'We Have Reached The Breaking Point': Deceive Inc Studio Sweet Bandit Announces Studio Closure | MMO

System

'We Have Reached The Breaking Point': Deceive Inc Studio Sweet Bandit Announces Studio Closure | MMORPG.com

Less than two years after the official launch of Deceive Inc, Sweet Badit announced that it's shutting down via a forum post.

Read the full story here

Ginaz

This is going to keep happening until people start learning why. Make better games with smaller teams and budgets. There's no reason a video game needs a team of hundreds of people that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make. None. Also, make games people want to play at a price they're willing to pay and you'll never have to lay off anyone. Too many failures seem to have been aimed at a "modern audience" rather than the people who actually buy video games. The "modern audience" hates video games and won't buy them regardless if you cater to their every demand or not. It's just another target for their agenda. I hope the gaming industry collapses like it did in the 80's and the only people left standing are those that are actually passionate about their work and their only agenda is to make fun games people actually want to play.

mitech616

Gaming has/had been a "quick cash in" entertainment genre for too long. Players are less likely to throw their money around, and the industry is FULL FULL FULL of hundreds of thousands of games. Most genres are packed, and there is little to no space for new entries.

You need to offer something new, innovating, and entertaining in a way that another game isn't already covering. And I completely agree that these big studios need to cut it out trying to load the gaming industry with title after title.

Sovrath

Ginaz said:

This is going to keep happening until people start learning why. Make better games with smaller teams and budgets. There's no reason a video game needs a team of hundreds of people that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make. None. Also, make games people want to play at a price they're willing to pay and you'll never have to lay off anyone. Too many failures seem to have been aimed at a "modern audience" rather than the people who actually buy video games. The "modern audience" hates video games and won't buy them regardless if you cater to their every demand or not. It's just another target for their agenda. I hope the gaming industry collapses like it did in the 80's and the only people left standing are those that are actually passionate about their work and their only agenda is to make fun games people actually want to play.

I think the industry is filled with people who are passionate about games. Why else would they join an industry that is famous for layoffs, for their customers getting up in their grills if they don't develop the way "they" want, and where they don't get near enough pay but could get better for doing the same job of coding?

The issue the way I see it is many fold. You have companies that are just throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks. Meaning, they have some money, they have an idea, and they hope they can get more money. I've known these type of people, entrepreneurs who are risk takers and are fine with failing. Unfortunately it's not fine when they lay off their workers.

You then have large developers who are a bit like movie producers. They aren't really that bright but they know what works. Or at least what has worked. So they just try to emulate those successes. Oftentimes without fully understanding why they worked. They certainly don't want to take chances.

You then have developers making good games but the players have very high, often impossibly high, expectations.

I swear, some of the games that people complain about here would be smash hits beyond recognition if they hadn't played "too many" games and are just bored.

Coming from someone (me) who started playing video games when they were a dot and two rectangles on a screen (and it was amazing) people need to start putting these games in perspective.

Angrakhan

Indeed how many times have we seen on this very site people complain about "graphics look like 2005" which is objectively false by simply googling for a game from that year and seeing what they look like. All that AAA production value has high high costs. If you really want games built by small teams with small budgets then learn to be OK with games that look like Valheim or Ultima Online. As cartoony as it looks WoW retail is not cheap to make. Finally stop being so damn cheap. I swear MMO players are the absolute worst. You want FTP with a cosmetics only cash shop. A decent not even really talented developer makes low 6 figures. Do the math. It's not cheap to make a game anymore. You guys opine for the good old days when 5 guys in a garage build a game. Those teams still exist. That's all the garbage pixel graphics tripe you click Next on in your Steam discovery queue. You're not getting a AAA MMO from those teams.

Scot

Sovrath said:

Ginaz said:

This is going to keep happening until people start learning why. Make better games with smaller teams and budgets. There's no reason a video game needs a team of hundreds of people that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make. None. Also, make games people want to play at a price they're willing to pay and you'll never have to lay off anyone. Too many failures seem to have been aimed at a "modern audience" rather than the people who actually buy video games. The "modern audience" hates video games and won't buy them regardless if you cater to their every demand or not. It's just another target for their agenda. I hope the gaming industry collapses like it did in the 80's and the only people left standing are those that are actually passionate about their work and their only agenda is to make fun games people actually want to play.

I think the industry is filled with people who are passionate about games. Why else would they join an industry that is famous for layoffs, for their customers getting up in their grills if they don't develop the way "they" want, and where they don't get near enough pay but could get better for doing the same job of coding?

The issue the way I see it is many fold. You have companies that are just throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks. Meaning, they have some money, they have an idea, and they hope they can get more money. I've known these type of people, entrepreneurs who are risk takers and are fine with failing. Unfortunately it's not fine when they lay off their workers.

You then have large developers who are a bit like movie producers. They aren't really that bright but they know what works. Or at least what has worked. So they just try to emulate those successes. Oftentimes without fully understanding why they worked. They certainly don't want to take chances.

You then have developers making good games but the players have very high, often impossibly high, expectations.

I swear, some of the games that people complain about here would be smash hits beyond recognition if they hadn't played "too many" games and are just bored.

Coming from someone (me) who started playing video games when they were a dot and two rectangles on a screen (and it was amazing) people need to start putting these games in perspective.

Guys this is gaming, it always takes two to tango. Both players and studios are at fault, we have a ton of games coming out players can't play them all. The quality of many of the games is questionable as well, but players are picky and entitled. The thing that makes me think this is more down to the studios this time is that players have always been picky and entitled, this is such a major downturn it has to be more from the studios end.

Please don't bring up the Covid reasoning, sure it was a big factor, but its is 2024 now is it still going to get rolled out and again in 2025 and again in 2026?

Are developers passionate about games, sure, but we are still here with all the closures etc, we need to look further than that.

I could go on about how games are walkovers compared to the old says, compared to even ten years ago and the accompanying lack of sense of achievement games now give us. There are loads of reasons in fact, but players have not somehow essentially changed, so I have to look more to the studios for this one.

moonpanther

Until this article I never heard of this company or this game. Bye I guess

dirtyside

make a game that people actually WANT to play or not something you think that people want to play if you are a developer. idk anything about this game i seen it , never played it , but my first thought was another wannabe "AMONG US" , thinking they can do better

olepi

This article has no real information so there is no way to know what happened.

Was it badly received? Did it cost too much to play? Bad monetization model? Too much p2w, too much rmt? How big was the studio, maybe they were bloated? How many developers did it take? Maybe it took too long to come to market? How many are being laid off? Is there an estimate on what kind of revenue it brought in?

Maybe some other gaming site has information like this. I guess we do our own research.

Steam shows it having very positive reviews. Some commented that they should have gone F2P. Others commented that the gameplay was new and different, maybe too different.

Xiaoki

olepi said:

This article has no real information so there is no way to know what happened.

Was it badly received? Did it cost too much to play? Bad monetization model? Too much p2w, too much rmt? How big was the studio, maybe they were bloated? How many developers did it take? Maybe it took too long to come to market? How many are being laid off? Is there an estimate on what kind of revenue it brought in?

Maybe some other gaming site has information like this. I guess we do our own research.

Steam shows it having very positive reviews. Some commented that they should have gone F2P. Others commented that the gameplay was new and different, maybe too different.

This article is only about the studio announcing they were shutting down, not about the reasons why because the studio did not announce that.

If you can find Steam reviews then you can also find Steam charts. You will find your answers there.

olepi

Xiaoki said:

olepi said:

This article has no real information so there is no way to know what happened.

Was it badly received? Did it cost too much to play? Bad monetization model? Too much p2w, too much rmt? How big was the studio, maybe they were bloated? How many developers did it take? Maybe it took too long to come to market? How many are being laid off? Is there an estimate on what kind of revenue it brought in?

Maybe some other gaming site has information like this. I guess we do our own research.

Steam shows it having very positive reviews. Some commented that they should have gone F2P. Others commented that the gameplay was new and different, maybe too different.

This article is only about the studio announcing they were shutting down, not about the reasons why because the studio did not announce that.

If you can find Steam reviews then you can also find Steam charts. You will find your answers there.

Right like a weather report; "it rained".

How much? When? Where? Was there any flooding?

Look elsewhere for answers. 

Brainy

Sovrath said:

You then have developers making good games but the players have very high, often impossibly high, expectations.

I swear, some of the games that people complain about here would be smash hits beyond recognition if they hadn't played "too many" games and are just bored.

Is this a joke? Players are bored, so they won’t buy “good” games?

Good games according to who? Some out-of-touch dev who made a trash game and can't accept it?

You don’t even need to create a groundbreaking game to succeed wildly. Plenty of mediocre games are thriving, yet dev teams keep lowering the bar, trying to churn out the worst possible product and then complaining when people don’t buy it.

I’d love to hear your list of “awesome” MMOs from the last five years that you think failed. Whenever there’s actually a great game that doesn’t succeed, let me know, because that would be news to me.

Right now, there are no great games failing. What we have are bad games flopping, decent games succeeding, and the truly great games making billions.

Here’s an idea for developers: Make a good game, and you’ll profit. It’s that simple.

KnightFalz

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:

You then have developers making good games but the players have very high, often impossibly high, expectations.

I swear, some of the games that people complain about here would be smash hits beyond recognition if they hadn't played "too many" games and are just bored.

Is this a joke? Players are bored, so they won’t buy “good” games?

Good games according to who? Some out-of-touch dev who made a trash game and can't accept it?

You don’t even need to create a groundbreaking game to succeed wildly. Plenty of mediocre games are thriving, yet dev teams keep lowering the bar, trying to churn out the worst possible product and then complaining when people don’t buy it.

I’d love to hear your list of “awesome” MMOs from the last five years that you think failed. Whenever there’s actually a great game that doesn’t succeed, let me know, because that would be news to me.

Right now, there are no great games failing. What we have are bad games flopping, decent games succeeding, and the truly great games making billions.

Here’s an idea for developers: Make a good game, and you’ll profit. It’s that simple.

If it was that simple every game made would be good and they would all be sufficiently profitable. Neither is true so it isn't that simple.

Scot

KnightFalz said:

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:

You then have developers making good games but the players have very high, often impossibly high, expectations.

I swear, some of the games that people complain about here would be smash hits beyond recognition if they hadn't played "too many" games and are just bored.

Is this a joke? Players are bored, so they won’t buy “good” games?

Good games according to who? Some out-of-touch dev who made a trash game and can't accept it?

You don’t even need to create a groundbreaking game to succeed wildly. Plenty of mediocre games are thriving, yet dev teams keep lowering the bar, trying to churn out the worst possible product and then complaining when people don’t buy it.

I’d love to hear your list of “awesome” MMOs from the last five years that you think failed. Whenever there’s actually a great game that doesn’t succeed, let me know, because that would be news to me.

Right now, there are no great games failing. What we have are bad games flopping, decent games succeeding, and the truly great games making billions.

Here’s an idea for developers: Make a good game, and you’ll profit. It’s that simple.

If it was that simple every game made would be good and they would all be sufficiently profitable. Neither is true so it isn't that simple.

It is not simple to make a good game, but if players start to think the industry is on average turning out less good games what are they to think? Gaming does seem to be more of a factory where titles are churned out rather than crafted. We see this most easily in games which are launched too early or those which promised one thing when we get another.

Everyone looks to others for the cause of a fault, it is never ourselves. Players have always been picky and entitled, studios get flak just for trying out something new in a franchise. But studios are equally looking to blame elsewhere, mostly to influencers who they see as trashing their games. Well only a tiny fraction of releases get extensive negative coverage by influencers, so not sure that's valid.

I have become more picky myself, but I would say that's down to being more uncertain that the time I put into making sure a game is for me is a 'full proof system'. Games which are not good enough have got in under my radar, naturally I am more cautious now.

Brainy

It's simple: make good games, and you'll make good money. The uncertainty lies in the fact that even bad games can sometimes turn a profit. This unpredictability has fueled the gaming market for years, allowing some developers to churn out low-quality titles and still come out ahead financially.

Now that the easy money is drying up, they're all complaining.

Well, the cash cow is gone. It's time to get creative, figure out what players actually want, and start making games they'll love.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me this so-called list of amazing games that keep failing because gamers are "too picky" or "bored." The truth is, gamers aren't getting pickier—they'll buy almost anything that resembles a decent game. It's the developers who have dropped the ball and let us all down.

KnightFalz

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:

You then have developers making good games but the players have very high, often impossibly high, expectations.

I swear, some of the games that people complain about here would be smash hits beyond recognition if they hadn't played "too many" games and are just bored.

Is this a joke? Players are bored, so they won’t buy “good” games?

Good games according to who? Some out-of-touch dev who made a trash game and can't accept it?

You don’t even need to create a groundbreaking game to succeed wildly. Plenty of mediocre games are thriving, yet dev teams keep lowering the bar, trying to churn out the worst possible product and then complaining when people don’t buy it.

I’d love to hear your list of “awesome” MMOs from the last five years that you think failed. Whenever there’s actually a great game that doesn’t succeed, let me know, because that would be news to me.

Right now, there are no great games failing. What we have are bad games flopping, decent games succeeding, and the truly great games making billions.

Here’s an idea for developers: Make a good game, and you’ll profit. It’s that simple.

If it was that simple every game made would be good and they would all be sufficiently profitable. Neither is true so it isn't that simple.

It is not simple to make a good game, but if players start to think the industry is on average turning out less good games what are they to think? Gaming does seem to be more of a factory where titles are churned out rather than crafted. We see this most easily in games which are launched too early or those which promised one thing when we get another.

Everyone looks to others for the cause of a fault, it is never ourselves. Players have always been picky and entitled, studios get flak just for trying out something new in a franchise. But studios are equally looking to blame elsewhere, mostly to influencers who they see as trashing their games. Well only a tiny fraction of releases get extensive negative coverage by influencers, so not sure that's valid.

I have become more picky myself, but I would say that's down to being more uncertain that the time I put into making sure a game is for me is a 'full proof system'. Games which are not good enough have got in under my radar, naturally I am more cautious now.

Presumably they are to think the industry is on average turning out less good games. Those that think that are correct.

It is the fault of the game makers.

They decide what goes into games and how it is presented. It is their responsibility to make choices that will appeal to their customer base. If a company tries something new and their customers widely reject it a proper business will stop doing that and go back to what works. Many game makers are now opting to not do that and instead keep pushing what doesn't sell well.

So long as game companies continue with that gaming will decline, profits will diminish, and closures and job loss will continue.

Scot

KnightFalz said:

Presumably they are to think the industry is on average turning out less good games. Those that think that are correct.

It is the fault of the game makers.

They decide what goes into games and how it is presented. It is their responsibility to make choices that will appeal to their customer base. If a company tries something new and their customers widely reject it a proper business will stop doing that and go back to what works. Many game makers are now opting to not do that and instead keep pushing what doesn't sell well.

So long as game companies continue with that gaming will decline, profits will diminish, and closures and job loss will continue.

I note that most AAA studios are now making at least 50% of their money from microtransactions, 50% or less comes from actually selling new games. This means producing a new game is seen as more of a risk as it could flop, back in the day you could only make a new game to make up the loses. This must lead to a more conservative approach to new franchise titles let alone new titles.

It looks like live service is becoming a turn off, players are sticking with their preferred LS games but are not as keen to jump to new ones. But it is obvious from what I have said that studios are not going to give up LS easily, they are going to cling to it in fact. Going forward I don't see this playing out well for either AAA studios or gamers.

olepi

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Presumably they are to think the industry is on average turning out less good games. Those that think that are correct.

It is the fault of the game makers.

They decide what goes into games and how it is presented. It is their responsibility to make choices that will appeal to their customer base. If a company tries something new and their customers widely reject it a proper business will stop doing that and go back to what works. Many game makers are now opting to not do that and instead keep pushing what doesn't sell well.

So long as game companies continue with that gaming will decline, profits will diminish, and closures and job loss will continue.

I note that most AAA studios are now making at least 50% of their money from microtransactions, 50% or less comes from actually selling new games. This means producing a new game is seen as more of a risk as it could flop, back in the day you could only make a new game to make up the loses. This must lead to a more conservative approach to new franchise titles let alone new titles.

It looks like live service is becoming a turn off, players are sticking with their preferred LS games but are not as keen to jump to new ones. But it is obvious from what I have said that studios are not going to give up LS easily, they are going to cling to it in fact. Going forward I don't see this playing out well for either AAA studios or gamers.

Burnout of live services might be a factor. In the early days, I was playing DAOC and it was the first game for me to be online and have a subscription cost. I don't remember paying a sub for anything else and not just games. I had a cable TV bill and an internet bill, but those were like utilities.

Today, everything wants to be a live service and have a subscription, and not just games. 

"In January, HP said it would bring subscription plans for its printers and tried to justify blocking third-party inks. Now HP has implemented the subscription, calling it an 'All-in' plan where users can print a limited amount of pages per month for a monthly fee, provided they sign up with a two-year commitment and other charges." -- Tom's Hardware

Pay every month to use their printer; you can't just buy a printer and use it. I think people are sick of it. Just like with tipping, where you buy something online from a bot and it asks for a tip.

If you want to charge for a live service, the product had better be good. There are just too many alternatives for people to choose from.

Kyleran

olepi said:

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Presumably they are to think the industry is on average turning out less good games. Those that think that are correct.

It is the fault of the game makers.

They decide what goes into games and how it is presented. It is their responsibility to make choices that will appeal to their customer base. If a company tries something new and their customers widely reject it a proper business will stop doing that and go back to what works. Many game makers are now opting to not do that and instead keep pushing what doesn't sell well.

So long as game companies continue with that gaming will decline, profits will diminish, and closures and job loss will continue.

I note that most AAA studios are now making at least 50% of their money from microtransactions, 50% or less comes from actually selling new games. This means producing a new game is seen as more of a risk as it could flop, back in the day you could only make a new game to make up the loses. This must lead to a more conservative approach to new franchise titles let alone new titles.

It looks like live service is becoming a turn off, players are sticking with their preferred LS games but are not as keen to jump to new ones. But it is obvious from what I have said that studios are not going to give up LS easily, they are going to cling to it in fact. Going forward I don't see this playing out well for either AAA studios or gamers.

Burnout of live services might be a factor. In the early days, I was playing DAOC and it was the first game for me to be online and have a subscription cost. I don't remember paying a sub for anything else and not just games. I had a cable TV bill and an internet bill, but those were like utilities.

Today, everything wants to be a live service and have a subscription, and not just games. 

"In January, HP said it would bring subscription plans for its printers and tried to justify blocking third-party inks. Now HP has implemented the subscription, calling it an 'All-in' plan where users can print a limited amount of pages per month for a monthly fee, provided they sign up with a two-year commitment and other charges." -- Tom's Hardware

Pay every month to use their printer; you can't just buy a printer and use it. I think people are sick of it. Just like with tipping, where you buy something online from a bot and it asks for a tip.

If you want to charge for a live service, the product had better be good. There are just too many alternatives for people to choose from.

Noob.    My first gaming service was Genie back in the late 80's, and I had to pay hourly to access the service, $6 / hr off peak (after 11 pm / weekends, holidays) and $15 / hr on peak. Wasn't uncommon to spend $50 to $100 /month which was a small fortune back then.

As for MMORPGs subs starting in 2001or so I first paid like $9.99 or $12.99 / month (after box cost) for my first few subs including Lineage 1, DAOC, Shadowbane, and Lin 2. I was thrilled at the convenience and low cost, even when paying for multiple subs.

Fast forward to ESO 3 or 4 years ago.  Box price, not really optional sub, cash shop items of convenience and cosmetics, specific classes locked in the shop and grandiose houses. Then there are paid expansions....

I easily dropped over $500 in the 9 months I played, maybe more.  

It really has gotten out of hand as you pointed out, and in the past 18 months my total spending has been $25 on new games that I'm playing, a bit of a recoil on my part I guess.

Sovrath

Brainy said:

Is this a joke? Players are bored, so they won’t buy “good” games?

Good games according to who? Some out-of-touch dev who made a trash game and can't accept it?

You don’t even need to create a groundbreaking game to succeed wildly. Plenty of mediocre games are thriving, yet dev teams keep lowering the bar, trying to churn out the worst possible product and then complaining when people don’t buy it.

I’d love to hear your list of “awesome” MMOs from the last five years that you think failed. Whenever there’s actually a great game that doesn’t succeed, let me know, because that would be news to me.

Right now, there are no great games failing. What we have are bad games flopping, decent games succeeding, and the truly great games making billions.

Here’s an idea for developers: Make a good game, and you’ll profit. It’s that simple.

Not a joke, there are so many spoiled players. And I said "games" not mmorpg's, games in general.

We haven't had a lot of mmorpg's in the past years but you know that already.

To the one I've been playing, Throne and Liberty is a good game. There are quibbles but any game can have them.

olepi

Kyleran said:

olepi said:

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Presumably they are to think the industry is on average turning out less good games. Those that think that are correct.

It is the fault of the game makers.

They decide what goes into games and how it is presented. It is their responsibility to make choices that will appeal to their customer base. If a company tries something new and their customers widely reject it a proper business will stop doing that and go back to what works. Many game makers are now opting to not do that and instead keep pushing what doesn't sell well.

So long as game companies continue with that gaming will decline, profits will diminish, and closures and job loss will continue.

I note that most AAA studios are now making at least 50% of their money from microtransactions, 50% or less comes from actually selling new games. This means producing a new game is seen as more of a risk as it could flop, back in the day you could only make a new game to make up the loses. This must lead to a more conservative approach to new franchise titles let alone new titles.

It looks like live service is becoming a turn off, players are sticking with their preferred LS games but are not as keen to jump to new ones. But it is obvious from what I have said that studios are not going to give up LS easily, they are going to cling to it in fact. Going forward I don't see this playing out well for either AAA studios or gamers.

Burnout of live services might be a factor. In the early days, I was playing DAOC and it was the first game for me to be online and have a subscription cost. I don't remember paying a sub for anything else and not just games. I had a cable TV bill and an internet bill, but those were like utilities.

Today, everything wants to be a live service and have a subscription, and not just games. 

"In January, HP said it would bring subscription plans for its printers and tried to justify blocking third-party inks. Now HP has implemented the subscription, calling it an 'All-in' plan where users can print a limited amount of pages per month for a monthly fee, provided they sign up with a two-year commitment and other charges." -- Tom's Hardware

Pay every month to use their printer; you can't just buy a printer and use it. I think people are sick of it. Just like with tipping, where you buy something online from a bot and it asks for a tip.

If you want to charge for a live service, the product had better be good. There are just too many alternatives for people to choose from.

Noob.    My first gaming service was Genie back in the late 80's, and I had to pay hourly to access the service, $6 / hr off peak (after 11 pm / weekends, holidays) and $15 / hr on peak. Wasn't uncommon to spend $50 to $100 /month which was a small fortune back then.

As for MMORPGs subs starting in 2001or so I first paid like $9.99 or $12.99 / month (after box cost) for my first few subs including Lineage 1, DAOC, Shadowbane, and Lin 2. I was thrilled at the convenience and low cost, even when paying for multiple subs.

Fast forward to ESO 3 or 4 years ago.  Box price, not really optional sub, cash shop items of convenience and cosmetics, specific classes locked in the shop and grandiose houses. Then there are paid expansions....

I easily dropped over $500 in the 9 months I played, maybe more.  

It really has gotten out of hand as you pointed out, and in the past 18 months my total spending has been $25 on new games that I'm playing, a bit of a recoil on my part I guess.

I was a sysadmin for the net in the late '70's; we had Adventure and a Star Trek game. In the '80's my kids were little and I refused to pay for any online service. We did play Zelda, and then in the '90's I played NWN and Baldur's Gate. I bought Everquest when it released and returned it, it required a credit card to play and I refused.

So DAOC in 2001 was my first paid online game.

Some of the comments on the Steam page for Deceive mentioned that gameplay was perhaps too different, too new to attract the masses. Maybe gamers just don't want something *too* new.