Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
First part of the interview is about Blow working on a new programming language. Changed the timestamp to when the "Fixing the industry" talk begins.
Last edited:
I thought this was going to be about cocaine.
![]()
There is an admittedly fallacy of saying "you're willing to spend $20 for a two hour movie, yet complain anything over $60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game!"
Because my investment In gaming requires me to buy a $500 console or $1000 gaming pc, plus whatever a nice TV or monitor cost, etc. Movies don't require any up front investment so the cost calculations are different.
There is an admittedly fallacy of saying "you're willing to spend $20 for a two hour movie, yet complain anything over $60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game!"
Because my investment In gaming requires me to buy a $500 console or $1000 gaming pc, plus whatever a nice TV or monitor cost, etc. Movies don't require any up front investment so the cost calculations are different.
Interesting. Been waiting for this interview.
It doesn't matter that they already have the setup, that was part of their calculation when they bought the setup, in terms of how much can I afford to invest into this hobby, and it is still disposable income that they are no longer able to spend on other things, including more games.I generally feel like the people saying "$60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game" already have the console / PC setup.
The thing no one wants to admit is that most of that 50 hour game isn't nearly as enjoyable as the 2 hour movie. Long games, for the most part, diminish in entertainment value ad each hour passes.
Gamers love the prerelease marketing for a big 50 hour game. Gamers love playing that game for the first time. Their second play session is fun enough. Their 3rd, 4th, 5th playsession gets them thinking about the next dopamine hit game nearing release.
Maybe you're right. I just don't think people think about what they've already paid for something when determining future expenditures.It doesn't matter that they already have the setup, that was part of their calculation when they bought the setup, in terms of how much can I afford to invest into this hobby, and it is still disposable income that they are no longer able to spend on other things, including more games.
And yet, some games are extremely fun at hour 50, some are fun enough at hour 50, and some games never reach hour 50...plus everything inbetween.And it is true a 50 hour game will never maintain the high for the entire 50 hour like a movie can for the 2 hours. But that is just common sense, you can't run a 10K race running at the same speed as you would a 400 M dash.
Maybe you're right. I just don't think people think about what they've already paid for something when determining future expenditures.
And yet, some games are extremely fun at hour 50, some are fun enough at hour 50, and some games never reach hour 50...plus everything inbetween.
This is a game design issue through in through.
Exactly.I generally feel like the people saying "$60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game" already have the console / PC setup.
The thing no one wants to admit is that most of that 50 hour game isn't nearly as enjoyable as the 2 hour movie. Long games, for the most part, diminish in entertainment value ad each hour passes.
Gamers love the prerelease marketing for a big 50 hour game. Gamers love playing that game for the first time. Their second play session is fun enough. Their 3rd, 4th, 5th playsession gets them thinking about the next dopamine hit game nearing release.
Films are not immune to that either. I have seen very few movies where every single minute was equally exhilarating. Killers of the Flower Moon, for example, was fantastic and one of my favorite movies of the year, but there are parts in that movie where I wished they had cut out and reduced the runtime. Creative media is always going to be somewhat of a rollercoaster ride, be it games, movies, music, etc. There are segments meant for building tension, there are crescendos, there are segments of levity where not much happens, and there's the payoff where everything comes together.
My point was in trying to assess why people are reluctant to pay for full priced games.
It's because the best part of the full priced game is the time period between first gameplay reveal trailer and 2nd play session. By the time we get to 3rd, 4th, and 5th playsession, the dopamine had worn off and we're trained to obsess over the next big gameplay reveal trailer.
The game industry can solve this problem by making games that are fun at hour 50.
But there are games like that, there are games that are fun after hundreds of hours t hat I still play, but the game industry doesn't want to make them because if the game is fun at the 500th hour, I won't be buying (or buy less) of their new games, and they can't stand that.My point was in trying to assess why people are reluctant to pay for full priced games.
It's because the best part of the full priced game is the time period between first gameplay reveal trailer and 2nd play session. By the time we get to 3rd, 4th, and 5th playsession, the dopamine had worn off and we're trained to obsess over the next big gameplay reveal trailer.
The game industry can solve this problem by making games that are fun at hour 50.
But there are games like that, there are games that are fun after hundreds of hours t hat I still play, but the game industry doesn't want to make them because if the game is fun at the 500th hour, I won't be buying (or buy less) of their new games, and they can't stand that.
Maybe he did what he said?What happened to that one guy who said he was going to kill himself if FEZ didn't sell?
I don't hear much about him anymore.
Thats the good old Planned Obsolescence business tactic, where R&D makes it so it'll eventually break in 5 or 10 years, as opposed to higher grade construction which is doable. How every parent's ancient lawnmower from 1978 can last 30 or 40 years but a modern day one (like one I bought 5 years ago bombed after one year and I thankfully got store credit from Lowes) bombs fast should make no sense as you;d think as time passes things get built better. But the cash grab is too tempting to make something good to last.But there are games like that, there are games that are fun after hundreds of hours t hat I still play, but the game industry doesn't want to make them because if the game is fun at the 500th hour, I won't be buying (or buy less) of their new games, and they can't stand that.
This is nightmare, I know that guy isn't optimistic at all, I despise the talk that make the industry look unsustainable, can't stand on it's feet, every word he said makes it hypothetically correct but lacks a solid evidence to backup his claims, I'm %110 certain there are nice things about the video games industry that luckily never changed through the ages but this guy wouldn't dare to mention it or touch the subject cause it contradicts with what he usually saying, some people just can't distinguish between the work of profession and the lack of moral and positive attitude, there's a clear difference.Thanks for sharing. I'm halfway.
Some interesting notes so far with games being a mature (old) medium at this point that caters mostly to new generations, were rerelease feel 'new' to them, but particularly l agree with his 2008 take with it being the peak of technical/mechanics/systemic innovation, particularly in AAA development, and thing becoming more and more homogenized the further the we go ad things become to risky.
Edit: finished it, lost me at the end it bit. Lots if feels stuff and claims without much epistemic backing. But interesting Convo overall.
2 hour movie is more a fulfilling experience than the 5 hour game stretched to 50.There is an admittedly fallacy of saying "you're willing to spend $20 for a two hour movie, yet complain anything over $60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game!"
Because my investment In gaming requires me to buy a $500 console or $1000 gaming pc, plus whatever a nice TV or monitor cost, etc. Movies don't require any up front investment so the cost calculations are different.
Dude your avatar is still Colin Moriarty from a little bet we made nearly 3 YEARS AGO, I respect the commitment![]()
I'd take his 2 perfect games of art over just about anything anyone else has made in this shit heap of an industry we call gaming.Johnathan Blow made one good game, that's all and he's been a whiney bitch ever since.
Stole my gay pornstar name.I thought this was going to be about cocaine.
![]()
My point was in trying to assess why people are reluctant to pay for full priced games.
It's because the best part of the full priced game is the time period between first gameplay reveal trailer and 2nd play session. By the time we get to 3rd, 4th, and 5th playsession, the dopamine had worn off and we're trained to obsess over the next big gameplay reveal trailer.
The game industry can solve this problem by making games that are fun at hour 50.
Stupid point once again. Over and over let's just blame people of color and the LGBT community for all of every entertainment industry's issues.This was great. Pretty much confirmed why American AAA studios are shit. They do not hire the best at their position, but rather for diversity. Best point he made, is that kids are spending their time in social media, rather than video games, which is true.
Post of the week.Johnathan Blow made one good game, that's all and he's been a whiney bitch ever since.
First part of the interview is about Blow working on a new programming language. Changed the timestamp to when the "Fixing the industry" talk begins.
On steam we call them "tags" and "user reviews"15,000 games on steam surely isn't healthy at all, you can't tell from the way games are presented what's worthy or not, the store surely isn't helping and pisses a lot of people off, there should be segmentations to all these games like consoles generations to distinguish the games from different factors, otherwise it's garbage in garbage out.
My point was in trying to assess why people are reluctant to pay for full priced games.
It's because the best part of the full priced game is the time period between first gameplay reveal trailer and 2nd play session. By the time we get to 3rd, 4th, and 5th playsession, the dopamine had worn off and we're trained to obsess over the next big gameplay reveal trailer.
The game industry can solve this problem by making games that are fun at hour 50.
First part of the interview is about Blow working on a new programming language. Changed the timestamp to when the "Fixing the industry" talk begins.
That's not even factoring in the time commitment. I'm older now and affording whatever game I want is a non issue, but the much more expensive currency that must be spent on games is time. So much of the new stuff just isn't worth your time. I'm not putting 100 hours into Starfield to get brow beaten by diversity officers and girl bosses. Especially when there's no exploration payoff in the end. Walking around a nice desktop wallpaper looks cool in videos, but without the hand crafted nature of TES and Fallout, there's no payoff. You're never going to find a cool little hideout littered with environmental storytelling and a great weapon. You won't stumble upon a funny side quest or cool skeleton. Just more empty desktop wallpaper.There is an admittedly fallacy of saying "you're willing to spend $20 for a two hour movie, yet complain anything over $60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game!"
Because my investment In gaming requires me to buy a $500 console or $1000 gaming pc, plus whatever a nice TV or monitor cost, etc. Movies don't require any up front investment so the cost calculations are different.
I generally feel like the people saying "$60 is too expensive for a 50 hour game" already have the console / PC setup.