You blew it!Perception:
Reality:
![]()
You blew it!Perception:
Reality:
![]()
Preposterous.There is no shift, online games have been popular since the 90s. And the main genres dominating are still more or less the same from back them, competitive shooters and grinders.
The only thing i'd call a shift was ps360 era where consoles introduced online capabilities and popularized online games beyond PCs.
Yes. I totally agree. For originality, you need people who are able to come up with fresh ideas, which means both the industry being open to outsiders and developers not leaning on consultants on best practice to make games. In terms of techniques that enhance creativity, one that is really known to work is imposing constraints on what you can do.Budgets and consultants are stagnating the industry.
Battle Royale 2.0 still coming?It's important to realize that games releasing now are always chasing trends from about 5 years ago.
Preposterous.
![]()
Report: 95% of studios are working on or aim to release a live service game
Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox A new report from Griffin Gaming Partners …www.gamesindustry.biz
Nothing in nature stays the same. Growth or decay, no in between.
The survey defines live services as any regular update cadence planned for a game.
I guess Baldurs Gate 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, Dragons Dogma 2, Lies of P, Resident Evil 4, The Talos Principle 2, Ultrakill and so on are all "live service" by the definition this report uses.
I guess you're right. Nothing has changed since the 90s, lol
![]()
I guess the graphics got prettier.
You know, for all your talk about online games being at forefront of innovation, they certainly were the ones which changed the least out of everything.
You know you can still date "online" gaming to back then too right? Arcades were immensily popular and had their own golden age in the late 70s - early 80s. You can even date eSports competitions all the way back to the early 70s.I actually agree with this. Gaming started as an offline medium back in the 1970s so offline games grew from zygote to what we see today. That's about 60 years of progress, starting from single screen gaming.
That being said, the baton has officially been passed. The last 10 - 15 years have been unbelievably exciting in online gaming. The amount of new investment, new genres, and new IP is basically all in multiplayer today.
You know you can still date "online" gaming to back then too right? Arcades were immensily popular and had their own golden age in the late 70s - early 80s. You can even date eSports competitions all the way back to the early 70s.
Can't get more "old man yelling at clouds" than talking down to the younger generation that they don't actually enjoy the thing they're enjoying and that they should instead feel bad because they're being manipulated but are just too stupid to see it. Instead, they should go play something less popular and possibly less interesting to have some proper fun instead.
And i'm pretty sure you have investment data of all major game companies dating all the way back to the 70s to say this. Because Sega certainly wasn't investing money for nationwide competitions in 74, and blizzard wasn't investing hundreds of millions for a MMORPG in the mid-2000s.Not really.
The industry overwhelmingly invested into traditional SP games from 1970 - 2018. They did this because that's where the players & money were.
Only just recently has investment into Live Service multiplayer met or eclipsed the old model. Rapid change is taking place that's easier to see when you pull back the lense.
No, just common senseAnd i'm pretty sure you have investment data of all major game companies dating all the way back to the 70s to say this.
No, just common sense
![]()
Appeal to Common Sense
Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not.We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is.www.logicallyfallacious.com
There's no one on planet earth who thinks Sega invested the same amount into multiplayer/live service games in 1974 (the year you mentioned) than they are today. I'm sure you've heard about their 5 "super games" they're currently working on.
There's no one on planet earth who thinks Blizzard isn't investing more into multiplayer/Live Service today than the early 00s.
When cherry picking, try to pick better cherries.
I'll try again.
Yeah, they're also spending more money on single player games today than they did back in 1970s/early00s because of, you know, inflantion, bigger audience and all that shit.I'll try again.
Sega & Blizzard spending much more money on multiplayer Live Service today than they were in 1974/early00s.
Percentage wise they're not.Yeah, they're also spending more money on single player games today than they did back in 1970s/early00s because of, you know, inflantion, bigger audience and all that shit.
And where's the 50 years history of investment data to back this claim up?Percentage wise they're not.
His Source:And where's the 50 years history of investment data to back this claim up?
I'm turning 52 next month. All that you said just echoes the stuff my parents were saying about gaming a long, long time ago but they were wrong. My gaming habits didn't hamper my life but enriched it. Things have changed significantly since then, but with each generation it's the same - The old guard don't like something because they can't relate or hate changes to the thing they liked. Only it's not about the kids, they'll be fine as they always are, it's about the growing pains of realizing you're tastes and preferences are aging out of the current trends.It is sad; parents who shrug at it are as responsible as these companies for ruining a generation; and objectively the kids caught up in this (and we all know that Fortnite etc makes its bank off of literal kids lacking self control more than anything) are living substantially dumber lives as a consequence.
Neither of us have 50 year history of investment data to back up our claims.And where's the 50 years history of investment data to back this claim up?
My claim is that companies always invested in both, something perfectly verifiable. Your claim is a magical number that says one had higher investments than the other during specific time periods, something completely unverifiable that requires hard data to comfirm.Neither of us have 50 year history of investment data to back up our claims.
I'm mid 40s, so similar in that sense.I'm turning 52 next month. All that you said just echoes the stuff my parents were saying about gaming a long, long time ago but they were wrong. My gaming habits didn't hamper my life but enriched it. Things have changed significantly since then, but with each generation it's the same - The old guard don't like something because they can't relate or hate changes to the thing they liked. Only it's not about the kids, they'll be fine as they always are, it's about the growing pains of realizing you're tastes and preferences are aging out of the current trends.
That's obviously not the topic.My claim is that companies always invested in both, something perfectly verifiable.
I think that's a bit ridiculous to ask for... the observation that investment has been tilted harshly towards online GAAS is obvious. There are plenty of examples like the Arkham franchise, which was the pinnacle of single-player action/adventure gaming, and clearly was demolished by a desire to chase after GAAS bucks. We can see this happening.And where's the 50 years history of investment data to back this claim up?
I suggest you go back the chain of quotes.That's obviously not the topic.
"Hey Mom, want to see the Minecraft castle I've been working on all summer?!"They aren't challenging the kid to extend their mind into new kinds of thought and long-term (zero quick gratification) challenges.
Minecraft isn't like the others on the list; I actually regard it as largely a rewarding game. I play it with my son, and we give ourselves all kinds of challenges of things to build and do."Hey Mom, want to see the Minecraft castle I've been working on all summer?!"
The topic is level of investment - rates and degrees.I suggest you go back the chain of quotes.
League of Legends, Fortnite, Rocket League...Minecraft isn't like the others on the list; I actually regard it as largely a rewarding game. I play it with my son, and we give ourselves all kinds of challenges of things to build and do.
This was already happening 20 years ago, with: Warcraft, Diablo, COD, Final Fantasy, Need for Speed, Halo, etc. Even before that it wasn't uncommon to see companies investing on MP games with the same intents, companies like Epic looking at the Quake mp scene and making their own MP shooter in Unreal Tournament. Some trying to create "social" games to mimic internet forums back in the 90s, early 2000s too.I think that's a bit ridiculous to ask for... the observation that investment has been tilted harshly towards online GAAS is obvious. There are plenty of examples like the Arkham franchise, which was the pinnacle of single-player action/adventure gaming, and clearly was demolished by a desire to chase after GAAS bucks. We can see this happening.
People were going out West to mine for gold in the late 1700s.This was already happening 20 years ago, with: Warcraft, Diablo, COD, Final Fantasy, Need for Speed, Halo, etc. Even before that it wasn't uncommon to see companies investing on MP games with the same intents, companies like Epic looking at the Quake mp scene and making their own MP shooter in Unreal Tournament. Companies trying to create "social" games to mimic internet forums back in the 90s, early 2000s too.
The notion of online game as some sort of gold mine is very old.
Except the correct analogy would be the "multiplayer gold rush" began back in the late 90s early 2000s and now in current year all that's left are the cartels.People were going out West to mine for gold in the late 1700s.
The gold rush didn't start until 1848.
That's what you're not understanding. You have a difficult time recognizing rate and degree.
The start date is less important. We know it has increased substantially in the last 7 years.Except the correct analogy would be the "multiplayer gold rush" began back in the late 90s early 2000s and now in current year all that's left are the cartels.
You do raise some good points in a thoughtful post that would benefit everyone and not just kids. I just respectfully disagree with the negative aspects of GaaS on people and the industry as a whole with the caveat of moderation (as with anything) and basic good parenting to set guidelines for a healthy hobby. A few matches of Fortnite is perfectly fine. Endless hours of it while hardly moving and gorging on crap food due to lack of poor supervision or lack of caring should never happen.I'm mid 40s, so similar in that sense.
But I have a markedly different view of my parents and their attitudes towards gaming. In fact, my parents were very strict with it. I was limited to only a very small amount of time per day on gaming consoles (~30-45 minutes on days with school or other events, maybe ~1:15-1:30 on a weekend at most), because having varied kinds of mental interests was important to them, not setting into a chair and plugging into Nintendo.
However, they didn't have a uniformly bad attitude towards games. Once they purchased a PC for me, they saw that it had a wider variety of mentally engaging games, and those time restrictions were largely eliminated -- so long as I was playing games that used my mind. So I could play for longer if I played complex flight simulators, world simulations, real time strategy games with maps, chess simulators, all kinds of things.
They regarded it as their parental responsibility to ensure my games were mentally developing, rather than quick satisfactions that just sink you into a state of repetition without thought. And I'm grateful for it... the breadth of things I learned and found long-term engagement with was quite wide, and paid off over the years.
I 100% agree with them that this matters, that there are qualitative differences between types of games and their impact on the brain or even the soul of the person. These GAAS games are of the worst possible quality and type. They aren't challenging the kid to extend their mind into new kinds of thought and long-term (zero quick gratification) challenges. And their dominance is making gaming something that I think should embarrassing, in this form. Plugging kids into a hundred matches of Fortnite with your headphones and bag of chips is awful, and I see this everywhere. So many of my kid's peers are like this, that gaming is a sad state of affairs now, doing more bad than good for children.
Except gaming in general increased substantially in the last 7 years. Probably an effect of the rise of social media + some covid lockdown boosters.The start date is less important. We know it has increased substantially in the last 7 years.
Again, rates and degrees.Except gaming in general increased substantially in the last 7 years. Probably an effect of the rise of social media + some covid lockdown boosters.
I am the "younger" generation you moronthan talking down to the younger generation