"They Just Have To Be Good"

It's sad that this actually needs be said. But as publishers keep
pushing the idea that 'single player games are dead', because from
their perspective, that would be the best thing in the world. But as
Baldur's Gate director Swen Vincke recently posted:

      "That time of the year again when big single-player
       games are declared dead," Vincke posted. "Use your
       imagination. They're not. They just have to be good."

But, of course, that's the trick, isn't it? Making a good game is not
only expensive (what with gamers expecting more and more from their
games these days), but extremely risky. Not only is "good" incredibly
subjective, but people's tastes change over time. And when you have a
$400 million project that takes four years to complete, what you
started with might not be something people are actually interested in
by the time you've finished.

The big-name publishers looked at this calculation and decided the
best way to do things, then, is to go all-in on live-service,
MTX-riddled, advert- and sponsorship-heavy games in a hope that they
can recoup some of the expenses. And --for the time being-- that
strategy is working, but it comes at a cost.

Because these massive games require an equally massive expenditure
from players, both in money (for the MTX) and time. As the economy
tightens, the former becomes harder to justify, and there's only so
much of the latter in each day. The end result is that the hobby can
only support so many massive live-service games, but modern capitalism
--hooked on its idea of infinite growth-- demands the publishers keep
churning out more and more of these games. The audience isn't able to
keep up with that demand. Which means more post-purchase monetization
strategies (live-service, subscriptions, MTX, adverts, etc.) or more
game failures. Both tactics make players less willing to invest in the
games (the former because the games aren't fun, the latter because why
invest your time in a game designed to be played over ten years that
won't be supported in six months). But what's a poor publisher to do?

Saying "Make it good!" or "Make it fun!" is all well and good, but the
real solution is, "Stop making games that demand upwards of a
half-billion dollars to develop and market!" Stop making games that
demand players invest hundreds of hours into them to finish. Not every
game needs to be a huge open-world with ultra-complicated crafting and
role-playing systems, and ten million weapons and cosmetic options.

Smaller, more focused games with shorter lifespans would allow
publishers to spread the risk; they wouldn't be putting all their eggs
into one basket. The success of the quarter wouldn't be based on
whether or not one game had a good launch, but spread out over a dozen
or more titles. For an industry nominally hooked on the concept of
"move fast and break things", their current strategy is incredibly
rigid and fragile. Meanwhile, investors need to be looking beyond the
giant behemoths of the industry (Sony, Microsoft, Take-Two), which are
stuck in this quagmire, and refocus on smaller, more agile second-tier
companies. The games we get might not be quite as mind-blowing in
their scope, but we'd get more of them with a bigger focus on quality
and playability... in other words, "good games".

Which is a trade-off I would be quite happy to make.