You think? It's almost like you think you've analyzed this more than a mega corp that's investing billions into it has. Think again.

I've been a developer working professionally using tooling from the open-source ecosystem for about 15 years now.

I think I grok the mindset of a lot of indie devs better than a mega corp would. My reality is much closer to theirs.

Devs are people who are passionate about their craft and they don't like to be dependent on large corporations to ply their trade. If there is a way to squeeze out of that, many will.

The whole walled garden hegemony thing ain't gonna fly, because a lot of the construction people on the ground don't want it. They will literally collaborate together with complete strangers for free to avoid it.

Don't get me wrong, a large enough corp can be the dominant player (look at Steam), but they can't have the whole cake, short of toppling most governments worldwide and instituting a worldwide dictatorship.

So?
I've worked with developers with many decades of experience who were morons. And the vast majority were not the least bit "passionate". It was a job and they took the path of least resistance. They also didn't make the business decisions.

Ultimately you need to be profitable. If MS owns Nintendo and Valve and they don't want to sell your game you're basically out of business.

People who coast their careers usually don't go on to create their own games and otherwise go on to be movers and shakers in the software world. I'm talking about people who are passionate enough about software to make things happen.

Your second premise assume that the entirety of the gaming ecosystem would be content with such a state of affair and would do nothing to offer alternatives. I find that a dubious proposition, especially in the smaller markets. But you're possibly right that games worth 10s of millions of dollars, perhaps may just tow the line though even that is not a guarantee in the PC world (its just not a prioprietary platform, people do whatever the heck they want with PCs really).

Steam are pretty dominant in the PC ecosystem and they could what you are proposing right now: Refuse to sell games unless they only sell on Steam for their PC offering (no GOG, Epic, Itchio or any of the other PC distributors).

Yet, they are not doing that. Instead, they have to resort to coaxing developers into being Steam exclusive via easy integration possibilities into their platform. They have to resort to such roundabout tactics precisely because they see the writing on the wall as to what would happen to them if they tried to muscle such a move on the entire gaming industry (certainly not because they are benevolent and want to preserve the diversity of the PC gaming ecosystem).

Yeah, this discussion seems to be about how the AAA industry is broken and the corporate infighting should continue because gaming with continue to exist anyway (although alot of arguments seem to be I dont care for Nintendo/Valve/etc so they can get screwed).

While this is probably true with the fact that with advances in technology, creating games will become easier so the indie scene will continue to thrive (and there are indie games that are just plain better than stuff the "AAA" industry is releasing). I do fear that a monopoly under Microsoft or Tencent would ruin gaming significantly.

First, just the ability to access games. Just as a game is essentially "dead on arrival" for PC if not on steam. Imagine most games just being dead on arrival because its not promoted by Microsoft.

I also think the current "sameness" of AAA games stems from this monopoly. The Last of Us was a hit for Sony, hence why nearly all Sony exclusives have been third person shooter-esque look after a young kid. People buy FIFA/NBA/insert some major league as a video game, hence why sports games print money for EA despite no innovation (or the games just getting worse with MTX). I think this will only get worse under a monopoly. The games being the same and likely also influencing indies to follow the same pattern.

There could be another game crash like the Atari era where a bunch of AAA publishers collapse and there is a reset where current indies and AAs become the new AAAs. I can see that happening but a monopoly would also prevent that or delay it significantly.

I don't think I'd blame that on Monopoly as much as risk aversion. When investors fork over hundreds of millions in development costs they like things with a proven track record of success.

Well, with all due respect, maybe it is time investors butt out and make room for more developer-lead initiatives.

And to a large extent with indie games, they have. Sure, they can buy a successful indie studio for a ridiculous sum of money, but then a lot of the smarts that made the studio successful will get the heck out of dodge and move on to less constrained work places.

It will nip the creativity for some fan-favorite sequels in the bud, but imho, there are only so many sequels you can make anyways before a franchise becomes stale.

Unless it is in your own head, you can't own smarts without violating basic human rights.

Sure, so long as they do it with their own money.

They do. Assuming you are willing to invest the time and you have skills and vision, it is otherwise remarkably cheap nowadays.

With a pretty small team of diversified talent (you need someone who can make good game design decisions, someone who can do graphics, someone who can code and someone who can do sounds and music, though you can technically buy the later for very cheap if you don't mind having something that is not unique), you can make something solid now.

Assuming reasonable social safety net (so that people who are not wealthy can actually afford to take 1-3 years off to make a game if it is their first though some really industrious folks manage to do it while they are working a full time job) which varies by country, we have everything we need nowadays for a vibrant indie gaming ecosystem regardless of what big money wants.

I would say both. Games, especially AAA, are becoming stupidly expensive to produce with money going to things I personally feel dont add that much to the game (pretty graphics, Hollywood actors to VA roles, huge "open world"). Since games are so expensive, they is too much money at risk if it flops so AAA doesnt take risks in shaking things up.

However, this risk-aversion is also due to a lack of competition. If there are devs that are pushing the boundaries and making great games that make the others look incompetent by comparison, they need to step up their game which means taking risks and trying something new. Risks can result in flops but is what is needed to drive innovation that can eventually be something good. One of the reasons why EA has been able to get away with essentially copy/pasting FIFA/NBA/other sports game and change the number on the box art is because they own the exclusive IP rights to produce games for those franchises so have no competition. Given how Nintendo or any other dev can easily blow EA Sports out of the water, their only saving grace was being the first to buy up merchandising rights to the big sports leagues years ago and continuously renewing the license fee.

I do think media in general (movies, tv, games) suffer from swollen budgets that are allocated toward things that dont improve the core experience. Yeah people like Keanu Reeves but how much does he add to CP 2077 vs another couple of developers who could have ironed out the bugs beforehand? Investors getting in the way and forcing changes also doesnt help (like Microsoft with Redfall or the rumors of Sony hiring Halo MTX experts for their upcoming TLOU factions multiplayer).

Blame the investors is the modern 'the company i really like straight up lied to me'

It's not always the case, sometimes it's poor leadership, too much leadership and constant pushes for silly things due to micromanagement. The reality is the industry is DRENCHED in NDAs hiding so many stories, truths, and explanations for why things go wrong. So 'blame the investors' becomes the default narrative

Look at Unity. Do you think anyone outside of the C-Suite thought their plan was a good idea? Because I imagine even the most smoothbrained investor would have raised a hand to say "That seems like an absurdly shortsighted plan." But no, John Ricalleto just gets high off financial sadism, it seems.

For the sake of topic, sticking to Dev/Publishers is probably best else this topic can go wild. But yes, I'd imagine there were questions asked when the changes were proposed, but wor Johnny has always been about *coughs* expansive thinking *chokes*

They are stupidly expensive indeed, and thus my take is a bit more cynical:

One cannot afford to make an AAA game that doesn't appeal to "the masses." Therefore whatever you make has to be dumbed down and tailored for mainstream appeal, which is fundamentally at odds with making a good game.

So, in the AAA sphere, it does not matter how much competition there is. If you're not making a mainstream game, you're not making an AAA game. Thus, IDGAF what happens to AAA companies; I'm not ever expecting a good game from them. Thus I also don't give a crap about competition. They can all get acquired by EAcrosoft for all I care.

Indies and small studios are doing lots of interesting thing, so I don't get why the discussion is always so overwhelmingly focused on AAA crap. Oh nevermind: mainstream appeal.

Maybe. I do think if devs see other AAA games or even AA games that just completely outperform them in sales they would change their tune. They may either try to mimic the best practice game (see studios trying to make their own Soulsborne-esque games like Jedi Fallen order) or see that they need to change things up and try new things.

I do agree that "the masses" also encourage the dumbing down and simplification of games though as well as the incentive to produce "playable movies." Probably due to the fact that video games have become alot more mainstream but you rarely get one set difficultly in a game anymore. Everything is open world, fancy long cinematics, and adjustable difficulty within the game. Since alot of casuals also play games, they seem to be fine with microtransactions and just subpar gameplay as long as the game looks pretty and runs at 60 fps or higher.

It is possible that during this glut by AAAs, indie studios will continue to develop so when a monopolistic crash occurs like what I suspect is going to happen in film, the video game industry itself with continue with the current indie studios becoming the new AAAs as the old guard goes bankrupt. Ive honestly played some indies that have been solid and far more enjoyable than AAA games and although there is the argument that there are alot of trash indies; that was how video games in the golden era were like. Alot of trash but alot of gold and hidden gems.

Maybe its not too bad if Microsoft continues their spending spree and just cannibalizes others although now there is rumors that Microsoft wants to pull out of video games altogether.

https://www.levelup.com/en/news/756149/Microsoft-and-Xbox-would-leave-the-industry-if-Game-Pass-doesnt-meet-this-goal-by-2027

If this happens, what happens to the studios they bought? Maybe just a bluff.