this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
30 points (94.1% liked)

Games

16742 readers
737 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
30
Secret Level's producer can't fathom why Concord ended up failing: 'There was no nicer, more invested group of developers than the team on Concord' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 17 hours ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] eskimofry@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Thats not the entire story is it? How often is it corporate meddling?

[โ€“] Kushan@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Corporate meddling gets blamed for ruining things all the time but the truth few want to admit is that some amount of meddling is necessary.

Look at all the big flops Xbox has released over the last year - Redfall being a prime example. We kept hearing how Microsoft was happy to leave those studios to it, to give them the time and resources they needed and they still released dog shit.

When it comes to AAA, it's so expensive you need some amount of corporate input to make sure people will actually buy the damn game.

Of course there's extremes to both sides - pretty much anything Activision ever touched was ground to a lifeless micro transaction shell.

But everything we know about concord is trekking6 us that the team itself, including the big bosses, were overly positive internally. Nobody had the balls to interfere.

If they had just one exec who was willing to piss the entire team off, maybe the result would be different.