![[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.
Thoughts
Date: 2026-04-04 12:55 am (UTC)From:That's another stupid thing. The way to do this sensibly would be:
* Invite all your employees to brainstorm ideas for new games. Collect as many possible ideas as you can.
* Toss out the ones that are obviously poor choices (e.g. too similar to extant games, in poor taste).
* Collate ideas so they have at least a thumbnail description. You may wind up mashing together several ideas, like "A first-person-shooter where you travel the solar system hunting pirates, and must contend how the real-science parameters of each location will affect your equipment."
* List the ones that remain for everyone to see. You may want to look for clusters like "social-relationship games" or "first-person-shooters" or "mystery noir."
* Invite employees to choose which games interest them. At this point, people can pick more than one. Set a cutoff. Games with less interest get dropped from the field.
(You can get this far in a weekend to a week.)
* Give people a chance to riff some material for the games that they like. Artwork, vignettes, slogans, character concepts, a basic plot tree, etc. This boosts inspiration and creativity while helping to attract participants.
* Now employees have to form teams. Which ONE game would you most like to work on? Your team must include at the core roles (e.g. artists, programmers, plot writers) of people who are passionate about that game. Drop all the games that fail to form a team.
(Allow at least a week or two for this phase.)
* You should be down to no more than 10-12 game concepts by this point. NOW it is pitch time. Each team creates a very basic description of their game with some character concepts, plot hooks, setting, art, and ideas for cool mechanics. Explain why THIS game is the most awesomest to create.
* From this batch, the company's leaders and/or investors choose which game(s) to produce. I would say pick no more than 3, and that only if they are totally different (e.g. SF first-person-shooter, prehistoric social-and-survival, high fantasy quest). Or maybe you've got something really innovative, like "let's mass-wargame the African Diaspora and let players try different ways to break the slave trade," so you decide to throw everything into that because it has little or no competition.
You do not pour tons of money into games only to abandon them partway through. Brainstorm, winnow, develop the best is a basic skill of creative professions.
>>Because, indeed, there are only so many potential players in the world, and they can't (and, more importantly, won't) split their time between a hundred different "forever games."<<
A forever game needs support the opposite of a get-rich-quick game. If you want it to last, then you need great worldbuilding with a high level of uniquity, both setting and mechanics that support forming relationships and communities among players, a framework that encourages players to take the same character through different roles over time, and the ability to add new features or open new areas to keep things fresh. Flashy graphics and noisemakers won't have that kind of staying power.
>> 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.<<
*laugh* Painfully true. It's poor psychology. Humans don't deal with rejection well. They will dump your ass and not come back. With colleges pulling back or redirecting their gaming degree programs, there aren't as many new game designers coming through the pipeline anymore. That way lies a critical personnel shortage.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-04-04 09:27 pm (UTC)From:There is a gargantuan list of things the modern video game industry should be (and should not be) doing that would likely stretch from here to the sun and back, but the management doesn't care, because doing (or not doing) any of those things might make the line ephemerally tick downward (or even just merely stay level) and that's a big, big no no. The line must always go up, constantly and forever. Gotta keep those shareholders happy so that the money continues to flow... until it suddenly doesn't, due to all the piss poor decisions made by management for short-term gain (or so they hope, usually mistakenly) and the shareholders finally getting fed up with losing money.
Also, actually listening to employees opinions on things? Balderdash. The managers are the smartest people in the room, obviously, so why should they have to listen to anyone else? They are the managers, after all, and it's their job to tell everyone else what makes a
goodprofitable video game. What could the peons possibly know that they don't already know? Doesn't matter if the managers might be brain-dead money vampires who wouldn't know a good video game if it came up and punched them in the jaw or, worse, who may not have ever once even touched any video game at all, good or bad.And why limit yourself to just 3 projects when you could be spreading yourself thin working on 30? Or 300? That's way more than 3, after all, which gives them way more opportunities to make money. They'll just hire more people to work on all these projects... that they'll turn around and immediately lay off when the projects are done (or abandoned), successful or not (emphasis on the "or not"). Until there's no more people left to hire, because they've already burned through so many, and everyone else has become wary enough to give them (and the industry as a whole) the cold shoulder.
Yes, but the modern video game industry wants both forever and immediately. These days, any forever game has to both stand the test of time and instantly make all the money in the world the moment it's released. If it fails either of those criteria, it's deemed an immediate failure that will get shut down after just two weeks or however long. Or if it's like gold-standard Fortnite and the incoming money rate ever dips even a tiny bit, well, time to lay off a thousand people, I guess.
And yeah, all sarcasm aside, the modern video game industry is suffering from a severe brain drain now and has been for many years, and it's a problem of its own, direct creation. Treat their employees like expendable resources and said employees will just go do something else, mainly because they don't have any choice in the matter what with having been laid off (in too many cases for no good/valid reason), leaving the employers with nothing but shit to their name. Especially if any future prospective hires can already see the writing on the wall and preemptively go do something else.
Thoughts
Date: 2026-04-04 12:34 am (UTC)From:Well, that's just poor choice on the part of designers and investors. Once a niche has a bunch of popular entries, people should start looking for other things to do. In a glutted market, especially, someone should be looking at the whole spread and asking, "What are people not doing?" Especially, what are underserved gamer markets? Women, people of color, queers, people with disabilities, etc. What are some odd things that gamers like to do, but are not a key focus of current games? Someone mentioned carrying stuff around, and we riffed the idea of a game where people would play couriers.
>> the market shrinking back to the kind of size that can actually be supported by the revenue it can bring in. <<
That's a normal market adjustment and, while unpleasant, something that should happen.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-04-04 10:58 pm (UTC)From:And potentially get labeled "woke" by an incredibly angry, extremely loud vocal minority of gross, disgusting, cis-het white manbabies on the Internet? Heavens forbid.
Granted, there are (for now, at least) enough good devs still in existence who essentially tell the Irredeemably Toxic Shithole-types to go pound sand and do make games like that for those audiences. But for most of the "big name" devs/publishers, they'd rather bend over backwards to the point that their heels are touching the backs of their heads to avoid enraging (or otherwise interacting with, at all) the fusty, lingering dregs of Gamergate[1] and, as such, continually release the same banal, tedious, "buff white dude protagonist" dreck that they have for the past few decades now.
In any case, it's just yet another thing on a very long list of things that I hate about the modern video game industry.
That's essentially what Death Stranding and Death Stranding 2 are. There are other elements to it beyond just carrying things around, but that's the vast bulk of the gameplay. That and building infrastructure to make it easier to carry things around. (Disclaimer: I haven't actually played either game myself, yet, for reasons.)
It absolutely should happen. I've been waiting a few decades now for it to happen. Any day now. Seems like it might be starting to happen, finally, but it'll likely be at least another decade (assuming it ever actually does happen, fingers crossed) before the monoliths have fully toppled and the dust has settled, though.
[1] - Or "Gamergate 2.0" or whatever asinine thing they're calling themselves now. It's all the same worse-than-worthless dogshit, though, no matter what label is slapped onto it.