Two reasons:
The money is mostly spent on visual production, graphics, and big name actors to voice characters, which doesn't automatically make a game good.
Season passes, MTX and other bullshit being shoved down our throats in big budget games is getting even worse.
I will always choose a smaller project of passion over a lackluster, watered-down AAA game with an overinflated budget.
When I open a steam page for a game that looks interesting to me, and I find out it has 3 versions at wildly different prices and 10+ other DLC, I just pass and move on. I’m not doing external research to find out what is the difference between the complete and ultra complete and definitive deluxe director’s cut editions and whether it’s worth it, or whether I “need” such and such DLC to get the full experience. I’m instantly and thoroughly turned off by it, and I’m just not bothering. Fuck that whole mess.
For real! I have the biggest issue on that with the PlayStation store. The main list of titles only shows the most expensive version and you have to dig deeper to find the regular, lowest priced option. I swear, when I first got my PS5 and was interested in getting NHL23 I damn near had a heart attack seeing it priced over $100. Ended up just going to GameStop and picking up a used physical copy for $10.
Ultimately it is about the money and effort being put into the wrong parts of the game, which coincidentally is the part that is easiest to show off to investors and C levels.
Yeah honestly AA games deliver the experience AAA games gave 15 years ago, and that's what I want way more than whatever AAA is today.
Has nothing to do with ‘generation’ anything and everything to do with bean counters. The fact that Minecraft is still beating them all is everything they need to know but refuse to listen to.
Investors be like: "MineCoins you say🤔"
These big companies have it all backwards. We don’t need them; they need us. I don’t suddenly like slot machine video games just because their fucking bean counters say so. Ever since I bought a Steam Deck, I’ve played nothing but indie and old games, and I ain’t going back. You can keep your 3 bundles and your $70-110 price tags. I’ll play 500 hours of Vampire Survivors before I’ll buy another casino that they happened to build a game around.
In the wise words of the Soulsbourne community: GIT GUD (at not making shitty games).
"We didn't listen to what people actually want and now less people are buying! It's not our decision-making, it's 'generational change.'"
I mean, if studios are doing it more and more and have been doing it across a whole generation, it probably is generational change. Games take 5+ years dev time to make so high budgets are a given. If uch a game fails, it is more likely to tank a studio now. I think hes just making an observation. Nothing too shocking about that.
What Im observing though is more and more indies filling the void with smaller and cheaper games due to easy access to digital distribution. Not exactly a new take as its been hapening for over 15 years now. Interestingly, Epic seems to not take the same stance as Steam does in this space. Where steam gives pretty much any shovelware the same chances, Epic wants to be super picky about these low budget titles. Where is Epic's Balatro?
If Tim is so focused on publishing/distributing these overblown budgeted games, Epic will miss out on the secondary gaming market where actual fun games truly live. Imo, the generational change is actually indie titles becoming the norm and AAA taking a step back.
What Im observing though is more and more indies filling the void with smaller and cheaper games due to easy access to digital distribution. Not exactly a new take as its been hapening for over 15 years now. Interestingly, Epic seems to not take the same stance as Steam does in this space. Where steam gives pretty much any shovelware the same chances, Epic wants to be super picky about these low budget titles. Where is Epic’s Balatro?
This reminds me a lot of the days of the original PlayStation (PS). Nintendo was the large, dominant company. But, they were also really, really picky with the games they let on their platform (still are). Along comes Sony with a better physical format and a willingness to let just about anything on their system. And there were a lot of terrible titles on the PS; but, there were also some real gems from smaller devs and lots more choice for people to find what they wanted to play. That openness and plethora of options drew people to the system. Sure, Nintendo is still around and still a juggernaut, but they gave up a lot of market space to Sony.
Sweeney and many of the big studios seem dead set on trying to replicate lightning. They keep churning out Fortnight clones, live service games and lootbox infested grind fests. None of this is because they want to make a game for players, it's all a bald-faced money grab. And it comes across so clearly in their games. Yes, big budget games cost a lot of money and I don't begrudge studios trying to make money. I'm more than happy to throw money at devs who make a great game (I just pledged ~$250 at the Valheim Board Game project, based mostly on the fact that I fucking love Valheim). I've also bought into way too many Early Access games, because they looked like they had the bones of good games. But, the big budget games seem to get lost trying to pump every last dollar out of your wallet and just quickly become a turn off.
I remember one particular instance in Dragon Age, where an NPC had a "Quest Available" marker floating above his head. When you talked to him, you quickly discovered that you could buy his quest and the game was happy to kick you over to the EA store so that you could buy his quest right there. Fuck that noise. I'm not against DLC, but that sort of "in your face" advertising pisses me right off. Hell, I'm one of those weirdos who likes the Far Cry series. I put tons of hours into Far Cry 5 (seriously, the wing suit was just good fun). Far Cry 6 was ok and I did finish it, though the micro-transaction spam grated on me hard. After that experience, I'm not sure I want a Far Cry 7.
And I think that points to the elephant in the room. Big publishers, like EA are so focused on making profits, they have lost sight of making a good game. Give me a solid, complete experience. Give me good controls, enough story to hold the action together and just a general sense of fun. Once that is in place, then maybe throw hats for sale on top of that. But, when lootboxes and micro-transactions are core to the gameplay and the game is balanced to force you in the direction of buying that crap, fuck your game. If the core gameplay is designed to suck so much that I want to buy cheats to bypass that core gameplay, I'll save myself a bunch of money and just skip the game entirely. There are way too many options available out there, which don't suck, for me to waste my time and money shoveling your shit.
They aren't selling because they are designed as money machines first and games second.
Do I get to be the next Tim Sweeney now? As far as I can tell the bar is pretty low.
They could make so many moderate games that would sell amazingly if they just tried to... Make games instead of casinos. But no, profits must only go up, can't have a flat year with only great success - they have to outdo themselves financially every year and squeeze everything
They could make so many moderate games that would sell amazingly if they just tried to...
100%. That's the kind of nuanced thinking you won't get from corporate America at this point.
People don't want to pay for Disneyfied corpo slop that the HR department and advertisers signed off on. A public company lacks the soul to imbue into a creative project.
When you try to make literally everyone your target demographic then nobody will be your target demographic
Well then. Why not make them not shitty?
It's the players' fault for not buying our game.
Modern Ubisoft are the prime example of this. They churn out loads of games every year and they're just the same old formulaic crap that you've seen before. How can you have so much money and so many studios but you can't get decent voice actors or writers? How can your AAA games still have clunky mechanics and absolutely no original ideas?
Oh look, it's another shitty enemy outpost, let's scout it with my drone/bird/binoculars and mark all the enemies so I can see them through walls. Maybe I'll not use stealth on the next one because it's a waste of time as the game is piss easy anyway and I'll be able to kill all of the enemies in a straight fight. And the reward is the same either way. Now I've found [collectible item] 37 of 200, I wonder where the rest of them are in this massive vapid open world?
I lived the collectibles in Anacronox, they were little golden taco trophies and their lore was that they used to be highly sought after until it came out that TACO stood for Totally Arbitrary Collectible Object and it tanked the market.
You meet a guy that held on till the bitter end but finally had to sell off his collection because he needed the money, so you give him any you find for trinkets and stuff to help him rebuild his collection.
Fuck you Tim Sweeney. Fuck the fortnite model and fuck you for delisting and shutting down the Unreal franchise.
Those studios have been pouring huge amounts of money on graphics under the assumption (i.e. idiocy) that better graphics = more sales. Tim Sweeney is shifting it towards yet another assumption/idiocy: that more forced socialisation = more sales.
And they still don't get the picture. People won't buy your games if they're boring, if they're too expensive, or if they think that you're an arsehole. Roughly in this order. That's it.
How's about you guys spend some of that budget on QA?
Or like the game instead of the credit card collection form.
Or how about they start making games people want to actually buy?
How about truly new games instead of zero-risk remakes/reboots/sequels or truly awful slop like Concord?
It's because the games are mid or worse. Took me one google search to find a plethora of games released in the last few years that had high budgets and sold very well. God of War: Ragnarok, Ghost of Tsushima, Elden Ring, Horizon: Forbidden West, Doom Eternal, Hogwarts Legacy, Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, The Last Of Us Part II, and so many more. These are just the ones I played. Just because the only game you guys make is Fortnite after abandoning all your IPs and that your Epic Games Store money isn't as high as you thought it would be doesn't mean other people aren't making amazing games. It's just you, my guy. I consider myself a patient gamer and I've bought more full price games over the last 5 years than I ever have.
Buying a Triple A Game has become a liability:
Online Only
Limited Lease via Digital Store with unknown lifespan
User Account Activation
Actual Fucking Rootkits
Trouble is, companies with shareholders have to chase the profits, and they have to protect them at all costs, which leads to a situation where the AAA companies feel like they have to lock their shit down tight. And that ain't compatible with 100% of their markets.
It's become an arms race because they can't just accept that people will pirate their games regardless of what they put in place. But the more they put in place, the more likely people are to want to pirate.
I'm gonna take a wild guess that the games with high budgets that aren't "selling", are just not selling "enough" to cover the "costs" of the executives. I guess it wasn't much of a guess:
and they're not selling nearly as well as expected," Sweeney said. "Whereas other games are going incredibly strong
Do they think that these other games "going incredibly strong" are making the money they hope to make? They're probably making much less but managing it much better. The savings are almost infinite when you don't approve every executive bonus pay package.
It's because video games turned into investment vehicles where companies want to make at least 50% return on their investment instead of create a fun and engaging peice of entertainment.
Because budget alone doesn't make a good game. It's a lack of creative vision and churning out safe bets that mean people just aren't excited anymore.
Teams of thousands working on a game designed by committee means no single group really has a vision of the creative vision of the project.
I get it that the marketing budget is important, they need big flashy games to justify the marketing budget required to get cut-through.
Ultimately I think it's the case that these dev teams are too large, and aren't making true art anymore, because true art is risky.
Small studios are the ones making art, and some of them are getting cut through into the mainstream. This is where good games exist now.
If they want me to buy AAA releases when they come out; they need to be actually fun, no rootkits, no microtransactions.
Remove all the garbage. The DRM, the proprietary launchers and the requirement to constantly pay to win.
Well, when you invest $$$ into something that's meant to be fun and it's not fun, then there's your problem. Why not invest in the game designers and scale down the graphics/fancy stuff and exec salaries?
When I buy a game, I want a game.
Not yet another platform to bleed my wallet dry.
Ok. Interesting take. Let’s look at Alan Wake 2. High Budget and pretty good. One of the best games I played in recent years I would say.
And why did it sell poorly, I hear you ask? Well, maybe it had something to do with the fact that you published it on your Epic Store only, being fully aware that the overwhelming majority of PC players are on Steam (and very lazy when it comes to switching away from it). Also you didn’t produce physical copies for consoles. Download only for an environment known for being fiercely pro physical copy.
But we all know it’s not about these things. It’s about calming down investors. That’s why you use buzzwords like “metaverse” and shit. I am actually impressed you didn’t ramble about AI.
Oh and 90% of the market could not run the thing.
Dear Mr. Sweeney, I fixed your words, thank me later:
A lot of games are released with CEOs earning more money than all developers of the game including outsourced work together, that makes the games too expensive. If the budget would actually go into the game we could have great games that sell.
Unfortunately you rather lay off your employees, pay them less, crunch them and burn them out, save on quality control, sell road-maps instead of a finished game and give your customers a lesser and lesser experience instead of accepting a pay cut.
And I have not mentioned the money you throw out of the window and burn because of your dreams of an "EPIC metaverse".
F you Mr, Sweeney.
'A lot of games are released with high budgets, and they're not selling'
The good ones are.
Yeah, it's fucking awesome! Nothing makes me happier than seeing a AAA studio sink big bucks into a project that was destined to be a dumpster fire, then release it as a timed exclusive loaded with DRM for good measure. I really hate that there are developers falling victim to the overall shittiness of the games industry, but I don't know how else studios are supposed to learn that people want to buy games, not lease online storefronts. On that note, anyone have any good indie recommendations?
Tim Sweeny when he notices that enshittification in games doesn't seem to work very well anymore: industry is going through a "generational change".
Company that makes its money from fraud screams at customers for not being suckers.
News at 7.
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities: