Saber's Matthew Karch: "The AAA model is going to change"
Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox The games industry's current troubles have…
www.gamesindustry.biz
2024 may not be kind for game developers.
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
www.gamesindustry.biz
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
And then came SM2 and the latest CoD...
For every AA indie smash there's 1000 failures.
Both dev models have their place.
For every AA indie smash there's 1000 failures.
Both dev models have their place.
There's probably more room for success at lower price points, but I do agree. GTA6 is going to be huge at $70 USD or more with all of the collectors editions etc. But for anything that's not GTA, COD, FIFA, Spider-Man ... it might be better to make a smaller game and charge $50, where people might be willing to take a chance. Sure, most games will crash and burn. That's always been the case. But there are still lots of successful indie games thanks to digital distribution. Every year there are more and more. High risk business, but still ways to manage risk.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
April 10, 2024
www.gamedeveloper.com
www.linkedin.com
Immortals of Aveum dev Ascendant Studios reportedly furloughs majority of its staff
With an alleged furlough in play, questions are raised about Ascendant's future as a developer.
Kris Morness on LinkedIn: Ascendant Studios has furloughed the majority of their staff. I can't… | 10 comments
Ascendant Studios has furloughed the majority of their staff. I can't imagine what that would be like as that is worse than getting laid off. It would be good… | 10 comments on LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
April 17, 2024
wccftech.com
Take-Two Lays Off 5% of Its Workforce, Cancels Some Games
Take-Two Interactive has announced a cost restructuring program to lay off 5% of its workforce. Some games have been canceled as a result.
wccftech.com
70 percent of devs unsure of live-service games sustainability
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I would be interested to see how much concern there was 3 years ago. For all we know there's always be 67% concern. LOL
Last edited:
Former Blizzard president suggests you should be able to leave a $10 or $20 tip for the devs because 'some games are that special'
I mean, I guess? But not really.
arandomguy
Veteran
If the uncertainity is from an increasing amount of live service games doesn't that suggest the segment is actually growing and healthy? Otherwise it seems to go down this idea I hate that businesses for some reason deserve to make money and there shouldn't be losers.
As for tips I mean if it's actually going where it says its going and isn't mandatory I don't have a problem with it. It's better then optional tips that aren't really optional in certain industries in certain countries (this is going to go way off topic) due to social stigma and marketing. Also the idea of tipping in gaming isn't actually really new. Humble Bundle had a tip option going to devs, and in that case it wasn't exactly clear who it was actually going to either. People tip smaller businesses ancillary to the games as well (notably streamers, people do realize those small content creators are "businesses" right?). You can argue things like Kickstarter reward tiers are form of tipping as well. Even conceptually you've seen people mention they choose to buy DLC, MTX or extra copy of games to "support the developer" (and even games they might have pirated).
As for tips I mean if it's actually going where it says its going and isn't mandatory I don't have a problem with it. It's better then optional tips that aren't really optional in certain industries in certain countries (this is going to go way off topic) due to social stigma and marketing. Also the idea of tipping in gaming isn't actually really new. Humble Bundle had a tip option going to devs, and in that case it wasn't exactly clear who it was actually going to either. People tip smaller businesses ancillary to the games as well (notably streamers, people do realize those small content creators are "businesses" right?). You can argue things like Kickstarter reward tiers are form of tipping as well. Even conceptually you've seen people mention they choose to buy DLC, MTX or extra copy of games to "support the developer" (and even games they might have pirated).
DavidGraham
Veteran
What the hell is wrong with Take Two? I mean GTA V sold way too big, Red Dead Redemption 2 also sold big, GTA Online is a golden goose with billions in revenue from microtransactions. In 2016 (only 3 years after the release of GTA V), GTA Online alone made 500 million $ from microtransactions, they definitely made more and more after that as the player count of GTA Online increased significantly. Where did all that money go? It's not like they spent it all on some big projects? They only had two big games in the last decade!April 17, 2024
Take-Two Lays Off 5% of Its Workforce, Cancels Some Games
Take-Two Interactive has announced a cost restructuring program to lay off 5% of its workforce. Some games have been canceled as a result.
GTA 5's Online Mode Has Generated Half a Billion Dollars - Report
This is probably why GTA V's single-player DLC is nowhere to be seen.
www.gamespot.com
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Nothing. They're in business to make money. Why is that so bewildering to people today?
Because BS business practices are BS regardless
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
How are they BS?
There's no indication from the article that Rockstar has been touched. In that sense I'm unsure as to what the big deal is surrounding these cuts. Yes the cuts are a big deal to those losing their employment and I feel for them but from a different perspective these cuts are expected. If there was indication Rockstar is being effected with these cuts then it would be a big deal. But Take 2 isn't simply just Rockstar. There are other devs that may not.be pulling their weight so this a need to downsize.What the hell is wrong with Take Two? I mean GTA V sold way too big, Red Dead Redemption 2 also sold big, GTA Online is a golden goose with billions in revenue from microtransactions. In 2016 (only 3 years after the release of GTA V), GTA Online alone made 500 million $ from microtransactions, they definitely made more and more after that as the player count of GTA Online increased significantly. Where did all that money go? It's not like they spent it all on some big projects? They only had two big games in the last decade!
GTA 5's Online Mode Has Generated Half a Billion Dollars - Report
This is probably why GTA V's single-player DLC is nowhere to be seen.
I think one perspective looks at how much money is available and thinks, "how can you not make that work?" If studios aren't 'pulling their weight', why aren't they invested in to make them better? On the notion of periodic cullings, why do these happen all at once instead of keeping an eye on weak staff and replacing them throughout?
For companies operating on tight margins, it's more understandable. For those with an effective license to print money, less so. Especially when they've been throwing money around with acquisitions. Lots of that happening in recent years, and now lots of layoffs, like they weren't really planning ahead effectively. As if they found a fiver in their pocket so blew it all on sweets and fizzy drinks and then finding they don't have enough for the bus fare for the rest of the week.
TT's news seems a but more nuanced as a costly restructuring plan, but plenty do wish these companies could operate in a more robust and sustainable fashion as job-losses are very hard; something those at a top possibly know nothing of as their positions are never the ones being axed (and even if so, with payouts that means they can retire).
(Self moderated, removed RPSC commentary
)
For companies operating on tight margins, it's more understandable. For those with an effective license to print money, less so. Especially when they've been throwing money around with acquisitions. Lots of that happening in recent years, and now lots of layoffs, like they weren't really planning ahead effectively. As if they found a fiver in their pocket so blew it all on sweets and fizzy drinks and then finding they don't have enough for the bus fare for the rest of the week.
TT's news seems a but more nuanced as a costly restructuring plan, but plenty do wish these companies could operate in a more robust and sustainable fashion as job-losses are very hard; something those at a top possibly know nothing of as their positions are never the ones being axed (and even if so, with payouts that means they can retire).
(Self moderated, removed RPSC commentary
)Johnny Awesome
Veteran
If they can make the same games with less people, they should. Efficiency is important.
As far as acquisitions go - they lead to layoffs. It's part of the plan and rightly so. If MS acquiring ABK doesn't result in layoffs, they're doing it wrong. The reason the execs tell you that it was all "unintended" is because you can't handle the truth. Economic growth happens through productivity gains. Even in the games industry.
As far as acquisitions go - they lead to layoffs. It's part of the plan and rightly so. If MS acquiring ABK doesn't result in layoffs, they're doing it wrong. The reason the execs tell you that it was all "unintended" is because you can't handle the truth. Economic growth happens through productivity gains. Even in the games industry.
I agree with efficiency. Hence why first they should be reducing executive bonuses and salaries plus disable stock buy outs. Firing people should be the last resort after everything else has been said and done since they are the ones that created the product that brought the money in at the cost of their limited life time.
Yes. But then with more people, you can make more and better games. Rather than reduce the workforce, increase the output. If you've got more people than you can effectively apply, you mismanaged and shouldn't have employed them in the first place. There shouldn't be growth and shrinkage and more boon hiring and bust firing. It needn't be as chaotic and unstable as that.
Who is 'you'? Are you saying me personally?
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Consider it a general "you"
These hirings and firings are not as unstable as you think. It's by design. People are being naïve if they think Sony and MS woke up suddenly and said "OMG! We have too many people after all those acquisitions!" This is just a great excuse to get rid of the 10% worse performers. You can't make more and better games with these underperformers. It's not going to happen. I once let 1 out of 12 people go in a certain position and the other 11 people left actually increased more than 10% in productivity because morale went up because I finally let go of the dead weight. "It was about time..."
Of course the nature of these big companies and their HR departments is that some good people are going to be lost with the bad, but it's an imperfect universe.
On a thornier topic: Execs get bonuses for company performance. If they don't then they go somewhere else. Cutting exec bonuses is a good way to lose your best execs. Why do we need good execs? Because most people don't have the balls to cut the worst 10% performers.
These hirings and firings are not as unstable as you think. It's by design. People are being naïve if they think Sony and MS woke up suddenly and said "OMG! We have too many people after all those acquisitions!" This is just a great excuse to get rid of the 10% worse performers. You can't make more and better games with these underperformers. It's not going to happen. I once let 1 out of 12 people go in a certain position and the other 11 people left actually increased more than 10% in productivity because morale went up because I finally let go of the dead weight. "It was about time..."
Of course the nature of these big companies and their HR departments is that some good people are going to be lost with the bad, but it's an imperfect universe.
On a thornier topic: Execs get bonuses for company performance. If they don't then they go somewhere else. Cutting exec bonuses is a good way to lose your best execs. Why do we need good execs? Because most people don't have the balls to cut the worst 10% performers.