Open world, open world, open world, open world. Literally none of those games is a linear, story-based game. And the last game you listed sold has textures that look like this.
I think that's her point. More people are buying those games than the other hence the top best selling games reflecting that.
You don't know that, you don't know anything about how they are paid.It's putting a band-aid on the issue that regardless of the product and the sales they put out, the money they receive doesn't equal the real price of their labour. Considering that EA also plays the game of delivering bonuses from the metacritic score, that's actually not even a given in the first place.
Couldn't care less about big publisher problems. Give me more Hellblades every day. I don't need cutscenes which take months and millions to polish in my game.
I think that might have more to do with the 'immersive sim' genre honestly, especially after Mankind Divided, Dishonored 2 and Prey all seemingly experienced the same disappointing sales.
I'm not sure if you played much of RE7 if you think it's a new IP with very little relation to Resident Evil.
If you want to talk about who is really enacting the problematic shifts, I will definitely agree that it's on the publisher side.I think we need to reframe the argument. I just think that saying that youtube is (one of) the issue is short-sighted because it doesn't explain why things are the way they are. But I think it goes beyond publishers simply being greedy, and I understand that you call them out on it.
The thing is that they just don't care. It's the quest for a bigger profit that drives them. Framing a linear game as a GaaS is hard to work it out, so they make it something else where they can make it a live service. It's not "linear games can't make a profit", they definitely can. It's more "I can make a live service that can profit off the consumers instead". This is the basic argument.
But from that point, do you think that a game being priced 90$ is going to put a leash on their live service ? Is it going to give more options to devs to make what they want ? Remember that Amy's studio was already in an incredibly low morale because the studio had to be splintered for the Battlefield Hardline live service, which put several devs into distress. EA was already starving and draining the studio of their capability to create a great product.
I don't know, it just seems clear there's one target here. And it's not us. At least not in this specific case.
and then there's lawbreakers and battleborn becoming monumental flops with a AAA budget and the most casual gameplay model on the market.Many have also not, like Dishonored 2 and Mankind Divided. It really goes both ways and tbh the majority of the ones that have been sales successes have also been pretty much universally GOTY material. I think it’s tougher than ever right now to be a good-but-not-GOTY-caliber AAA single player game.
Amy Hennig: I was thinking about this while playing Hellblade, which is amazing and beautiful. And then I thought, “Well, wait a second. They only have to make one character, and we had to do like 20 of those at the same level of fidelity, with as many as 10 of them on screen at a time, running in frame rate.”
Congrats.. because none of those games (except Mario) fit the criteria of games that Amy Hennig is talking about.Zelda BOTW, Mario Odyssey, Persona 5, Yakuza 0, Nier: Automata, Xenoblade Chronicles 2... all games I bought that are all favorites of mine from last year. Judging from the GOTY thread here I'm not alone. I also did not buy AssCreed Origins, the latest COD, Battlefront 2, Shadow of War or any other game that only tries to squeeze more money out of me (except Destiny 2, which I regret).
The topic contains "linear Story-Based Games".
Turns out you need to cut down costs to make money!
Dude, can you chill out a bit? Your tone is a bit over the top. We know Visceral was shut down because their games were not profitable (DS2,DS3), so they were given Battlefield to try and become profitable (what is the publisher supposed to do there? Keep paying cheques for a studio that’s losing money?) and they did not succeed at that, and then their Star Wars project ran into a bunch of problems, so they were shuttered (Jason Schrier wrote a fantastic piece on this that shows how dysfunctional the studio had become). It’s a very straightforward trajectory. For reference, I worked at THQ when it shut down, and yes, it sucked.And there are tens of thousands that are being canned and/or reshuffled around for the publishers needs with no concern for their well-being. What do you think happened at Visceral ? They all left on good terms and it just was a difference in philosophy ? What do you think a crunch is ? A passion drive ?
They're also all single player offline story based games.
I think, data and surveys at hand, she knows best that any of us.I think her logic is flawed.
Look at the sales of Zelda, Mario, Horizon, Nier Automata and others.
Then look at the sales of LawBreakers, Battleborn, Drawn To Death etc.
I think people obviously want single player games, and are happy to spend $60 on them, they just have to offer something interesting and unique, and have to be produced on a realistic budget.
You have to factor the different value of payrates and currency in Poland compared to other countries to make a game like The Witcher 3 and it's DLC at the budget they did it at.and then there's lawbreakers and battleborn becoming monumental flops with a AAA budget and the most casual gameplay model on the market.
the only argument i will accept is that its easier to catch lightning in a bottle with an MP game that it is with single players games , who almost always have to be good succeed .
But this makes the situation with well funded devs chasing after chance success even more questionable.These guys have the money to get a witcher 3 calibur made if they wanted to, developers of ark didnt thus they took the easier route.
You do realise that their performance, except for BotW and Odyssey, would be considered dreadful if they were AAA games right?
If Star Wars sold what Nier sold it would be considered a flop, that's just the reality of the situation.
On the other hand EA totally invested a comparable number into Mass Effect Andromeda and that certainly demonstrates that even loads of money can’t guarantee anything.
That's completely beside the point, though. This is specifically about linear 4-10 hours games vs open world content sinks that audiences overwhelmingly want. Back in 2016, Amy Hennig stated that Uncharted 1 could never be made in today's market because it's a 10 hour linear game with no MP and no extra modes. No "replay value" to speak of.
It sold terribly by western AAA standards. Alien: Isolation sold 2 million copies. Alien: Isolation 2 is dead. Tomb Raider: Underworld sold 2.5 million. This was so catastrophic the entire series was rebooted. Western AAA developers do not have the luxury of making games with terrible graphics. Games where major story sequences are text on a background. (Maybe Bungie does, but they don't count.)
But Nier also sold what it did without being called Star Wars. These arguments are all silly.
I'd missed this entirely - such a fantastic and engaging read, thank you for the link. Hennig and Vanaman play off each other so well.
Because millions of people value those one or two playthroughs enough to pay $60 for them.
again, blaming the gamers for this is so meaningless, nobody said amy has to make a linear game, or a AAA game. I think theres a gigantic canyon of options between the most expensive least lucrative game on the market and outright cancellation.
I watched all of Uncharted lost legacy and enjoyed it. Shrug
Yeah I have a friend who is like that. He used to finish and play all his games until the advent of youtube. In some cases this article speak the truth but single player games still sell well. Maybe not as well as they used to. I on the other hand rarely buy barebones muliplayer games but I think fighters are the exception.
What's the point then ? Are the benefits worth having a sword over your head at all times and knowing that you might have to move away with your family for the Xth time because you can't afford the rent without your job ? Some of my friends went through that and it's clear that it's untenable. It's just not working, just as much that you know they didn't have full directorial control of the Dead Space franchise. It's been shuttered for doing things the way they told them to. You know the blame is not going to be placed to the top.Dude, can you chill out a bit? Your tone is a bit over the top. We know Visceral was shut down because their games were not profitable (DS2,DS3), so they were given Battlefield to try and become profitable (what is the publisher supposed to do there? Keep paying cheques for a studio that’s losing money?) and they did not succeed at that, and then their Star Wars project ran into a bunch of problems, so they were shuttered (Jason Schrier wrote a fantastic piece on this that shows how dysfunctional the studio had become). It’s a very straightforward trajectory. For reference, I worked at THQ when it shut down, and yes, it sucked.
Obviously crunch isn’t great. Nobody is going to tell you that, and it should not be a necessary evil and it’s obvioisly a very nuanced and complex subject that varies wildly from game to game. A title launching early in the year probably shouldn’t have to worry about crunch, and usually they’ll get the delay they need unless circumstances are particularly dire, but is Activision supposed to delay CoD from its prime October launch slot when they’ve had three years to get it ready?
I honestly think it very rarely gets to a point where you can point at a publisher and say “those guys are EEEVIL”. I’ve been in crunch, I’ve been through company shut downs. It sucks. On the other hand wages have been fucking great for the work and the jobs generally are comfortable and have lots of benefits. I’m not saying it can’t be better. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be better. I’m saying the caricature of publishers being horrible vampires who have it out for their employees is baffling.
This is true that's why I said it's a problem created by the industry and not the consumer.again, blaming the gamers for this is so meaningless, nobody said amy has to make a linear game, or a AAA game. I think theres a gigantic canyon of options between the most expensive least lucrative game on the market and outright cancellation.
Hell say what you will ubisoft , but after unity they actually managed to pull their single player ip out of the grave and make it a big success in this day and age. Their mp games sell like hotcakes but they still actually put in the money and effort in even if it wasnt as profitable as wildlands or something.
You could apply the same logic to any genre. They're all exceptions. There isn't one genre where you can invest a ton of money in and will guaranteed success, or even be given a high chance of success. Look at open-world games. You have titles like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Saboteur, Red Faction: Guerrilla, Prototype etc. that didn't exactly light up the charts. Or what about all the failed multiplayer-only games or the massive grave of failed MMO's? Like I said, no genre is really safe, so I don't get why certain types of single player games are taking the brunt of the attacks.
If games like Nier and Hellblade can sell a few million with no brand identity and very limited marketing and distribution, it reasons that there is clearly a larger audience for games of that sort with a larger brand. A good question is what the ceiling of such a game is these days. Stuff like Uncharted and God of War probably paint a better picture in that regard.
There are many, many people.
Yes, but it's in context to the amount that were successful which is much less now than then.You could apply the same logic to any genre. They're all exceptions. There isn't one genre where you can invest a ton of money in and will guaranteed success, or even be given a high chance of success. Look at open-world games. You have titles like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Saboteur, Red Faction: Guerrilla, Prototype etc. that didn't exactly light up the charts. Or what about all the failed multiplayer-only games or the massive grave of failed MMO's? Like I said, no genre is really safe, so I don't get why certain types of single player games are taking the brunt of the attacks.
I acutally don't think it's a problem.
It does if you care, bioware is already on a decline and their best were already siphoned off to make the next lootbox sensation anthem. By having the money, i mean its more than just the process of withdrawing a wad of cash from the bank and throwing it inside the office building. If your top brass is composed of talentless hacks who are more interesting in twitter politics than their job then its your job to get them replaced by people who are actually good at what they get paid for. If you dont have the time for that then hire someone who does.It also means acknowledging the controversy around how much of a shitshow andromeda looked prior to release and making sure it never came to that.
Wait, did you just call Mario Oddysey "open world"?