this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
345 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

32068 readers
149 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

While Baldur's Gate 3 is being widely celebrated by fans and developers alike, some are panicking that this could set new expectations from fans. Good.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 96 points 2 years ago (3 children)

BG 3 is so stupid, it's not even optimizing micro transactions for maximum profits

[–] forgotaboutlaye@kbin.social 58 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How am I supposed to feel a sense of pride and accomplishment without paying for my dice rolls?

[–] orbitz@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Wonder what a divine crit roll would cost, $5 in combat $3 outside? Heck that's too complicated $10 for all, $7 for season pass holders.

For those wondering there is no season pass.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ours@lemmy.film 11 points 2 years ago

"Leaving money on the table" must be the exec's perspective.

[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago

Unity CEO has entered the chat

[–] Magrath@lemmy.ca 92 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Click baiting video. Other devs don't care. As long as they can make money pumping out mediocre games then they will continue to do so. Acting like this is the first good game to come out in a decade or something.

[–] DrM@feddit.de 73 points 2 years ago (1 children)

DEVs do care. As a developer working on something you want to be proud of it. Publishers do not care.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The individuals working on the game might care.

The managers who make the decisions don't. Doesn't matter if they are a publisher or the development company itself. It's a bit blurry these days anyway, what with how easy it is to self publish and how many publishers have their own internal development studios.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 73 points 2 years ago (1 children)

“Oh no fans might demand good games at release! The horror!”

[–] Thavron@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago

Won't anybody think of the stockholders‽

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Oh no, if people remember that games are supposed to be good, no one will buy our lootbox-infested crap anymore.

Good.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Loot boxes are so 2017. It's all about battle passes, engagement, and player retention now.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

You know what creates engagement and retains players?

Making a good game that's actually fun to play instead of focusing on how you're gonna sell me hats and paint jobs and weaponizing FOMO.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

As much as I prefer this model that actually isn’t what creates engagement and retains players over several games and years. They don’t do it because it’s fun to make predatory things. They do it because it makes them heaps of money. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. That’s the sad truth here.

Re: hats and paint jobs…hats dominated TF2 for how long? There was a black market and widespread scamming for cosmetics, that’s how nuts it got.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stagen@feddit.dk 35 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Honestly I hope this does indeed set a new gold standard. Probably not with the whole early access thing, though. It’s a thing that needs to go away.

[–] pixel@beehaw.org 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

EA is an immensely useful tool for game devs, the issue is EA as an excuse to ship unpolished games or to leave games unfinished forever. Neither of which are problems intrinsic to early access, they're just bad business practice that should be shunned like any other

[–] soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

As a gamedev: Early Access was useful for devs, back when it was real Early Access. Think: Kerbal Space Program (the first, not the second).

Nowadays it's mostly a marketing tool, that allows to generate the hype for launch twice... Publishers and players expect "Early Access" games to be feature complete and polished before the "Early Access" launch...

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And again, Larian Studios used EA as intended, which allowed them to publish a good, polished game.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TauriWarrior@aussie.zone 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Early access worked well for them, part of the start of the game was able to be play tested, the community got to give feedback, and they actually listened, its how it should be done

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 12 points 2 years ago

I don't think Early Access should go away as it's not inherently bad in and of itself.

What's bad about it is when it's used to sell an totally unfinished piece of shit that stays an unfinished piece of shit indefinitely.

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 35 points 2 years ago

Developers? Panicking? Developers will rejoice that they don't have to build these garbage mechanics. Publishers and game studio execs? Yeah they'll panic

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Making bad developers panic maybe?

I can't imagine something like this makes the Redfall devs feel good about themselves.

Actually Redfall likely doesn't make the Redfall devs feel good about themselves.

[–] sandriver@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Wasn't the whole thing with Redfall that it was Bethesda mismanagement? I'm not going to put that on the Redfall team. Does make me completely disinterested in buying any Bethesda games that aren't mainline TES though.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 2 years ago

BG3 is what games used to be and what they should have been like. It bring me back to my KotOR1/2, and Witcher 1 days. It's great.

[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No.... no its not.

Other developers appreciate art.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nitrate55@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This reminds me of the time Ubisoft developers decided to have a bitchfit about Elden Ring because it didn't have any of the same shitty monetization or trash formulaic design choices as their games.

It's like these developers think that because they're painfully mediocre, every other studio is required to be as well.

[–] 50MYT@aussie.zone 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In similar fashion, EA/Dice woukd have desperately tried to ignore battlebit.

4 devs made a game that is better in nearly every way than any of the last few battlefield games in their spare time.

I hope AAA studios clear house and find a new formula that doesn't ruin good IP.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago (5 children)

How does it cost millions of dollars to make a current AAA game, and they're rarely worth it?

If you have 5,000 people on your payroll for a game what the hell are they doing? Every game should be fantastic.

I love indie and AA games. Smaller teams. More focus. More fun. Usually more quality content.

[–] AMuscelid@lemm.ee 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's an issue of time and scalability. Going from 100 employees to 200 employees wont make the game in half the time. And corporate accounting would rather have 2 mediocre games per year than 1 extremely good game every 2 years, even if it sold 4 times as well since revenue is analyzed within fiscal years and financing isn't free. Capitalism sucks.

[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Capitalism sucks.

All the greatest games ever made were created in capitalistic economies so i cannot see how that is a determining factor. I don't know what games your thinking of. Tetris?

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 9 points 2 years ago

I think you're missing the point. They're just saying the incentive structure of capitalism doesn't necessarily encourage the best types of games. We see this with borked EA launches, predatory MTX, loot boxes, battle passes, etc

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 8 points 2 years ago

I think there is a difference between "capitalism" and "capitalism".

I think a more nuanced argument is that better games come from companies that are not primarily driven by the quarterly revenue cycle of Wall Street, that is defined as "capitalism".

I think it's more of a hit-and-miss, and good corporate leadership is the kind that people forget it's there when good games come out. I mean CDPR had a CEO both when Witcher 3 was the thing, and also when Cyberpunk 2077 was the thing that flopped. Obviously, people were more interested in the beancounters' influence in the latter case.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I know that's probably rhetorical, but probably a similar problem to modern movies where (as described in the video Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Too Expensive) they are going after spectacle (rather than story or other elements) and due to cost they must make a 'safe' product to stay profitable, where a bland but universally palatable product will sell more tickets/copies than a stellar niche thing.

I'd also add that companies know they can usually ride the success of their own name/brand recognition. Even worse here with games because of pre-ordering, early-access as a product, and crowd-funding (which some wildly successful publishers still do--on top of unpaid self-promotion and all the other things--because people still think of them as indie).

[–] WagesOf@artemis.camp 7 points 2 years ago

The main problem is they drop $20mil on effects and star faces and fucking spend $20/hr for a fucking committee to write a story in a week that wouldn't pass a screenwriting 101 course.

The problem with movies and games these days is where the money goes, not how much of it there is.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wcSyndrome@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I get everyone's sentiment here, boiling it down to "better games are better" but also keep in mind the development costs and times for making new games are constantly going up. Yeah of course there are fantastic indie games out there (and I love them myself) that have a fraction of AAA game budgets and dev time but those are the gems in the rough, not the norm.

I'm all for better gaming experiences but they do come with tradeoffs. Also, flops are now death sentences for studios so the pressure to perform is even higher

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

you sound like EA public relations

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago (6 children)

He's not wrong, though. Game development is a business, like any other, and larger-scale games require exponentially more resources to produce than smaller indie titles.

Obviously one could make the argument "Well they shouldn't be making every single game into a huge, multi-billion dollar blockbuster title that costs the player an arm and a leg to gain access to, then they wouldn't need that amount of resources to begin with", and that would be a fair argument. But ultimately, people keep buying those games, anyway. And not by force, they buy them of their own volition. So those games continue to be profitable. There's no incentive for big studios to change their ways when consumers keep giving them money, so they're going to keep making huge games that require huge resources and huge payments from the players.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The expectations have been set for a long time. BG3 isn't the first good game. It's just the first in a while, after mountains of AAA garbage ultimately driven by shareholders and MBAs.

The sad thing is: those people are so clueless that they dont see they'd make more money by just not getting in the way of a good dev team.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

What if games have to be good, not just eventually but on the day we sell it to someone.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago

Nothing better then moving the benchmark forward.

[–] MoonlitSanguine@lemmy.one 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Fans expectations for games are already insanely high. Baldur's Gate 3 isn't going to change much.

Also the video implies that this complaint is industry wide but only has 3 tweets (or X's?).

[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

This just feels like an excuse of this IGN content creator to rant against developers.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›