting a new show to be the
next law and order juggernaut, but never want to give it time.
They don't want to be the guy who greenlit the show that has the highest
rating on Friday, but the next cosby show or L&O or whatever.
Decent numbers aren't good enough, they want the highest numbers only so
they can claim credit for it.

>>>Layton also makes some other interesting points: for instance, the
>>>insistence that titles have mass-appeal world-wide (with particular
>>>focus on the West) instead of making games that might be popular just
>>>in certain geo/political regions. "Look at the markets [in other
>>>regions], they're growing, the economies are robust. There's more
>>>disposable income. You can make a great game in Indonesia for that
>>>market." says Layton. Again pointing to how a focus on just big AAA
>>>games is leaving money on the table.
>>
>>Ahh but what is Indonesia's dollar value these days?
>>Look at the blue-ray/dvd markets and region coding because the product
>>is sold for so much less outside of NA/EU.
>>Presumably games would be the same, so it's a market they will never
>>pursue since the return will be so much less.
>
>
>But I think that's the point. Stop chasing after $400 million dollar
>games that have to appeal to everyone. They leave you vulnerable. If
>it fails (and it happens, just look at "Concord"), that investment is
>gone. Don't be afraid to make 40 ten-million dollar games in their
>place, each designed for a smaller demographic. Some of them might
>fail, but most probably --thanks to their tighter focus-- probably
>won't. 

The thing is they don't often fail, since all too many folks are seduced
by the graphics, not the gameplay.   Shallow games for shallow people.

>>If  it's $90 a game in the west and $15 in Indonesia or wherever,
>>they're never going to go after that $15, since it's pocket change for a
>>company like SONY.
>
>There's three hundred million people in Indonesia, its per-capita GDP
>has more than quadrupled in the past two decades (and continues to go
>up). Yes, it's low compared to America, but it's not savages living in
>the jungle. Why, they even have electricity nowadays! There's enough
>people and enough money there that you _can_ make money from a market
>like that... if you develop with a tighter focus. 

But how many of those people are actually gamers?
Even if you try and make a game that should appeal to Indonesians, a
whole lot are simply not gamers, or not into whatever genre game you
made.
And while the per-capita GDP has gone up, it's still well behind NA/EU.

Like being a cable company;  do you want to have 100% of the market in a
village of 1000, or 25% of the market in NYC and 2 million customers?


>>Essentially we'll have AAA titles and A/B titles, but no AA, at least
>>for a while, until one of those A/B studios makes enough money to take
>>it up a notch.   The next Blizzard (remember how varied their games were
>>early on, and all of them good, before WoW screwed everything up by
>>getting them too much money.)
>
>
>I think the argument is that companies that continue to rely solely on
>AAA titles and not diversify are going to find it harder and harder to
>retain marketshare and be profitable. They're just too expensive and
>don't offer customers enough 'bang for the buck' over smaller,
>Indie-led projects, and customers are going to flock to those smaller
>games. The AAA studios will be left in the dirt, unable to compete
>unless they start re-organizing now.

Well if they drop by the wayside the game industry will be better off
for it, but I don't see it happening, since they've all been borged up
and are propped up by other things.
SONY sells hardware, Microsoft does the same and more, etc, their gaming
divisions are going nowhere soon if ever.

Xocyll