Comments by "Samson Soturian" (@samsonsoturian6013) on "" video.

Or free-to-play games that have had active communities for years
10
Many get paid by lobbyists to do that so IDK how much it really effected profits.
6
@LeMAD22 many are. Many aren't
5
Dude, making a game is inherantly risky. You pay large amounts in salaries up front, then you sell the game for an arbitrary price to an arbitrary number of people. Many of these games are so expensive to make they have to convince +10% of the teenaged male population to pay +50 dollars just to break even.
5
But selling the base game has the same economics as making movies. Low entry barriers and winner-takes-most economics meaning the absurd sums some lucky bastards get create so much competition that the average studio/dev/actor WILL lose money.
3
@discordantduck1808 For comparison: You notice how all the Hollywood stars seem to be unstable nepo-babies? Yeah, those are the people that quit their jobs to audition to be in a movie competing with dozens of other people for job openings. Likewise, the businessmen who throw their fortunes into gaming (which loses money on average) are the ones that do not care if they meet payroll or not.
2
I grew up in the Flash gaming era and while some of the amateur made games were pretty good and deserved to make money, most were simply terrible or copycats of previous games. I remember one escape-room game that included a joke because the cliche in the game was booting the computer in-game was always part of the puzzle, but in this game you just pushed the on switch.
2
IDK, the average AAA game studio is a self-described tech company that makes games big enough they have to convince 10% of the teenaged male population to pay 100 bucks for them just to make money and they all have terrible scripts, lots of girls to look at, random sex orientations to collect money from activists (this is no joke), and gameplay near identical to several different free-to-play games that have been around big-free for years. The average AAA studio looks a lot like a Ponzi scheme to me.
1
@LIONTAMER3D That just means there are more of them competing over fewer dollars.
1
@discordantduck1808 Wasn't it the same guys who made Doom who made a game whose tagline was "Ramero is going to make you his b****" and the game was as intentionally frustrating as possible? Greed is attracted to prodigiously high rates of return regardless of the chances of actually receiving that reward, hence why it seems that every major studio are run by greedy bastards. Heck, a lot of fools in the third world still think programming is a way to get rich.
1
@allhailderpfestor4839 they are not thriving either but most lose money. You don't notice because most are simply forgotten immediately
1
@viewtifuljon8105 Except there are so many indie games that you never heard of because they are terrible.
1
@viewtifuljon8105 Some of the best retro games were simply the best available games being sold to a smaller market. But remember the original Doom games were literally made by one guy and the amount of money he and others made draws in greedy bastards
1
@badboje77 Some games had it where it was difficult or impossible to finish the game without microtransactions
1