Lower budgets would probably be better. High budgets mean high risk, developers and publishers try to minimize that risk and you get bland games that try to cater to too many tastes. Movies suffer from the same problem. They get budgets in the hundreds of millions and you wonder what they spent it all for.

[–] FangedWyvern42 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

High budgets are killing the film industry. In the case of gaming, it plays a factor, but greed is probably the main issue. Most big budget AAA games in the past made large amounts of money even if they didn’t have universal appeal. Because companies realised that they could make large amounts of money off loot boxes, microtransactions, cash shops and battle passes, they started trying to funnel players into games, mainly so that players would buy things. That’s one of the main reasons the AAA industry is getting worse: games need to appeal to as many as possible, while coming out as fast as possible, all so that players will buy the overpriced in-game items endlessly shoved in players’ faces.

[–] AEsheron 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love me some good AAA games and want them to stick around. But I think it would be much better if they were a bit fewer and further between, and the big studios shift to more regular AA games, and give their devs chances to do some more oddball stuff with even lower budgets. More expiremntation and risky projects can only enrich the industry.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You never know what those experiments can lead too. There will be a lot of failures however someone is going to look at the failure and realize what needs to be need to be tweaked.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Good point. And it's a lot easier to accept 'failure' (there could still be something learned in a game that doesn't quite hit the mark) if the budget isn't astronomical.

There are games like FFXV that get quite creative on a big budget. (Not sure if it's AAA.) I enjoyed that game but some of the novel features bugged me a little bit and they skimped on some important features, I thought. Maybe there's a better formula for trialling novelty than an all or nothing approach.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't remember who it was. A famous actor, anyway. They were talking about what's happened with movies. There's nothing in the middle.

It's either $100m+ or less than $3m. Either it gets a big producer and they pump so much money into it that it must be safe because it can't lose money. Or is a small producer doing it for the love, but a small budget doesn't go very far. The risky narratives done well would be funded somewhere between the two extremes but it's just not how it's done anymore.

In a strange way, to get more money in for the riskier productions, we need to get the money out of Hollywood. Can't see it happening, myself.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't? We just had a summer filled with high-budget flops, and now both the actors and the writers are on strike meaning that the studios won't be able to recoup their losses any time soon. Add the reduced to non-existent theatre turnout in the first couple of years of the decade due to COVID and there's been a hell of a lot of money "getting out of Hollywood."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I disagree that a flop means lost revenue. This is an industry that's so adept at hiding income to avoid paying taxes, actors, and every other studio worker that dodgy accounting is known as 'Hollywood Accounting'. Maybe we're talking about different things. When I say Hollywood, I mean the movie industry as a whole.

Hollywood has failed to capture some income streams. From theatres, for example, as you say. But there's still too much money to be made (and too much propaganda potential) for enough big money to leave that the problems of monopoly finance capital go away.