For those of you losers who still want the actual video from the thread title, here it is:
What. A. Bunch. Of. Brain-Dead. Alarmist. Claptrap.
First obvious point; if you ask a bunch of investors what matters to them is pretty fucking obviously going to be maximizing return on investment.
So, the entire premise is faulty because its essentially making the case that the industry is entirely dependent upon publicly traded companies for funding. Which really isn't the case, and has only become an issue in recent years due to massive consolidation. Remember when people like me were banging on about why consolidation is terrible no matter who's doing it? This precisely is why - if your performance targets are pegged to expectations set for the corporate whole, you can over-perform and still be considered a failure.
Its also worth pointing out that for platform holders, they don't have the luxury of being able to slash investment when the cornerstone of their entire business model is software driving hardware driving ecosystem sales and services! Unless you think Sony are going to trash Playstation to get into the social media business... they need to maintain investment, just diversify their portfolio into areas considered most likely to show growth to keep investors happy.
The biggest lie I see being peddled here is (again) the universal adoption of engagement as the only meaningful metric of success. Social media *shockingly I know* is the top-dog on this because its entirely driven by engagement.
This however is not the same as basic viability: If a venture can demonstrate a likelihood of positive ROI, it will attract funding. Will it attract the same degree of funding as others that promise higher returns, probably not, but that's not a "doom" scenario. Mature industries don't spontaneously implode unless revenue dries up. Privately owned businesses generally don't fold while they are operating profitably... what in fact actually happens are IPO's and acquisitions by larger publicly traded corporations!
More to the point for us peons, a period of growth stagnation or contraction is not going to be perceived as disastrous by us in the same way that it'll be felt by hedge-fund managers who have tied up a shitton of the resources they control in such areas!
Without getting caught up in the weeds of the economics, it should be fairly obvious why the thesis offered by Alanah only impacts a very specific set of people.
Sure, if your small company wants funding, without having to convingly prove that its going to generate a profit, this is bad news. But the obvious question is did it actually warrant an investor to take the risk in the first place?
The obvious, unpleasant truth is that a lot of projects have been funded due to the recent bubble in growth/market value that never should have been given the green-light.
The "modern audience" never existed. They were too busy doom-scrolling or posting on social media. Meanwhile the tastes and interests of the established audience were not satisfied.
Asian projects never really bought into this, and have risen in popularity and prominence, There is an evident upswing in investment from China, Korea. Japan... but hey, let's jusr pretend that only games made and funded in the west matter... Suspiciously convenient.
Also, why would growth be expected when the entire Western industry has become mired in culture war bollocks and partisan politics? That couldn't possibly drive people away, particulartly those looking for escapism in fractious times.
Oh, and if sales overall are down why wouldn't the rise of things like Game Pass and upper tier PS+ be excluded from consideration? They are essentially storefronts just with payment deferred and indirected through subscriptions, so consider me entirely unsurprised by traffic slowing down on the actual retail side.
Oh, and one last thing. MS "smart" bet on 'everything's an Xbox' to attract more attention from developing markets is again, self evidently nonsensical. Firstly that campaign only works in a developed market that understands the perceived benefit of playing everywhere. Without extant options it isn't a differentiator. Secondly it upholds the long-standing misconception that all games are basically the same, equally suitable for play under any conditions or circumstances by the exact same audience. Thirdly, and most importantly their entire strategy requires content mills churning out stuff to comtinually refresh their service offer... more than any other business model it demands continuous investment.
I would dearly love to debate Alanah -or Mat Piscatella for that matter- on these topics, because I feel pretty confident I could thoroughly dismantle their arguments and prescriptions.
Men_in_Boxes
is a good example.
