Some Obvious Truths

Scot · December 17

Here is the best transcript I could find of Swen Vincke's speech at the ego patting exercise which was The Game Awards 2024:

---

Vincke started off by saying that not only will he be the first person to know who wins game of the year tonight, he also knows who will win the next year, and the next year, and the year after that. He learned this information, he said, from an oracle, who told him that change is coming.

"The oracle told me that the Game of the Year 2025 is going to be made by a studio who found the formula to make it up here on stage," Vincke said. "It's stupidly simple, but somehow it keeps on getting lost. A studio makes a game because they want to make a game they want to play themselves. They created it because it hadn't been created before. They didn't make it to increase market share. They didn't make it to serve the brand. They didn't have to meet arbitrary sales targets, or fear being laid off if they didn't meet those targets.

"Furthermore, the people in charge forbade them from cramming the game with anything whose only purpose was to increase revenue and didn't serve the game design. They didn't treat their developers like numbers on a spreadsheet. They didn't treat their players as users to exploit. And they didn't make decisions they knew were short-sighted in function of a bonus or politics. They knew that if you put the game and the team first, the revenue will follow. They were driven by idealism, and wanted players to have fun, and they realized that if the developers don't have fun, nobody was going to have any fun. They understood the value of respect, that if they treated their developers and players well, the same developers and players would forgive them when things didn't go as planned. But above all they cared about their games, because they love games. It's really that simple."

This isn't the first time Vincke has spoken out against profit-driven industry practices that have led to a decimation of the videogame industry over the past few years. In March, he blasted the corporate "greed" that's devastated game studios, saying. "I've been fighting with publishers my entire life, and I keep on seeing the same mistakes, over and over and over. It's always the quarterly profits. The only thing that matters is the numbers."

---

Swen is saying what many of us been saying for years now, gaming has changed radically and detrimentally to fit a corporate model, one not designed to make the greatest games, but to make the greatest profit. When you realise that nearly every AAA studio makes at least 50% of its profit from microtransactions you realise how driven they are by priorities which are not quality gameplay.

As always I point out to you guys, this is not the end point, it is part of a process, it has taken the last 25 years for gaming to reach this point. A change which was ushered in by the internet age. If you want to be gaming in 25 years time you have to ask yourself where will gaming be then? "Great" gameplay innovations like NFT's and crypto may be the the way the industry is headed, all I do know is on its current trajectory gaming will just get worse for gamers.

Now, you may be thinking what's all this doom and gloom, I played this or that and it was great this year. Well sure great games are still coming out, but they are coming out despite the corporate model not because of it.

Wargfoot · December 17

I could spend thousands of dollars on gaming each year.
In 2025 the gaming industry will be lucky to get $50.00 in total from me.

I can wait until they grow up.

Angrakhan · December 17

Yeah but how does the industry pull out of the death spiral? I mean gamers are part of the problem here. Gamers keep buying the next Call of Duty and whaling crappy mobile games. Until the gamers shut off the money faucet the corporate bean counters will continue to go after the beans. It's like pointing out that eating ice cream and sitting on the couch is making us fat. It's not new information, but very few want to put down the ice cream and put in the work to be healthy.

Germzypie · December 17

Usually when i get to a point/bottleneck where the game i am playing will become a whole lot easier to progress if i just get out my wallet, i quit. Seems to be happening more as the years go on.

Wargfoot · December 17

The way people play these days, with the goal of finishing a game as soon as possible, it appears the developers have chosen a market driven approach.

Make a shallow game with some grind.
Sell the grind solution in the store.
Watch people blow through/buy through the game in 3 weeks and leave.

They were going to leave in 3 weeks anyways, thanks to endemic ADD and FOMO.

Cogohi · December 17

I agree with about half of what he said. The short-term profit at all costs attitude is a terrible way to run a business regardless of industry. On the other hand pure passion is rarely an indicator of success. Developer hubris is just as damaging as that of the finance bros.

Both boil down to the same thing: Respect your players. All of them even if that means jettisoning your big spenders no matter how much they White Knight. No amount of revenue is worth any level of toxicity.

The real formula is to create a product that people want to play that your studio has the capability to support both creatively and operationally. The game has to be economically sustainable without fleecing the customers. The creatives need to stick their egos on the shelf and figure out their audience's pain points and make a genuine effort to resolve those.

Scot · December 17

Cogohi said:

I agree with about half of what he said. The short-term profit at all costs attitude is a terrible way to run a business regardless of industry. On the other hand pure passion is rarely an indicator of success. Developer hubris is just as damaging as that of the finance bros.

Both boil down to the same thing: Respect your players. All of them even if that means jettisoning your big spenders no matter how much they White Knight. No amount of revenue is worth any level of toxicity.

The real formula is to create a product that people want to play that your studio has the capability to support both creatively and operationally. The game has to be economically sustainable without fleecing the customers. The creatives need to stick their egos on the shelf and figure out their audience's pain points and make a genuine effort to resolve those.

I certainly think he identifies the problem better than he comes up with a solution. I did a thread on here before about how many games in the early years were passion projects, there were a lot of small gaming companies (not indie size, just small compared to the big beasts) back then, but the problem for many was they did not have a head for business. They got bought out or folded down the line, like you are saying passion is not enough.

Wargfoot said:

The way people play these days, with the goal of finishing a game as soon as possible, it appears the developers have chosen a market driven approach.

Make a shallow game with some grind.
Sell the grind solution in the store.
Watch people blow through/buy through the game in 3 weeks and leave.

They were going to leave in 3 weeks anyways, thanks to endemic ADD and FOMO.

I think this is also why you see so many of these videos comparing older games to newer ones and asking why are the graphics worse? Nothing costs more than the graphics and even a relatively small reduction in quality makes for a lot of extra profit.

Angrakhan said:

Yeah but how does the industry pull out of the death spiral? I mean gamers are part of the problem here. Gamers keep buying the next Call of Duty and whaling crappy mobile games. Until the gamers shut off the money faucet the corporate bean counters will continue to go after the beans. It's like pointing out that eating ice cream and sitting on the couch is making us fat. It's not new information, but very few want to put down the ice cream and put in the work to be healthy.

How many times on here have I said "it always takes two to tango", players are the other half that climbed any pay hill and rarely kick back at anything. Even that much lauded loot boxes kick back, so no loot boxes in gaming now then?...err no, far from it.

I do think he was right about the honesty, be honest with your players and they will forgive you and forgive you again. Tell them honestly how much PvP or survival etc there is in the game, don't try to present every game as if it is for everyman. If you do that they will forgive delays, content getting put back you name it.

Gorwe · December 17

I lost almost all the interest in games. Everything new is either mediocre, unfinished, super big(in GB), too expensive, too political or any combination thereof.

Sorry for saying this, but I REALLY prefer when gaming was niche and when random fratboys(and political messages) were NOT a part of this equation. Consumerism at its worst.

Slapshot1188 · December 17

Some obvious truths are less obvious than others.

Follow me for more words of wisdom.

Wargfoot · December 17

Slapshot1188 said:

Some obvious truths are less obvious than others.

Follow me for more words of wisdom.

I feel like this is just a repeat of your newsletter and podcast.

Asm0deus · December 17

I enjoyed his speech it was a nice fuck you to the big AAA/AAAA companies!

Sovrath · December 17

Asm0deus said:

I enjoyed his speech it was a nice fuck you to the big AAA/AAAA companies!

Great

But without those large companies we don’t get the large games.

A certain contingent of players are always looking to tear these large studios a new one while at the same time demanding bigger and better games with certainly better graphics.

Big games do not happen without big budgets but usually with all the nonsense that comes with big developers.

”That’s fine because there are people who want small games?” Great!

But then come the complaints that the graphics aren’t great or that the game is missing features, etc.

can’t win for losing

Wargfoot · December 17

Sovrath said:

Asm0deus said:

I enjoyed his speech it was a nice fuck you to the big AAA/AAAA companies!

Great

But without those large companies we don’t get the large games.

A certain contingent of players are always looking to tear these large studios a new one while at the same time demanding bigger and better games with certainly better graphics.

Big games do not happen without big budgets but usually with all the nonsense that comes with big developers.

”That’s fine because there are people who want small games?” Great!

But then come the complaints that the graphics aren’t great or that the game is missing features, etc.

can’t win for losing

Clearly, Sovrath has just outed himself as the CEO of a very large game company.

Asm0deus · December 17

Wargfoot said:

Sovrath said:

Asm0deus said:

I enjoyed his speech it was a nice fuck you to the big AAA/AAAA companies!

Great

But without those large companies we don’t get the large games.

A certain contingent of players are always looking to tear these large studios a new one while at the same time demanding bigger and better games with certainly better graphics.

Big games do not happen without big budgets but usually with all the nonsense that comes with big developers.

”That’s fine because there are people who want small games?” Great!

But then come the complaints that the graphics aren’t great or that the game is missing features, etc.

can’t win for losing

Clearly, Sovrath has just outed himself as the CEO of a very large game company.

Maybe not so much but he has always clearly been very pro yes man.

Sovrath · December 17

Asm0deus said:

Wargfoot said:

Sovrath said:

Asm0deus said:

I enjoyed his speech it was a nice fuck you to the big AAA/AAAA companies!

Great

But without those large companies we don’t get the large games.

A certain contingent of players are always looking to tear these large studios a new one while at the same time demanding bigger and better games with certainly better graphics.

Big games do not happen without big budgets but usually with all the nonsense that comes with big developers.

”That’s fine because there are people who want small games?” Great!

But then come the complaints that the graphics aren’t great or that the game is missing features, etc.

can’t win for losing

Clearly, Sovrath has just outed himself as the CEO of a very large game company.

Maybe not so much but he has always clearly been very pro yes man.

I’d like to believe I’m pro-developer!

It’s hard to make the things and the stuffs!

Slapshot1188 · December 17

Wargfoot said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Some obvious truths are less obvious than others.

Follow me for more words of wisdom.

I feel like this is just a repeat of your newsletter and podcast.

At least SOMEONE has been paying attention. It makes it all worthwhile.

Wargfoot · December 17

Slapshot1188 said:

Wargfoot said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Some obvious truths are less obvious than others.

Follow me for more words of wisdom.

I feel like this is just a repeat of your newsletter and podcast.

At least SOMEONE has been paying attention. It makes it all worthwhile.

Me and the lads are waiting for you to wander outside of the guard zone.

Gorwe · December 17

Any suggestions for my problem?

Elidien_ga · December 17

I got into gaming big time in the late 90s with mainly RPGs, RTS', and MMOs. Originally it was games that let you live in the world. They were grinds and time sinks. EQ and DAOC both were find a camping spot, grind for hours, hope you don't die, and repeat until max level. Then in the late 2000s gaming changed to more of a quest based, gratification style. Think about WOW - sure its a commitment and leveling and end game, etc... but it was not punishing and you felt like you accomplished something.

I bring this up because in my line of work we study a lot of generational qualities. Those early games really appealed to Gen X (which I am). The 00s games appealed to millennials. Heck you see these traits in what people want from employment and education. Now games are gen Z and changing a lot. Now they want drop in and drop out, quick and fast paced, etc... My kids a full fledged gen Z and whatever the next generation is/will be, both love Youtube but do not watch tv shows or movies. They are too long and involved and in depth. Its not surprising that the same mentality is in gaming too. Even the books they read - lots of graphic novels and similar. Quick, drop in and drop out reading if you will.

My son and 6 of his classmates are right now obsessed and loving Marvel Rivals and its perfect for a gen Z world. This type of gaming is not what many of us want. I still want a world to live in and experience.

So I feel like many devs are giving the modern gamer what they want (much to my dismay). I am not their target audience and I think many on this forum are not either. And this is why many of us cling to the games of the past with little hope for the future. I do think some games, especially smaller indie games still are after older gamers for sure but we should not be surprised when those games do not do as well. Likewise, when modern games come out, we should expect a battlepass, MT's, etc... just like another article right now - you think ESO is changing to a seasonal model for the player or the Elder Scrolls fan? Nope, they see the profit generated with other games and like with everything else, they follow the leader (which is money).

KnightFalz · December 17

Gorwe said:

I lost almost all the interest in games. Everything new is either mediocre, unfinished, super big(in GB), too expensive, too political or any combination thereof.

Sorry for saying this, but I REALLY prefer when gaming was niche and when random fratboys(and political messages) were NOT a part of this equation. Consumerism at its worst.

Older stuff, essentially. Everything new is going to be full of the stuff you listed for the foreseeable future. If there is a genre you favour I may be able to suggest something.

What are you looking for?

Sovrath · December 17

Gorwe said:

I lost almost all the interest in games. Everything new is either mediocre, unfinished, super big(in GB), too expensive, too political or any combination thereof.

Sorry for saying this, but I REALLY prefer when gaming was niche and when random fratboys(and political messages) were NOT a part of this equation. Consumerism at its worst.

Just play older games. You might have to shift what you think is acceptable for graphics or controls but there are definitely great to good games out there that are still available.

xanthouscrown · December 17

Gorwe said:

Any suggestions for my problem?

I recently finished the three acts in available PoE2's campaign. It was really fun, and I'm glad I got it, though I probably won't play it again until release. It is still early access, and only half of the planned campaign available right now.

I also recently played a couple of older games: Alan Wake and Alan Wake's American Nightmare. I got these games for free from the Epic store (they give a free game every week), and got interested in playing them from a podcast I listen to. The gameplay is not the best, but the story is really intriguing, and now I'm interested in playing Remedy's others games like Control (which I also got for free from the Epic store).

Some upcoming games that seem interesting to me are Gothic 1 Remake, Hell is Us, and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. In particular, I really like the things the developer of Hell is Us is saying in the video I linked, and based on your comment, I think you might too.

xanthouscrown · December 17

Here is my counter argument to Sven.

We can look at a game company as having two sides: the business side and the creative side.

Now, if the business side is the one that responsible for the financial well-being of the company, and is funding and marketing the game in the first place, should they not also have a say in what or how the final product should be? If upper management or the marketing department tells the creative side to change something, is that truly wrong? I don't think so. In fact, the business side has just as much of a right to make decisions about the product as the creative side, since they are financially responsible for the product and the company.

But the problem happens when the business side doesn't truly understand what the market will like to or what will make their customers happy. This can result in interference in the creative process that hurts the success of the game. It can also result in the business side giving free reign to creatives who themselves have the wrong idea about what people will like, resulting in a game that is highly creative but no one is interested in.

Case in point: Concord. Here is what is said about the game director for Concord: "Ryan deeply believed in that project and bringing players together through the joy in it," said a former developer. "Regardless of there being things that could have been done differently throughout development, he's a good human and full of heart" (source).

It may be tempting to blame Sony, the business side, for interfering, but Sony didn't buy their studio until 2023, so "most of the decisions that sealed Concord's fate – in essence, the ones that led it to be an entirely unremarkable and forgettable live service title in a genre absolutely packed with heavy hitting competition – were probably made before Sony bought the studio. There's only so much blame that flows uphill here" (source).

So, here you have a talented, passionate, creative team making a game for a several years that turned out to be a colossal financial failure. Maybe interference from the business side would have actually helped in this case.

It's easy to blame the business side when a game turns out to be mediocre or a flop, who knows, maybe it was primarily the decisions of the creative side leading to that result.

In conclusion, input from the business side is their right and is often necessary to create a product that is both satisfying to customers and keeps the company alive.

xanthouscrown · December 18

I just read an article that gives what I think is a great example of people from both the creative side and business side (of Nintendo) that have the right idea (eurogamer).

Miyamoto added it's "possible to create appealing products based on intriguing ideas, without incurring significant costs."

"We believe that not all products require large costs," he continued. "Even in the case of video games, with the current technology it is possible to create fun games with a small number of developers in a short period of time. We believe it is important not to lose sight of this perspective."

Senior managing executive officer and corporate director Shinya Takahashi commented: "I believe unique titles that are small in scale, but worth polishing can be created by expanding on the ideas of a small number of developers, rather than spending large sums of money on every game."

Scot · December 18

Gorwe said:

Any suggestions for my problem?

I do, have you taken a break? During my gaming "career" I have taken three breaks from gaming. Roughly two three month and one four month one, each time I came back I was refreshed and ready to game. But we become jaded as we get older, harder and harder to please, what are you like with TV programmes, I often find myself watching half of the first episode and thinking this is just boring and skip it?

Elidien_ga said:

My kids a full fledged gen Z and whatever the next generation is/will be, both love Youtube but do not watch tv shows or movies. They are too long and involved and in depth. Its not surprising that the same mentality is in gaming too. Even the books they read - lots of graphic novels and similar. Quick, drop in and drop out reading if you will.

That is where we are at, but did the studios follow the demands of younger players or create that demand? I think both worked to reinforce one another.

I hope that the youngsters will mature into TV and films, but maybe they won't. TV news is following the same route news papers did in the noughties, less and less viewers. Maybe TV series are going to follow that downhill trend.

xanthouscrown said:

"Regardless of there being things that could have been done differently throughout development, he's a good human and full of heart"

I accept that the business side has to have a say but the problem lies in what you went on to say. You mentioned about the business side taking too much creative control, well that sailed years and years ago, that's where they are now.

I picked out this quote you found because it highlights what I see as a strange social trend we have had for years now.

When I employ a plumber, purchase a game or elect a political party, I do not care if they are nice people. I do not care if they are "good humans" or whatever. What I care about is will they get the job done? Is the plumber going to fix the sink, is the game going to good, is the party going to make the decisions I think it needs to make?

This obsession with being kind is crazy, I don't want people from the gaming studio or a political party to be good dinner guests, the sort of people I want to socialise with. They just have to do their job.

KnightFalz · December 18

xanthouscrown said:

Case in point: Concord. Here is what is said about the game director for Concord: "Ryan deeply believed in that project and bringing players together through the joy in it," said a former developer. "Regardless of there being things that could have been done differently throughout development, he's a good human and full of heart" (source).

Nobody cares. Players want good games that aren't full of crap.

Howdy, Stranger!

Some Obvious Truths

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Some Obvious Truths

Comments