| ▲ | tiahura 3 hours ago |
| The argument that it is in shambles wasn’t particularly persuasive. “videogames are as profitable as ever” It seemed more like the understandable frustration of someone whose profession is being automated. Schumpeter creative destruction, but not shambles. |
|
| ▲ | moshun 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Part of the problem is that some investor somewhere making profits is considered the only real marker for success. It’s an insane perspective that devalues all other (arguably more important) aspects of a work’s success. |
| |
| ▲ | tiahura 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How is that any different than the market for toilet paper or ovens? | | | |
| ▲ | ctoth 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It sounds like you're complaining about capitalism, not AI? | | |
| ▲ | sm-silversight 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Shareholder capitalism as milton friedman argued for it. Ford had a different vision but the Dodge brothers stamped it out. | | |
| ▲ | tancop 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ford's vision wasn't that much better. Old school manager controlled companies only work if the people in charge are great like him with big plans and the skills to realize them. If the CEO is just average it will end badly, and if they good but retire or die in office their successor will probably be worse. And it's extremely vulnerable to bad ideas that get amplified by wealth and power, like Ford's antisemitic paper that inspired the Nazis. Putting one person in charge of everything is never good. The best outcomes come from distributing power as widely as possible to people who are affected the most, aka worker ownership. | | |
| ▲ | badpun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The best outcomes come from distributing power as widely as possible to people who are affected the most, aka worker ownership. Is there any evidence of this claim being true? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | titzer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Welcome to growthism. |
|
|
| ▲ | dexwiz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Profit in video games as an industry is largely the gambling industry hiding under the another umbrella. I'm not even talking about loot boxes. Just old school gambling games like roulette and slot machines but in a digital format. Once you strip that away and loot boxes, the numbers are great for classic games. |
| |
| ▲ | bhewes 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Worse then gambling at least I can take cash out. These are pure extraction machines. When I was part of a game studio startup all the VCs wanted the loot gambling games, some of the teams they funded hired casino guys. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, then this part was regulated. And so if you allow cash out, you're regulated. The result was not regulated gambling but extermination of cash out options (well, and sometimes very obvious illegal gambling houses). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | megagpt4 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The profitable videogames are mobileslop appstorespam games loaded to the brim with microtransactions, as well as the really good games that everyone wants to play, which are impossible to create more of on a whim. |
|
| ▲ | qw_qrtx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "the industry" also includes "human resources", previously known as personnel or humans. Any why always call critics "frustrated" in order to depict them as weak and spiteful? Isn't the Dwarf Fortress guy independent anyway? |
|
| ▲ | makerofthings 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Which is exactly the problem. All the folks in charge care about is money. Money has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is fun to play or not. An eternal curse on the houses of anyone involved with these AIs. |
| |
| ▲ | andrewmutz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Don’t you make more money if the game is fun to play? (People buy the game) | | |
| ▲ | makerofthings 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A huge marketing budget can push a mediocre game far further than a really good indie game that doesn't get lucky with youtube. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | ... which is why it was, and still is, common economic knowledge that the government must control marketplaces. Meaning the physical areas where trading is taking place. We've been through this rodeo before you know. Private ownership of markets, with the obvious result monopoly abuses. Hell we've had private money and that was a total disaster too. And now we have VISA as opposed to government controlled payments. But then people stopped caring about that. With abuse upon abuse the result. Because it's not like this result, that only by buying a prominent position on a marketplace you can have success as a seller is only the case online. This is very much true in meatspace as well. And now almost everything you can buy is effectively through a privately owned (semi-)monopoly rather than a marketplace. From supermarkets to app stores. Addendum: and then governments must NOT let anyone, not even other governments, force "whoever pays most" rules (like the EU is forcing through in Europe) |
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. 100% not. To equate fun to play to people buying the game is 100% not how you should say making more money is more people buying the game. Money is money. If the game is mediocre but it is fun enough, it can get more money than a game that is more fun but doesn't have as many opportunities to spend. This is why things like dark patterns exist that try to get you to spend money through FOMO and other mechanisms like loot boxes. You can argue that all of these things are people having "fun," but I wouldn't define that as fun to play. Finally, none of these necessitate people buying the game, but rather spending money in the game. Usually, it's free games where people buy a secondary currency to spend on virtual items. Mobile apps, for example, are huge with this. So the real answer to your question on multiple grounds is no. Edit: Now, I will give you that people do have to make a choice, but that's like saying that gambling addiction is not real and it's a choice, or drug addiction is real and it's a choice. The reason for alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous is bogus because it's just a choice, but it would be dangerous to classify it as just a choice. |
| |
| ▲ | wilg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Money has to do with whether you can make the game. Games are regularly funded by many non-profit options such as co-ops or grants, etc. Developers are free to make games however they want. |
|
|
| ▲ | mcphage 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Video games are profitable as ever, but they take years to produce, and the mass layoffs makes me wonder who’s going to be making the games coming out in 2-5 years. Also it has required a lot of write-offs from closing studios to maintain this profitability, and that’s not a trick you can keep up for long. |
|
| ▲ | fzeroracer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Profitability can only matter as long as the ecosystem is sustainable; otherwise once the floor collapses there's no more money to be made. A game can be profitable, but when the entire team that made it is laid off or furloughed before launch there isn't a team anymore to follow up. Eventually those people leave the industry and there isn't enough capital made by your average worker to fund their own gaming studio, relying on investors or the rich to parasitize their work in order to create more games. This is part of the reason why we see endless games as a service despite 90% of them failing. Teams have to do the bidding of the rich, but the rich don't know what's 'fun'. |
