The downfall of video games?

[Frindis]

With companies like Tencent, Embracer Group, Microsoft, EA, Sony & Ubisoft getting a larger slice of the game studios, could we possibly get a market oversaturated with mediocre games and eventually see more developing studios owned by them crumbling to dust?

I have started to become more and more skeptical seeing how many of the games released nowadays do not seem to get the best of reviews, and being more and more infested with everything from PTW-marketed elements like skins/weapons, cut content, which version gives you best cosmetics/loot, loot boxes, and heavily focus on in-game stores...to mention a slice of the rabbit hole. Having an Oligopoly (few own the rest) is obviously not just bad, and I think Microsoft as an example is doing something good with its Game Pass which makes it easier for us consumers to try out different games from different studios.

But, I have a sneaking suspicion that these oligopolies are not really interested in us as consumers, but more interested in how they can get our money. Yeah, shocking, I know. But, there is something different though, something I think we should take into consideration.

Having more and more games being spewed out from the BIG companies, also means that we consumers have more games to choose from which also means companies like Microsoft have to think about how they can get their hands on us before their competitors. This means probably not only more focus on stuff like microtransactions but also much more pressure on the developers to push their products and make more of them, regardless of quality. I'm not sure if it is the best example of this, but I think Arkane Studio's Redfall flop can be seen as an example of this pressure.

So, where am I getting with all this? I am wondering how the industry is going to be looking in 10-15 years or so. In a worst-case scenario, we'll see a lot of studios not being able to deliver quality products and since they have someone to answer for, they will one by one have their staff cut (which again will probably not be a good thing concerning the quality of the games) or shutting down completely. I guess much of this can be prevented with a good business model with a safety net and whatnot, but I dunno man, I'm not liking what I am seeing.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe the industry is at its best (it sure does generate a lot of money) and I'm just being overly paranoid or there is something to it. What it is your thoughts about this and how could we potentially prevent such a future outcome in the first place if that is even a possibility?

 

[BeardyHat]

I don't disagree at all with the opening statements and oligopolies.

That said, there's always been garbage out there. Looking through the few surviving PC Gamer mags from the 90's that I have, you'll come across review after review of lazy, shovelware trash. Keep in mind that the PC was the original shovelware platform because it had a decent install base and no cost to develop for.

As well, while we move closer and closer to homogenization in many industries (see: Movies), we also have space opened-up for the little guys. With the democratization of tools to make games, we have an absolute glut of weird, outside-the-box indie games. Little things like World of Horror, Dorfromantik, Shadows of Doubt, Return of the Obra Dinn to cite just a few examples. Now, I'm not a creative person, but these are things I would have never imagined being a thing back in the 90's.

Even still, we have others carrying the torch for the classic genres (maybe with the exception of RTS) with stuff like Cultic, DUSK and the massive amount of new Adventure games to be had on any corner of the internet.

Further still, you have "New Old" console style games with the Pico8, something I've only just recently discovered and to go along with it, people making new games for old systems; that's just one example, but there are several released every year these days and this doesn't even mention the proliferation of cheap emulation devices, which have completely exploded in the last two years. Sure it's not new stuff, but there's heaps upon heaps of old stuff I want to play again or that I never played in the first place, so it's new to me.

And there's even the occasion that those big companies put out something that's good and doesn't feel like it's trying to completely milk its customers. Much to the consternation of some, Starfield is fun and feels like a complete game; there isn't any current milking going on and once modding support is released, we'll see the game grow some real legs, all for the low-low price of nothing extra.

Big companies do milk the industry, but they're largely not aimed at us, the enthusiasts. They want the guy that buys Fifa once a year, the guy that buys every Call of Duty installment; they diligently spend their $70 on one game a year and maybe will spend a little bit more money here and there on the microtransactions, because games are just games to them, not the hobby it is for some of us; they don't grasp nor care about any wider implications of microtransactions and the predatory nature of the industry. They've got a little bit of disposable income and time and they're going to pitch it at the next big thing, because they know what to expect. That's who those big companies are really banking on.

I didn't proofread this, because I have to go clean the garage while I have the moment that my kid is at preschool, so hopefully it reads ok.

 

[Johnway]

Much as we gamers lament the quality of games, i think most of the casual gamers don't care. This is what they want and this is (more importantly) what they'll pay. The sad thing is that those who voice concerns about the quality of these games is mostly the minority. The only thing AAA publishers care is how much money it makes. They don't care about the artistry or whether the game is "fun". If they can get away making money with the least amount of effort they will. The uptick in sequels, the same game, remasters or using AI to streamline processes. Perhaps in the past publishers cared, but as they became more corporate they just were in it for the money chasing trends rather then pushing the boundaries often. Eg; the guitar hero phase, the BR phase and the MTX phases. Then again, in the past they were no better, and led to the gaming crash in the 80s and of course crappy games based off movies.


So is it the end? i don't think so, as others have pointed out, indie developers are stepping in where the AAA refuse to go and they're too small fry for big investors to take notice or invest in. The bedroom coder or smaller teams is still very much alive. Thankfully.

if it gets to a point that games become detestable, I'll just stop buying them. I don't buy COD, Fifa, destiny etc, but the worry is that gamers just accept it and refuse to change or take a stand. At worst, they DEFEND these multi billon dollar corporations to implementing and using and abusing them. "oh its a business, they should be allowed to make money" or "cost of making games is expensive!", "prices of games haven't increased with inflation!", "i should buy exp boosters as i have a busy life!" its tragic. We sometimes see push back, but its never enough, AAA take the slow game to take one step back and inch by inch push increasingly BS practices. Take cosmetics DLC, reviled and mocked and now its standard.

 

[Frindis]

I don't disagree at all with the opening statements and oligopolies.

Me neither

That said, there's always been garbage out there. Looking through the few surviving PC Gamer mags from the 90's that I have, you'll come across review after review of lazy, shovelware trash. Keep in mind that the PC was the original shovelware platform because it had a decent install base and no cost to develop for.

I actually can't remember playing many PC garbage games back then, probably was because most of the better demos on CD with PC Gamer back then also was promoted in the magazine, so I would be more prone to try them out. Also, perhaps less chance of getting a virus. I do remember more trash games on Nintendo or Atari systems, especially since these times were heavily influenced by cheesy movies like Commando.

As well, while we move closer and closer to homogenization in many industries (see: Movies), we also have space opened-up for the little guys. With the democratization of tools to make games, we have an absolute glut of weird, outside-the-box indie games. Little things like World of Horror, Dorfromantik, Shadows of Doubt, Return of the Obra Dinn to cite just a few examples. Now, I'm not a creative person, but these are things I would have never imagined being a thing back in the 90's.

Did we have a similar in the 90's? Kind of, but you wouldn't find many of them in stores. I did get Peter Gabriel's EVE from the store, that was pretty imaginative. More you would find from friends making them I guess or through the Internet with the browser games. I think those were the predecessors to the whole indie game genre, but I could be mistaken here.

Even still, we have others carrying the torch for the classic genres (maybe with the exception of RTS) with stuff like Cultic, DUSK and the massive amount of new Adventure games to be had on any corner of the internet.

Great point and also fantastic games. I absolutely love the rekindling!

Further still, you have "New Old" console style games with the Pico8, something I've only just recently discovered and to go along with it

Pretty cool

And there's even the occasion that those big companies put out something that's good and doesn't feel like it's trying to completely milk its customers. Much to the consternation of some, Starfield is fun and feels like a complete game; there isn't any current milking going on and once modding support is released, we'll see the game grow some real legs, all for the low-low price of nothing extra.

Some would argue that the free modding labor is why you'll get that nice "final" version of Starfield running so well. I do agree with Starfield being fun. It's not bad at all, it just could have been so much better if they gave it a bit more love around the edges.

Big companies do milk the industry, but they're largely not aimed at us, the enthusiasts. They want the guy that buys Fifa once a year, the guy that buys every Call of Duty installment; they diligently spend their $70 on one game a year and maybe will spend a little bit more money here and there on the microtransactions, because games are just games to them, not the hobby it is for some of us; they don't grasp nor care about any wider implications of microtransactions and the predatory nature of the industry. They've got a little bit of disposable income and time and they're going to pitch it at the next big thing, because they know what to expect. That's who those big companies are really banking on.

They want the guys who spend thousands upon thousands on microtransactions. At least the companies that invest in microtransactions do, games like Diablo Immortal (huuuge whale example to show my point) Black Desert Online (another even more enormous whale) PUBG, Fortnite, CSGO, Lost Ark (whale), Gacha games whales, and COD that you mentioned but with much smaller whales, more like krills. You are correct though, they are not milking us, the enthusiasts, which is why I am also afraid of how the gaming industry is becoming.

What happens IF the indie scene gets more squeezed with some of those publishing platforms they use eventually getting owned by large companies making it harder for them to promote? Or, that the game industry gets so saturated that it makes it almost impossible for them to sell their games because they don't have the marketing team behind them or because the average Joe does not play many indie games at all.

I didn't proofread this, because I have to go clean the garage while I have the moment that my kid is at preschool, so hopefully it reads ok.

Flawless!

 

[Colif]

WTB ET part 2, but its too late for a broken game to do any damage as it probably just get a day 1 patch and if it looks amazing Digital Foundry give it an amazing review.

My Dream is Microsoft buys them all, then doesn't get enough game pass members still and just closes them down... No loss... we might get some companies out of it that don't want to chase that casual audience, who think that gamers will buy their drivel regardless of how bad it is as we have no choice... not many indie studios get the promotion or game engines needed to make games to compete with the hydra.

Its only going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[Frindis]

Much as we gamers lament the quality of games, i think most of the casual gamers don't care. This is what they want and this is (more importantly) what they'll pay. The sad thing is that those who voice concerns about the quality of these games is mostly the minority.

It takes a couple of decades to build up enough skepticism

The only thing AAA publishers care is how much money it makes. They don't care about the artistry or whether the game is "fun". If they can get away making money with the least amount of effort they will. The uptick in sequels, the same game, remasters or using AI to streamline processes.

Thankfully we do have some publishers that have more control and that really shows they care about the consumers. I don't think BG3 would have looked like it does if they didn't.

Then again, in the past they were no better, and led to the gaming crash in the 80s and of course crappy games based off movies.

Poor E.T. wanted to phone home but got buried under tons of concrete.

So is it the end? i don't think so, as others have pointed out, indie developers are stepping in where the AAA refuse to go and they're too small fry for big investors to take notice or invest in. The bedroom coder or smaller teams is still very much alive. Thankfully.

I sincerely hope you and @BeardyHat points about the indie games still matter in a decade or so.

if it gets to a point that games become detestable, I'll just stop buying them. I don't buy COD, Fifa, destiny etc, but the worry is that gamers just accept it and refuse to change or take a stand. At worst, they DEFEND these multi billon dollar corporations to implementing and using and abusing them. "oh its a business, they should be allowed to make money" or "cost of making games is expensive!", "prices of games haven't increased with inflation!", "i should buy exp boosters as i have a busy life!" its tragic. We sometimes see push back, but its never enough, AAA take the slow game to take one step back and inch by inch push increasingly BS practices. Take cosmetics DLC, reviled and mocked and now its standard.

We are here though talking about it, so I guess that is at least something. "All things start and all things end and what matters is what we do in between" - my own quote. Just thought it had a nice ring to it, without trying to be flabbergasting here.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Theres an absolute ton of games that I want to play and dont have time to. If you look in the right places quality and range of experiences is wider than ever before.

Sure Embracer bought a lot of mid level devs and now dont know what to do with them in a potential recession, and some bigger corpo publishers play it mega safe because they cant afford a risky game affecting the stock price if it fails. But theres AAA level games making interesting stuff out there, and theres uncountable medium and smaller devs doing weird stuff.

Sure some studios get bought and effectively run into the ground, but the talent doesnt die with the studio. Lots of devs parachute to Kickstarter or plenty of other methods to get funding that werent available before. The markets bigger than ever and can support weird niche stuff better than ever because of it.

So yea I'm very positive on the state of games. Theres slightly worrying stuff like MS owning more and more and their potential attempt to transfer gaming to a subscription service, but it looks like theyre leaving the devs they buy to their own devices, or even giving them a freer hand than their old bosses in some cases. That can all change and it does suck to pool a lot of studios into the same stable in case of that. Thing is as it stands its really easy and fairly cheap to get a game out there as a smaller dev digitally, so the grass roots are maybe stronger than ever. I'm not sure what would kill that at this point, other than a return to physical media.

 

[Frindis]

WTB ET part 2, but its too late for a broken game to do any damage as it probably just get a day 1 patch and if it looks amazing Digital Foundry give it an amazing review.

Is that the clicker game? If so, maan, does not look good. The only thing good about clicker games is that my keyboard has the macro ability, so if I were to play one of those, I could just press 1 on the keyboard and that's all she wrote.

My Dream is Microsoft buys them all, then doesn't get enough game pass members still and just closes them down... No loss... we might get some companies out of it that don't want to chase that casual audience, who think that gamers will buy their drivel regardless of how bad it is as we have no choice... not many indie studios get the promotion or game engines needed to make games to compete with the hydra.

If Games Pass would throw games like https://store.steampowered.com/app/1603980/If_On_A_Winters_Night_Four_Travelers/ to the audience, then oooh man, the indie scene would grow to greater lengths in the future.

 

[Colif]

Is that the clicker game? If so, maan, does not look good. The only thing good about clicker games is that my keyboard has the macro ability, so if I were to play one of those, I could just press 1 on the keyboard and that's all she wrote.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the game that killed Atari consoles. We need another restart of the industry... just not sure what it would take. People accept too much now, hype and mods mean broken games are fixed when they shouldn't be.

(WTB meant Want To Buy... guess i should have spelled it out)

 

[Frindis]

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the game that killed Atari consoles. We need another restart of the industry... just not sure what it would take. People accept too much now, hype and mods mean broken games are fixed when they shouldn't be.

(WTB meant Want To Buy... guess i should have spelled it out)

Nah, man, probably because I had a few brewskis I thought you were mentioning:

W. T. B. on Steam

This is a branded anniversary clicker!

store.steampowered.com

 

[Colif]

i have watched people play clickers but I haven't got an auto clicker or had desire yet to play any of them.

 

[Frindis]

Sure some studios get bought and effectively run into the ground, but the talent doesnt die with the studio. Lots of devs parachute to Kickstarter or plenty of other methods to get funding that werent available before. The markets bigger than ever and can support weird niche stuff better than ever because of it.

Kickstarter can be a great place to find (I found Bloodstained: Ritual of The Night which was great) or kickstart a game, but to be honest, I have been a bit more skeptical towards it after seeing how easy it is for the game companies to sell you their dream, but not being able to finalize their product. I think it is like 4/10 (City State Entertainment with Camelot Unchained comes to mind) games that actually make it, so that means even less chance for smaller indie companies to build trust.

I would think Itchi.io is better for developers because of the Open Revenue Sharing and safer for the consumers because you can try out demos first.

Theres slightly worrying stuff like MS owning more and more and their potential attempt to transfer gaming to a subscription service, but it looks like theyre leaving the devs they buy to their own devices, or even giving them a freer hand than their old bosses in some cases. That can all change and it does suck to pool a lot of studios into the same stable in case of that. Thing is as it stands its really easy and fairly cheap to get a game out there as a smaller dev digitally, so the grass roots are maybe stronger than ever. I'm not sure what would kill that at this point, other than a return to physical media.

I did have Game Pass for some time, but it turned out I use more Steam and GOG playing my older games, so there was just no point in using it anymore. I do think in the short-term that platforms like Game Pass are great for consumers, but only up to a point. When the industry overall gets too oversaturated (which I think it will be) we might start to see some bad ripple effects.

 

[Rolfil]

The PC industry is way oversaturated with really cheap crap games and has been getting worse. Even some of the AAA games are pretty bad - I mean Diablo 4 is not a good game as it currently stands.

Also just because a game gets a low score or isn't even reviewed doesn't mean that there aren't people that love them. Ship Graveyard Simulator is rated Very Positive on steam but has only two reviews on Metacritic of 70 and 65. I've got loads of hours played on this and will go back to it when they add more ships.

You also get games like American Truck Simulator/Euro Truck Simulator that have a really loyal following.

Just this month Jusant* and My Time At Sandrock have come out, both not AAA games but games that will appeal to certain audiences.

I think that it's these non AAA games where PC gaming shines. You can get fantastic games at reasonable prices or use Game Pass to discover games that you might not otherwise have played.

Don't just consider AAA games. If that's all you play then go buy a console, but you will be sorely missing out on some truly great games.

(* Jusant is also available on consoles)

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Kickstarter can be a great place to find (I found Bloodstained: Ritual of The Night which was great) or kickstart a game, but to be honest, I have been a bit more skeptical towards it after seeing how easy it is for the game companies to sell you their dream, but not being able to finalize their product. I think it is like 4/10 (City State Entertainment with Camelot Unchained comes to mind) games that actually make it, so that means even less chance for smaller indie companies to build trust.

I would think Itchi.io is better for developers because of the Open Revenue Sharing and safer for the consumers because you can try out demos first.

I did have Game Pass for some time, but it turned out I use more Steam and GOG playing my older games, so there was just no point in using it anymore. I do think in the short-term that platforms like Game Pass are great for consumers, but only up to a point. When the industry overall gets too oversaturated (which I think it will be) we might start to see some bad ripple effects.

TBH I have never Kickstarted, pre-ordered, or bought anything in early access. There's just so much quality out there theres no need.

My point was that there are ways for talented people to get funding outside of big publishing houses in ways that havent always been available. Of course some people will exploit it and others may genuinely fail along the way, but as a player I have no need to engage with that whatsoever. I just sit back and listen/read reviews and articles and buzz around the place when things actually release and I have a pretty good idea already of many games I'd like to buy, more than I'll ever have time for.

I do also have some reservations about Gamepass and what it could mean if MS continues to suck up developers. As it stands they seem pretty hands off and are letting devs do their thing. A change of management or policy down the road could easily change all that, but as it stands there would be plenty of ways for developers to leave and get out of that ecosystem in that case as I said earlier. The same stands for people like Embracer/Plaion and any other massives corps hoovering up studios.

As long as we have PC's we'll be insulated against it because there are choices. On consoles or streaming services, maybe not so much. Being locked into renting a stream to play is one thing I am a little concerned about I guess.

 

[ZedClampet]

In my experience, humans always think the end is near. So far we've always been wrong.

But indie games are where it's at. That's almost all of what I play, and there are more and better indie games being produced now than ever. And thanks to advances in tech, indie games are getting better looking and more complex. In fact, I have some great, great games that were created by solo devs that are more complex than your average AAA game.

With the explosion of the indie scene, I know for a fact that gaming has never been better for me, and I suspect there are a lot of other gamers moving to indies, too. There are multiple good indie games released every single day on Steam.

My top two games from the last few years, V Rising and Valheim, were made by very small teams. Satisfactory, while owned by Embracer Group, was made by a small team that was indie at the time, and I wouldn't trade any of these games for all the AAA games made during the same time.

 

[Frindis]

The PC industry is way oversaturated with really cheap crap games and has been getting worse. Even some of the AAA games are pretty bad - I mean Diablo 4 is not a good game as it currently stands.

Lol, I just looked at the Metacritic and it had a 2,1 user score. They probably made some really bad changes in the latest patch/season if I were to guess.

Also just because a game gets a low score or isn't even reviewed doesn't mean that there aren't people that love them. Ship Graveyard Simulator is rated Very Positive on steam but has only two reviews on Metacritic of 70 and 65. I've got loads of hours played on this and will go back to it when they add more ships.

True, they could get review-bombed which happens way too often. I don't think I would be very trusting towards a game with very few reviews. Then again, if it is for example an indie game that is on Steam and the promotion job has been lacking because of maybe just one developer, it is at least understandable. There are a lot, to quote you "really cheap crap games" and I think a lot of them is also used for money laundering, especially those crap and really expensive games going for several hundred and maybe even over a thousand dollar.

You also get games like American Truck Simulator/Euro Truck Simulator that have a really loyal following.

I belive @ZedClampet likes to play that Farming Simulator one. Definitely some good ones out there. I'm more of a survival simulator myself with Dayz being the one I often go for.

I think that it's these non AAA games where PC gaming shines. You can get fantastic games at reasonable prices or use Game Pass to discover games that you might not otherwise have played.

I used to buy tons of bundles from old Bundlestars (now Fanatical) and some from Humble Bundle for 1 USD for 50 games or similar campaigns and most of them were games I would have never played otherwise. Much crap, some decent ones, and some really great. Just remembered I got a lot of the Serious Sam games from a bundle ones, those games were fun to play.

Don't just consider AAA games. If that's all you play then go buy a console, but you will be sorely missing out on some truly great games.

I like to mix and match what I play and with around 2,5K games I'm betting at least 70% of them are not AAA, taking into consideration all the bundles I have bought over the years. Speaking of consoles, I bought a Switch just so I could play Legend of Zelda: Tears of The Kindom. Actually looking forward to playing more of that one around Christmas.

 

[ZedClampet]

@Frindis I do like simulator games and have developed an enjoyment of relaxing games without combat. Survival is my #1 genre. though. I just saw an article that Enshrouded now has a release date of Jan 24, so I'm pretty pumped, although I was hoping it would come out before Christmas. That's an indie game, and it's going to dominate Steam stats for awhile based on how many people played the demo during the last NEXTfest.

 

[ZedClampet]

By the way, we may need to have a discussion on "What is an indie game?"

I use it incorrectly to mean small studio, "not AAA", but I've noticed a lot of other people doing that, too.

 

[Johnway]

It takes a couple of decades to build up enough skepticism

i question whether it would make a difference. The new generation just take these monetization practices as the new norm. A generation of games grew up playing mobile games and exposed to the monetization schemes. They'll just accept whats happening as fine. i mean even now, some gamers are prepared to engage in it.

Thankfully we do have some publishers that have more control and that really shows they care about the consumers. I don't think BG3 would have looked like it does if they didn't.

in an ideal world, a well made, fun quality game means lots of sales. The majority of the time this is not the case, many popular games have become products; releasing a sequel year after year, a season pass to maintain a live service. I may not be a mystic, but it wouldn't take much for larian to focus more on money. Especially if they start looking for stakeholders / investors take hold. Too many stupid decisions are made to satisfy them as oppose to the customer base.

I sincerely hope you and @BeardyHat points about the indie games still matter in a decade or so.

been plenty of indie games and original ideas so i don't see why that would dry up. many top talent form their own little studios and bedroom coders making quality games. I think the AAA industry will get hammering though. Sadly with COD, Fifa, 2k games, i think their gravy train will keep going for a while.

We are here though talking about it, so I guess that is at least something. "All things start and all things end and what matters is what we do in between" - my own quote. Just thought it had a nice ring to it, without trying to be flabbergasting here

yeah but we enlightened individuals are too few. Talk is cheap, it means nothing to publishers when the us few to discuss it. As long as the majority of the gaming audience especially the younger/casual audience buy into it, its not going anywhere. Who knows, the AAA will start eating each other and continue to do some monumentally stupid things that kills their own success. Happened once, could happen again. But for now, we lament the good old days and rage against the dying of the light. Presumably.

 

[Inspireless Llama]

With companies like Tencent, Embracer Group, Microsoft, EA, Sony & Ubisoft getting a larger slice of the game studios, could we possibly get a market oversaturated with mediocre games and eventually see more developing studios owned by them crumbling to dust?

I'm wondering, does this indeed create more crappy games? First thing I have to think of is cars, there's a lot of car brands, owned by a few groups. I don't think most of the current car brands are considered crappy, just because they're owned by a massive organisation right?

In terms of studios crumbling to dust, I do think that's a bigger risk of being part of a larger studio, but then again, if a studio makes crappy games, even as a indie developer they would go out of business? I'm not sure if I see the difference there, except that maybe an indie developer would be more motivated to increase the quality of the game. But, looking at the amount of crap games already out there, I doubt it.

I have started to become more and more skeptical seeing how many of the games released nowadays do not seem to get the best of reviews, and being more and more infested with everything from PTW-marketed elements like skins/weapons, cut content, which version gives you best cosmetics/loot, loot boxes, and heavily focus on in-game stores...to mention a slice of the rabbit hole. Having an Oligopoly (few own the rest) is obviously not just bad, and I think Microsoft as an example is doing something good with its Game Pass which makes it easier for us consumers to try out different games from different studios.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the PTW marketed elements and cosmetics / looks. I think that relies for a major part on the type of game you're playing. Online games (I think of cs:go, fifa) have alot of microtransactions in them.
Single player games, even though it's starting to become more common I feel like, aren't as bad. Ubisoft does include microtransactions in them, but other than for the actual player, it affects nobody else. I've never been bugged by the option to purchase their gold to buy ingame bonusses or skins because they don't actively try to get me to buy them.
When Shadow of War originally announced microtransactions, people were outraged. Sure, I get some of the outrage (microtransactions in a single player game, wtf?), I personally feel like the cliché argument works: If you don't want them, don't buy them. Just play the longer version of the game instead of trying to shorten it down by microtransactions.

Also, how much do we get spoiled by those few games that are very good and take off? Is it realistic for every game to have Witcher 3 quality or RDR2 quality, or Skyrim's modability?
There are most likely better examples of great games, but these come to my mind.

But, I have a sneaking suspicion that these oligopolies are not really interested in us as consumers, but more interested in how they can get our money. Yeah, shocking, I know. But, there is something different though, something I think we should take into consideration.

To be honest, I dislike this comment so much. They're commercial companies, of course they want our money. They're not wellfare programs are they?

I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article about how game pricing has caused microtransactions to pick up.
Games have been at a $60 / €60 point for a very long time, even during high inflation. So at some point games where just very cheap (relatively speaking), while all costs went up. But there was an outrage when companies started strating $70 so they had to get another way to get their income. That turned out to be both DLC and microtransactions.

Having more and more games being spewed out from the BIG companies, also means that we consumers have more games to choose from which also means companies like Microsoft have to think about how they can get their hands on us before their competitors. This means probably not only more focus on stuff like microtransactions but also much more pressure on the developers to push their products and make more of them, regardless of quality. I'm not sure if it is the best example of this, but I think Arkane Studio's Redfall flop can be seen as an example of this pressure.

I don't think it matters who the studio belongs to, every gamedeveloper wants you to buy their game instead of their competitors. Maybe this is just theoratically speaking, but wouldn't it be more benefitial to those big companies to build brand loyalty? Which means making great games, and multiple great games, which makes us as customer want to have MIcrosoft Game Pass over Ubisoft Game Pass?

If I think at streaming services now, if I want to watch the Witcher, I subscribe to Netflix. When I'm done, I'll cancel the subscription and subscribe to Disney+ because I want to watch Star Wars. Wouldn't those game companies want you to stick with them, therefore motivating their developers to create good games instead of crappy ones that release quickly?

It's an older game, but the game I remember as a flop was No Man's Sky, which indeed was pushed too much by Sony. But then there's still the developers, who put so much energy in their game and really want to put down a good game. They've been working for years (and still are as far as I know) to improve their game. It won't become what was promised, but they've managed to make a very decent and fun game out of it.

The PC industry is way oversaturated with really cheap crap games and has been getting worse. Even some of the AAA games are pretty bad - I mean Diablo 4 is not a good game as it currently stands.

There are a lot of crappy AAA games, and alot of crappy indie games . To be honest, personally I find it impossible to guess wether a game is going to be good or not.

Also just because a game gets a low score or isn't even reviewed doesn't mean that there aren't people that love them. Ship Graveyard Simulator is rated Very Positive on steam but has only two reviews on Metacritic of 70 and 65. I've got loads of hours played on this and will go back to it when they add more ships.

I do agree with this.

You also get games like American Truck Simulator/Euro Truck Simulator that have a really loyal following.

I'm one of them

Don't just consider AAA games. If that's all you play then go buy a console, but you will be sorely missing out on some truly great games.

(* Jusant is also available on consoles)

I did like humble bundle for this alot. But to be honest, in terms of gaming giants; I think humble's quality went down after IGN took them over.

TBH I have never Kickstarted, pre-ordered, or bought anything in early access. There's just so much quality out there theres no need.

I don't mind early acces personally. I'm not sure but I think the Battle Royale games kind of ruined the reputation of early acces games, by never finishing their games (thinking of H2 and PUBG which had their highest popularity before the game was released). Other games really benefitted from early acces I think. I purchased Prison Architect early acces (never played it after release) but it was a great game. Parkitect another example for me.

As long as we have PC's we'll be insulated against it because there are choices. On consoles or streaming services, maybe not so much. Being locked into renting a stream to play is one thing I am a little concerned about I guess.

To draw a conclusion to my story which (before posting) appears to be longer than I intended:

Personally I don't think the issue with big companies purchasing all smaller studios is a problem in terms of amount of games, quality of games, or oversaturation, I rather fear for exclusives.

I know there've always been exclusives, and especially PS seems to have their exclusives, but correct me if I'm wrong, but compared to the total amount of games out there, the exclusives Sony has isn't really that big.
The more studios get taken over by those gigants, the more exlusives you're going to get. I haven't followed the news so I can't remember if Bethesda indeed got purchased by Microsoft, but that's a move in the wrong direction if you ask me.

I hope my comment does make sense, I'm tired while writing this so my brain is a little bit of a mess

 

[Frindis]

By the way, we may need to have a discussion on "What is an indie game?"

I use it incorrectly to mean small studio, "not AAA", but I've noticed a lot of other people doing that, too.

I don't believe you would be wrong though, especially since there really isn't any absolute clear definition according to our beloved Wiki and most indie companies are small studios with smaller budgets and fewer developers most of the time. At least that is one of the ways you could look at it.

i question whether it would make a difference. The new generation just take these monetization practices as the new norm. A generation of games grew up playing mobile games and exposed to the monetization schemes. They'll just accept whats happening as fine. i mean even now, some gamers are prepared to engage in it.

I think it does help some, at least if you look at countries banning loot boxes (more will come) but also how the different streaming communities or YouTube/Reddit talk a lot about bad monetization. Large streamers can make a solid footprint and influence the younger audience not to jump on this train.

For the average worker Joe who wants to sit on his sofa for an hour and play his favorite Call of Duty game, he probably would not care or know much about this at all. He just wants to eat his food and get that playtime before the kids run him over. If he has to spend a couple of bucks on microtransactions to get a leveling boost, he'll gonna do it because he has money to spend and it is basically pocket change for him anyway.

in an ideal world, a well made, fun quality game means lots of sales. The majority of the time this is not the case, many popular games have become products; releasing a sequel year after year, a season pass to maintain a live service. I may not be a mystic, but it wouldn't take much for larian to focus more on money. Especially if they start looking for stakeholders / investors take hold. Too many stupid decisions are made to satisfy them as oppose to the customer base.

They could get more stakeholders, but I don't see them wanting that now at least. The love for their games can be noticeable when you look at how CEO Swen Vincke takes pride in explaining how they went about building a new Baldur's Gate moving into a new direction while also respecting the older games or and how he took a clear stand against any microtransaction in BG3.

I think Larian Studios in a good way shows how a quality game can be made and also without having to implement microtransactions. Hopefully, there will be a healthy effect through this for at least some other AAA studios or Indie Game companies for that sake.

I think the AAA industry will get hammering though. Sadly with COD, Fifa, 2k games, i think their gravy train will keep going for a while.

Yeah, as long as there is a market and people buy into COD/FIFA there is absolutely no reason for them to stop doing it. They'll pump out the games until they get blue in the face and then some more.

yeah but we enlightened individuals are too few. Talk is cheap, it means nothing to publishers when the us few to discuss it. As long as the majority of the gaming audience especially the younger/casual audience buy into it, its not going anywhere. Who knows, the AAA will start eating each other and continue to do some monumentally stupid things that kills their own success. Happened once, could happen again. But for now, we lament the good old days and rage against the dying of the light. Presumably.

Talk can be cheap, but I'm also one of those people who likes to watch some of (several others also) Asmongold's (One of the largest Youtube/Twitch streamers) discussions when he is live on Twitch and give my own feedback about microtransactions when that topic is up. So, I'm participating, giving my thoughts and occasionally he takes a point up and expands on it reaching more people over the world than I ever could now.

Everything helps and I for example don't know if one of you is politically active (I was for a couple of years back, but not now) and get inspired into bringing some of the topics up for a further discussion elsewhere. Just thinking and writing and discussing these topics with forum members, also helps me to sharpen my pen and potentially bring this with me in future writings.

Maybe I could reach out to former students or to my old faculty and see if I could inspire someone to write a bachelor's or master's thesis about the topic(s) at hand, maybe even PM one of the students who have been here and see if they know someone or could pass some ideas on. Maybe some of you know someone who works in high school/elementary school and could pass it on for a discussion between teachers and perhaps one will say: "Yeah, I'd like to bring this topic up to my pupils".

Maybe a staff from PC Gamer reads some of what we have talked about and gets inspired to investigate more deeply into some of the aspects.

I guess my point is that it all depends on who you want to reach, and how much time to invest in it. Right now I am having fun conversing with you guys, that is how I decided to invest my time, but it could be that some other forum member decides to do more with the discussion at hand, you never do know.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I don't mind early acces personally. I'm not sure but I think the Battle Royale games kind of ruined the reputation of early acces games, by never finishing their games (thinking of H2 and PUBG which had their highest popularity before the game was released). Other games really benefitted from early acces I think. I purchased Prison Architect early acces (never played it after release) but it was a great game. Parkitect another example for me.



To draw a conclusion to my story which (before posting) appears to be longer than I intended:

Personally I don't think the issue with big companies purchasing all smaller studios is a problem in terms of amount of games, quality of games, or oversaturation, I rather fear for exclusives.

I know there've always been exclusives, and especially PS seems to have their exclusives, but correct me if I'm wrong, but compared to the total amount of games out there, the exclusives Sony has isn't really that big.
The more studios get taken over by those gigants, the more exlusives you're going to get. I haven't followed the news so I can't remember if Bethesda indeed got purchased by Microsoft, but that's a move in the wrong direction if you ask me.

I hope my comment does make sense, I'm tired while writing this so my brain is a little bit of a mess

It doesnt come across if you read that post on its own, but I'm actually pretty positive on early access, Kickstarters, and whatever, I think it can be a great thing for developers and also players who get a kick out of being involved in that way. I just meant to point out that Kickstarters failing or devs keeping games eternally in EA doesnt need to have any effect on a consumer. Its completely possible to ignore it and just buy the products that prove to be worth it in the end if people are worried about getting burned.

I'm not bothered by console exclusives, Sony are releasing their stuff on PC now which is great and I dont believe MS is going to be making anything Xbox exclusive without a PC version as well. Store exclusives are going to happen on PC I guess, but I dont really understand why it should matter what online store things are available on, if thats what you mean?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: microtranascations, I dont know what people mean by AAA these days, but off the top of my head I've played and really liked God of War, Uncharted 4, Control, Metro Exodus, Elden Ring, Sekiro, Baldurs Gate 3, Dead Space Remake, Cyberpunk 2077, Dying Light 2 and Doom Eternal in the last few years. I havent made a single in game purchase, wasnt hassled to in at all, and finished and enjoyed all of them.

 

[Johnway]

Re: microtranascations, I dont know what people mean by AAA these days, but off the top of my head I've played and really liked God of War, Uncharted 4, Control, Metro Exodus, Elden Ring, Sekiro, Baldurs Gate 3, Dead Space Remake, Cyberpunk 2077, Dying Light 2 and Doom Eternal in the last few years. I havent made a single in game purchase, wasnt hassled to in at all, and finished and enjoyed all of them.

The problem are the larger ones, the CODs, FIFA, Fortnites et al. hell, lootboxes aren't inherently evil (personally they should be like an after dinner mint). The lootbox should be a little side reward/token of appreciation for commitment and playing the game. The problem is that MTXs are so lucrative that the game is just a vector or a facilitator for them. if EA got their way, BattleFront 2/ Battlefield 2042 would have been a p2w, microtransaction hell. Strip out the MTX and you could see how threadbare the content was and how much those games hinged on MTXs. its even more insidious when you realize that lootboxes and season passes aren't not really giving you what you want. Merely the CHANCE to get what you want. Its sick, they would like to think its like collecting stickers or kinder surprise eggs or bs like pride and accomplishment (from gambling) but they know what they're doing. its funny how despite all the bugs, flaws in these games the store works as intended and never breaks...

mercifully, cosmetics mean very little to me in game. Especially 1st person ones. But for children, the younger audience, the vain or those with more money then common sense? less so. hell, there were times i would look on with envy and nearly buckle and think about doing it. Thankfully their pricing strategy (which is a whole level of evil) stops me. But if they said, anywhere from 0.10 - £2 for a cosmetic or a fiver-tenner for the whole lot i would be coughing up cash especially if i invest hours in a game.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

The problem are the larger ones, the CODs, FIFA, Fortnites et al. hell, lootboxes aren't inherently evil (personally they should be like an after dinner mint). The lootbox should be a little side reward/token of appreciation for commitment and playing the game. The problem is that MTXs are so lucrative that the game is just a vector or a facilitator for them. if EA got their way, BattleFront 2/ Battlefield 2042 would have been a p2w, microtransaction hell. Strip out the MTX and you could see how threadbare the content was and how much those games hinged on MTXs. its even more insidious when you realize that lootboxes and season passes aren't not really giving you what you want. Merely the CHANCE to get what you want. Its sick, they would like to think its like collecting stickers or kinder surprise eggs or bs like pride and accomplishment (from gambling) but they know what they're doing. its funny how despite all the bugs, flaws in these games the store works as intended and never breaks...

mercifully, cosmetics mean very little to me in game. Especially 1st person ones. But for children, the younger audience, the vain or those with more money then common sense? less so. hell, there were times i would look on with envy and nearly buckle and think about doing it. Thankfully their pricing strategy (which is a whole level of evil) stops me. But if they said, anywhere from 0.10 - £2 for a cosmetic or a fiver-tenner for the whole lot i would be coughing up cash especially if i invest hours in a game.

The thing is I dont see all of that permeating the industry outside of those (in the grand scheme of video games) very few companies and franchises.

Totally agree that those kinds of loot box gambling mechanics in games suck, especially when aimed at more vulnerable people.

 

[ZedClampet]

I just meant to point out that Kickstarters failing or devs keeping games eternally in EA doesnt need to have any effect on a consumer.

No, but they better act like it does if they want people to continue to buy their crap. I supported 20 plus games on Kickstarter, got completely over it and haven't supported a game in years. Got sick of hearing things like, "Life stuff came up and I decided to move to Mississippi. Also, I've begun working on another game!" Dude, you took people's money. How irresponsible can you get?

Re: microtranascations, I dont know what people mean by AAA these days, but off the top of my head I've played and really liked...

Single-player AAA games are not really a huge problem with microtransactions, although people like Ubisoft are selling things like XP boosts for their SP games, which really bothers me since it encourages them to make their games miserable.

But some games that could be co-op or pvp, like Madden or whatever FIFA is called now, are microtransaction disasters.

Where SP games are really getting hit is on DLC. It's not hard to see that devs are holding back content to sell as DLC, and Creative Assembly is selling it at $25 a pop now. Paradox is bad for this, too, as is Firaxis. Civ 6 has $171 worth of DLC. TWW3 has $263 and they aren't even close to finished.

Even indie games are getting into it. House Flipper has $70 worth of DLC. Car Mechanic Simulator has $97. And Farming Simulator 22 has $216 worth.