Pixels or Death's Adam Harshberger writes, "Why? Because ‘content,’ especially when spewed from the mouths of someone on a massive, consumer-facing stage, is not referring to art – it’s talking about a commodity, to be bought and sold and lorded over by people sitting in leather chairs around blood-stained conference tables. So this year, as I half-slept through the major press conferences, I started to hear this foul word – ‘content’ – repeated, over and over. “Great content,” and “the best content,” and “tons of new content for gamers to enjoy.”"
New report from Skillsearch found that 22% of those surveyed had been laid off within the past 12 months.
It's a step forward for Stop Killing Games.
The Callisto Protocol director thinks the solution involves the right people, the right timing, and perhaps a little bit of AI
I don't agree with that. I WISH I could agree with that. But buying habits and customer opinions prove otherwise
We've seen developers in the AAA space try new things and ideas. More often than not, the customers aren't willing to give things a chance, or not enough people buy into the project for it to grow.
Creativity works better in the indie space because the budgets, pressures, and expectations aren't the same.
it's a nice idea and it worked during the PS2/PS3-era when AAA didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars. smaller budgets and shorter development time left room for more creativity and more risk. a game didn't need to sell 4 million+ copies to break even. things are different now.
This is the guy who bragged about crunching his staff and having them work through the night. Crunch culture has lost more talent and done more damage to the industry than any other factor. Screw him.
Nah. There are games without content, and they suck. Mostly those games are found on phones and tablets.
And yet the #1 complaint from many gamers: Your game didn't have enough content.
This guy, while I understand his argument, comes off as a bit childish. The people that call this content are the suits, people sitting in comfy chairs making sure profit is met. Although E3 is meant for games, the suits are also talking to their market share holders telling them that we have great games for the consumer to buy so our stock will be great. The game makers, most of them wouldn't be the best speaker to represent this content. Which is why when they speak to us, they give it to us in videos with a little commentary, or a Q &A session. When did we get to the point where everything has to be spoonfed, make sure things are said just right or I'm going to be really mad at you. Grow up, appreciate that regardless of intent we are getting great games, great systems, great futures, sometimes great content and we support a business where these people are truly making these games out of love. We know with most of their salaries and the hours put in we could be on the other side of the spectrum.
When people argue about the points he made it's just semantics. Grown ups don't usually want things sugar coated. We tell our kids things in certain ways so that they understand. We are grown, we know why they are publishing these games, profit. The developers themselves are making it for the love of programming which we appreciate more. E3, or any big conference like this, is made really for the business side. They are showing a product consumers want. You can be a great writer but when you blatantly moan about semantics like this guy did you won't get the right point across, potato-potato.
I agree. That's why I think E3, TGS & gamecon need to let gamers in these closed rooms they have their demos in. Sure gaming journalists get their scoop and show a few pics. But, I want disclosure! Lol
Probably ruin the hype train as things being shown are too early for consumers to see?