This is a very good point. It also shows the delusion of the executives, thinking that their next shitty looter shooter will become the new Fortnite, not understanding the oversaturation of the market. People have limited hours to play per day, the only way they can play your game is if they stop playing something else.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That's the thought process, and it's also what's going to bring a lot of these companies down. Their shitty game isn't going to beat the odds when all the other shitty games are also being pushed. Their chance of success and potential return figures are likely off by a large margin.

Edit: For example, Overwatch, which has actually hit the mainstream and has a fairly large player base, I think still isn't profitable.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think it was profitable, at one point, up until the bait and switch that was Overwatch 2.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, I think the first few years were profitable (excluding Overwatch League), but OW2 for sure hasn't been. I don't think OW1 was by the end either.

They had no way to make more money and it was a one time purchase. The switch to OW2 sucks, and it was exploitative as fuck and full of lies, but they did need some form of continuous revenue stream. It just wasn't the greedy way they went about it, pushing everyone away.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If it costs 200 million to take a shot, maybe it isn't great odds.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

If you've got a market cap of three trillion and the investors expect three trillion plus one next quarter, can you afford to risk it?