"Direct from developer to players is the way" - Larian CEO Swen Vincke
- Thread starter Topher
- Start date
PuppetMaster
Member
This guy Swen Vincke, he gets it.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Agree that having this "select committee" making decisions purely on cost/benefit analysis is what is causing some real stupid output from developers who we know can make quality content.
CrimsonSquall
Member
Gaf we are supposed to be the critical thinkers here so I am curious.
Anyone who disagrees with him, can you give me a thoughtful response as to why?
Anyone who disagrees with him, can you give me a thoughtful response as to why?
VolticArchangel
Member
Ubisoft needs to get comfortable with gamers not spending their hard earned cash on their products.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Phil takes decisions for gamepass, not a committee.
Subscriptions are in good hands for forseeable future.
Such doom and gloom and fear mongering from Larian CEO doesn't look good.
Subscriptions are in good hands for forseeable future.
Such doom and gloom and fear mongering from Larian CEO doesn't look good.
Tarin02543
Member
Very true but they will make sure it happens they will create that never ending cash fountain
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
I disagree with him on the only one way of thinking.
I bought the fucking game Larian. I bought your game.
I also subscribe to Gamepass Larian. I play a bunch of selected games Larian.
Do you want my money gaming industry?
Stop telling me how to FUCKING spend my fucking money industry.
Its my fucking money.
Do you want my money Larian? Then shut the fuck up put your God damn nose to the keyboard and get to work making games.
duck_sauce
Member
You are a wonderful human being.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I mean. what it the point anyway?. the more time it passed the worst it feels for sub services to thrive as the main way to engage with gaming.
GHG
Member
I've talked about this multiple times before, it's one of the major consequences of subscription services becoming dominant in any entertainment medium but most people are too stupid to even realise it's happening (or how it works):
In world where sub services become dominant the companies and individuals within those companies get to decide what you do and don't get exposed to.
The companies who run these services also hold all the cards (because that's where all the money is if people are no longer buying games on the open market) and thus become powerful in being able to dictate what types of games get made, which will ultimately end up on their subscription service (and how much money the creators will make).
Why anyone would want that is beyond me. The link between the creator and the consumer should be as direct as possible, especially when we are talking about something that is and should be an artform.
In world where sub services become dominant the companies and individuals within those companies get to decide what you do and don't get exposed to.
The companies who run these services also hold all the cards (because that's where all the money is if people are no longer buying games on the open market) and thus become powerful in being able to dictate what types of games get made, which will ultimately end up on their subscription service (and how much money the creators will make).
Why anyone would want that is beyond me. The link between the creator and the consumer should be as direct as possible, especially when we are talking about something that is and should be an artform.
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Pentiment
Josh Sawyer has said on multiple occasions that there's no way in hell that game would ever have gotten greenlit if it had to stand on it's own sales, and that GamePass is the only reason the game exists.
RickSanchez
Member
I am 100% with you, Sven.
To people who are saying it is not that bad and Sven is over-reacting : he's talking about a hypothetical future state where subscriptions are the dominant way to play games. Steam and physical console discs are the only thing standing between us and that hypothesis right now. Microsoft, EA, Ubi already have subscription services of their own. And if that becomes the only place where they release new games, we can only imagine what will happen to the quality of games.
We still get great games right now every now and then because the games are their own thing, with their own dedicated budgets and their success is not yet measured on how many new subscriptions they generated.
Just look at the state of TV streaming right now. Every tom, dick and harry production house has their own subscription platform and they're making TV shows for their own platform. And shows live on or get cancelled based on how many people subscribed to watch the show or how many existing subscribers finished the full season. Average TV show quality has tangibly declined over the years as a direct result. The best shows we got this year (Better Call Saul, Succession, Last of Us, Beef, etc) were not meant to be tent poles to prop up a streaming service. They were their own thing.
To people who are saying it is not that bad and Sven is over-reacting : he's talking about a hypothetical future state where subscriptions are the dominant way to play games. Steam and physical console discs are the only thing standing between us and that hypothesis right now. Microsoft, EA, Ubi already have subscription services of their own. And if that becomes the only place where they release new games, we can only imagine what will happen to the quality of games.
We still get great games right now every now and then because the games are their own thing, with their own dedicated budgets and their success is not yet measured on how many new subscriptions they generated.
Just look at the state of TV streaming right now. Every tom, dick and harry production house has their own subscription platform and they're making TV shows for their own platform. And shows live on or get cancelled based on how many people subscribed to watch the show or how many existing subscribers finished the full season. Average TV show quality has tangibly declined over the years as a direct result. The best shows we got this year (Better Call Saul, Succession, Last of Us, Beef, etc) were not meant to be tent poles to prop up a streaming service. They were their own thing.
Last edited:
Snaggletooth
Member
"Direct from developer to players is the way." I wanted to buy it straight from Developer but had to go through Steam. I know it's not a subscription model but I do prefer to buy direct.
March Climber
Member
I agree with most of what he's saying but I'm torn on this part:
Subscription services have offered people ways to play indie games, hidden gems, and smaller titles that they would have never thought of picking up due to that same discoverability issue that he speaks of.
Unfortunately, having the developer handle everything just ensures that every casual, semi-hardcore, and most of the hardcore gaming audience is still funneled down the same path: towards big AAA publishers. Their marketing is simply too strong, and for every BG3 success story there are a ton of other AA and indie devs who never managed to see that exposure due to that lack of a marketing budget or subscription deal.
I mean, look no further than social media, including this site, to see gamers constantly whine and complain about the state of the industry yet at the same time ignore tons of good indie and AA titles every year.
Barakov
Member
Baldur's Gate III might not be my thing but Swen is completely right. Subscription services from a content perspective is just another case of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Design by committee is the worst case scenario for creativity in videogames. And something like that becoming even more commonplace than it already is terrible for the industry in general.
I'm still annoyed that these people are doing their darnedest to try and control where and when we can play the games that we used our own money to buy.
I'm still annoyed that these people are doing their darnedest to try and control where and when we can play the games that we used our own money to buy.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Majukun
Member
no reason why we can't have both models coexist just like cinema and netflix content are co-existing right now.
Larian was able to make the game they wanted, but they had the funds from previous hits and a game that it's well adapted for early access and a god license, not all developers can replicate that, and microsoft paying the bills allows studios to follow their creativity without the threat of closing afterwards because the game didn't find a paying audience.
Larian was able to make the game they wanted, but they had the funds from previous hits and a game that it's well adapted for early access and a god license, not all developers can replicate that, and microsoft paying the bills allows studios to follow their creativity without the threat of closing afterwards because the game didn't find a paying audience.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
No he doesn't. He is assuming his model of development is the only one and only the extreme case will exist with only subscription services and with gamers that have them, not buying games. Small devs can use services to get funding to make something bigger than they could by themselves. It is not going to end up with all games being on services and services being the only way to get games.
The other thing he is missing is brining an older game to a service. This brings in more gamers years later and gets better exposure. If a healthy mix of services and new games that are truly direct from developer to gamer with no cut to stores then that would be great.
I sub to gamepass and tried PS++ for a year. I have still bought games not on those services while subbed. New games I played that were not on services in 2023: Zelda, Mario, Spider-Man2, AW2, Hogwarts, FFXVI, Diablo4, Horizon DLC. I guess he does have a point though because so far, I have skipped BG3. I am kind of waiting on that one as I am a long time Larian fan and want the best version and it is hard to play an 80 hour game with so many other options that are shorter. I also want to use up my PS sub because I am not getting that again. So yes subscriptions can hurt sales due to competition, but they won't kill games sales with gamers like me. I slept on FFVIIR and after FFXVI I wasn't really interested in it, but it was free on PS++ so I tried it. Well now I am going to day 1 FFVIIR part 2 next month. So subscriptions can give people a reason to play your older games and that could also lead to them buying the follow ups.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Nope. BG3 is getting a physical release in Q1 2024. Their prior games which were ported to console (Divinity: Original Sin I & II) also had a physical release.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Late late late. Shows their priority
Negotiator101
Member
And a complete bug fest right Swen?
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Just a friendly reminder that Microsoft didn't even consider approaching Larian to add BG3 to GamePass because they didn't think it would be as popular as it eventually was. This is probably what Sven is talking about.
Larian were never going to put the game on a sub service anyways, but that's not the point.
Source -https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/19/23880168/a-lesson-in-not-counting-your-tadpoles-before-theyve-hatched
Larian were never going to put the game on a sub service anyways, but that's not the point.
Source -https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/19/23880168/a-lesson-in-not-counting-your-tadpoles-before-theyve-hatched
nowhat
Member
That's not what your source says. It says BG3 "barely made the list". As per the leaked emails, MS offered $5M for it. Larian (respectfully or not) declined.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
It's not like we haven't seen massive issues with the AAA retail model lately (15 years) and the homogenization of game design. First it was the tacked on multiplayer in the 360 gen. Then it was the open world design with padding to make the purchase worth it. Then it was the GAAS design model that is crippling studios left and right, from Rocksteady to Naughty Dog. All that has been going on for almost 20 years now without subs having anything to do with it, with games feeling more and more similar. Subs come along and you can get experimental and niche content like Pentiment, or Citizen Sleeper finding an audience. Both models have a place.
What does he think happens anytime you work for a publisher? You can go to Kickstarter, or you are getting approval from someone that is paying the bills - regardless of what your distribution method is.
I have yet to see a studio decide to launch on a sub day 1 go out of business, but we've seen a ton of them that chose retail die lately. Being able to survive increases chances of more risk taking in game design. Subs are a huge lifeline to more experimental and idealistic AA and indie games.
What does he think happens anytime you work for a publisher? You can go to Kickstarter, or you are getting approval from someone that is paying the bills - regardless of what your distribution method is.
I have yet to see a studio decide to launch on a sub day 1 go out of business, but we've seen a ton of them that chose retail die lately. Being able to survive increases chances of more risk taking in game design. Subs are a huge lifeline to more experimental and idealistic AA and indie games.
Facism
Member
yeh Larian that's why you released the game with a heavily curated presence on storefronts so there was 0 competition on price and the only option was full RRP. Not saying the game wasn't worth the asking price, but as a PC gamer I'm used to looking for better deals via stores competing for my money, not a dev telling me there's one price and one price only.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Teaches me for not reading past the title! $5M is also very laughable.
dreamstation
Member
I bought it on Steam
Mister Wolf
Member
Today we will see the beginning of their strategy bear fruit.
Calverz
Member
I think so. They have so many IP and studios now it was only a matter of time before they started to regularly get games coming out. Even if every game isn't a goty contender, there will be so many to choose from regularly, it wont matter all that much.
Ballthyrm
Member
What Ubisoft need is not let people with MBAs telling gamers how they should feel.
That guy used to work for Danone, so selling yogurt or video game is one and the same.
You get one guy like this putting a bad image and it's up for the devs to buy back credibility behind that.
I doubt you will find an actual developper in Ubisoft saying such inane thing.
It's never the people saying stupid thing that pay the cost in the end.
I don't think it is possible for Ubisoft devs to release enough good games to buy gamer trust back when business put Ubisoft login everywhere and say stupid thing to the press on a monthly basis.
Mr Moose
Gold Member
MonkeyClaw36
Banned
Publishers want subscription services
Developers want to sell directly to consumers to ensure their vision comes to life in its purest form
Gamers don't want to be pulled into corporate debates and politics. WE WANT TO PLAY!!!
Sort it out, the lot of you. As long as we can play quality games in a comfortable way, you can go at each other on X all you want.
But leave us the fuck alone.
Our wallets will speak louder than words. Just try a business model and see if the shit hits the fan or not. ffs.
Developers want to sell directly to consumers to ensure their vision comes to life in its purest form
Gamers don't want to be pulled into corporate debates and politics. WE WANT TO PLAY!!!
Sort it out, the lot of you. As long as we can play quality games in a comfortable way, you can go at each other on X all you want.
But leave us the fuck alone.
Our wallets will speak louder than words. Just try a business model and see if the shit hits the fan or not. ffs.
ByWatterson
Member
This meme only works here if the "children" are multi-trillion-dollar publicly traded corporations.
samoilaaa
Member
your an idiot , let me explain
right now you have a choice , you can subscribe to gamepass and also buy an AAA game outside of any subscription service but what larian is saying is what will happen once all the games will have to be a part of a subscription , instead of trying to make a good game like Larian did , you as a company will have to make games with online elements that keep the players glued to the screen as they watch their damage/level number go up , thats the only way to keep a subscription , not with offline 50 hour campain rpgs , the quality will degrade but the majority dont care because they will be too distracted
What will happen when a developer wants to make a game and the only way to publish his game will be through a subscription ? he will have to make that game acording to the standards of the company that owns that subscription service , and dont tell me that the company is gonna let those devs make the games they want because they wont , not when huge amount of money is at stake
skit_data
Member
Nail on the head. Sub services in general are already too curated for my taste and I can only imagine relying on it 100% for game consumtion, it wouldn't work for me personally.
I have PS+ Premium (but I'm going out on a limb saying this probably applies to any sub service) and appreciate finding good games in it's catalogue that I might have overlooked. But tbh I just find it kinda overwhelming, It's starting to feel like every other sub service where 50% of the time is spent browsing. 90% of the content is simply not for me, long term it will probably get even worse.
Paying for something that has a hit ratio of 1/10 while effectively subsidizing the growth trend of games you're not into will in the end not be the optimal way forward IMO.
I have PS+ Premium (but I'm going out on a limb saying this probably applies to any sub service) and appreciate finding good games in it's catalogue that I might have overlooked. But tbh I just find it kinda overwhelming, It's starting to feel like every other sub service where 50% of the time is spent browsing. 90% of the content is simply not for me, long term it will probably get even worse.
Paying for something that has a hit ratio of 1/10 while effectively subsidizing the growth trend of games you're not into will in the end not be the optimal way forward IMO.