This is the big problem with modern gaming. Too many companies are now in hock to investors and publishers. To those at the top of the hierarchy, making a game is an investment, a bet. Innovation is stifled in favour 9f 'safe bets', no wonder gaming is stagnating.

It's not all doom and gloom, there are still exceptions to the rule. But it's certainly not looking good for fantastic single player games.

I'm expecting gta 6 to have a much shorter single player campaign with most of the focus towards online (and more obscene earnings from shark cards 2.0).

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I agree with the rest but it's not just modern gaming it was happening back in the 90s on consoles and earlier in arcades. One of the first games I played was an obvious cash grab by Marvel, Spider-Man and the X-Men in Arcade's Revenge for the Gameboy. It was barely playable.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I heard also that even earlier than that, there was an E.T. game that may have been a bad cash grab. I doubt it had any serious impact, though.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I personally like to think this trend of enshittification in the gaming industry is geared more towards the triple AAA side of things because a lot of the actual indie devs (not the people putting out low effort mobile games or shovelware or scams or straight up large corporatios masquerading their games as indie titles) are putting out some of the best games I've seen in years for single player experiences.

Though I absolutely agree with your assessment of the situation in general.

[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago

Indie games is really where it's at right now.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This was what I meant. It's these smaller devs that seem to be innovating to any extent at the moment!

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded due to being an old fart nowadays... I remember playing the original Doom / Wolfenstein so especially FPS feel so overdone to me. When was the last time you saw a truly novel game concept? I'm sure I've seen a few over the last few years but can't remember (see, old fart).

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think I can recall something truly novel since I think we've pretty much gone past the point of novel concepts in the majority of genres, but there have definitely been standouts in certain genres over the years.

In the deck building and rogue like genre we've seen Balatro, the poker based game. In the retro inspired games genre, we've got Corn Kidz 64, a shorter game that controls and looks like an N64 title.

Totally depends on the genre, though.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It's a hard question to answer I know! Racking my brains here, the most novel thing I can think of is Portal.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ive commented on this before, as sad as it is if we want innovative, expansive, beautiful AAA titles we have to accept that investors arent going to keep backing the money truck up on maybes. Microtransactions, subscriptions, dlcs... there has to be an ongoing income stream or an absolutely eyewatering launch price OR we get used to safer and safer bets or games with very narrow scopes.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yep, it's a real quandary. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there is one from our perspective... it's no point voting with my wallet when there's millions of others who won't.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think you have to ask yourself if the company is behaving ethically.

If a game is F2P but has microtransactions that arent P2W and the devs are continuing to maintain the game then its hard to be mad that they want to make some money off the basic game you get for free. (Mechwarrior online is a pretty good example of this)

If its a subscription, are you getting regular additional content for the money or is the subscription just allowing you to play the game you paid for? Do you still have to buy DLCs and pay subscription?

If its DLC, is it meaningful storylines/maps/characters? Does it make the prospect of another playthrough different or more interesting? Is it a reasonable price for what it gives you?

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

You make excellent points. Personally, I rarely have a problem paying for proper DLC (and buy proper DLC I mean, additional story content that wasn't obviously cynically cut from the OG game). Notable past examples for GTA, stuff like 'The Ballad of Gay Tony' were amazing expansions.

Also sticking with GTA, they're a good example of bad practice nowadays (imo). They pivoted to online-only DLC once they realised how lucrative a pay-to-play system can be when leveraged against not being bullied by players with more disposable income. There was amazing single-player content in dev for GTA5 and they cut it to focus on MP. Worse, they left the dregs of that content in the game, allowed a 'GTA5 mystery' concept to flourish and left people hunting for the mystery thinking they were going to find something like GTA4's bigfoot. Knowing all along it didn't exist. But of course, happy that people were still playing and hoping they would get bored and try online mode.