Game Industry Observations

RepresentingEnvy

En-Chan Queen Vampy!
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Messages
5,645
Points
233
It would also be super risky for a small team of people to do it. I am sure many have tried and failed. There are tons of people who get over-ambitious with a pipe dream. Much safer if you are a good programmer to join something already established I would imagine.
 

SailusGebel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
9,556
Points
233
Return to rpgmaker style.
 

ZukoMee

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2022
Messages
131
Points
58
It can't happen now. Let's not pretend. You can't make a shooter that will be able to compete with CoD or BF on all aspects of the game with ten people. You could do it before, now you can't. You will have to compromise one thing or another. While before we could have EVEYRTHING, graphics, gameplay, story, animations, music, everything from a small team. Now a small team has to compromise.
Idk man.

One of my favorite PC examples is Kenshi. One guy made this, and he's working on the sequel now. It looks just like a more brutal version of Runescape, but with the added utility of being in near-complete control of the camera. I'm a big fan of being able to zoom in and out with complete control. The ability to pause the game is just a petty thing that I giggle wickedly about.
 

Kenjona

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Messages
505
Points
133
The issue is not new, never has been; games being sent out with major flaws, needing constant updates, has been a staple since at least the 90's.
As the industry has progressed and the games have become internally more complex, it has gotten better/worse depending on the gaming engine development cycle we are in. Older gaming engines tend to be more stable, then newer, but newer is always adding bells and whistles older systems do not have. It is a long way from Garry Kitchen's game maker. Before that came out and well after to be fair, each game had its own unique game engine, internal to the game, developed from the ground up. All be most were fairly simplistic.​

All those bodies, yes the game industry needs lots of bodies. Most of those 1,000's of people hired then laid off, are not the core programmers, core graphics designers, managers or even office staff; they are game testers.
They are there to test parts of the game while it is in development, then are let go once the game is developed, enough. You can do two things to gain those bodies; hire contractors house or outsource contractors. Big companies tend to do more in house hiring as they have the robust HR staff to handle all of that, smaller companies do not so they need to outsource to another company for those bodies due to their lack of non programing oriented staffing. Game testers make minimum wage to 30 bucks an hour depending on what they are doing, their position in the game testing hierarchy and their qualifications. It is a job even a kid still in high school can get, but it only lasts as long as the game is in development.​
Also those "Not publicly traded" game companies, where do you think they got their cash flow from to start their company and bank roll the development of the games and how much of the companies do you think are 100% owned by the people who started the company?
Black Rock is financial company that provides Angel investor services amongst other service, which is providing capital to a venture to so the venture can create a viable working company/product. In return those investors bankrolling the company get a percentage of the company in return for the cash. Venture Capitalism.​
There are of course exceptions, like Valve which owns Steam. But Valve was bankrolled by 2 veteran Microsoft employees who had the wherewithal to do so.
 

melchi

What is a custom title?
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
1,940
Points
153
The issue is not new, never has been; games being sent out with major flaws, needing constant updates, has been a staple since at least the 90's.
As the industry has progressed and the games have become internally more complex, it has gotten better/worse depending on the gaming engine development cycle we are in. Older gaming engines tend to be more stable, then newer, but newer is always adding bells and whistles older systems do not have. It is a long way from Garry Kitchen's game maker. Before that came out and well after to be fair, each game had its own unique game engine, internal to the game, developed from the ground up. All be most were fairly simplistic.​

All those bodies, yes the game industry needs lots of bodies. Most of those 1,000's of people hired then laid off, are not the core programmers, core graphics designers, managers or even office staff; they are game testers.
They are there to test parts of the game while it is in development, then are let go once the game is developed, enough. You can do two things to gain those bodies; hire contractors house or outsource contractors. Big companies tend to do more in house hiring as they have the robust HR staff to handle all of that, smaller companies do not so they need to outsource to another company for those bodies due to their lack of non programing oriented staffing. Game testers make minimum wage to 30 bucks an hour depending on what they are doing, their position in the game testing hierarchy and their qualifications. It is a job even a kid still in high school can get, but it only lasts as long as the game is in development.​
Also those "Not publicly traded" game companies, where do you think they got their cash flow from to start their company and bank roll the development of the games and how much of the companies do you think are 100% owned by the people who started the company?
Black Rock is financial company that provides Angel investor services amongst other service, which is providing capital to a venture to so the venture can create a viable working company/product. In return those investors bankrolling the company get a percentage of the company in return for the cash. Venture Capitalism.​
There are of course exceptions, like Valve which owns Steam. But Valve was bankrolled by 2 veteran Microsoft employees who had the wherewithal to do so.
To be fair, Valve didn't have enough money to get off the ground with Gaben and friends alone. Sierra owned all the rights to half-life and only after a nasty legal battle were they able to claw the rights back from the corpse of Sierra and go on to become what they are now. But in the early days I don't think it was sunshine and roses.
 

Anon2024

????????? (???/???)
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
3,416
Points
183
To be fair, Valve didn't have enough money to get off the ground with Gaben and friends alone. Sierra owned all the rights to half-life and only after a nasty legal battle were they able to claw the rights back from the corpse of Sierra and go on to become what they are now. But in the early days I don't think it was sunshine and roses.
Valve is still privately owned, they learned their lesson from Sierra.
Lol.
 

TheEldritchGod

A Cloud Of Pure Spite And Eyes
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,991
Points
153
So the question becomes… what gives?
Seriously? You don't know?
Most layoffs are affecting western developers. Why?
Because the ESG money from Blackrock dried up.
Why is it sustainable in Japan but not sustainable in the West?
They didn't depend on ESG money.
I have a few theories, namely the same reason why Twitter got 90% of staff fired but is now still operating the exact same way as before.
No. They are not. They are complying with regulations, which means some stupid things are mandated by law, but where things could change, they have. They have changed alot. I have no idea why you think it is EXACTLY the same as before Elon Musk.
I know a lot of people will talk about toxic Asian work culture, which I agree has its problems, but I also feel that America and some western countries are developing a toxic bloat culture.
What's wrong with being a workaholic? It's toxic by YOUR standards, not by JAPAN'S standards. Stop projecting your values onto another culture. They work hard, America isn't working hard. THEY WIN. How is WINNING toxic?
That is, there is a lot of hiring of unqualified and underskilled people to make up diversity numbers, thus the bloat, and now the layoffs when it is unsustainable.
So you DO know that reason. Why are you asking the question when you know the answer?
So people then ask why they hired all that bloat in the first place?
The answer.
Blackrock ESG investments.
Mostly, yes.

Which begs the question, why you asking the question in the first place? Like... this is BASIC information. Everyone should know this by now. My CAT knows this.
 

ZukoMee

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2022
Messages
131
Points
58
Why do everyone ignore my point? Did I phrase it so badly? You can't understand it? Me sad. :blob_pat_sad:
Nah. I provided a good counter-example of how one guy compared and in my opinion, superseded a major group in product outcome, which you said couldn't be done now. Kenshi was done by one man, Runescape by a corp. Kenshi has been done within the last decade, and Kenshi 2 which isn't out yet, is still being done by one guy. He even did his own soundtrack, which is information I wasn't even aware of, and it's pretty good all things considered.
 

ElliePorter

Crimson Queen Of The Night
Joined
May 8, 2021
Messages
868
Points
133
You do know that Blackrock is one of the most largest shareholders of numerous publicly traded companies right. Publicly traded companies will often having a board meeting to discuss the profits and the direction of the company.

Plus even if the owner of the company has the largest share/stake. He/she can still be ousted by the shareholders and delegate a new board director.

You compare Larian Studios which is a private owned company to publicly traded companies that has to listen to investors, inorder to keep themselves afloat.

I find your comparison really lacking.

Also from a corporate standpoint, they have businesses to operate and keep running. Its not everyday we can get a game like Baldur's Gate 3 where the fans are coming with excitement and ecstacy upon playing it.

We just have to take what we can get.
 

Kenjona

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Messages
505
Points
133
I'm not against trading shares. I just believe all shareholders who own stock should be allowed to vote and veto a new buyer, something that isn't allowed in Public trading.
Actually yes they can, and have, in certain circumstances. But the point many have shares for is to make a profit. So if they buyer bids high enough......
Idk man.

One of my favorite PC examples is Kenshi. One guy made this, and he's working on the sequel now. It looks just like a more brutal version of Runescape, but with the added utility of being in near-complete control of the camera. I'm a big fan of being able to zoom in and out with complete control. The ability to pause the game is just a petty thing that I giggle wickedly about.
He took 12 years and his game is based on OGRE an open source gaming engine that has been around for over 13 years. While an epic monument to one mans dedication to producing his game. It is not on the same level of work as the RuneScape team, that did the first RuneScape in 3 years on a Java based gaming engine they had to make themselves. Then produce RuneScape 2, 3 years later programming a different Gaming engine.
 
Last edited:

Anon2024

????????? (???/???)
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
3,416
Points
183
Actually yes they can, and have, in certain circumstances. But the point many have shares for is to make a profit. So if they buyer bids high enough......
The main issue about publicly traded shares is simply the fact that overall, it's been bad for production and society since most of the money goes to middlemen instead of the producers. Those who produce tend to get shut down by middlemen (investors), and it's difficult to grow something organically because investors who don't really produce anything, or know a trade inside and out invest and demand profit without cause.

Actually, I feel like if they want to make companies publicly tradeable, they'll have to do either of these two things.

1) Take away all the restrictions, and those who lose cannot sue.

or

2) Make it so politicians cannot buy stock.

If either of these are done, I feel the market will eventually correct itself. This is not based on anything but a hunch, of course.
 
Top