The games industry is undergoing a 'generational change,' says Epic CEO Tim Sweeney: 'A lot of games are released with high budgets, and they're not selling'
The games industry is undergoing a 'generational change,' says Epic CEO Tim Sweeney: 'A lot of games are released with high budgets, and they're not selling'
Two reasons:
I will always choose a smaller project of passion over a lackluster, watered-down AAA game with an overinflated budget.
When I open a steam page for a game that looks interesting to me, and I find out it has 3 versions at wildly different prices and 10+ other DLC, I just pass and move on. Iโm not doing external research to find out what is the difference between the complete and ultra complete and definitive deluxe directorโs cut editions and whether itโs worth it, or whether I โneedโ such and such DLC to get the full experience. Iโm instantly and thoroughly turned off by it, and Iโm just not bothering. Fuck that whole mess.
For real! I have the biggest issue on that with the PlayStation store. The main list of titles only shows the most expensive version and you have to dig deeper to find the regular, lowest priced option. I swear, when I first got my PS5 and was interested in getting NHL23 I damn near had a heart attack seeing it priced over $100. Ended up just going to GameStop and picking up a used physical copy for $10.
It's like the corporate world has made gaming into a twisted version of THEIR game. How do we grind money out of these idiots?
Well, I think that they will probably work it out in the end by going bust. Every CEO - in the end - blames the consumer, not the product nor the service.
Ultimately it is about the money and effort being put into the wrong parts of the game, which coincidentally is the part that is easiest to show off to investors and C levels.
Yeah honestly AA games deliver the experience AAA games gave 15 years ago, and that's what I want way more than whatever AAA is today.
I wish I could get it through to my dumbass friend. She says that a game must have good graphics or else she won't play it.
Stardew valley? Nope. It's too blocky. Undertale? Nope. Might as well be an NES game.
Your friend is entitled to her own opinion and I somewhat get her. Good graphics are really nice and can add greatly to a game.
My god, the games sheโs missing out onโฆ
While I understand your feelings (I have such a friend myself), if graphics are most important to them, they are perfectly entitled to that opinion! I always interject, that my friend is missing out on great gameplay experiences but it is on them what they like and value most.
Has nothing to do with โgenerationโ anything and everything to do with bean counters. The fact that Minecraft is still beating them all is everything they need to know but refuse to listen to.
Investors be like: "MineCoins you say๐ค"
They donโt mean boomers, millennials, etc. When you consider games from Atari, to genesis, to 360, to what we have now with microtransactions and season passes after unloading $60+ for a premium game, there are clear โgenerationalโ divides.
"We didn't listen to what people actually want and now less people are buying! It's not our decision-making, it's 'generational change.'"
I mean, if studios are doing it more and more and have been doing it across a whole generation, it probably is generational change. Games take 5+ years dev time to make so high budgets are a given. If uch a game fails, it is more likely to tank a studio now. I think hes just making an observation. Nothing too shocking about that.
What Im observing though is more and more indies filling the void with smaller and cheaper games due to easy access to digital distribution. Not exactly a new take as its been hapening for over 15 years now. Interestingly, Epic seems to not take the same stance as Steam does in this space. Where steam gives pretty much any shovelware the same chances, Epic wants to be super picky about these low budget titles. Where is Epic's Balatro?
If Tim is so focused on publishing/distributing these overblown budgeted games, Epic will miss out on the secondary gaming market where actual fun games truly live. Imo, the generational change is actually indie titles becoming the norm and AAA taking a step back.
What Im observing though is more and more indies filling the void with smaller and cheaper games due to easy access to digital distribution. Not exactly a new take as its been hapening for over 15 years now. Interestingly, Epic seems to not take the same stance as Steam does in this space. Where steam gives pretty much any shovelware the same chances, Epic wants to be super picky about these low budget titles. Where is Epicโs Balatro?
This reminds me a lot of the days of the original PlayStation (PS). Nintendo was the large, dominant company. But, they were also really, really picky with the games they let on their platform (still are). Along comes Sony with a better physical format and a willingness to let just about anything on their system. And there were a lot of terrible titles on the PS; but, there were also some real gems from smaller devs and lots more choice for people to find what they wanted to play. That openness and plethora of options drew people to the system. Sure, Nintendo is still around and still a juggernaut, but they gave up a lot of market space to Sony.
Sweeney and many of the big studios seem dead set on trying to replicate lightning. They keep churning out Fortnight clones, live service games and lootbox infested grind fests. None of this is because they want to make a game for players, it's all a bald-faced money grab. And it comes across so clearly in their games. Yes, big budget games cost a lot of money and I don't begrudge studios trying to make money. I'm more than happy to throw money at devs who make a great game (I just pledged ~$250 at the Valheim Board Game project, based mostly on the fact that I fucking love Valheim). I've also bought into way too many Early Access games, because they looked like they had the bones of good games. But, the big budget games seem to get lost trying to pump every last dollar out of your wallet and just quickly become a turn off.
I remember one particular instance in Dragon Age, where an NPC had a "Quest Available" marker floating above his head. When you talked to him, you quickly discovered that you could buy his quest and the game was happy to kick you over to the EA store so that you could buy his quest right there. Fuck that noise. I'm not against DLC, but that sort of "in your face" advertising pisses me right off. Hell, I'm one of those weirdos who likes the Far Cry series. I put tons of hours into Far Cry 5 (seriously, the wing suit was just good fun). Far Cry 6 was ok and I did finish it, though the micro-transaction spam grated on me hard. After that experience, I'm not sure I want a Far Cry 7.
And I think that points to the elephant in the room. Big publishers, like EA are so focused on making profits, they have lost sight of making a good game. Give me a solid, complete experience. Give me good controls, enough story to hold the action together and just a general sense of fun. Once that is in place, then maybe throw hats for sale on top of that. But, when lootboxes and micro-transactions are core to the gameplay and the game is balanced to force you in the direction of buying that crap, fuck your game. If the core gameplay is designed to suck so much that I want to buy cheats to bypass that core gameplay, I'll save myself a bunch of money and just skip the game entirely. There are way too many options available out there, which don't suck, for me to waste my time and money shoveling your shit.
While indie studios have popped up and filled some of that void.
These big companies have it all backwards. We donโt need them; they need us. I donโt suddenly like slot machine video games just because their fucking bean counters say so. Ever since I bought a Steam Deck, Iโve played nothing but indie and old games, and I ainโt going back. You can keep your 3 bundles and your $70-110 price tags. Iโll play 500 hours of Vampire Survivors before Iโll buy another casino that they happened to build a game around.
In the wise words of the Soulsbourne community: GIT GUD (at not making shitty games).
They aren't selling because they are designed as money machines first and games second.
Do I get to be the next Tim Sweeney now? As far as I can tell the bar is pretty low.
They could make so many moderate games that would sell amazingly if they just tried to... Make games instead of casinos. But no, profits must only go up, can't have a flat year with only great success - they have to outdo themselves financially every year and squeeze everything
You have to sue every single storefront first as well and go cry to the press that companies don't want to do business with you when you break their ToS.
People don't want to pay for Disneyfied corpo slop that the HR department and advertisers signed off on. A public company lacks the soul to imbue into a creative project.
When you try to make literally everyone your target demographic then nobody will be your target demographic
Well then. Why not make them not shitty?
It's the players' fault for not buying our game.
Modern Ubisoft are the prime example of this. They churn out loads of games every year and they're just the same old formulaic crap that you've seen before. How can you have so much money and so many studios but you can't get decent voice actors or writers? How can your AAA games still have clunky mechanics and absolutely no original ideas?
Oh look, it's another shitty enemy outpost, let's scout it with my drone/bird/binoculars and mark all the enemies so I can see them through walls. Maybe I'll not use stealth on the next one because it's a waste of time as the game is piss easy anyway and I'll be able to kill all of the enemies in a straight fight. And the reward is the same either way. Now I've found [collectible item] 37 of 200, I wonder where the rest of them are in this massive vapid open world?
I lived the collectibles in Anacronox, they were little golden taco trophies and their lore was that they used to be highly sought after until it came out that TACO stood for Totally Arbitrary Collectible Object and it tanked the market.
You meet a guy that held on till the bitter end but finally had to sell off his collection because he needed the money, so you give him any you find for trinkets and stuff to help him rebuild his collection.
I played this as a kid, now I feel old. Was a great game but the ending made a sequel necessary, which as far as I know never happened.
A reminder, AAA, means nothing. It is a self-appointed term for marketing. Because it means nothing customers apply whatever they think it means. Just like AAAA is also pointless, and stupid.
I always wondered if I'd like to write for video games (I write sketch, character, musical comedy) but honestly there's probably very little fun in it, as you're writing 95% one-sided conversations that are variations on "go to place, bring hack item"
The best written games are all indies now. Text and story heavy games are pretty common, with varying amounts of "game" to carry the story. Check out Citizen Sleeper, Disco Elysium, or Book of Hours.
It's the ubisoft lookout tower sinulator, you will like it while you mindlessly run around the map to fulfill idiotic chore tasks that trigger your ocd
Open world just somehow means placing the exact same mid gameplay events far apart so you have to spend a minute walking from one to the next.
Fuck you Tim Sweeney. Fuck the fortnite model and fuck you for delisting and shutting down the Unreal franchise.
Just curious as to what you think the Unreal franchise could provide the modern gaming landscape that we arenโt getting now. It always struck me as pretty bland.
The Unreal franchise can provide the Unreal franchise. There was no real reason for epic to delist the games from all the store fronts and shutdown the master servers other then wanting to control their brand. It was costing them pennies to keep that stuff up and to even shudown the single player games was completely.
As far as "the modern gaming landscape" goes, it can suck it. I'm not interested in playing modern multiplayer shooters. I'm tried a few and they come across as walking simulators and fidget spinner simulators.
Try having an original thought.
Make something NEW
Exactly. I haven't bought a pre-release game in a while because most of it is buggy and bland. But I bought the new Zelda game at pre-release precisely because it does something new.
If they're intent on spending more on graphics instead of actually innovating gameplay, I'm content buying older releases that provide the exact same gameplay for a steep discount. I don't play MP games, so my selection is pretty broad.
But I will buy a compelling new game, I'm just more into story and gameplay than graphics. Most of my money goes to indies, most of the rest goes to Nintendo, and the dregs go to older AAA games that I can get for cheap.
Those studios have been pouring huge amounts of money on graphics under the assumption (i.e. idiocy) that better graphics = more sales. Tim Sweeney is shifting it towards yet another assumption/idiocy: that more forced socialisation = more sales.
And they still don't get the picture. People won't buy your games if they're boring, if they're too expensive, or if they think that you're an arsehole. Roughly in this order. That's it.
How's about you guys spend some of that budget on QA?
Or like the game instead of the credit card collection form.
Or how about they start making games people want to actually buy?
How about truly new games instead of zero-risk remakes/reboots/sequels or truly awful slop like Concord?
It's because the games are mid or worse. Took me one google search to find a plethora of games released in the last few years that had high budgets and sold very well. God of War: Ragnarok, Ghost of Tsushima, Elden Ring, Horizon: Forbidden West, Doom Eternal, Hogwarts Legacy, Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, The Last Of Us Part II, and so many more. These are just the ones I played. Just because the only game you guys make is Fortnite after abandoning all your IPs and that your Epic Games Store money isn't as high as you thought it would be doesn't mean other people aren't making amazing games. It's just you, my guy. I consider myself a patient gamer and I've bought more full price games over the last 5 years than I ever have.
Buying a Triple A Game has become a liability:
Online Only
Limited Lease via Digital Store with unknown lifespan
User Account Activation
Actual Fucking Rootkits
Trouble is, companies with shareholders have to chase the profits, and they have to protect them at all costs, which leads to a situation where the AAA companies feel like they have to lock their shit down tight. And that ain't compatible with 100% of their markets.
It's become an arms race because they can't just accept that people will pirate their games regardless of what they put in place. But the more they put in place, the more likely people are to want to pirate.
I just don't understand how "line go up" is a thing when so many refuse to buy because of stupid DRM. I know we're in a minority, but surely the DRM doesn't actually increase sales, right? People who would pirate will just wait, so I doubt it's actually translating to more sales than if they courted the anti-DRM people.
Yep this right here. The moment they appear like they don't care about red line going up or CEO saying "no" they'll remove them from the company and appoint someone who will
I'm gonna take a wild guess that the games with high budgets that aren't "selling", are just not selling "enough" to cover the "costs" of the executives. I guess it wasn't much of a guess:
and they're not selling nearly as well as expected," Sweeney said. "Whereas other games are going incredibly strong
Do they think that these other games "going incredibly strong" are making the money they hope to make? They're probably making much less but managing it much better. The savings are almost infinite when you don't approve every executive bonus pay package.
It's because video games turned into investment vehicles where companies want to make at least 50% return on their investment instead of create a fun and engaging peice of entertainment.
Video games are an art form, there's no art i' financial vehicules
Fun beats pretty.
Is this for video games or romantic advice?
Not only that, but pretty much everything else, including weapons and cars.
Because budget alone doesn't make a good game. It's a lack of creative vision and churning out safe bets that mean people just aren't excited anymore.
Teams of thousands working on a game designed by committee means no single group really has a vision of the creative vision of the project.
I get it that the marketing budget is important, they need big flashy games to justify the marketing budget required to get cut-through.
Ultimately I think it's the case that these dev teams are too large, and aren't making true art anymore, because true art is risky.
Small studios are the ones making art, and some of them are getting cut through into the mainstream. This is where good games exist now.
If they want me to buy AAA releases when they come out; they need to be actually fun, no rootkits, no microtransactions.
Exactly. And no game-breaking bugs at launch.
Nintendo for all the awfulness that is their legal department got this right. I pre-ordered Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom, and it worked absolutely fine when I plugged it in. Yeah, there was a day 1 patch (didn't check the state of things before the patch), but I haven't had any issues with it so far.
Indies also often get this right. There are plenty of devs I trust to have a solid product day 1. No stupid DRM, microtransactions, etc, just a fun game.
I don't care too much about graphics, I just want a fun game to play, and I'm unwilling to pay to be a beta tester.
Right? Why should I pay full price for a game and it's a buggy mess, sometimes even unplayable past a certain piont? All this has done has made me wait a year or two for games that I want, so I can get functional games, which is the opposite of how the studios want to make money.
Remove all the garbage. The DRM, the proprietary launchers and the requirement to constantly pay to win.
Well, when you invest $$$ into something that's meant to be fun and it's not fun, then there's your problem. Why not invest in the game designers and scale down the graphics/fancy stuff and exec salaries?
When I buy a game, I want a game.
Not yet another platform to bleed my wallet dry.
I also don't want to be forced to use some stupid storefront just because the publisher wanted an extra 18% cut or whatever. If your game lives and dies by that 18% cut, perhaps you should make a better game.
If I want to use EGS, GOG, or Steam, that should be my choice, don't force me to switch to something else just because you want higher margins.
Ok. Interesting take. Letโs look at Alan Wake 2. High Budget and pretty good. One of the best games I played in recent years I would say.
And why did it sell poorly, I hear you ask? Well, maybe it had something to do with the fact that you published it on your Epic Store only, being fully aware that the overwhelming majority of PC players are on Steam (and very lazy when it comes to switching away from it). Also you didnโt produce physical copies for consoles. Download only for an environment known for being fiercely pro physical copy.
But we all know itโs not about these things. Itโs about calming down investors. Thatโs why you use buzzwords like โmetaverseโ and shit. I am actually impressed you didnโt ramble about AI.
Oh and 90% of the market could not run the thing.
Man, I'd love to play Alan Wake 2. Big Remedy fan; Control was my game of the year for two years. Be nice if they'd release it on a platform I'd buy it on.
Dear Mr. Sweeney, I fixed your words, thank me later:
A lot of games are released with CEOs earning more money than all developers of the game including outsourced work together, that makes the games too expensive. If the budget would actually go into the game we could have great games that sell.
Unfortunately you rather lay off your employees, pay them less, crunch them and burn them out, save on quality control, sell road-maps instead of a finished game and give your customers a lesser and lesser experience instead of accepting a pay cut.
And I have not mentioned the money you throw out of the window and burn because of your dreams of an "EPIC metaverse".
F you Mr, Sweeney.
I've been a console gamer since the PS1. I've also gamed on computers for way longer than that. I just find the consoles easier, as it's plug and play, and no need to constantly upgrade my computer.
This has been a fact for me until now. Got the PS5 2 years after release, and had a fucking blast with it, while the computer I built 13 years ago is used for other stuff than gaming. It took it's last breath about two months ago.
I then got myself a brand new computer with a RTX4060ti, and I installed RDR2 to see how it compared to the PS4 version, and it blew my mind when I added mods (fucking hell, mods are easier to install today than 15-20 years ago lol). Then I bought Baldurs Gate 3.
The price of the PS5 Pro comes out more expensive than my computer. I'll continue playing some games on the PS5, but the pro can fuck off, and the PS6 will probably never come into my house, as I am done with consoles. I'd rather buy ANOTHER gaming computer and hook it up in the living room.
'A lot of games are released with high budgets, and they're not selling'
The good ones are.
Yeah, it's fucking awesome! Nothing makes me happier than seeing a AAA studio sink big bucks into a project that was destined to be a dumpster fire, then release it as a timed exclusive loaded with DRM for good measure. I really hate that there are developers falling victim to the overall shittiness of the games industry, but I don't know how else studios are supposed to learn that people want to buy games, not lease online storefronts. On that note, anyone have any good indie recommendations?
Meanwhile all we need to keep us happy are AA budget games to perhaps dormant franchises which haven't seen the light of day in a few decades.
We don't need AAA or .. Lol AAAA budget games every time
Nah man, what we need is an AAAAAAA+ game. Price will be $3400 so the company can recuperate the cost of making the game, and everyone will buy it! It's how slaves gamers work, right?
Cool. Now where's my $102 million bonus for reinventing the gaming market?
THQNordic and Nightdive have been carrying this sector of gaming for me lately
Tim Sweeny when he notices that enshittification in games doesn't seem to work very well anymore: industry is going through a "generational change".
Company that makes its money from fraud screams at customers for not being suckers.
News at 7.
So his big revelation is that Fortnite is really popular with kids.
Gee, I wonder fucking why Tim. What a clown.
That's because they suck ass
Motherfucker... How many times do you you have to fail before you listen to your customers, who are screaming what they want?
This is why voting with your wallet is nonsense. They'll never learn why they failed, only that they did
It is still important that they fail. If you buy their shitty games they will still think that they are right and they would have the profit to support their opinion
Well I wouldn't say it's important, because it doesn't change anything
I would definitely say it's a waste of money to buy their bad games. They deserve to fail. I'm not happy about it, because I want good games, not for IP to be stretched so far I no longer care about it
But it's important to understand that AAA gaming is an oligopoly and not buying their games won't change that. It will not improve gaming. Ubisoft will close another dozen studios, buy 13 more, and learn all the wrong lessons (see current situation)
"Voting with your wallet" does not give you any control, just like recycling does not save the planet. It's a myth to redirect our attention
Structural problems can only be solved structurally.
I disagree. Voting with your wallet is the only metric they understand. They just ascribe different analysis as to why it failed to their boardrooms. In the end, you put 70 million into the development and marketing of a game that doesn't sell, that is going to get attention. Complaining on Reddit won't.
They just ascribe a different metric as to why it failed
Yeah... That's my point. They will never say "our game failed because it was overly formulaic, unpolished, and our customers are getting sick of our bullshit"
It doesn't fit on the spreadsheet. They will never come to the correct conclusion. They structurally cannot
This is why voting with your wallet is nonsense.
Not buying Star Wars Outlaws had an effect on Ubisoft and Assassin's Creed Shadows. Maybe it won't amount to anything meaningful in the end, but it did do something.
I don't see Elden Ring devs complaining, maybe focus on gameplay and style more than graphics and MTX and hollywood actors?
Maybe instead of playing with money, the money people should come up with ideas. I can't think of a time where more budget meant more fun.
the money people should come up with ideas
I'm sure ยซ Financial Market Simulator 3000 ยป could be fun but .... meh... :)
I already play Eve. Ideas gotta be new!
This is the part of the capitalist grift where they manufacture apathy and indifference towards the gutting of a (relatively) decent career, in this case videogame development, as a skilled highly paid profession in a way they hope permanently damages the perceived societal value of the career.
I liked it when they were Epic Megagames and made fun games about green rabbits, savage jungle women, and giant fighting robots
Fuck Tim Sweeny
More like Slim Weeny
Chikka chikka Slim Weeny!
The biggest thing I miss from yesteryear is all the low budget straight-to-handheld spinoffs. No clear place for those to exist now that dedicated handhelds are dead, and no room for quirky little side projects when publishers are putting all their resources into just a few AAAA megagames.
I don't see how that market was better than what we have now. We still get games like those, but you can play them anywhere. You just have to stop expecting to find them from the publishers you recognize from 20 years ago. Ubisoft and EA don't really make games for us anymore.
Umm ๐ค, they have weekly free games. Epic games had effectively trained me to not pay for games.
Anything out of his mouth you need to take with a giant grain of salt. But exclusive salt.
There are no game manufacturers, just licenses to rent from subscription parasites. Sell me a product as an entire industry standard. NEVER ask me to trust you. NEVER try to steal from me with legalise. My terms of purchase are ownership of my purchase with no strings attached whatsoever. I will continue to play and mod open source games or play nothing at all, but I will never cross that line. I have a 12th gen i7 and Nvidia 16 GB GPU. I can absolutely play the AAA titles of today, but there are no game manufacturers, just worthless criminal feudalism and subscription extortion parasites.
So basically he said that the entire game industry leans towardsโฆ Fortnite?
Maybe if they ran on Linux, people would buy it. Give it a shot there, Timbo
Iโm with you as a Linux user but letโs be real, Linux support has an abysmal ROI: you put a lot of effort for less than a 1% increase in sales, itโs a no brainer.
One of the gifts that valve gave to the Linux ecosystem is having freed developers from the Linux burden. They just make windows games and voila for the most part they run on Linux. They spend less money, we get more games - win/win.
There are a bunch of games that had half-baked Linux ports and got so much better once you could just run the main build through proton, it doesnโt make sense to push developers to go back to native.
Yeah, people need to start reading past the headline.
He's not complaining, he's bragging.
His point is that people aren't buying Sony's big, expensive games, they're playing Fortnite.