From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


For a long time, publishers chased after live-service games because
it was seen as a road to instant and constant money. And why not; you
had examples like "Fortnite" or "GTA Online" which were raking in more
cash than Croesus would know what to do with. 'Obviously',
live-service was the magic ingredient that, when added to a game,
would elevate you to instant success and profit beyond imagining. Or
so publishers thought, as they started to stuff live-service mechanics
into every game they could get their hands on.


But, as it turns out, live service ISN'T magic and a lot of these
games failed. Some of them failed spectacularly; others scraped by. A
lot of the games did okay, but that was often despite their live
service additions. Often --even when they were profitable-- the live
service mechanics were a source of aggravation for the consumer and
may have driven many players away (either from the game itself, or
from any sequels), making the publishers ever more dependent on the
small minority who enjoyed the mechanics. And even when the game was successful, their very success locked out other games from
succeeding... because the market can only support so many live-service
games.


There are, after all, only so many gamers and so many hours in the
day in which to play. With an old school game, a customer might
dedicate only 20-80 hours on a game before looking for their next fix;
live service games demands months and months of play before that same
customer even considers moving on to the next game. Publishers who
might once have had four or five hit games -and the profits that came
with each- were now increasingly reliant on single games to keep them
afloat. And if their next game couldn't match the success of the
previous one, things could go sour for the company real quick. There
was no back-up to keep them afloat anymore.


None of this is news; people have been writing and warning about
this for years. But the reality seems to finally be sinking in for
some publishers, who are scaling back their live-service dreams.
Capcom, for instance, moved back from making their next "Resident
Evil" game an open-world live-service game originally planned and
shifted it back to the single-play mechanics that made the franchise
so popular in the first place. Microsoft recently cut back on a lot of
planned live-service games (most notably canceling an entire MMO that
was already in production at its Zenimax/Bethesda studios). Other
publishers are doing similar.*


[ There was also a quote from a developer -alas, I can't
find the reference so forgive me the lack of specifics-
that basically said that any new live service game is
essentially competing against the same three or four big-
name live-service games ("Fortnite" was one, "Roblox" another;
I forget the other games mentioned)that have dominated the
market for nearly a decade, and unless you think you can
beat those your new live service game is probably going to
end up being a flash-in-the pan, and not reach the levels
of success necessary that you can base the whole company's
survival around it.]


So there is, slowly, some awareness amongst the publishers that
live-service isn't the cure-all to the financial struggles many
companies are facing. Certainly, the success of strong single-player experiences ("Baldur's Gate 3" being the most prominent) are good counter-examples too. More important, I think, is just limiting the
scope of many of these games; every release doesn't have to be a
half-billion dollar expenditure. Smaller titles can sell just as well,
and you can crank out more of them to boot. Sure, some will flop...
but as we've seen, there's no promise that your next $400 million
online shooter will succeed either (just ask Sony about "Concord"...
if you dare).


I'm not against live service games; they aren't my favorite thing
but I think they add a certain spice to the hobby. But the way they've DOMINATED the market over the past five years has made for a much
worse experience over all. If the big-name (and small-name publishers
too) back away from this obsession with making EVERY game a live
service behemoth, I think the overall effect will be good not only for
the play experience, but the industry as well.










* more examples here https://www.gamesindustry.biz/has-the-live-service-dream-crashed-back-down-to-earth


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

For a long time, publishers chased after live-service games because
it was seen as a road to instant and constant money. And why not; you
had examples like "Fortnite" or "GTA Online" which were raking in more
cash than Croesus would know what to do with. 'Obviously',
live-service was the magic ingredient that, when added to a game,
would elevate you to instant success and profit beyond imagining. Or
so publishers thought, as they started to stuff live-service mechanics
into every game they could get their hands on.

But, as it turns out, live service ISN'T magic and a lot of these
games failed. Some of them failed spectacularly; others scraped by. A
lot of the games did okay, but that was often despite their live
service additions. Often --even when they were profitable-- the live
service mechanics were a source of aggravation for the consumer and
may have driven many players away (either from the game itself, or
from any sequels), making the publishers ever more dependent on the
small minority who enjoyed the mechanics. And even when the game was successful, their very success locked out other games from
succeeding... because the market can only support so many live-service
games.

There are, after all, only so many gamers and so many hours in the
day in which to play. With an old school game, a customer might
dedicate only 20-80 hours on a game before looking for their next fix;
live service games demands months and months of play before that same customer even considers moving on to the next game. Publishers who
might once have had four or five hit games -and the profits that came
with each- were now increasingly reliant on single games to keep them
afloat. And if their next game couldn't match the success of the
previous one, things could go sour for the company real quick. There
was no back-up to keep them afloat anymore.

None of this is news; people have been writing and warning about
this for years. But the reality seems to finally be sinking in for
some publishers, who are scaling back their live-service dreams.
Capcom, for instance, moved back from making their next "Resident
Evil" game an open-world live-service game originally planned and
shifted it back to the single-play mechanics that made the franchise
so popular in the first place. Microsoft recently cut back on a lot of planned live-service games (most notably canceling an entire MMO that
was already in production at its Zenimax/Bethesda studios). Other
publishers are doing similar.*

[ There was also a quote from a developer -alas, I can't
find the reference so forgive me the lack of specifics-
that basically said that any new live service game is
essentially competing against the same three or four big-
name live-service games ("Fortnite" was one, "Roblox" another;
I forget the other games mentioned)that have dominated the
market for nearly a decade, and unless you think you can
beat those your new live service game is probably going to
end up being a flash-in-the pan, and not reach the levels
of success necessary that you can base the whole company's
survival around it.]

So there is, slowly, some awareness amongst the publishers that live-service isn't the cure-all to the financial struggles many
companies are facing. Certainly, the success of strong single-player experiences ("Baldur's Gate 3" being the most prominent) are good counter-examples too. More important, I think, is just limiting the
scope of many of these games; every release doesn't have to be a
half-billion dollar expenditure. Smaller titles can sell just as well,
and you can crank out more of them to boot. Sure, some will flop...
but as we've seen, there's no promise that your next $400 million
online shooter will succeed either (just ask Sony about "Concord"...
if you dare).

As a part-time game developer myself, I find that the number one route
to failure is telling one person or more your idea for the game. Even developers heading teams must keep the team in the dark as to the big
picture they are working on.
--
Hasbro
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 12:32:17 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

So there is, slowly, some awareness amongst the publishers that
live-service isn't the cure-all to the financial struggles many
companies are facing.

Then again, there's always an exception, and whaddaya know, Ubisoft
insists on being "it". Back away from live-service mechanics? No way!
After all, says Ubisoft in their most recent financial report,
"monetization within premium games makes the player experience more
fun!"*

And you know, they aren't actually lying. The monetizations DO make
their games more fun... but only because Ubisoft drains the enjoyment
out of their games with mechanics that all but demand you choose
betwein either grinding through tedious and repetitive gameplay, or
paying up to get the goodies. "Paying us for mouthwash makes this
shit-sandwich taste less disgusting!" is a true statement too** but it
doesn't make me want to eat the sandwich or pay you for the 'relief',
Ubisoft.

[Other fun stuff from the financial report: They also still
consider blockchain /Web3 as a part of their high-growth
long-term investment games package. Also, for what it's
worth, I saw no mention of the recent court case against
them and their executives for the harrasment and abuse of
employees. Admittedly, the case was against the executives
directly and not the corporation, but you'd still think it
might merit a paragraph in potential risks chapter (there's
a bit about the toxicity of players, but nothing about the
Ubisoft C-levels]


The whole thing is almost worth (yet another) "Oh Ubisoft" post* ;-)








--------
* Sorry, it's a PDF, but you can find the quote on page 10 https://staticctf.ubisoft.com/8aefmxkxpxwl/2jOPqNEzotGX0odqDUt5jr/57f0ba952c3be14b38ba97a02b17c119/Ent_AGM_2025.07.10_URD_GB_Interactif_def.pdf

** well, I assume it's true, I've never tried that particular
combination ;-)

* but I'll spare you the bother and hide it in this followup to a
thread you probably won't read. ;-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 12:32:17 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

So there is, slowly, some awareness amongst the publishers that
live-service isn't the cure-all to the financial struggles many
companies are facing.

Then again, there's always an exception, and whaddaya know, Ubisoft
insists on being "it". Back away from live-service mechanics? No way!
After all, says Ubisoft in their most recent financial report,
"monetization within premium games makes the player experience more
fun!"*

And you know, they aren't actually lying. The monetizations DO make
their games more fun... but only because Ubisoft drains the enjoyment
out of their games with mechanics that all but demand you choose
betwein either grinding through tedious and repetitive gameplay, or
paying up to get the goodies. "Paying us for mouthwash makes this shit-sandwich taste less disgusting!" is a true statement too**

You mad, bro?
--
Hasbro
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 19/07/2025 17:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I'm not against live service games; they aren't my favorite thing
but I think they add a certain spice to the hobby. But the way they've DOMINATED the market over the past five years has made for a much
worse experience over all. If the big-name (and small-name publishers
too) back away from this obsession with making EVERY game a live
service behemoth, I think the overall effect will be good not only for
the play experience, but the industry as well.

I'm not against the idea of them but instead the reality of them. They
employ a host of tactics (some of which I think are basically unethical)
that I disagree with to get you to open your wallet and none of those
are designed to make a better game experience beyond we'll give you a
bad game experience unless you pay.

Another problem I do see is that even if companies do start backing away
from them do they have the people that can develop decent single player
games any more. I have a horribly feeling that the answer to that is
going to be no.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 09:51:05 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 19/07/2025 17:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I'm not against live service games; they aren't my favorite thing
but I think they add a certain spice to the hobby. But the way they've
DOMINATED the market over the past five years has made for a much
worse experience over all. If the big-name (and small-name publishers
too) back away from this obsession with making EVERY game a live
service behemoth, I think the overall effect will be good not only for
the play experience, but the industry as well.

I'm not against the idea of them but instead the reality of them. They >employ a host of tactics (some of which I think are basically unethical) >that I disagree with to get you to open your wallet and none of those
are designed to make a better game experience beyond we'll give you a
bad game experience unless you pay.

Another problem I do see is that even if companies do start backing away >from them do they have the people that can develop decent single player >games any more. I have a horribly feeling that the answer to that is
going to be no.

I read an article a month or two back (long ago that I can't find it
anymore; sorry, no URL footnote this time) that touched upon this
issue. It pointed out that one result of big publisher's tendency to
fire its development teams so quickly after release is that the
developers no longer were building up necessary skills over long
periods of experience.

Instead, they were either dropping out of game development after one
or two products, or jumped in and out of game development (either
doing something other than programming in between, or doing app
development, which required an entirely different set of skills), or
their jobs on each game were so different that there was no overlap
that allowed them to hone their skills.

The TL;DR was that a lot of these companies didn't have the
programmers and artists who had years and years of game development
skill which let them know what made for a good game. It was as if
every game was their 'first game', and that was one of the reasons for
the diminishment of quality in game design. And it was only going to
get worse as attrition takes out the older programmers what had
learned their necessary lessons before corporations started treating
developers as fungible units.

So I don't think we'll see a dearth of programmers who can develop
decent SINGLE PLAYER games... just a lack of programmers who can
develop decent GAMES of any sort.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 20/07/2025 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The TL;DR was that a lot of these companies didn't have the
programmers and artists who had years and years of game development
skill which let them know what made for a good game. It was as if
every game was their 'first game', and that was one of the reasons for
the diminishment of quality in game design. And it was only going to
get worse as attrition takes out the older programmers what had
learned their necessary lessons before corporations started treating developers as fungible units.

I never worked on a game in my life but in my experience there is a
general lack of understanding of what software development entails and
just how important domain knowledge is. A simple example is I had a
project manager who had bought into the whole idea that it was like
building a house so once you had the design in place it was just a case
of cranking the handle and the product came out effortlessly.

It kinda explains how common it is for people who have never developed
any software in their life to say something along the lines of, it won't
take that long surely. No it won't take that long at all but I inflated
the estimate just to annoy you, why else would I do it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 7/21/2025 12:15 AM, JAB wrote:

On 20/07/2025 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The TL;DR was that a lot of these companies didn't have the
programmers and artists who had years and years of game development
skill which let them know what made for a good game. It was as if
every game was their 'first game', and that was one of the reasons for
the diminishment of quality in game design. And it was only going to
get worse as attrition takes out the older programmers what had
learned their necessary lessons before corporations started treating
developers as fungible units.

I never worked on a game in my life but in my experience there is a
general lack of understanding of what software development entails and
just how important domain knowledge is. A simple example is I had a
project manager who had bought into the whole idea that it was like
building a house so once you had the design in place it was just a case
of cranking the handle and the product came out effortlessly.

That last sentence alone proved that project manager was an idiot with
no real world experience. NOTHING as complex as building a house ever
comes together without some issues. And as a former programmer the big software packages are MUCH more complicated and troublesome than
something as simple as a house. And I'm sure the software has gotten
much more complex in the 20 years since I worked on code.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 07:43:52 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 12:15 AM, JAB wrote:

On 20/07/2025 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The TL;DR was that a lot of these companies didn't have the
programmers and artists who had years and years of game development
skill which let them know what made for a good game. It was as if
every game was their 'first game', and that was one of the reasons for
the diminishment of quality in game design. And it was only going to
get worse as attrition takes out the older programmers what had
learned their necessary lessons before corporations started treating
developers as fungible units.

I never worked on a game in my life but in my experience there is a
general lack of understanding of what software development entails and
just how important domain knowledge is. A simple example is I had a
project manager who had bought into the whole idea that it was like
building a house so once you had the design in place it was just a case
of cranking the handle and the product came out effortlessly.

That last sentence alone proved that project manager was an idiot with
no real world experience. NOTHING as complex as building a house ever
comes together without some issues. And as a former programmer the big >software packages are MUCH more complicated and troublesome than
something as simple as a house. And I'm sure the software has gotten
much more complex in the 20 years since I worked on code.

The solution, I'm sure this hypothetical project manager will suggest,
is AI. Who needs these ornery programmers when you can just get AI to
write the program for you? What could go wrong?

https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/i-destroyed-months-of-your-work-in-seconds-says-ai-coding-tool-after-deleting-a-devs-entire-database-during-a-code-freeze-i-panicked-instead-of-thinking/
(summary of article: AI tool used in database coding project
irrevocably deletes production database despite being specifically
instructed not to do that exact thing)


Oh.

Maybe two AIs, then? ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:39:46 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 09:51:05 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 19/07/2025 17:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I'm not against live service games; they aren't my favorite thing
but I think they add a certain spice to the hobby. But the way they've
DOMINATED the market over the past five years has made for a much
worse experience over all. If the big-name (and small-name publishers
too) back away from this obsession with making EVERY game a live
service behemoth, I think the overall effect will be good not only for
the play experience, but the industry as well.

I'm not against the idea of them but instead the reality of them. They >>employ a host of tactics (some of which I think are basically unethical) >>that I disagree with to get you to open your wallet and none of those
are designed to make a better game experience beyond we'll give you a
bad game experience unless you pay.

Another problem I do see is that even if companies do start backing away >>from them do they have the people that can develop decent single player >>games any more. I have a horribly feeling that the answer to that is
going to be no.

I read an article a month or two back (long ago that I can't find it
anymore; sorry, no URL footnote this time) that touched upon this
issue. It pointed out that one result of big publisher's tendency to
fire its development teams so quickly after release is that the
developers no longer were building up necessary skills over long
periods of experience.

Interestingly, another article just dropped where Nintendo reports
that its staff retention is incredibly high; the average term is 14.4
years.*

Now, I personally don't like Nintendo products but even I have to
admit they're well made. They're not always GOOD ideas (Wii U,
anyone?) but they are generally well implemented. And I don't think
those two facts --long employee retention and good implementations--
are unrelated. They aren't losing valuable skills every time a project completes; rather, they are building up on lessons learned.

Of course, this is a panacea; I think one issue Nintendo faces is that
they're in a sort of rut. They don't really come up with too many new
ideas, and tend to rely on old IPs a lot more than other companies.
They're fortunate in that these IPs are extremely popular, but it is a potential vulnerability. Fresh blood is useful for shaking things up,
and having a lot of older employees makes it hard for new ideas to
take hold.

But it's far better than the fire-20%-of-the-staff routine a lot of
other companies rely on.







* that's what these guys report anyway https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-records-reveal-that-staff-numbers-are-up-and-employees-rarely-leave



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 7/20/2025 11:39 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I read an article a month or two back (long ago that I can't find it
anymore; sorry, no URL footnote this time) that touched upon this
issue. It pointed out that one result of big publisher's tendency to
fire its development teams so quickly after release is that the
developers no longer were building up necessary skills over long
periods of experience.

This is deeply covered in the book "Press Reset" by Jason Schreier, the culture of 'expendable developers' in the industry has been the case for decades, unfortunately. It's a shell game of moving from team to team, project to project; great if you're a flexible nomad, terrible if you're looking for a consistent career.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2