this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
866 points (100.0% liked)

Greentext

6476 readers
1247 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I mean it doesn't look so good for the AAA studios tho

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They work for the shareholders, not the customers. For most publicly traded companies, the stock is completely detached from fundamentals, so they just do whatever the large investors like (often just hype the new hottest thing; such as marketplaces or "increasing efficiency" with layoffs), regardless if its good for the "real" business or not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

How boeing lost 11.9 Billion in one year, and then 11.8 billion a few years later. Is there anything people that have a lot of money can't do? Yeah, stay in their fucking lane.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because we buy the games, the microtransactions, the cosmetics, etc. Even just one purchase multiplied by millions is a win for publishers. Whales and content creators fuel the cycle even more. Meanwhile, currencies get deliberately convoluted: you need stars for a pull, which require sparkle farts, which you can’t buy directly or in exact amounts. Out of sparkle farts? $14.99 gets you 6000—enough for three whole pills! Don't worry, there's a pity system, so the most you'll spend is only $400. And then you're left with 60 stars, and if you just had 40 more!

You’re not forced to buy, but they make the grind brutal and a slog. If you're really unlucky, it can even make actually playing the came harder. And as long as this system makes money, it won’t stop. Games are turning into storefronts with a mini-game attached. Good games feel like rare blessings, and creativity is often found only indie studios. Big teams have talent—they’re just not allowed to use it, their companies don't care about that. Gotta make money, more money, all the time, forever, or you've failed.

~~I say "they" like I don't play a few gachas myself, but still.~~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I do like the analogy of the ingame currency named "sparkle farts"

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Infinite growth mentality vs remembering the customer as a human

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"I don't understand what you're calling the wallet piggies" - executives and the whole marketing dept

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

And honestly, they’re right. Games are fundamentally optional and there are so many to choose from but these garbage studios make garbage games and openly degrade their customers but people keep paying them.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They'd rather oversaturate the fucking market place chasing an elusive Pot of Gold than go for the sure thing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, going for the sure thing is why we have EA pumping out COD and a dozon sports games identical to last years every year.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
  1. If EA is making new COD games then Activision really needs to sue for copyright infringement.

  2. Which would you rather have? Yearly releases of beloved IPs or Rare sitting on Banjo Kazooie because this is totally the year when Sea of Thieves finally becomes Pirate Fortnite? Actually given how backhanded the Battletoads reboot was...

  3. I'd rather have The Sims 4 get endless expansions if the alternative is that it's abandoned altogether like so many other IPs EA owns like Ultima, Command and Conquer, Sim City, and Wing Commander

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism ruins everything. Usually by design.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This one, right here OP.

Capitalism is, at its core: Profits > all

Profit is more important to these chucklefucks than the customers happiness, their loyalty, the staff that make the product, hell, even the product they're selling... This includes your life; profit is more important than your life. If they can bump their quarterly earnings with you doing something dangerous that turns you into a fucking grease stain, they'll fucking do it. They're psychopaths.

Only because of laws does any company do "the right thing". Everything else they do is to reduce expenses, or increase profits.

They wouldn't try to make the next fortnite, if fortnite didn't make its creators disgusting amounts of money. Games wouldn't become micro transaction hell if microtransactions didn't rake in shitloads of cash steadily.

Video Games are simply their tool to extract the maximum possible value they can from you. First it was stupid one-off horse cosmetics, then it was paid DLC, then they started shipping half of a game before it was ready (cutting dev costs so they could get their payout faster), then releasing paid "DLC" which was the rest of the fucking game.... To now, when we have little more than an idea, some mechanics, and somewhat unique art design before the streaming pile that they call a game gets to be "released", and they'll literally add everything later.

Look at halo. Let's use it as a case study. The original game had its share of problems on release, but it was at least pretending to be a full game when it came out. Full single player and multi player, with a fully fleshed out campaign, complete with working cutscenes. Halo 2 followed a similar path, for the most part... Eventually, the Halo dev team became beholden to the almighty shareholder and now we have halo infinite with an infinite amount of bullshit and no single player campaign... Unless you want to pay extra for it, or for these skins, or for.... You get the idea.

I played, and liked Halo. I fell away from it after Halo 2/3 due to life stuff, and at this point, I picked up the matter chief collection for the nostalgia, but that's probably the last money I'm putting into the franchise. I just can't be bothered. It was good while it lasted.

Halo is hardly unique in this. I only used them as an example because it was easy. I could have also used Diablo....

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Enshittification.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Part of the reason that happened with Halo is because Bungie lost the IP to Microsoft when they separated. Everything after Halo 3 was done by another studio that was part of M$. I believe it was called 343 Studios or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 135 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Because they don't want some of the money, or even enough of the money. They want all of the money, and think all you have to do is copy a successful game to get it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Stephanie Sterling has been saying this for so many years, and it's only getting worse. at least in the """AAA""" space.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've been a fan since The Escapist days

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I started watching shortly after the escapist... thank god for her!

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Moreover, like Hollywood, the gaming industry is largely run by people who truly do not understand the thing they're there to make. All of the C-levels still think it's the early 2000s where you could shit out anything that looked like a popular game and make 20 billion dollars from it. They think their entire market is dumb kids who will mindlessly play whatever is put in front of them without regard to polish, story, or even playability.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

And chasing trends when it can take up 5 years or more to complete a project is utterly moronic.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (6 children)

And the market proves it's true.

How in the hell is EA still not dead?

Many studios produce barely acceptable shit, yet people buy it in droves.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How in the hell is EA still not dead?

Sports games

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

The same reason there aren't bear-proof trash cans. There's a lot of overlap in intelligence levels between people and bears

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

I've noticed that an increasing amount of games that I enjoy over the past decade have been indie games (or games with lax publishers.)

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (8 children)

No. I want an incredibly small scale indie game made by a tiny team and fills my desires for power and war/crimes. Rimworld, Kenshi, Factorio.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 82 points 3 days ago (16 children)

My (completely uninformed) theory: It's competitive advantage. Indies succeed on their creativity, but that works because there are thousands of indie devs out there and we get to see the best (and luckiest) ones. It's not easy to replicate that creativity by just throwing more money at the problem. So what is a company with ooodles of money but no creativity to do? Make games that only a company with way too much money could make. No indie dev is going to make the next Far Cry or Assassin's Creed or Fortnite because they just don't have the budget to make that happen. So they know that even if they keep churning out generic crap, at least it's generic crap with very little real competition.

Of course then all of them got the bright idea to compete in a game business model that is inherently winner take all with already well established leaders. So yeah now it just seems like they're lighting money on fire for fun.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

We've got the IP, why don't we make the Smash Bros. killer? We can call it "MultiVersus"!

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because they're run by executives that have no fucking idea what game development entails.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago

That and everything now needs to be "disruptive". An idea doesn't see the light of day in a tech board room without explaining how it's going to disrupt the market and create space for itself. So unless the game is pitched as a killer of whatever the competition has it won't move forward. It's the whole silicon valley mindset of move fast and break things in action.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 days ago (9 children)

They honestly need to look at Fortnite as the model. It wasn’t meant to be this massive AAA game. It was a modest game with a unique concept (building). Adding battle royal was done on a whim. It just happened to click with millions of people.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 days ago (8 children)

wtf does "AA" and "AAA" even mean, like, why do they need different batteries.?

besides, I thought, batteries were totally out...

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

AA is a game that is a normal full sized game, but was made on a budget that limited scope. Good examples are the Metro series or Balatro. AAA is your normal games with big budgets. AAAA is a special title for Skull and Bones, it means you spend a gigantic amount of money and make sure the whole thing sucks.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Balatro is indie, songs isn't it? Developed by a single dude with probably zero budget

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Fiduciary duty to shareholders. Line must go up, as much as possible, as fast as possible.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

why are they like this?

Which would you rather have 1 million dollars or 100 million dollars?

That's basically the thought process, if it bombs I can blame it on some other, if it doesn't then I'm good

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which would you rather have 1 million dollars or 100 million dollars?

It's not that straightforward, unfortunately. The real culprit is allowing all giant public companies to hoover up all the small companies. Now you're not a 3 person team with a side job trying to pay the bills and getting lucky. Office rent, Unity/Unreal want their cut, app stores want their cut, Salary, IT, Healthcare. You end up needing to support quite a lot of infrastructure to make that 1 Mil game. That no longer 'moves the needle' on your company's yearly income and the stock suffers.

Then, you can't just make a game and release it anymore, you need live ops, sales, events, campaigns, otherwise you're leaving money on the table.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›