It seems like the AAA publishers don’t know what to do with that type of mid-budget game that was the staple of the 2000s generation.
Spend a bit of money (not crazy much), make something fun with a bit of originality, and just put it out for sale. No complex monetisation strategy or pipeline to funnel people to subscriptions. We give you money, you give us game.
The vampires working in the monetization and marketing department have to justify their jobs, they will continuously make shit up to milk the cash cow dry
Seriously, I don’t get it. If a project makes its budget back, it’s a success. Maybe it would also be good if they didn’t lay off so many developers between projects; for each project that pays for itself, even if it doesn’t provide dump trucks of profit and value for shareholders, the developers still get the experience of another successful project under their belts and that talent can be nurtured into greater success for future projects.
It’s sounds like you ate Capt’n Crunch this morning, instead of a heaping bowl of Cap’italism.
Our system rewards people who would kill babies in order to make 4% more than last quarter. Anything less than “even more profitable than last quarter” is a sin for which there is no penance.
You don’t understand our entire society is shifting to an even greedier system to push a couple dimes extra at the cost of major quality. The enshittification era is coming or is already here.
It’s at least a century old problem imho. In the 1950’s clever capitalists where already looking for ways of “Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary”. I can’t believe how often I’ve had to buy a new fucking toaster. It just keeps getting worst.
Consider getting a toaster oven the next time your toaster dies.
I’ve had mine for like 15 years now, use it all the time, and it’s still chugging along despite being $25 new. They are built a lot better than toasters because they are made for multi-purpose use, and the heating element is much more robust. Plus no springs to fail.
I know that doesn’t help the overall problem, but it might solve that one problem :)
They do understand to a point. The people who were fans of the original Prince of Persia games have carried what has until very recently been something of a lackluster franchise. That they remained fans is important and speaks to the world they came from which wasn’t subscription based.
Either Ubisoft was hoping that they’d win those fans back with this game (and get new players invested as well), or they were hoping an entire new cohort of gamers from the newer generations would pick this game up (and the newer generations are into micro transactions but also find them to be divisive). That older cohort of gamers really really don’t like micro transactions.
Just because something bad has arrived doesn’t mean that people will continue to put up with it.
Yup. What’s wild In particular is that they believe that games like Lost Crown have enough of a pull to convince people to use their store/launcher. That’s something that even the big AAA releases struggle with. When you stubbornly try to do that with a mid-sized game, you might as well cancel your entire marketing budget.
It something Nintendo excels at and it’s weird they haven’t tried it. Nintendo puts out dozens of mid range games a year that are solid with no weird monetization.
You can’t even blame the great sales on Nintendo having all these amazing IPs because they built most of those IPs from scratch WITH mid range games and the occasional AAA in the series. It’s a long play but these business types are to busy looking at the quarterly number to start building now.
Companies aren’t interested in making decent money from their decent product, or taking a risk on a unique idea these days. They’re only interested in squeezing every last obscene penny out of consumers from their piss-poor, canned rehash of another product.
It seems like the AAA publishers don’t know what to do with that type of mid-budget game that was the staple of the 2000s generation.
Spend a bit of money (not crazy much), make something fun with a bit of originality, and just put it out for sale. No complex monetisation strategy or pipeline to funnel people to subscriptions. We give you money, you give us game.
The vampires working in the monetization and marketing department have to justify their jobs, they will continuously make shit up to milk the cash cow dry
As long as we pay, they will keep grifting
Seriously, I don’t get it. If a project makes its budget back, it’s a success. Maybe it would also be good if they didn’t lay off so many developers between projects; for each project that pays for itself, even if it doesn’t provide dump trucks of profit and value for shareholders, the developers still get the experience of another successful project under their belts and that talent can be nurtured into greater success for future projects.
It’s sounds like you ate Capt’n Crunch this morning, instead of a heaping bowl of Cap’italism.
Our system rewards people who would kill babies in order to make 4% more than last quarter. Anything less than “even more profitable than last quarter” is a sin for which there is no penance.
You don’t understand our entire society is shifting to an even greedier system to push a couple dimes extra at the cost of major quality. The enshittification era is coming or is already here.
It’s at least a century old problem imho. In the 1950’s clever capitalists where already looking for ways of “Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary”. I can’t believe how often I’ve had to buy a new fucking toaster. It just keeps getting worst.
Consider getting a toaster oven the next time your toaster dies.
I’ve had mine for like 15 years now, use it all the time, and it’s still chugging along despite being $25 new. They are built a lot better than toasters because they are made for multi-purpose use, and the heating element is much more robust. Plus no springs to fail.
I know that doesn’t help the overall problem, but it might solve that one problem :)
I toast my bread on a cast iron skillet. Takes longer but I’ll never have to replace it.
They do understand to a point. The people who were fans of the original Prince of Persia games have carried what has until very recently been something of a lackluster franchise. That they remained fans is important and speaks to the world they came from which wasn’t subscription based.
Either Ubisoft was hoping that they’d win those fans back with this game (and get new players invested as well), or they were hoping an entire new cohort of gamers from the newer generations would pick this game up (and the newer generations are into micro transactions but also find them to be divisive). That older cohort of gamers really really don’t like micro transactions.
Just because something bad has arrived doesn’t mean that people will continue to put up with it.
Yup. What’s wild In particular is that they believe that games like Lost Crown have enough of a pull to convince people to use their store/launcher. That’s something that even the big AAA releases struggle with. When you stubbornly try to do that with a mid-sized game, you might as well cancel your entire marketing budget.
It something Nintendo excels at and it’s weird they haven’t tried it. Nintendo puts out dozens of mid range games a year that are solid with no weird monetization.
You can’t even blame the great sales on Nintendo having all these amazing IPs because they built most of those IPs from scratch WITH mid range games and the occasional AAA in the series. It’s a long play but these business types are to busy looking at the quarterly number to start building now.
Companies aren’t interested in making decent money from their decent product, or taking a risk on a unique idea these days. They’re only interested in squeezing every last obscene penny out of consumers from their piss-poor, canned rehash of another product.
The thing I don’t get is, surely having two revenue sources is better than one?