• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4822 days ago

    Why would I believe anything andreesen Horowitz says about anything, let alone gaming? These people believed that NFTs were the future of gaming. Grifter bellends.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2121 days ago

    That would be the reasonable and rational conclusion, but capitalism is neither reasonable nor rational.

    • @ampersandrew
      link
      English
      521 days ago

      You can only throw away hundreds of millions of dollars on Avengers and Suicide Squad so many times before they decide to come up with something people are willing to pay for.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1621 days ago

    That’s crazy talk, we need to make AAAA and AAAAA games, Microsoft is ready to have all their developers spend three years on a single perfect game!

    Each copy will be $7000

    • Tempo
      link
      fedilink
      521 days ago

      Skull and Bones is already a AAAA according to Ubisoft, so we’re already part of the way there.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        421 days ago

        An AAAA game that’s only 65GB? and it gets 7/10.

        Now I know my mistake the A’s have nothing to do with quality 🤦🏽‍♂️

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          221 days ago

          I have enjoyed many more indie games the past few years than I have AAA, the As relate to quality, they just mean it’s less likely to be quality

    • I Cast Fist
      link
      fedilink
      220 days ago

      Star Citizen isn’t being touted as a AAAA+ game, though it’s certainly been selling in game stuff like one.

  • @Gamoc
    link
    1321 days ago

    This is a false argument. They ARE profitable when they bother to try and make a good one. It’s when they fill it full of mtx and drag every aspect of the game except the enjoyment out for as long as possible to try and convince you to buy shit to make it actually enjoyable after you’ve already paid full price. They don’t get create poor games and then complain they’re not profitable enough - bad products aren’t profitable because they are bad products.

    • @ampersandrew
      link
      English
      421 days ago

      Even if every $200M game was good, you’re still competing against the other $200M games out there, and that’s very risky.

      • @Gamoc
        link
        521 days ago

        I suspect there wouldn’t be as many releases if they were only releasing good ones.

        • @ampersandrew
          link
          English
          221 days ago

          True. There would also be even more layoffs in this industry if they threw out years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars at the finish line because they decided not to release a game that didn’t turn out to be as good as they’d hoped.

          • @Gamoc
            link
            221 days ago

            That’s just another symptom of chasing perceived profits. If they were dedicated to releasing good products they’d understand retaining good talent that has experience working together is an important part of it.

            Obviously that’s a pipe dream because they’re all vultures circling over a games publisher, picking off what they can until they can feast on its corpse, but still.

            • @ampersandrew
              link
              English
              321 days ago

              I was being facetious. If your development timeline is 7 years, you have no idea how it’s going to turn out at the end, but they all set out to make a good product, especially when it takes that much time and money to make. Guardians of the Galaxy was supposedly a very good game that bombed horribly, for instance. There’s a lot of risk when your game is that expensive to make, because there are only so many customers out there, and they’re already playing other big expensive games. Even Sony is finding that their marquis titles aren’t bringing in as many customers as they expected anymore, so they can’t keep spending more on games and expect them to be profitable.

              • @schmidtster
                link
                221 days ago

                That’s also partly because Microsoft is buying customers with gamepass, it’s unprofitable in the long run, but they just need to do it long enough to kill off competitors. Exactly what Netflix did basically.

                Youve been able to start to see the ripples forming a few years ago. Devs aren’t making as much from the deal of being on it vs private sales as well.

                • @ampersandrew
                  link
                  English
                  -121 days ago

                  What do you mean? It’s already profitable for them. I’m far more concerned with Nintendo’s online subscription than Microsoft’s. Nintendo’s already crossed the line, and Microsoft still stands to make more money by offering games for sale on Steam than to make them only available via a subscription that isn’t doing well with regards to acquiring more customers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      219 days ago

      It’s when they fill it full of mtx and drag every aspect of the game except the enjoyment out for as long as possible to try and convince you to buy shit to make it actually enjoyable after you’ve already paid full price.

      You’re confused. Those are the profitable ones.

  • Juice
    link
    1121 days ago

    I feel like the natural progression is to roll back to the 2000s when every company was shotgunning batshit crazy concepts for games left and right… I miss those days

  • Binthinkin
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Starfield is an empty AAA game. And they LIED about updates.

    Posted profits tho.

    • @boaratio
      link
      221 days ago

      I personally like Starfield.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        021 days ago

        From what I see, it’s a bit like Skyrim in space and, to be fair, Skyrim is a really good game, but it’s been 12 years. Bethesda has to relearn how to make other games.

        • I Cast Fist
          link
          fedilink
          020 days ago

          More like Fallout 4 in space, minus any interesting places to explore, worse characters, story and base building.

    • Billegh
      link
      121 days ago

      Yeah, it seems like these days many AAA games are just an empty harness for housing a microtransaction powered money engine.

    • I Cast Fist
      link
      fedilink
      120 days ago

      I’m just amazed that, 6 months later, they haven’t fixed any of the skill related bugs, but “fixed” the visual effects of rejuvenation ~4 times (it’s listed that many times in the changelogs, anyway). That’s bad even for Bethesda standards

  • @Sanctus
    link
    English
    521 days ago

    Yeah only the massive dudes are struggling cause they’ll never figure it out. They just chase the dragon.

  • LiveLM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    421 days ago

    Oh wow, big words coming from fucking Andreessen Horowitz Games

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    221 days ago

    Appealing to the widest audience possible for the largest gross profits, rather than appealing to specific audiences with a smaller budget, is part of the issue with modern gaming.

  • Karyoplasma
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    What a shit take lol

    AAA does not describe the size of the game, but the size of the brand and publisher.

    • @schmidtster
      link
      1421 days ago

      I believe that’s the problem, AAA studios can put out shit games, the game content should dictate that.

      My eyes are getting sore from all these studios popping up claiming they are making AAA games, maybe put something out first mate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        521 days ago

        Right. What does AAA even mean? Meta spent billions on their Horizons Metaverse, but countless Indie Metaverses are way higher rated some made by just one person. Clearly AAA does not mean the size of the team or the budget.

  • Kerb
    link
    fedilink
    021 days ago

    this stuff really pisses me off,
    i remember recently watching a video about tekken8.

    the devs aparently made an announcement that boils down to “we need to monetize the shit out of this game now to make our monney back”
    and the streamer just went “yeah thats reasonable”

    they have the sales figures for tekken 7, and tekken 7 was an online game, so they know their active userbase.
    (and they also now charge 70 bucks)

    so they have at least a vague idea of how much monney they’ll make.

    how can you screw up your budget that bad unless you senslessly dump money at your release.

    yeah cutting edge graphics are neat,
    but thats incredibly expensive.
    and imo not that nececary for a great experience.

    maybe a game that needs to nickle and dime its playerbase shouldnt be made in the first place?