Re: Single Player FTW

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:12:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 10/11/2024 8:19 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:57:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
 

On 09/10/2024 04:16, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Still, for years publishers parroted the line that multiplayer was the
only way to profitablity, and strictly single-player games (or even
single-player modes) were often given short-shrift. There have been
numerous reports of attempts by developers to push forward
single-player games that have been shot down by publishers, who told
the devs that single-player games 'just don't sell'.  And why not?
Multiplayer games sold tremendously well, and you could attach all
sorts of live-service features onto the games to rake in even more
money

>
I'm not sure it's that they don't sell but instead the really big bucks
are to be had in multiple-player games that are far more amenable to
having MTX shoved in them providing a healthy income stream possibly for
years to come.
>

 
 
Except the study showed that you _aren't_ necessarily promised massive
revenue just because you make a multiplayer game. Or rather, it isn't
simply the fact that the game is multiplayer that guarantees that
money. It's that wildly unpredictible, "is it a good/popular game"
factor that brings in the big bugs.

>
But we don't want bugs at all!!!

See my other post in thread about Ubisoft employing a "Monitization
Director"...  That is the kind of bug, that is not needed, at all.

Monitizing games used to be driven by the creative ability to take
bits and bytes and somehow make them fun.  If they were fun,
consumer's wanted to partake and were willing to spend money for that
entertainment.

At some point along the lines, marketing got involved.  Stockholders
started thinking "well marketing folks are the ones who know how to
analyze the market and get us returns, right??" so they gave them the
decision making power.

That cancer spread to the point where positions like "Diversity and
Inclusion Officer" and "Monitization Director" had more power over the
people who actually play games, write the code that makes them work,
and knew what was or wasn't fun.

Then as those cunts rose up the ladder, it became more about appealing
to THEIR egos.

In come the loot crates, the politics, the strategic monetization
taking priority over fun factor.

And the AAA gaming industry now sits there like deer in headlights and
wonder why they're struggling?  Really?

Not a difficult equation, shit floats to the top.  It's just like what
happens in the music industry, the movie industry or any form of
creative arts.  The people who know how to actually create something
of value are smothered by the politics of the bean counters (who
usually leverage marketing as their primary screwdriver..  and boy did
gamers get screwed).

There are a few gem games that emerge here and there.  Best way to
find them is to not spend all time on Usenet trying to revive the days
of Doom and Quake..  spend proportionately more time playing games
that do resonate.. that helps send a message on what's good and what's
not.