- 0 Posts
- 54 Comments
Yeah. I’m of the same mind. I was here to witness the resurgence of Boomer and Movement Shooters. Now, we’re in the cusp of the resurgence of RTS. I am very much happy with the state of gaming, without having to focus on sequels.
The last game published by 505 I played were apparently Indivisible, which was trash. I never played Ghostrunner nor Control which basically eliminates most of their notable recent output. I think I can safely say I’ll be fine with my continued ignoring of them as a publisher.
If you’re not designing the NFT game around the profit and trading aspect - then the NFT is pointless and you could just make a game with tradeable assets registered to a conventional relational database.
Aka: What MMO’s, browser social platforms and Steam itself has been doing successfully for more than a decade before NFT’s showed up.
It’s a technological dead end (in gaming) even without the greed, because the use cas is already done cheaper, simpler and better.
The majority of companies who use Slack (over the likes of Teams) are tech-oriented companies made mid last decade.
Making a Twitter scrapper that pushes to a webhook would take half a day and would cost essentially zero if you just toss it in a random cloud cluster and forget about it. And if you don’t have that scale, then you likely have a team leader somewhere who will run it on a machine of their own out of spite.
And scrappers are way more wasteful for the target webhost.
This change hurts literally nobody other than Felon. Good.
Ding ding ding.
Half the cost of the game is marketing. And marketing is an effort that builds upon itself
The more smaller games you have, the more you have to market to niches from scratch. And niches are generally more inclined to be informed users. And it takes a developer with vision to make a satisfying niche hit. Well it always takes vision but…
Meanwhile one big bombastic game will get a bunch of mainstream folks hyped over qualifiers of scope instead of quality. Yes, I am saying hype culture is primarily an idiot’s hobby, but idiots still got cash.
Plus, plus, most studios don’t really see their junior devs as something worth fostering. Better off burning them out and replacing them.
It’s basically money well spent for them.
but why 30%, why not
To which the response is: I don’t care. I would have paid the same amount of money for games no matter which of the stupid funny numbers you picked out.
The beginning and end of how much one should care is “are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?”. And the answer to both is Yes, so the concerns are abated.
If it opens them to driven out of the market by a more generous competitor: Cool. But that alone doesn’t impact me, the costumer. The generous competitor needs to do more. And you know, they know that. That’s why Tim gave me so many free games.
No you wouldn’t.
Immortals of Aveum cost 70 monetary-whatevers and killed its studio and no one commented on it. It would have cost 60 whatevers two years ago and still would have killed its studio. But if they did 70, they would have torpedoed that price point in the news circles as a death sentence. They only had the gall because literally no one dared release a game for 70 till Activision did it and others like Sony and Nintendo followed along.
Steams share has zero impact on my wallet. The market is dictated by things way more arbitrary. Everyone with brain knows this.
Plus, it only applies to base price, not sale price. If a platform states “you can have your game on sale 100% of the time”, and a game undercuts Steam that way, Steam wouldn’t do anything about it. Well, they wouldn’t have to anyways, it’s illegal to have goods on sale 100% of the time, but the point is there.
I will never, ever, understand why Stadia was something thay had to be “ported into” at such high cost. Specially for games that were ALREADY working on Linux. Like, what the fuck was the hold up. I read up stories that it was basically like porting to a fourth console and that just sounded outrageously stupid in my head.
Whatever tech stack they had, they could have made it way more profitable by making it generic windows boxes that partially run your library elsewhere. I dunno if there’s some hubris or some licensing bullshit behind it, but fact is, if I want to do this on GeForce Now, I can do it, no questions asked, and as the costumer, that’s the beginning and end of my concerns.
At least, if you put too much money into one, there’s a threshold between those being financially successful or not, so if they flood the market, they will also leave a bunch of dead studios in their wake while good games thrive.
Oh, what’s the threshold?
It’s called Ubisoft.
There’s not enough space for two of them. So it’s beat them or lose it.