Re: It turns out Live Service Isn't Guaranteed Money after all

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:39:46 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 09:51:05 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>

On 19/07/2025 17:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

    I'm not against live service games; they aren't my favorite thing
but I think they add a certain spice to the hobby. But the way they've
DOMINATED the market over the past five years has made for a much
worse experience over all. If the big-name (and small-name publishers
too) back away from this obsession with making EVERY game a live
service behemoth, I think the overall effect will be good not only for
the play experience, but the industry as well.

>
I'm not against the idea of them but instead the reality of them. They
employ a host of tactics (some of which I think are basically unethical)
that I disagree with to get you to open your wallet and none of those
are designed to make a better game experience beyond we'll give you a
bad game experience unless you pay.
>
Another problem I do see is that even if companies do start backing away
from them do they have the people that can develop decent single player
games any more. I have a horribly feeling that the answer to that is
going to be no.

>
I read an article a month or two back (long ago that I can't find it
anymore; sorry, no URL footnote this time) that touched upon this
issue. It pointed out that one result of big publisher's tendency to
fire its development teams so quickly after release is that the
developers no longer were building up necessary skills over long
periods of experience.

Interestingly, another article just dropped where Nintendo reports
that its staff retention is incredibly high; the average term is 14.4
years.*

Now, I personally don't like Nintendo products but even I have to
admit they're well made. They're not always GOOD ideas (Wii U,
anyone?) but they are generally well implemented. And I don't think
those two facts --long employee retention and good implementations--
are unrelated. They aren't losing valuable skills every time a project
completes; rather, they are building up on lessons learned.

Of course, this is a panacea; I think one issue Nintendo faces is that
they're in a sort of rut. They don't really come up with too many new
ideas, and tend to rely on old IPs a lot more than other companies.
They're fortunate in that these IPs are extremely popular, but it is a
potential vulnerability. Fresh blood is useful for shaking things up,
and having a lot of older employees makes it hard for new ideas to
take hold.

But it's far better than the fire-20%-of-the-staff routine a lot of
other companies rely on.







* that's what these guys report anyway
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-records-reveal-that-staff-numbers-are-up-and-employees-rarely-leave