"while DEI is used for hiring, extending it into a marketable product isn't always profitable"
My dude, 'DEI in a marketable product' is an incentive to start including groups of people who have previously been excluded from representation. The further you go back in time, the more difficult it would be to get actors or characters in shows, movies, etc, that were not straight or white. There is nothing wrong with society moving away from prejudice. Saying a product which has representation of other people isn't profitable would be heavily leaning on correlation and not causation.
"while DEI is used for hiring, extending it into a marketable product isn't always profitable"
My dude, 'DEI in a marketable product' is an incentive to start including groups of people who have previously been excluded from representation. The further you go back in time, the more difficult it would be to get actors or characters in shows, movies, etc, that were not straight or white. There is nothing wrong with society moving away from prejudice. Saying a product which has representation of other people isn't profitable would be heavily leaning on correlation and not causation.
I didn't say it shouldn't be done, I meant that because it's profitability isn't assured it's not worth including it, if a company is at risk of liquidation.
And if it is included, the impact should go beyond representation and not simply remain performative. Hence the support to charitable causes alongside a games release.
Profitability is never assured. And if you take the attitude that if "profitability isn't assured it's not worth including it", you're probably going to make the most boring, empty, uninspired, generic and forgettable games ever. And that is a far bigger reason to not buy a game than some whining about "DEI".
Any fool can play it safe and work out who the lowest common denominator is, but if you're just going to do that, what's the point? You can say it's "only if a company is at risk of liquidation", but honestly, that's always a risk, isn't it? Just look at the amount of studios that have been getting shut down left and right by the companies that owned them, sometimes even just for not being profitable enough, even when they were making profit.
I also dislike this idea that representation is simply performative. That's ridiculous. Representation is, itself, doing a lot. There are many who find themselves by seeing others like them; find the words to describe what they're feeling by seeing how those people describe themselves; feel seen and understood by seeing representations of things they're going through themselves. Even shallow representation is, at least, recognition and normalising, which is important too.
Also, it's absolutely insane in this economy to suggest "they should give 10% of each sale away". How the hell would you sell that to the powers that be? No company is going to agree to make 10% less money.
And how does that track with what you're saying here? You say they should focus on what's safely profitable, but then you say if they are including "unsafe" stuff like LGBT elements, etc, then they should also be giving away a load of their money.....Which then makes it less profitable, and pushes them, conveniently, into the "shouldn't be made because it's not profitable" territory. Which is it? At best, you're essentially suggesting a "queer tax"...
Going with the original scene, I'm mostly confused if the game was meant to be taken seriously or some of it was meant to be taken seriously, but devs should be able to identify quickly if a scene is going to become controversial and escalate a culture war, and if this result is going to benefit the games marketing and sales. In the case of Dragon Age the Veilguard it pretty clear that it didn't help the game or EA's business.
I'm really not in favor of perfomative DEI that contributes to liquidating an entire franchise and company wide restructuring.
It elaborates on the sheer complexity of including LGBTQ content which is almost guaranteed to generate controversy if it isn't done in a balanced way that prioritises cohesion within the entire game. Its a very difficult sell so it better be worth the investment.
Ultimately they are selling a gaming product, not defending a doctoral thesis by left wing activists, so its a peculiar pickle ball match between profitablity and educating the audience to I think make the world a better and more inclusive place and this is mostly for the western market where it matters far less than say in the middle east where studios steer clear of disseminating "the message."
Game companies conveniently remove this content when it comes to marketing the game in the middle east, so its quite clear that the color they care most about is green ($'s) and as a business I'd expect them to.
So they operate with a double standard, creating controversy in the west, while avoiding it in the middle-east and then turn back and claim that they are championing DEI across the universe.
About the 10% per sale donated, it would be a hard sell and ubisoft instead felt it better to sell 25% into a subsidary, so my point with a last ditch attempt to sell the product with more real world impact that is actually measurable. I do understand that this likely won't be compatible with an aggressive capitalist model.
But there are systems in place for employees to donate, so that does make up for this deficit provided employees take the effort.
It only becomes a tax, if the studio raises the price of the game to accomodate its donation. To prevent this we need government regulation that leverages grants and incentives given to studios, though ideally if the studios were more inclusive and not investor driven strongholds shielded by NDA's, we as developers could do more than just have executives run the show.
we should get back to posting links about layoffs and feeling bad about the industry, if you guys want to catfight it out about culture wars do it in DMs or something, let us feel depressed in peace
we should get back to posting links about layoffs and feeling bad about the industry, if you guys want to catfight it out about culture wars do it in DMs or something
Many of the games that underperformed were made with the previous tax credit system and they should have been profitable and certainly avoided taking on any controversy that could easily be identified within game content they planned to release like the one in Dragon Age Veilguard which was also impacted by Alberta scapping its proposed tax incentive that Bioware would have benefited from.
The impact on junior talent is what is most concerning, the article does indicate optimism about a rebound in mid 2025.
When we get multiple Flags, I think it's time to stop expounding on culture-war issues, and thus derailing the thread.
Do we need to lock this? Or do you need a time-out?
I'd replied to @zetheros about the changes to vfx and video game credits by the quebec government which are contributing to layoffs in Quebec.
I was hoping this would move the thread away from DEI/culture war related discussions that focus on morality/representation. I'm not sure if that reply was flagged for removal, I believe I had posted it this morning.
In that reply I mentioned that the existing credit system did not stop video games made in quebec from underperforming, and the government did look at this without fully understanding how games are made and decided that live action film was a better credit investment when it came to geting returns per dollar.
In this regard DEI content/culture war impact was a factor in the case of Star Wars Outlaws, Unknown 9, Dragon Age Veilguard and possibly Assassins Creed Shadows not performing to expectations.
The article I'd linked made me realise how games make revenue, and how high the burn rate is, unless studios have diversified investments.
For example when dragon age vielguard was being developed across EA studios, EA wasn't making revenue sufficient enough to offset its investment, there was no positive cash flow from the dragon age license, but they do have a cash resource that contributes to EA's valuation. So that's about 9 years of no revenue related to refundable tax credits being applied to vielguards development.
With the government pulling this, a studio can no longer afford long development times, and if you have a culture war blitzkrieg across a games entire production and life cycle devaluing any efforts to promote it, it makes a developing a game with controversial elements a very risky proposition.
Hence I felt the culture war is a significant contributer to layoffs and studio restructuring, but I understand if that's not a discussion users want to contribute to at this time. For my part I won't be continuing any discussion around culture war content on this thread.
Yup, when a post has at least three people reporting it as Spam, then it’s auto-removed for moderation. I’ve now restored your post, so we can see why they flagged it… multiple members have implored you to stop talking about culture wars, but you persist. This is not helping, it is very divisive. If you cannot refrain from beating this dead horse, then we’ll have to block you from posting. Can you please stop mentioning this issue?
Yup, when a post has at least three people reporting it as Spam, then it’s auto-removed for moderation. I’ve now restored your post, so we can see why they flagged it… multiple members have implored you to stop talking about culture wars, but you persist. This is not helping, it is very divisive. If you cannot refrain from beating this dead horse, then we’ll have to block you from posting. Can you please stop mentioning this issue?
Noted,
Not sure why that reply got flagged thrice, I had hoped it would move the conversation back on track and keep things in context.
Also for anyone who flagged that reply and others do feel free to reach out by dms if you want to continue discussion outside the thread.
I honestly don't think these flags are warranted. Sure, @NikhilR has a fixation on these topics, and assumptions being made on what a studio head or a company CEO should care about are weak at best and borderline nonsense ; but there is absolutely something to be said about activists pushing political topics through all available channels, even in our industry. At least it leads to some funny moments, like when the (american) person doing PR video chats with game devs for Epic has "pRoNoUnS" in her name card ... yet none of the (european) developpers being interviewed do. Or companies Alphabet-baiting every time that can, even though this trend is clearly over now and racist and sexist DEI hiring practices are getting cancelled everywhere. Did this weird state of affairs during the last 5 to 10 years cause layoffs and studio closures ? Probably not, but it is indeed a sign of an unhealthy industry lacking direction and focus.
Culture war stuff was definitely more fun back when it was just neckbeards and Madden fans fighting fake gamergirls running Kickstarter grifts though
Also, IMHO some vitriol in this thread comes in response to Nik - so even if Nik was a troll (who knows !), posts containing borderline insults could/should be flagged just as much ...
- - - - -
Anyhow ! This thread is definitely derailling, no doubt about it. I quite agree with this take from @poopipe :
"There is an end in sight. The industry will shrink back to a point where it can sustain itself (roughly the same size it was before Fortnite started printing infinite money) and everything will stabilise."
I hope that one of the big actors (manufacturer+publisher) would pull a 4Dchess move by releasing an intentionally underpowered but sleek piece of hardware in the 250USD ballpark (like a Steam Deck lite, roughly equivalent to the original Switch spec-wise) and granting a seal of approval to new (and old) PC games running well on it. This could push gamedevs to go back to barebones visuals (PS2-era), slashing developpment costs tenfold and bringing back a necessary focus on gameplay and clever visuals.
"IMHO some vitriol in this thread comes in response to Nik - so even if Nik was a troll (who knows !), posts containing borderline insults could/should be flagged just as much"
But, weren't a string of previous disparate threads he derailed with his views of industry diversity....proof enough?
Otherwise I think there's actual enjoyment winding people up, quite evident
his 'trademark' text walls certainly advertise that's the sole intent also isn't vitriol - borderline insults merit being flagged as abuse hence potential ban?
Anyway I'm out, not willing to waste further heartbeats considering this.
On Topic - Result of recent layoffs dear friends of mine are currently struggling, rising cost of just basic living as elsewhere globally for many people are practically skyrocketing daily it would seem. Try on a regular basis send what I can financially although my temporary DVA allowance doesn't allow for much once converted, nonetheless they're entirely grateful all the same just wish I could send more, feeling absolutely rubbish atm.
Yeah, I certainly agree about the borderline spammy nature of these posts. That said, just going through one of them made me discover how far some studios are down the rabbit hole of "current thing" activism as seen in the Veilguard scene. The fact that a studio head or game director didn't have the will to get rid of it (perhaps by fear of being called a "-ist" or a "-phobe" ?) indirectly shows how toxic things can get in creative places. I have no idea if the rest of the game is good, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that scenes like this can lead to people straight up not buying the game.
The walk cycle of the character is awful too (even though it probably relies on some layered animation/rigging tech negatively affecting a solid base animation) ; and even though the highres sculpts and the final ingame models for these characters probably looked good in art meetings screenshots, the end product just doesn't work. The whole thing looks like a parody despite all the skill that went into it.
Now looping back to the topic of studios closures, shrinkages and layoffs : I am 100% convinced that the absurd visual fidelity (in terms of amount of detail) that many studios are chasing is partly to blame. Even a run-of-the-mill attempt at emulating the Fortnite look takes an absurd amount of time and ressources per character, with something as simple as a character skin that used to take a few days in the 2000s/2010s now taking north of a month of studio man-hours and even requiring some outsourcing. This is simply not sustainable.
I think DEI is a US-centric issue, because this country has deep and ingrained problems centered on racism, sexism, ageism, etc. DEI is an attempt to fix these issues, but in turn ends up being very divisive.
Polycount always has been, and should probably be mostly about the making of content for games. DEI has a place in this process, but like politics and religion it is a topic rife with division, and always seems to produce animosity. Which then drowns out the process of actually making content.
I love it when people discuss issues around making art for games. But I don't like it when it devolves into attacks on each other. So maybe the solution then is to simply ignore and not comment when you feel triggered, and instead focus on making art, and helping others improve their art.
Now looping back to the topic of studios closures, shrinkages and layoffs : I am 100% convinced that the absurd visual fidelity (in terms of amount of detail) that many studios are chasing is partly to blame. Even a run-of-the-mill attempt at emulating the Fortnite look takes an absurd amount of time and ressources per character, with something as simple as a character skin that used to take a few days in the 2000s/2010s now taking north of a month of studio man-hours and even requiring some outsourcing. This is simply not sustainable.
i am almost certain this is sorta what bungie is trying and its firing back hard right now.
the artstyle looks very "producable", daring in a sense. but more in a "an indie can pull this off" sense.
Not sure this will work out for them, i hope its not another concord.
As much as I would not like to see another bomb happening under sonys umbrella and all the implications coming from that for other projects. I am not sure they are able to find their audience, no idea if this can appeal to their core demographic.
I think DEI is a US-centric issue, because this country has deep and ingrained problems centered on racism, sexism, ageism, etc. DEI is an attempt to fix these issues, but in turn ends up being very divisive.
Right on. It is a US-centric issue at heart but due to the particular status of the US and the shared language and (at least partially) culture it tends to bleed into other societies and get adapted to the local circumstances, annoyingly so.
Honestly, it's been a really weird decade. Apparently left is right, down is up and politics should be all over the workplace. I'm rather happy to not having spent most of that time inside someone else's office. If there were a reset button somewhere that could take me back to 2008 or thereabouts, I'd spam it hard. Would take care of grey hair in more than one way.
Oh right @Neox, I just had a look at the now released trailer and indeed this looks a lot like an intentionally simple "no bake" artstyle. I personally think it looks excellent but of course this alone doesn't guarantee success. It definitely cuts costs down though.
Gameplay doesn't seem anything out of the ordinary though so I guess it will all come down to how gunplay and combat feels. If anything they might be able to get back the sympathy of gamers during beta and at release if they manage to make it run flawlessly without the need for upscaling and frame generation even on non-"pro" machines, as poor performance in recent games is an issue.
So indeed, this is very much on topic as it is yet another project that will be discussed ad nauseum long before launch. A september release seems a bit far, but I suppose they'll have betas soon ...
as someone with 1.7k hours in destiny 2, I think making marathon isn't a good idea. An extraction shooter has overlap with D2's audience, but you won't be able to carry everyone over. D2 is all about raids, clans, dark sectors, and bringing your hard earned PvE gear into the crucible, or vice versa. It's a MMO looter shooter, not Fortnite. A good comparison would actually be the reception of Path of Exile 2. They want to make it slower and more soulslike, but a large portion of their audience do not like that kind of combat, hence the 'mixed' rating on Steam as of now.
Less character customization and having to choose heroes instead of building one yourself is also not great to see. Not to mention the only thing D2 vets, the ones who haven't been burned by excessive FOMO and monetization, will come back for, is a Destiny 3.
Brave art direction though, it kind of works, will have to see more. The cinematics were very good. It's a tricky and delicate artstyle to get right though imo; it's very reliant on presentation (storytelling, dialogue, mood), and if that's lacking, it can suffer a lot; from futuristic, cyberdistopic balenciaga to clownfest
I also really like the art direction for Marathon. The cinematic trailer is really great, feels fresh and I love the use of color. I'm not sure it translates as well in the gameplay trailer, but still time for polish on that front.
Hard to say if the game will be successful until we know if the characters have the genitals I expect / are sexy enough / are white enough / no rainbow cosmetics though. (sarcasm)
And yes the game is already under heavy scrutiny by the usual suspects. Something game studios need to think about when releasing content into the wild untamed western world of Social Media.
I like the art style in the trailer-- the kind of game, gameplay wise, that I couldn't care less about, but at least it's trying something visually "new".
And of course Nikhil goes right back to his schtick.
I like the art style in the trailer-- the kind of game, gameplay wise, that I couldn't care less about, but at least it's trying something visually "new".
And of course Nikhil goes right back to his schtick.
No I didn't, I was just adding to the discussion about the design and aesthetic.
I do hope they'll allow modding so I can modify the colors into pastel since they don't seem to be going for a darker grittier aesthetic like the 1st trailer.
See, I decided to shut the fuck up since it wascomplained about as, rightly, off-topic. But now we're doing random posts from people who are tagging DEI and fucking Asmongold and complaining that the characters are androgynous? What, you had the whole internet at your fingertips but you could only find commentary from a guy that's posting shit like this?
Isn't this supposed to be a thread about layoffs? As in, the shit that's happening right now, and not some hypothetical future layoffs from a game that hasn't even come out yet because some chuds think it looks too woke?
Looks less like a contribution to the discussion, and more just trying to sneak your usual shit in through the backdoor. I'm going to try to go back to shutting the fuck up on this topic unless I find something about the actual industry layoffs to say; you should do the same, NikhilR.
NikhilR said: No I didn't, I was just adding to the discussion about the design and aesthetic.
ha, exactly what a DEI denouncer would say. I bet there's an asmongold dakimakura next to your elon musk funkopops in your closet. Admit it!
I didn't tag asmongold. The poster on linkedin mentions him and i havent watched his video.
there are many comments on that post that provide interesting perspectives that have nothing to do with culture war stuff.
Generally with any art style which is open to interpretation you take a risk which is exactly what happened with the jaguar advertisement.
Like it captures the attention of the audience but this may not translate into a product that resonates with the same audience.
The general vibe I'm seeing is that many are disappointed that this is an extraction shooter and were hoping given the first trailer and cinematic shorts that this would be a single player/co op shooter with deep psychological storyline.
Hence the comparison to concord since that game did pretty much the same bait and switch.
Certainly for players that are more focused on the design and aesthetic, that alone would be reason enough to purchase the game.
I hadn't seen the other post he had made, I don't think it's necessary to correlate his thoughts on Marathon with the SBI situation.
It would be nice for the devs to do more content that goes into their design methodology and process.
The main issue still seems to be the divide between the cinematic shorts and the actual game being an extraction shooter.
I doubt the design will resonate with everyone but that's a risk bungie seems willing to take.
Back on topic, this is a great article on MachineGames, the creators of the Indiana Jones game and how they have endured despite the challenges in the industry today.
Anyone bitching about character designs being DEI, androgynous, and tagging Asmongold is definitely a fuckin' chud. Don't need to be Holmes to make that deduction.
Anyone bitching about character designs being DEI, androgynous, and tagging Asmongold is definitely a fuckin' chud. Don't need to be Holmes to make that deduction.
I don't know if he's exculsively into far right ideologies, atleast that post seems to have been made to make a case for self publishing since he believes that larger publishers are more susceptible to include controversial content in their products for money and compliance.
And I do agree that the whole situation with SBI should not have escalated, and going forward game studios will have to be more aware of social media's impact on their marketing. I really wish it wasn't like this and studios could still rely on moderated forums that they control where players buying games can interact in a curated space, but social media has ended that so every game is going to be subject to scrutiny in a very wild and unfiltered environment.
Regardless, it's not the point, is it? If you want to keep talking about it make a thread of your own. One rebuking should've been enough. If they get laid off, then you can come back and crow about it here, but right now this thread is for layoffs and they haven't been laid off. Even I can STFU when it's reasonable.
Regardless, it's not the point, is it? If you want to keep talking about it make a thread of your own. One rebuking should've been enough. If they get laid off, then you can come back and crow about it here, but right now this thread is for layoffs and they haven't been laid off. Even I can STFU when it's reasonable.
9:20 no kidding, D2 was my go-to PvP game for years. I was in the top 0.4% of crucible control players. Aztecross, IFrostbolt, TrueVanguard, everyone said PvP was underserved. They left a golden opportunity to rot. Not to mention hackers ran unchecked for like 2018-2020.
I hope that one of the big actors (manufacturer+publisher) would pull a 4Dchess move by releasing an intentionally underpowered but sleek piece of hardware in the 250USD ballpark (like a Steam Deck lite, roughly equivalent to the original Switch spec-wise) and granting a seal of approval to new (and old) PC games running well on it. This could push gamedevs to go back to barebones visuals (PS2-era), slashing developpment costs tenfold and bringing back a necessary focus on gameplay and clever visuals.
There's a lot of sense to the idea of slashing development costs - reducing risk to the studio when a project fails being the main benefit from a business perspective.
however .. Shareholders are interested in growth, not profitability. Cutting costs by 90% isn't useful if it means that your total revenue falls - even if you 10x your return on investment.
I do think some version of this could work though.. Going from a 30m a year project with 300 people to several 3m a year projects with 30 people each and shorter dev cycles (1 vs 3 year for example) seems like it could work and would actually insulate your company against a couple of total failures in a given year.
Games would be smaller and thus command a lower price but you're talking about 50% less per unit so to meet the same ROI you'd only need to sell 20% as many copies
Obviously, staffing 10 projects at once is going to be something of an issue (enough to kill the idea dead I think) ..
Replies
My dude, 'DEI in a marketable product' is an incentive to start including groups of people who have previously been excluded from representation. The further you go back in time, the more difficult it would be to get actors or characters in shows, movies, etc, that were not straight or white. There is nothing wrong with society moving away from prejudice. Saying a product which has representation of other people isn't profitable would be heavily leaning on correlation and not causation.
And if it is included, the impact should go beyond representation and not simply remain performative.
Hence the support to charitable causes alongside a games release.
Consider this widely panned scene from Dragon Age Veilguard contrasted with a much better variant.
The original scene,
The rewrite,
Going with the original scene, I'm mostly confused if the game was meant to be taken seriously or some of it was meant to be taken seriously, but devs should be able to identify quickly if a scene is going to become controversial and escalate a culture war, and if this result is going to benefit the games marketing and sales.
In the case of Dragon Age the Veilguard it pretty clear that it didn't help the game or EA's business.
I'm really not in favor of perfomative DEI that contributes to liquidating an entire franchise and company wide restructuring.
This is a video I do recommend watching
It elaborates on the sheer complexity of including LGBTQ content which is almost guaranteed to generate controversy if it isn't done in a balanced way that prioritises cohesion within the entire game. Its a very difficult sell so it better be worth the investment.
Ultimately they are selling a gaming product, not defending a doctoral thesis by left wing activists, so its a peculiar pickle ball match between profitablity and educating the audience to I think make the world a better and more inclusive place and this is mostly for the western market where it matters far less than say in the middle east where studios steer clear of disseminating "the message."
Game companies conveniently remove this content when it comes to marketing the game in the middle east, so its quite clear that the color they care most about is green ($'s) and as a business I'd expect them to.
So they operate with a double standard, creating controversy in the west, while avoiding it in the middle-east and then turn back and claim that they are championing DEI across the universe.
About the 10% per sale donated, it would be a hard sell and ubisoft instead felt it better to sell 25% into a subsidary, so my point with a last ditch attempt to sell the product with more real world impact that is actually measurable.
I do understand that this likely won't be compatible with an aggressive capitalist model.
But there are systems in place for employees to donate, so that does make up for this deficit provided employees take the effort.
It only becomes a tax, if the studio raises the price of the game to accomodate its donation.
To prevent this we need government regulation that leverages grants and incentives given to studios, though ideally if the studios were more inclusive and not investor driven strongholds shielded by NDA's, we as developers could do more than just have executives run the show.
This is a good article on the situation in quebec,
https://thelogic.co/news/the-big-read/quebec-montreal-game-industry-tax-credits/
Many of the games that underperformed were made with the previous tax credit system and they should have been profitable and certainly avoided taking on any controversy that could easily be identified within game content they planned to release like the one in Dragon Age Veilguard which was also impacted by Alberta scapping its proposed tax incentive that Bioware would have benefited from.
The impact on junior talent is what is most concerning, the article does indicate optimism about a rebound in mid 2025.
Do we need to lock this? Or do you need a time-out?
I was hoping this would move the thread away from DEI/culture war related discussions that focus on morality/representation.
I'm not sure if that reply was flagged for removal, I believe I had posted it this morning.
In that reply I mentioned that the existing credit system did not stop video games made in quebec from underperforming, and the government did look at this without fully understanding how games are made and decided that live action film was a better credit investment when it came to geting returns per dollar.
In this regard DEI content/culture war impact was a factor in the case of Star Wars Outlaws, Unknown 9, Dragon Age Veilguard and possibly Assassins Creed Shadows not performing to expectations.
The article I'd linked made me realise how games make revenue, and how high the burn rate is, unless studios have diversified investments.
For example when dragon age vielguard was being developed across EA studios, EA wasn't making revenue sufficient enough to offset its investment, there was no positive cash flow from the dragon age license, but they do have a cash resource that contributes to EA's valuation.
So that's about 9 years of no revenue related to refundable tax credits being applied to vielguards development.
With the government pulling this, a studio can no longer afford long development times, and if you have a culture war blitzkrieg across a games entire production and life cycle devaluing any efforts to promote it, it makes a developing a game with controversial elements a very risky proposition.
Hence I felt the culture war is a significant contributer to layoffs and studio restructuring, but I understand if that's not a discussion users want to contribute to at this time.
For my part I won't be continuing any discussion around culture war content on this thread.
Not sure why that reply got flagged thrice, I had hoped it would move the conversation back on track and keep things in context.
Also for anyone who flagged that reply and others do feel free to reach out by dms if you want to continue discussion outside the thread.
Culture war stuff was definitely more fun back when it was just neckbeards and Madden fans fighting fake gamergirls running Kickstarter grifts though
- - - - -
Anyhow ! This thread is definitely derailling, no doubt about it. I quite agree with this take from @poopipe :
"There is an end in sight. The industry will shrink back to a point where it can sustain itself (roughly the same size it was before Fortnite started printing infinite money) and everything will stabilise."
I hope that one of the big actors (manufacturer+publisher) would pull a 4Dchess move by releasing an intentionally underpowered but sleek piece of hardware in the 250USD ballpark (like a Steam Deck lite, roughly equivalent to the original Switch spec-wise) and granting a seal of approval to new (and old) PC games running well on it. This could push gamedevs to go back to barebones visuals (PS2-era), slashing developpment costs tenfold and bringing back a necessary focus on gameplay and clever visuals.
But, weren't a string of previous disparate threads he derailed with his views of industry diversity....proof enough?
The walk cycle of the character is awful too (even though it probably relies on some layered animation/rigging tech negatively affecting a solid base animation) ; and even though the highres sculpts and the final ingame models for these characters probably looked good in art meetings screenshots, the end product just doesn't work. The whole thing looks like a parody despite all the skill that went into it.
Now looping back to the topic of studios closures, shrinkages and layoffs : I am 100% convinced that the absurd visual fidelity (in terms of amount of detail) that many studios are chasing is partly to blame. Even a run-of-the-mill attempt at emulating the Fortnite look takes an absurd amount of time and ressources per character, with something as simple as a character skin that used to take a few days in the 2000s/2010s now taking north of a month of studio man-hours and even requiring some outsourcing. This is simply not sustainable.
Polycount always has been, and should probably be mostly about the making of content for games. DEI has a place in this process, but like politics and religion it is a topic rife with division, and always seems to produce animosity. Which then drowns out the process of actually making content.
I love it when people discuss issues around making art for games. But I don't like it when it devolves into attacks on each other. So maybe the solution then is to simply ignore and not comment when you feel triggered, and instead focus on making art, and helping others improve their art.
Gameplay doesn't seem anything out of the ordinary though so I guess it will all come down to how gunplay and combat feels. If anything they might be able to get back the sympathy of gamers during beta and at release if they manage to make it run flawlessly without the need for upscaling and frame generation even on non-"pro" machines, as poor performance in recent games is an issue.
So indeed, this is very much on topic as it is yet another project that will be discussed ad nauseum long before launch. A september release seems a bit far, but I suppose they'll have betas soon ...
Less character customization and having to choose heroes instead of building one yourself is also not great to see.
Not to mention the only thing D2 vets, the ones who haven't been burned by excessive FOMO and monetization, will come back for, is a Destiny 3.
Brave art direction though, it kind of works, will have to see more. The cinematics were very good. It's a tricky and delicate artstyle to get right though imo; it's very reliant on presentation (storytelling, dialogue, mood), and if that's lacking, it can suffer a lot; from futuristic, cyberdistopic balenciaga to clownfest
Hard to say if the game will be successful until we know if the characters have the genitals I expect / are sexy enough / are white enough / no rainbow cosmetics though. (sarcasm)
Recommend reading through the comments on the thread
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/skelius_marathon-asmongold-games-activity-7318535682493181955-gAgg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAbuHEgBNbAxoAL8qbdVDiplG1mM8eErPFU
I wasn't aware that this game was a remake and Alberto Mielgo was involved in the development.
I like it, though I would prefer pastels since that I feel that works better with this aesthetic (like nintendo's offerings)
Also it does seem that what they teased a year ago was quite different
And yes the game is already under heavy scrutiny by the usual suspects. Something game studios need to think about when releasing content into the wild untamed western world of Social Media.
And of course Nikhil goes right back to his schtick.
I do hope they'll allow modding so I can modify the colors into pastel since they don't seem to be going for a darker grittier aesthetic like the 1st trailer.
Isn't this supposed to be a thread about layoffs? As in, the shit that's happening right now, and not some hypothetical future layoffs from a game that hasn't even come out yet because some chuds think it looks too woke?
Looks less like a contribution to the discussion, and more just trying to sneak your usual shit in through the backdoor. I'm going to try to go back to shutting the fuck up on this topic unless I find something about the actual industry layoffs to say; you should do the same, NikhilR.
The poster on linkedin mentions him and i havent watched his video.
there are many comments on that post that provide interesting perspectives that have nothing to do with culture war stuff.
Generally with any art style which is open to interpretation you take a risk which is exactly what happened with the jaguar advertisement.
Like it captures the attention of the audience but this may not translate into a product that resonates with the same audience.
The general vibe I'm seeing is that many are disappointed that this is an extraction shooter and were hoping given the first trailer and cinematic shorts that this would be a single player/co op shooter with deep psychological storyline.
Hence the comparison to concord since that game did pretty much the same bait and switch.
Certainly for players that are more focused on the design and aesthetic, that alone would be reason enough to purchase the game.
I'll buy it if it is modable.
The character designs remind me of these action figures
https://www.goodsmile.info/en/product/8062/chitocerium+LXXVIII+platinum.html
But I'd prefer them in pastel colors.
It would be nice for the devs to do more content that goes into their design methodology and process.
The main issue still seems to be the divide between the cinematic shorts and the actual game being an extraction shooter.
I doubt the design will resonate with everyone but that's a risk bungie seems willing to take.
Back on topic, this is a great article on MachineGames, the creators of the Indiana Jones game and how they have endured despite the challenges in the industry today.
https://www.eurogamer.net/as-layoffs-continue-to-scar-the-video-game-industry-indiana-jones-and-the-great-circle-proves-the-value-of-keeping-dev-teams-together-for-decades
I found this point to be very relevant and I'm not sure if Marathon is following this to the letter,
"Ancient institutional knowledge is what enables the greatest games ever made."
The article even mentions obsidian in a positive light despite the situation around Avowed as that studio develops the outer worlds sequel
And I do agree that the whole situation with SBI should not have escalated, and going forward game studios will have to be more aware of social media's impact on their marketing.
I really wish it wasn't like this and studios could still rely on moderated forums that they control where players buying games can interact in a curated space, but social media has ended that so every game is going to be subject to scrutiny in a very wild and unfiltered environment.
https://www.eurogamer.net/as-layoffs-continue-to-scar-the-video-game-industry-indiana-jones-and-the-great-circle-proves-the-value-of-keeping-dev-teams-together-for-decades
It's on topic and would be good to discuss this studio model.
There's a lot of sense to the idea of slashing development costs - reducing risk to the studio when a project fails being the main benefit from a business perspective.
however ..
Shareholders are interested in growth, not profitability. Cutting costs by 90% isn't useful if it means that your total revenue falls - even if you 10x your return on investment.
I do think some version of this could work though..
Going from a 30m a year project with 300 people to several 3m a year projects with 30 people each and shorter dev cycles (1 vs 3 year for example) seems like it could work and would actually insulate your company against a couple of total failures in a given year.
Games would be smaller and thus command a lower price but you're talking about 50% less per unit so to meet the same ROI you'd only need to sell 20% as many copies
Obviously, staffing 10 projects at once is going to be something of an issue (enough to kill the idea dead I think) ..