The “paid more to work less” part is not tenable. The games that fit that bill that you’re thinking of represent less than 1% of their peers. They are outliers, not a sustainable industry; the exception, not the rule. For every Silksong there are maybe 100 that make just enough to make ends meet, and 1000 duds that will never pay for themselves that you’ve never heard of.
What you’re saying is you want fewer steady incomes and more lottery winners. Sure, that’d be nice, but it’s not a sustainable strategy.
Ex. Wildgate launched recently. They deliberately opted to sell the game for a flat $30 rather than going F2P/P2W. As a result, they regularly get reviewed negatively by people saying “dead game, greedy devs won’t lower the price to compete with F2P games” and “the cosmetics you unlock by playing look better than the ones you can buy” (yes, there are people unironically posting those as negative reviews).
So at least understand why the most common strategy is often exploitative, and why it’s actually not a simple solution that a bunch of armchair experts have figured out in a comments section.
I would love to buy a game at a reasonable price that I actually have a chance of finishing in a weekend, or maybe one marathon session. A game with a great story and good gameplay that isn’t drawn out over 30 hours.
As for graphics, I’m quite happy if they drop all the shiny new bullshit that you have to watch a Digital Foundry video on just to even know it exists in the game, and rather focus on a good art style.
And it goes without saying, pay the people who make the games more, and the mega corp CEO’s less.
Yeah, I might be showing my age, but my interpretation of “a better game” was right away “a more fun game”, which got followed up with the thought: Did it make them more fun?
I feel like we had fun figured out pretty well in the last century already. And in many ways, the higher specs are used to add realism and storytelling, which I know many people enjoy in their own way, but they’re often at odds with fun, or at least sit between the fun parts of a game.
Like, man, I watched a video of the newest Pokémon game and they played for more than an hour before the tutorial + plot exposition was over. Practically no fun occurred in that first hour.
Just imagine putting coins into an arcade cabinet and the first hour is an utter waste of time. You’d ask for your money back.
Yeah, for me it’s not even just the creative freedom, but an actual fuzzy feeling that me and the devs are having fun together. Open-source games also hold a special place in my heart for that reason, no matter how scrungy they are.
I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding.
The “paid more to work less” part is not tenable. The games that fit that bill that you’re thinking of represent less than 1% of their peers. They are outliers, not a sustainable industry; the exception, not the rule. For every Silksong there are maybe 100 that make just enough to make ends meet, and 1000 duds that will never pay for themselves that you’ve never heard of.
What you’re saying is you want fewer steady incomes and more lottery winners. Sure, that’d be nice, but it’s not a sustainable strategy.
Ex. Wildgate launched recently. They deliberately opted to sell the game for a flat $30 rather than going F2P/P2W. As a result, they regularly get reviewed negatively by people saying “dead game, greedy devs won’t lower the price to compete with F2P games” and “the cosmetics you unlock by playing look better than the ones you can buy” (yes, there are people unironically posting those as negative reviews).
So at least understand why the most common strategy is often exploitative, and why it’s actually not a simple solution that a bunch of armchair experts have figured out in a comments section.
We could have the major publishers and devs paying better salaries. They can afford it.
I would love to buy a game at a reasonable price that I actually have a chance of finishing in a weekend, or maybe one marathon session. A game with a great story and good gameplay that isn’t drawn out over 30 hours.
As for graphics, I’m quite happy if they drop all the shiny new bullshit that you have to watch a Digital Foundry video on just to even know it exists in the game, and rather focus on a good art style.
And it goes without saying, pay the people who make the games more, and the mega corp CEO’s less.
But most importantly, more fun!
Yeah, I might be showing my age, but my interpretation of “a better game” was right away “a more fun game”, which got followed up with the thought: Did it make them more fun?
I feel like we had fun figured out pretty well in the last century already. And in many ways, the higher specs are used to add realism and storytelling, which I know many people enjoy in their own way, but they’re often at odds with fun, or at least sit between the fun parts of a game.
Like, man, I watched a video of the newest Pokémon game and they played for more than an hour before the tutorial + plot exposition was over. Practically no fun occurred in that first hour.
Just imagine putting coins into an arcade cabinet and the first hour is an utter waste of time. You’d ask for your money back.
Generally games where people had fun making them feel better to play.
Yeah, for me it’s not even just the creative freedom, but an actual fuzzy feeling that me and the devs are having fun together. Open-source games also hold a special place in my heart for that reason, no matter how scrungy they are.
Have you heard of stardew valley? Made by one guy, 16 bit sprite pixelart, although he does still work his ass off.
Two outta three ain’t bad, right?
TBF, the dude has made millions off the game, and he doesn’t make the updates paid dlc. He just keeps adding to SDV because he loves it