Video game companies are lying to us about everything - Reader's Feature
A reader is sceptical about the current leadership in the video games industry and worries that the needs of gamers are not the priority for publishers.
The games industry is in such a strange place at the moment. On the one hand we have amazing games being released, with things like Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Blue Prince, and Monster Hunter Wilds. And on the other we have publishers acting like monsters, cutting hundreds of jobs at a time, while making billions in profits. Not only that but making business decisions so stupid that its left ordinary gamers like me absolutely baffled.
It's not just the obsession with live service games (which Sony proved this week they still can't shake) but the total refusal to deal with the rising cost of making games, with anything other than price rises. When even Nintendo sees that as the only answer you know they're not even trying to address the problems, and that's what got me to thinking.
It seems to me that nobody high up in the games industry is in the slightest bit interested in being a custododian, as you might say, of gaming. Nobody is looking out for its long term health, nobody cares whether people lose their jobs or developers go under, and definitely nobody cares about art.
You might call me naïve for even thinking any of these things were possible but whenever something bad happens in gaming I think back to that awful photo of Phil Spencer (the head of Xbox) and the head of Blizzard at the time, standing in front of hundreds of Blizzard employees, a huge number of which got laid off only a few days later.
Both men must've known that at the time but they're both grinning away as if they're at a pop concert, soaking up the adulation from their 'fans'.
Nobody in charge of a game publisher is in the role for anything other than themselves. They don't even care about the company, just their own money, bonuses, and eventual golden parachute. Remember when the head of Microsoft had Game Pass targets removed from the list of things he had to do to get a bonus? These people don't care about anything but their own bank balance.
They're only human, I suppose you could say. I'm not sure I would be any different if I was earning $10 million a year. But then recently I was watching a video by Alanah Pearce, who used to work at Sony Santa Monica, about everything that's going on. It's very interesting, and only 20 minutes long, so I advise everyone to watch.
A lot of it was familiar to me from things GC has said in the past, about publishers not being interested in what gamers want but instead what will please investors. They make money from selling games, obviously, but that takes time to filter through. Most of the actual cash flow, as I understand, comes from investors and venture capitalists.
What this video makes clear, is that we ordinary people are not even the customers of these companies, of Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, EA, Ubisoft and the rest. The investors are. Everything games publishers do they do for them. Once you realise that all the dumb decisions suddenly start to make sense.
There's too many live service games and gamers want more single-player games, but it never happens. Why? Because investors know about Fortnite, Minecraft, and the rest and they want more of that. Even just the potential of a hit of that scale is far more important to them than just a modest profit from a normal game.
Already sick of hearing about AI in games? Tough. Investors love it. Even if it doesn't work and it's going to ruin the economy by putting so many people out of work, if they find out AI is involved they're more likely to invest. And it'll be the same for whatever dumb buzzword is next in tech, just like it was for NFTs.
Games are getting too expensive to make so maybe we should cut budgets and shorten games… that doesn't make sense to investors. They don't understand, or want to understand, gaming so the only logical thing to them is to put more money in to get more money out.
If any publisher tries to pretend to you that they're doing it for the gamers or give a damn about what the game is or who's making it… they're lying. All they're interested in is what pleases investors. Even laying people off is part of that, because that's what investors expect any company to do, that isn't showing infinite growth.
Everything bad that's happening to the games industry right now is because of greedy execs looking out for themselves and uncaring investors looking for easy money. Any good games that come out of that is purely a side product and no one that could make things better has any interest in doing so. Publishers don't care about games, and they definitely don't care about you.
By reader Grackle
Why are they smiling? (ResetEra)
The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email.
Arrow MORE: Xbox is crazy if it thinks it can compete with Nintendo Switch 2 – Reader's Feature
Arrow MORE: Why I tried to beat Oblivion Remastered without ever using fast travel - Reader's Feature
Arrow MORE: GTA 6 and price rises are going to destroy gaming forever – Reader's Feature
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
13 hours ago
- Metro
EA is going to make a new Battlefield game every year claims source
As excitement mounts for Battlefield 6, a prominent analyst claims that EA is planning to copy the release schedule and studio set-up for Call Of Duty. Not for the first time, EA is getting excited about the prospect of Battlefield becoming a true rival to Call Of Duty. This has happened multiple times in the past, with previous entries, but the hype behind Battlefield 6 does seem especially potent, especially given how many people have been playing the open beta. It's still unlikely to come very close to the sales figures or player numbers for this year's Call Of Duty: Black Ops 7 but if it does well then it will encourage EA to plough more resources into the franchise and, inevitably, create more sequels. According to one industry figure the plan is to eventually have yearly sequels, by mimicking the way Call Of Duty works, with three separate studios working in rotation. Ignoring the fact that the Call Of Duty system has become increasingly unpredictable in recent years, as games take longer to make, the comments suggests that it will be five or six years before EA is able to churn out sequels at the rate they want. That sounds believable enough, and getting carried away with the potential success of Battlefield, before it's had a chance to prove itself, is certainly something EA has done multiple times before, but the problem with the rumour is that it comes from controversial industry analyst Michael Patcher. Not only that but the information is from the same podcast in which Patcher claims that Sony's live service game Fairgame$ had been cancelled. Something which he ended up retracting just hours later, while admitting, 'I have no info on the game at all.' Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. That was a rumour though, which Pachter does not usually peddle in, whereas the Battlefield information supposedly comes from personal conversations with EA developers. 'I talked to EA, Byron Beede, good dude, former Activision guy who worked at Infinity Ward with Vince [Zampella]. He's running the Battlefield franchise. And their goal is three studios making Battlefield on a three year basis. So they can get to Battlefield annually,' said Patcher. 'He said it's going to take five or six years before they can get two in a row, so we're not going to get there for a while. But that's their plan.' More Trending If that information had come from anyone other than Pachter it would have had few doubters, but so far there's been no attempt from Byron Beede to deny the story, which is something at least. Especially since it became available on Game Pass, there's been some debate as to whether it still makes sense to have a new Call Of Duty game ever year, especially as publishers now make more money from microtransactions than they do game sales. While yearly sequels used to be commonplace in the games industry they're now almost exclusively limited to sports titles and Call Of Duty. Whether Battlefield will be added to that list remains to be seen, as even if Battlefield 6 is a major hit a lot can change in the five years necessary to set up the new studio system Pachter is describing. Email gamecentral@ leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader's Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. MORE: Games Inbox: What is the best generation of video game console? MORE: Here's the one reason why I'm not buying Battlefield 6 – Reader's Feature MORE: PETA gives Nintendo free advertising by complaining about the cows in Mario Kart
Metro
13 hours ago
- Metro
Games Inbox: What is the best generation of video game console?
The Monday letters page has some interesting ideas for the next God Of War game, as one reader looks forward to a Donkey Kong Bananza sequel. To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@ Anytime but now As we head towards another, unwanted, new generation I'm still using my PlayStation 4 and wondering whether it's worth upgrading to a PlayStation 6, let alone a 5. Maybe it feels different if you own one, but I can't imagine anyone saying this generation of consoles has been the best but that started me think on what was the best? I think there's three obvious contenders: the SNES/Mega Drive, the Xbox 360/Wii, and the PlayStation 4. It's difficult because I feel nostalgia gets in the way and it's hard to look at things definitively. You also tend to only remember the good stuff. No matter how many classics it had, there was a ton lot of identikit platformers in the Mega Drive era. Likewise, I think we forget how many brown coloured shooters there were on the Xbox 360. You then start worrying about recency bias, but I really do think the PlayStation 4 was the best, especially if you include the Nintendo Switch. Two great consoles, tons of all-time exclusives, and Sony and Nintendo at arguably their best. Curious to know what others think but that's what I'd choose if they were giving out awards. Kogan Dragging it out RE: Unicorn Overlord. It was mentioned in the Inbox the other day and I have to say how great it is. I'm about 50 hours in and I'm nearing the end, but I'll make sure I drag it out, doing all of the side and liberation missions. It's such a great game, especially on the big story missions where you have to send different units off to fight different targets (although my Alain unit is so buffed and varied that if I'm struggling I just send them in to beat almost anyone). Simon PS: I wrote in the other week mentioning Resistance 3 and how good it was. I have finished it, and it is an absolute classic – I'm surprised this game doesn't ever seem to get mentioned. I've got out my old PlayStation 3 and will go through the original God Of War games. The Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 generation was one the best in gaming history, in my opinion. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. Recurring issue I feel like no matter how much hype there is for Battlefield 6, the real problem with the series is that it always falls flat on its face at launch. That's why Battlefield 4 didn't beat Call Of Duty and almost all of the games have had the same problem, to some degree or another. The cause always seems to be the same too: EA unwilling to wait until the game is finished and being so full of themselves they're convinced the game is too big to fail. The fact that has happened so many times makes me believe that EA is never going to learn their lesson. Maybe the open betas have been enough to iron out any problems, but they seem more like marketing schemes than something that's being done as a genuine test. Zeiss Email your comments to: gamecentral@ Reaction time So there's going to be five weeks between Battlefield 6 and Call Of Duty: Black Ops 7? I'm not sure why Activision is leaving EA an open goal like that, but if that's proof of them thinking that it's no threat to them I'll laugh if they end up wishing they'd taken things a bit more seriously. I don't think there's any chance that Battlefield 6 will 'beat' Black Ops 7, but if it proves itself to be a real contender than that means there's huge pressure on next year's Call Of Duty, which we've already had leaks on. They seem to plan them all at least three years in advance, so there's no way Activision will be able to react until there's a Battlefield 7, at which time EA can try and outfox them again. I don't really have a horse in this race – I'd much rather see a new game take over dominance – but anything that shakes up the status quo for me is good. The more complacent a publisher is, the worse the games are. Focus Final purchase On the subject of buying a new gaming PC. I spoke to PC Specialist for an hour on Friday and they recommended a few changes to Magnum's pre-build PC, not many, mainly the graphics card and tower. Could GameCentral readers and the Underbox give me advice on this build that PC Specialist recommended, please? Is it good, in your opinion? They did say if I spent another £340 I would get a really good 4K graphics card but I couldn't afford that, so went with the next one they recommended after the more expensive one. Thank you in advance for any advice you can give. Andrew J. Going bananas I've just finished Donkey Kong Bananza and I'm kind of in two minds. It was 80% great, but it was surprisingly janky for a Nintendo game and the camera can be a nightmare. You could argue there's no way round that problem but that doesn't stop it from seeming annoying while you're playing. I'd also say it was fairly inconsistent in terms of level design, with some amazing ones and some that dragged on (that Zebra level). I'm willing to bet the desert island level was made after they knew that this was going to be a Switch 2 game, because it's awesome and seems to be pushing the console the most. The ending is also great, and I think that does a lot to leave you with a good overall impression of the game, once you've finished. It's a shame it and the other boss fighters weren't tougher though. Some of them I beat so quickly I never really understood exactly what was going on, which is a shame as a lot of them seemed quite clever. I think it's the sort of game that needs a sequel to really perfect what it's trying to do, and I would be interested in playing that if they made it. In terms of positives, I think it makes Donkey Kong a much more interesting character with more defined abilities (was he ever meant to be super strong before? I don't really remember that). In terms of negatives, I think the lack of challenge and the amount of jank is going to upset some people and stop it from winning any game of the year awards, even though it is definitely one of the best games I've played in a while. Coolsbane No parity I really don't think we should be treating the fact that the Switch 2 can't run a game at exactly the same level as the PlayStation 5 as some sort of surprise. That was never going to happen, especially with Borderlands 4 being open world. I'm not advocating getting the Switch 2 version over the other others, but anyone expecting to buy any multiformat game and having it run the same as the PlayStation 5, or the Xbox Series X/S, hasn't been paying attention. Personally, I think getting anywhere close is pretty impressive. The more important test will be if it can run things like Elden Ring as good or better than the PlayStation 4 version. Tolly Modern gods A few months ago there were rumours of a new 'half-sequel' God Of War game, but I see that never got announced and the rumours have gone away. Does that mean it's been cancelled? Or maybe that it's been upgraded into a full game, as sometimes seems to happen. I don't envy Sony working out what to do next, as even as a fan I'm not sure what would be best. I know I don't want to play as Atreus but has Kratos got any story left to tell? His character arc seems to be over and while it would be funny to have him running around as a pure good guy, I don't think that leaves much room for anything interesting to happen to him. There's also what seems like the inevitability of setting it in Egypt, but so inevitable that it risks feeling like it's just going through the motions. We all know how the formula works by now and pop culture means most people have a fairly good idea of the basics of Ancient Egyptian mythology. I think what I would do is set the game in the modern day. Maybe after Kratos has destroyed all gods everywhere and what that kind of world would look like. Maybe the gods are trying to get back in and have people worship them again or something like that. I feel something new and daring has to happen or otherwise we're just going to be going round all the ancient world religions, then rebooting at the end to start again in Greece. And who wouldn't want to see Kratos in jeans and a T-shirt? Paulie GC: The last rumour, from June, was of a 2D Metroidvania. But as with all the other rumours, there's no evidence and things have gone quiet since then. Inbox also-ransIf there's really going to be a Capcom Vs. SNK 3 I hope it includes more than just fighting game characters. The other ones were just a bit too hardcore for me. Either that or do a different team-up and have wackier fighting. I mean… the DCU is just sitting there now, if Capcom's ben jilted by Marvel. Limpton Will you be playing Hollow Knight: Silksong at Gamescom? I don't see how that game is ever going to live up to the hype, but I'm curious. Milo GC: We should be. It's supposed to be at both the Xbox and Nintendo stands. But we won't believe anything until we see it. More Trending Email your comments to: gamecentral@ The small print New Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers' letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content. You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader's Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot. You can also leave your comments below and don't forget to follow us on Twitter. MORE: Games Inbox: Has Nintendo lost their touch with Switch 2? MORE: Games Inbox: Should Leon die in Resident Evil Requiem? MORE: Games Inbox: Is an Xbox Game Pass subscription worth it?
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
There's no reason to make a PS6 or a next gen Xbox - Reader's Feature
A reader feels a new generation of video games consoles is currently unnecessary, unless the new hardware and games are shown to do some different. The advent of a new console generation is an exciting and unpredictable time. Faster processors, beefier graphics cards and more teraflops than anybody knows what to do with. But with the recent PlayStation 6 rumours swirling, I can't help but wonder…do we really need that next leap right now? Technology is an ever-evolving thing and with it, so expand its capabilities. When a new console generation was released there was always a lot of fervour about what was new. Just think about some of the general leaps. 2D to 3D, SD to HD, long loading screens to near seamless worlds. But what can the PlayStation 6 and the Xbox (whatever it will be called, I mean who can guess at this point?) provide us? Just because they will be exponentially more powerful than their older brothers doesn't mean they'll offer anything truly new, problems we've already seen with the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X. They both delivered iteration rather than revolution. I mean yes, they did give us practically zero load times, depending on the game, and we do have games running at native 4K, but what, if anything, did they give us over the previous gens? An example of this is the Nintendo Switch 2. Nintendo, known for their out-there designs like the N64 controller, and unique and engaging play systems (Wii motion controls), have just taken what was good about the Switch and plopped it into a bigger, sexier design and made it more powerful. Is this wrong? I'd say no, I think it's a great system, but it is missing some of that Nintendo charm and magic that they are known for. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. So why is this going to matter to gamers? Don't we all want something new? To which the answer is usually yes. I mean for example, Sony once again released a PS5 Pro model, which can run a lot more games at 4K and a steady 60 frames per second, while toying with some ray-tracing. Most people don't need this, but for those who like to push boundaries, this is a great system. But my goodness, does this come at a cost! The cheapest PlayStation 5 is £430, while the Pro comes in at £690. That's a £260 difference, and amazingly, neither of those prices includes disc drives. If you want one of those, then that's another £70. So, can we possibly imagine how much a new console generation can start at? It's a little concerning. These companies know what they're doing, for the most part, and can potentially bring us some exciting and amazing surprises. More power is great, and I hope that the new generation can be a locked 4K 60fps gaming machine straight off the bat. But I do hope that outside of shinier and smoother graphics, we get these systems being used more creatively. Gaming is a creative space; let's keep it that way. More Trending If the PlayStation 6 is coming, I hope it's something more than just a PlayStation 5 in a nicer suit. I want to see something that surprises us, something that makes it feel like it's a true generational leap forward, something worth getting excited about. Otherwise, we're just buying the same console in a sharper tux. By reader Mike Wilson The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@ or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email. MORE: I know what the gimmick for the next Zelda game could be - Reader's Feature MORE: Here's the one reason why I'm not buying Battlefield 6 - Reader's Feature MORE: Top 5 video game developers that have wasted their talents - Reader's Feature
