• Itsamelemmy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    So basically the single player offline game made bank, but they keep pushing this live service crap thinking it’s going to be the next GTA online and not what 90% of the live service crap ends up being.

      • lorty@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

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

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Alana Pierce has a great take on this. Her pount is that all games are a risk, but live service has a chance at infinite upside.

        Suits dont give a shit about anything but risk/reward, so live service always seems like the right choice to them, even if 99% of them bomb.

        • slaacaa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.