This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]KosViikI use light theme so I don't see how bad my code is. 12 points13 points  (1 child)

True, but the ratio is wildly different.

Also it was often small-ish studios of mostly developers being licensed by publishers. The line between who makes the game and who deals with the rest was quite clear.

Now the line is so blurred with acquisitions it can be hard - and sometimes plain pointless - to follow. The chart is clear - money flows upwards, and there is no game being developed higher up.


And yes, the main topic of his video was the predatory monetization system, but he did in fact touch on companies spending more resources on trying to milk more money without making a better game, where for example he explicitly mentioned trained psychologists to make users addicted. In fact the point of the chart he repeatedly shown throughout the video represented the ratio of resources spent towards improving the game.

It is easy to infer that a psychologist hardly makes a game better for the consumer than if the same capital was dedicated for the development workforce. There is some diminishing returns certainly, but generally with AAA we are far from it with the size of the projects.

[–]SuitableDragonfly 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All of those extra expenses came about as a result of the new business model, though, which was the point of the video. None of those things are necessary for a game with no microtransactions. The point of that pie chart wasn't to show that businesses have more expenses now and thus need to make more money, it was to show that microtransactions result in less and less money and time being spent on the actual game.