![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Full headline, because it doesn't fit up there: "'We were there in the 80s for the crash, and this is definitely crashier.' John and Brenda Romero reflect on the industry crisis"
I'm going to go off on a very superficial tangent here, based on the headline, but do note that the article talks about other stuff, too.
I guess I can get where they're coming from, but I don't think the current video game industry crash feels, specifically, "crashier." It feels worse and bigger, most definitely, which is what they meant, I'm sure, but it doesn't really feel much like an actual "crash" at all, at least not in the usual sense of such things.
To compare the current shit with 1983, 1983 really was like a car suddenly careening off a cliff and crashing into a nitroglycerine factory, relative to now. What's happening now feels more like someone suffering from a terminal disease and lingering for years (or decades, in the case of the modern video game industry[1]) before finally succumbing to it, and then the family refusing to turn off the life support machines for even more years(/decades) after that.
Either way, though, the end result is, eventually, the same: death. It's just that for the the modern video game industry, I'm not sure if we're still in the "lingering" phase or have already moved on to the "declared dead but still on life support" phase. (If we likened the modern video game industry to the TK case and kept the years=>decades bit, then it would be two centuries before the modern video game industry finally, truly died. Blargh. Puke.)
As I've been saying for at least a decade or two now, I'd honestly prefer an actual crash to... ...whatever the fuck this is. *gestures vaguely in the direction of the modern video game industry*
"It can't stay like this forever." From your mouth to god's ears, Brenda Romero.
If we do continue to use the word "crash" to describe the modern video game industry, I'd compare it to this. Including, crucially, the busted-up car somehow righting itself and then immediately rushing to the next cliff edge from which to launch itself. I could easily see that video being edited, with the only difference at all being the distance notes replaced with stuff like "the advent of DRM," "the first ever DLC," "the first ever multiplayer-exclusive game," "the first digital-only video game is delisted," "(fak)e-sports becomes a thing that exists," "Irdeto is founded," "some conniving shithead comes up with the concept of GaaS," "the LLM/generative AI bubble begins to expand," and so on and so forth.
[1] - Because the modern[2] video game industry has been becoming more and more enshittified for decades now, long before gen AI came on the scene and (somewhat) accelerated the process (and long before the process of "enshittification" was given its proper name).
[2] - Is it accurate to even say "modern" in this sense at all? I mean, if we consider the "modern video game industry" to be the one that rose from the ashes of the 1983 crash with the introduction of the NES, then maybe, but that doesn't really feel right, either. There was definitely a point when I went from feeling nothing but good about video games and those who made them and when I started to feel the tiniest baby version of what I feel about all that shit now (especially the "and those who made them" part), but I can't quite put my finger on a single defining moment. Maybe the whole "EA Spouse" thing, at least for me, could be considered the point of divergence, when the hallowed "video game industry" started to become the much shittier "modern video game industry," and the beginning of itsendstill in-progress, glacial downfall.
I'm going to go off on a very superficial tangent here, based on the headline, but do note that the article talks about other stuff, too.
I guess I can get where they're coming from, but I don't think the current video game industry crash feels, specifically, "crashier." It feels worse and bigger, most definitely, which is what they meant, I'm sure, but it doesn't really feel much like an actual "crash" at all, at least not in the usual sense of such things.
To compare the current shit with 1983, 1983 really was like a car suddenly careening off a cliff and crashing into a nitroglycerine factory, relative to now. What's happening now feels more like someone suffering from a terminal disease and lingering for years (or decades, in the case of the modern video game industry[1]) before finally succumbing to it, and then the family refusing to turn off the life support machines for even more years(/decades) after that.
Either way, though, the end result is, eventually, the same: death. It's just that for the the modern video game industry, I'm not sure if we're still in the "lingering" phase or have already moved on to the "declared dead but still on life support" phase. (If we likened the modern video game industry to the TK case and kept the years=>decades bit, then it would be two centuries before the modern video game industry finally, truly died. Blargh. Puke.)
As I've been saying for at least a decade or two now, I'd honestly prefer an actual crash to... ...whatever the fuck this is. *gestures vaguely in the direction of the modern video game industry*
"It can't stay like this forever." From your mouth to god's ears, Brenda Romero.
If we do continue to use the word "crash" to describe the modern video game industry, I'd compare it to this. Including, crucially, the busted-up car somehow righting itself and then immediately rushing to the next cliff edge from which to launch itself. I could easily see that video being edited, with the only difference at all being the distance notes replaced with stuff like "the advent of DRM," "the first ever DLC," "the first ever multiplayer-exclusive game," "the first digital-only video game is delisted," "(fak)e-sports becomes a thing that exists," "Irdeto is founded," "some conniving shithead comes up with the concept of GaaS," "the LLM/generative AI bubble begins to expand," and so on and so forth.
[1] - Because the modern[2] video game industry has been becoming more and more enshittified for decades now, long before gen AI came on the scene and (somewhat) accelerated the process (and long before the process of "enshittification" was given its proper name).
[2] - Is it accurate to even say "modern" in this sense at all? I mean, if we consider the "modern video game industry" to be the one that rose from the ashes of the 1983 crash with the introduction of the NES, then maybe, but that doesn't really feel right, either. There was definitely a point when I went from feeling nothing but good about video games and those who made them and when I started to feel the tiniest baby version of what I feel about all that shit now (especially the "and those who made them" part), but I can't quite put my finger on a single defining moment. Maybe the whole "EA Spouse" thing, at least for me, could be considered the point of divergence, when the hallowed "video game industry" started to become the much shittier "modern video game industry," and the beginning of its
Thoughts
Date: 2026-03-29 04:13 pm (UTC)From:One thing I notice is that, while people are complaining about how bad video games are, tabletop games are putting out some great stuff. Some of that is indie, some is more commercial, but I can walk into a game store and find some really fun, innovative stuff. Yes, it's annoying that most board games now cost $50-100, so they are no longer impulse purchases. But our usual game store has a section of small games for around $20 or less, which is a much more populated category than it used to be. I like that. People complaining about the expense of roleplaying manuals has led to some designers putting everything in one book, or even less. My all-time favorite game engine is just 12 pages and free.
I suspect that people who wish to design games are looking at the video game industry, deciding not to punch the tar baby, and going into some other branch of game design that is more attractive or more feasible to DIY.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-03-29 04:50 pm (UTC)From:Some have tried to claim that video game programmers are a dime a dozen and if one leaves (or is forced out), there will be a hundred more blindly waiting to take their place. Maybe that was true 10-20 years ago, but at the current egregious attrition rate of the video game industry, I'm pretty sure not even that would be sustainable/feasible for long. After not that long a while, they'll have burned through even the blindest of dupes.
When everyone else besides the management and shareholders have abandoned ship (or been forced to walk the plank), we'll see how well the modern video game industry continues to float after that. It won't be for very long (or so I keep hoping).
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-03-29 05:14 pm (UTC)From:Sad. I don't blame them either. But few job fields are stable anymore, with the exception of those where demand outstrips supply and/or they cannot be outsourced.
>>Maybe that was true 10-20 years ago, but at the current egregious attrition rate of the video game industry, I'm pretty sure not even that would be sustainable/feasible for long. <<
This process is well along. Someone mentioned that college game design programs are now teaching people how to launch a small business rather than how to join the existing industry. That is, colleges no longer deem those corporations a viable career path, so they're shutting down that pipeline. What the industry has now is almost all they're going to get. And they probably haven't realized that.
>>When everyone else besides the management and shareholders have abandoned ship (or been forced to walk the plank), we'll see how well the modern video game industry continues to float after that. <<
They likely believe they can do it all with AI.
ROTFLMAO
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-03-29 05:48 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2026-03-29 07:02 pm (UTC)From:Hi! Following links here from over here.
My overall observation of the current decline in the gaming business is that there was too much cheap money, and too much investment into an audience that just wasn't big enough. And, actually, could never get big enough, because too many of the games weren't that different from each other, so they were all trying to occupy exactly the same niche, which was always going to lead to a power-law shaped outcome (i.e. nearly all of the money would go to the top few entries in each niche).
So it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the (for instance) live service shooter genre, everyone will end up playing the top (say) 6, and the rest will all go horribly broke.
And what we're seeing now is the result of too much money being thrown at the gaming industry in the hope of being the next super-massive game, that not paying off, and the market shrinking back to the kind of size that can actually be supported by the revenue it can bring in. Which, I think, is a fair bit smaller than the current size.
(Also, lots of big gaming companies making really stupid decisions doesn't help at all, but I don't think that's unusual or special for now.)
I am perfectly happy to be told that I'm missing something massive here - and would be delighted to know how wrong I am and in what ways.
no subject
Date: 2026-03-29 10:50 pm (UTC)From:The modern video game industry is just throwing all of these live service projects (each of which costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, even the ones that get cancelled before release) at a wall, hoping just one of these gambles will stick. And there's a giant fire pit at the bottom of the wall for the ones that don't. When the companies start running low on money (or, at least, have the perception that they're running out of money, even if they may still have multiple billions to their names) to throw at the wall, they start throwing employees directly into the pit like it's some kind of volcano god who will bless them with magical money savings/cost cuttings.