Old Games For The Win

Says a recent report:

"Two third of total PC playtime last year was on games that are at
least six years old"*

I'm sure this surprises nobody here; we're all old farts (well, most
of us anyway) and we naturally gravitate towards older games. But I
think it is indicative --and should be a loud warning-- to triple-A
publishers that modern games -increasingly filled with 'live service'
nonsense (and MTX and advertising and cross-promotions and all the
rest) are NOT satisfying the bulk of their customers. So, you know,
maybe stop doubling down on that?

Except... sales remain high so probably they don't care? After all, if
people are still BUYING the games, does it really matter if those
games actually get played? Then again, maybe it does. The newest games
--overly expensive to develop-- absolutely depend on MTX and
live-services to keep the money-train going; the retail purchase price
is not enough for the publishers to recoup their investments. But if
gamers aren't playing these new games, then they aren't likely to pay
for the lootboxes or digital hats or pay-to-win trading cards either.

But what's a poor triple-A to do? Put in MTX and people don't buy your
game: end-result, no profit. Don't put in MTX and you don't make money
and, again, no profit. It's a catch-22!

Unless --and this is a radical idea-- maybe you reign in the cost of
your games so they don't cost $400 million dollars to develop and
sell, and then you /can/ profit on just the retail price alone. It's
the one neat trick they don't want you to know!

The game industry is struggling, and it will have to change. The
question is, can the big-name triple-A companies adapt or will they
spend themselves into obsolescence?








 * I like linkie-links. Do you like linkie-links?
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/two-thirds-of-total-pc-playtime-last-year-was-on-games-that-are-at-least-six-years-old-report-says/