this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
50 points (89.1% liked)

Games

16689 readers
291 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
50
Were Arkane, Bioware, Rocksteady and Naughty Dog done in by live service strategies? (lemm.ee)
submitted 9 months ago by delitomatoes@lemm.ee to c/games@sh.itjust.works
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

4 top tier single player games developers tasked to build live service games.

Naughty Dog hasn't released anything new, both sequels then silence. Suicide Squad kills the game studio. At least Arkane and Bioware are given chances to carry on with the next game.

We could have had the next big WB superhero game or Wolverine. Prey 2? There's a higher chance of Amy Henning working on a Soul Reaver game than ND coming out with an original IP

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

In this case I think it's more that live service titles are what large publishers currently like to demand from developers, so a company with a long track record of great single player games suddenly pivoting to live service multiplayer bullshit is usually a sign of direct publisher interference in an otherwise successful studio.

When these companies were left to their own devices, they made great games. But once the goose lays a few golden eggs, the owners get greedy (or new owners move in) and start trying to turn their products into an endless cash engine.

The passionate, creative people quit rather than be forced to build games someone else's way, the soul of the company dies, and the product turns to shit (in many cases, the "soul" was "devs working ridiculous hours to produce a great game in spite of terrible leadership decisions", so we shouldn't lionise it too much, but the results are what they are).