Franchises like Battlefield and Call of Duty are way down the charts from the free to play shooter games.
I think a big part of that is they are usually monetized the same (or even more aggressively) as the free to play games, but you also have to pay $60 up front every couple of years to keep playing because they come out with a new one (nuking any community they previously had built, further fracturing their community). It’s like they watch other games make bank on a concept and monetization system and think they can do the same thing, but they only copy the bad parts and then wonder why it doesn’t make them billions in a just a couple years.
The free to play listen to player feedback and incorporate related design or development features in a timely manner. If there’s a bug they fix it. If they want a new feature, they strongly consider it. The AAA gaming industry has been inwardly focused for about 10 years now. Watch The Game Awards and you see its just like the Oscars. Awards going to a lot of very obscure titles for checking some box on the social justice agendas. Some games like CS2 stay at the top by simply not making major changes for the worse when they already have a winning formula for their market that nobody wants to see changes.
Aside from the California-western europe developer culture, I think a lot of it has to do with the people above AAA gaming who make the major decisions are not themselves in the industry but in enterprise services or the business community. Microsoft top people may know how to squeeze profits out of enterprise customers but they’ve been clueless on gaming.
Those making entertainment products aimed at the mass market can either avoid making political and social statements or they can accept being a niche market product. It’s about making enough money that people don’t have to be laid off. The people running these companies for the last 10 years have failed to accomplish that.
I think a big part of that is they are usually monetized the same (or even more aggressively) as the free to play games, but you also have to pay $60 up front every couple of years to keep playing because they come out with a new one (nuking any community they previously had built, further fracturing their community). It’s like they watch other games make bank on a concept and monetization system and think they can do the same thing, but they only copy the bad parts and then wonder why it doesn’t make them billions in a just a couple years.
The free to play listen to player feedback and incorporate related design or development features in a timely manner. If there’s a bug they fix it. If they want a new feature, they strongly consider it. The AAA gaming industry has been inwardly focused for about 10 years now. Watch The Game Awards and you see its just like the Oscars. Awards going to a lot of very obscure titles for checking some box on the social justice agendas. Some games like CS2 stay at the top by simply not making major changes for the worse when they already have a winning formula for their market that nobody wants to see changes.
Aside from the California-western europe developer culture, I think a lot of it has to do with the people above AAA gaming who make the major decisions are not themselves in the industry but in enterprise services or the business community. Microsoft top people may know how to squeeze profits out of enterprise customers but they’ve been clueless on gaming.
You had me until the social justice comment.
Why can’t gamers appreciate diversity lol
Those making entertainment products aimed at the mass market can either avoid making political and social statements or they can accept being a niche market product. It’s about making enough money that people don’t have to be laid off. The people running these companies for the last 10 years have failed to accomplish that.
Diversity is good. But don’t tell me you yourself can’t feel the vibe when it’s forced in.