View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Greed1914
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 4735
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 10:38 am
|
|
|
Shuhei has been doing a series of interviews lately, and there is a running theme of how much of a mistake Sony has been making by going all-in on types of games. He has said that the live service push was "mutual" in that the studios pitched the ideas that the execs approved. But, let's be real. If the continued existence of your team depends on getting the boss to say yes, you're going to say what they want to hear. I still blame the execs for not stopping at two or three live services to see if they could get any to land.
He also talked about how the AA market supposedly disappeared, and it meant not approving interesting ideas from Japan Studio. But, this was in correlation to when the Sony brand was all about those big, expensive, cinematic games. It's not that the market disappeared, it's that good enough was no longer good enough. Those more modest games are how you fill the gaps between the flagships, and now we're seeing Sony do shows with barely anything of its own. Nintendo has so many games of varying scopes in its pipelines that it is able to shuffle around release dates when one game needs more time, but another is ready to go. That's the level of flexibility that comes from managing project size.
|
Back to top |
|
|
FishLion
Joined: 24 Jan 2024
Posts: 348
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:44 am
|
|
|
Greed1914 wrote: | He has said that the live service push was "mutual" in that the studios pitched the ideas that the execs approved. But, let's be real. If the continued existence of your team depends on getting the boss to say yes, you're going to say what they want to hear. I still blame the execs for not stopping at two or three live services to see if they could get any to land. |
It's especially not the teams responsibility to be aware of the total number. Even if every studio was legitimately champing at the bit to make a live service game, the whole point of having an executive is to make the basic connection that having only one type of product creates a lot of self competition and also means if that type becomes less popular your gun is only loaded with blanks.
I struggle to understand why we need a C-suite presidents that are paid ungodly amounts to begin with in the best of times, but when they can't even understand that the simple economics of supply and demand apply to game genres (even if live service is more a genre of game structure rather than the type of gameplay) enough to decide on a reasonable mix of products it really makes them start to look not only superfluous but even deleterious.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Suxinn
Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 253
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 2:51 pm
|
|
|
Just a minor correction on the Nintendo Gold Points stuff: you get Gold Points for all purchases, including digital ones. In fact, I think it was primarily designed to try and funnel more people to digital, since you can only get Gold Points for physical releases within a year of their release. (So, yes, if you bought, say, the physical edition of Astral Chain two years late, you won't earn anything for it.)
It was actually a pretty useful system, since you can buy a few expensive games, earn some points for them, and then use those points to get some cheap indie games on sale for essentially free. They really better replace it with something else, since getting rid of something like this just feels like a really bad PR and marketing decision.
|
Back to top |
|
|
AiddonValentine
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 2408
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:19 pm
|
|
|
Greed1914 wrote: | Shuhei has been doing a series of interviews lately, and there is a running theme of how much of a mistake Sony has been making by going all-in on types of games. He has said that the live service push was "mutual" in that the studios pitched the ideas that the execs approved. But, let's be real. If the continued existence of your team depends on getting the boss to say yes, you're going to say what they want to hear. I still blame the execs for not stopping at two or three live services to see if they could get any to land.
He also talked about how the AA market supposedly disappeared, and it meant not approving interesting ideas from Japan Studio. But, this was in correlation to when the Sony brand was all about those big, expensive, cinematic games. It's not that the market disappeared, it's that good enough was no longer good enough. Those more modest games are how you fill the gaps between the flagships, and now we're seeing Sony do shows with barely anything of its own. Nintendo has so many games of varying scopes in its pipelines that it is able to shuffle around release dates when one game needs more time, but another is ready to go. That's the level of flexibility that comes from managing project size. |
I mean, it's found on the same nonsense as "infinite growth" wherein everything must go up forever and nothing can be small, everything MUST be big and nothing but AAA. And that's before getting into how AAA has kind of become a meaningless term that is only defined as "too much money to ever turn a profit." When we saw Ubisoft's forever-developed game Skull & Bones bill itself as a "AAAA" game and inevitably flop, that's when the term was truly dead. Their obsession with bigger and bigger games is their own fault and them taking down so many jobs is shameful.
As for FFTA, I always found the most baffling criticism was people claiming Marche was a mass murderer for leaving Ivalice which just...dear god, some people cannot analyze worth a damn. Then came FFTA2 which is somehow set in FFXII Ivalice which has all sorts of implications for FFT, which is part of-okay, look, FF has always been terrible at expanded universes which is why you basically why you have to ignore half of what it's writers say. Dumbest is Kitase still trying to desperately connect FFX to FFVII. Anyway, |Square should hurry up and rerelease the FFT series already.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dumas1
Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 94
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:32 pm
|
|
|
AiddonValentine wrote: |
I mean, it's found on the same nonsense as "infinite growth" wherein everything must go up forever and nothing can be small, everything MUST be big and nothing but AAA. And that's before getting into how AAA has kind of become a meaningless term that is only defined as "too much money to ever turn a profit." When we saw Ubisoft's forever-developed game Skull & Bones bill itself as a "AAAA" game and inevitably flop, that's when the term was truly dead. Their obsession with bigger and bigger games is their own fault and them taking down so many jobs is shameful. |
There's something I've been saying ever since streaming services started proliferating and every media company tried to silo content into their own service: You can't buy more time. Even if someone was able and willing to subscribe to everything, there simply isn't enough time in the day to watch all the new stuff coming out, never mind the bottomless catalogues. And that time has to be shared with sleep, jobs/classes, chores, and other commitments.
Similarly, there's only so much time in the day anyone can spend playing games. Just doing the dailies in two or three games can eat up a big share of one's gaming energy. Not many people are going to be willing or able to sink enough time or money into multiple live service games to keep more than a handful going long-term.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Loogoo T Lexter
Joined: 21 Feb 2025
Posts: 1
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:36 pm
|
|
|
Some stories would suggest being a creation or illusion does not invalidate their lives or existence. Link's Awakening's ending is still sad despite the revelation. Star Ocean 3 openly defies the notion that fictional characters can't be more than bits and bytes for people's amusement. I'm firmly in the "Marche Radiuju is a Jerk" camp.
|
Back to top |
|
|
varmintx
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1255
Location: Covington, KY
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:45 pm
|
|
|
Gonna do an article about Isekai video games and not bring up Final Fantasy Origins? Bullshit! *cranks up Limp Bizkit*
|
Back to top |
|
|
Traptrix Lover
Joined: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 123
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:54 pm
|
|
|
Dumas1 wrote: | There's something I've been saying ever since streaming services started proliferating and every media company tried to silo content into their own service: You can't buy more time. Even if someone was able and willing to subscribe to everything, there simply isn't enough time in the day to watch all the new stuff coming out, never mind the bottomless catalogues. And that time has to be shared with sleep, jobs/classes, chores, and other commitments.
Similarly, there's only so much time in the day anyone can spend playing games. Just doing the dailies in two or three games can eat up a big share of one's gaming energy. Not many people are going to be willing or able to sink enough time or money into multiple live service games to keep more than a handful going long-term. |
Nobody is expecting you to watch or play everything. The point of having so much media to consume is that you're able to freely choose which ones to watch and play and dedicate yourself to when they capture your interest. If someone is a really big God of War guy then maybe that one game would be the one they choose just like Fallout 76 for Fallout fans. And people dogged on Fallout 76 before it even came out and for years after it did and despite that it ended up being the most profitable game in the series. No, not everything will be successful, but there's no way to actually know which ones are going to succeed and which aren't. Look at Marvel Rivals. People were saying the hero shooter genre was oversaturated and dead and Concord was proof. Turns out it actually wasn't. It just needed an actual good game rather than slop.
People always ask for things like "quality over quantity" but there's no way to guarantee quality or know what's actually going to be good or successful. I feel like people who say they want fewer, better quality shows or games just assume the stuff they personally like will conveniently be the universally accepted "quality" that will get made and all the stuff they don't like will be axed. Entertainment is ultimately about throwing as many darts at the wall as you can and seeing what sticks. There's a very good chance the show or game you do dedicate your time to wouldn't be around without the practices people are harping about.
|
Back to top |
|
|
AiddonValentine
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 2408
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:35 pm
|
|
|
Dumas1 wrote: |
There's something I've been saying ever since streaming services started proliferating and every media company tried to silo content into their own service: You can't buy more time. Even if someone was able and willing to subscribe to everything, there simply isn't enough time in the day to watch all the new stuff coming out, never mind the bottomless catalogues. And that time has to be shared with sleep, jobs/classes, chores, and other commitments.
Similarly, there's only so much time in the day anyone can spend playing games. Just doing the dailies in two or three games can eat up a big share of one's gaming energy. Not many people are going to be willing or able to sink enough time or money into multiple live service games to keep more than a handful going long-term. |
Pretty much. When you're to the point where you need everyone to watch everything simultaneously, your business model is busted. And that's before how some people just aren't into certain genres and aren't going to get into them. We learned this during the 7th Gen when everything tried to be Call of Duty but ended up with five million games with empty lobbies and useless campaigns. Just an entire waste of money and time.
And a lot of it is basically founded on this idea that the games industry was always going forward, always going bigger, always making advancements, never stagnating. So it's no wonder a lot of these people are losing their minds as tech has slowed down and diminishing returns have hit. They can't brute force things anymore, so they have to actually think and craft for once in their lives.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Grummbagged
Joined: 18 Feb 2025
Posts: 3
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:11 pm
|
|
|
Dumas1 wrote: | Similarly, there's only so much time in the day anyone can spend playing games. Just doing the dailies in two or three games can eat up a big share of one's gaming energy. Not many people are going to be willing or able to sink enough time or money into multiple live service games to keep more than a handful going long-term. |
I don't like them myself but they're undeniably popular. Live service games are not about long term commitment and I don't think anyone expects them to be outside old school dedicated MMOs but those have long since died off outside a few oldies still kicking around. People these days prefer the current live service model of instant gratification. And live-service games don't need millions of players like MMOs did back in the day they just need enough whales willing to spend money to keep them afloat. A game could have only a few thousand players and still chug along for years because of the business model and still make more money than any other genre could A shame for us fans of single-player games but companies are going to follow the money. Blame the gaming community for being into this stuff.
|
Back to top |
|
|
FinalVentCard
ANN Reviewer
Joined: 28 Oct 2018
Posts: 694
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 9:32 pm
|
|
|
Greed1914 wrote: | It's not that the market disappeared, it's that good enough was no longer good enough. Those more modest games are how you fill the gaps between the flagships, and now we're seeing Sony do shows with barely anything of its own. Nintendo has so many games of varying scopes in its pipelines that it is able to shuffle around release dates when one game needs more time, but another is ready to go. That's the level of flexibility that comes from managing project size. |
I try really hard to not sound like I'm just absentmindedly gassing up Nintendo to the exclusion of everyone else, because goodness knows there's a lot they can be criticized for. But on the other hand, the past few years have really illustrated that maybe there's something to be said about Nintendo's decisions to not chase after every last gaming trend and instead focusing on delivering a wide variety of games to a mass audience at an affordable price. That people act like Nintendo doing this is clearly just an isolated phenomenon in some cordoned-off segment of a faraway land beats the crap out of me--it's a proven record of success if you can keep that gravy train running for the better part of a whole decade!
varmintx wrote: | Gonna do an article about Isekai video games and not bring up Final Fantasy Origins? Bullshit! *cranks up Limp Bizkit* |
Okay, but to be fair: I haven't gotten to play Strangers of Paradise yet. I really want to, though! I really love its take on the "crossing the Bridge of Corneria" scene. That it re-creates the classic FF1 shot of the four Heroes of Light standing on the hill as they watch the Cornerian castle in the distance really stuck out to me. They even used the original monologue!
Traptrix Lover wrote: |
Nobody is expecting you to watch or play everything. The point of having so much media to consume is that you're able to freely choose which ones to watch and play and dedicate yourself to when they capture your interest. [...] Entertainment is ultimately about throwing as many darts at the wall as you can and seeing what sticks. There's a very good chance the show or game you do dedicate your time to wouldn't be around without the practices people are harping about. |
Grummbagged wrote: |
I don't like them myself but they're undeniably popular. [...] A game could have only a few thousand players and still chug along for years because of the business model and still make more money than any other genre could A shame for us fans of single-player games but companies are going to follow the money. Blame the gaming community for being into this stuff. |
Mmm... no, this is very much missing how things are working. Like, in the abstract: yes, live-service titles are a working genre, and a game can survive with a small-yet-dedicated audience... but when you're sinking the kind of money into these projects that Sony was sinking into them, you're not in it for a "small-yet-dedicated audience". You're coming into this with the expectation that each and everyone one of these comes flying out of the gate and makes their investment back within days. If these games were being made on a modest budget and with lower expectations (and profit margins), sure: I'd be fully in agreement. But Sony's not going to make a live-service God of War game with the money they pulled out of the couch, they're going to make that game with Sony™ amounts of money.
What you're proposing as some kind of truism has been proven to be false in the past. We saw this happen with the rise of MMOs in the wake of World of Warcraft, we saw this with the explosion of urban-themed open-world games in the wake of San Andreas, we saw this with WW2-based shooters and military shooters. The folks upstairs really think that they've found an infinite money glitch and that all they have to do is pump out variations on this idea an they'll make all the money... ignoring that, like others have pointed out, people only really have time for so many games in their life. And most people are already playing Fortnite (which is free). The problem isn't people being disappointed that studios are pushing out live-service games, the problem is that studios are upending their entire business model to cash in on an unsustainable trend as they chase an impossible profit goal, and when the profit inevitably fails to materialize it's the developers who suffer and not the execs who green-lit the whole sordid affair as countless layoffs follow.
Even if there was some imaginary world where people playing a live-service Spider-Man game would also play a live-service God of War title and a live-service The Last of Us and these people weren't already up to their necks with any other live-service title that they're already invested in (be it monetarily or because all their friends are already playing some other game--which is a HUGE reason behind Fortnite's continued success), nobody would have the time to play all three on a reliable-enough schedule to ensure profitability for each one.
|
Back to top |
|
|
AiddonValentine
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 2408
|
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:06 pm
|
|
|
FinalVentCard wrote: |
I try really hard to not sound like I'm just absentmindedly gassing up Nintendo to the exclusion of everyone else, because goodness knows there's a lot they can be criticized for. But on the other hand, the past few years have really illustrated that maybe there's something to be said about Nintendo's decisions to not chase after every last gaming trend and instead focusing on delivering a wide variety of games to a mass audience at an affordable price. That people act like Nintendo doing this is clearly just an isolated phenomenon in some cordoned-off segment of a faraway land beats the crap out of me--it's a proven record of success if you can keep that gravy train running for the better part of a whole decade! |
The thing that's funny about Nintendo is that not jumping into every genre or hottest trend isn't done idly. They've repeatedly said they don't do new titles just to do one, they dislike doing overlap with their franchises and think "what sort of gimmick can we think up with this?" It's why when they finally made a competitive shooter with Splatoon it was unlike any shooter we had seen and focused more on movement and territory control than just shooting people. And then when Nintendo opened up with sandbox design they went "Hey, remember all that tedious busywork that turned sandbox games into a bunch of accounting? How about we get rid of all that and went back to exploring actual worlds?" So then the Xenoblade series and Breath of the Wild made people realize what exploration and interesting locales are again. Often it's just better to observe and see if something is even going to be around ten years later
|
Back to top |
|
|
RenRen94
Joined: 08 Jul 2018
Posts: 232
|
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:07 am
|
|
|
Cool, I just started reading Iron Widow today! Had to blitz through Stephanie Garber's Caraval to do it though (was not a great read, did not care for it), but ironically there was a character in the book whose name was an anagram of their true name. I actually yelled "Hah, you can't fool me, Stephanie Garber! I lived through Llednar Twem!" Which reminded me how much I loved playing FFTA as a child. Thanks for the additional trip down memory lane with this article
|
Back to top |
|
|
|