Re: Sony: Blockbuster Games Are "A Death Sentence"

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