Let me tell you about publishers, from what little I know, they are the corporate giants that provide the funds necessary for developers to make triple-A games. They only know what makes themselves money in the gaming industry. When you're dealing with games that cost millions upon millions of dollars to make, you need to get that money from somewhere, or rather, someone. Publishers, as I'm sure you've guessed by now, get said vast amounts of money from stockholders. That's not to say that they get all that money from stockholders, some comes from investors, and some comes from profits, but those are different stories.
Stockholders buy stocks, of the publisher, which means they own part of its net worth. The stocks will rise in price if the stockholders think the publisher will be worth more in the future. It's a little more complicated than that, but I'm keeping it simple. What publishers like EA are doing is trying to please stockholders, instead of gamers, so that their net worth will increase, thereby forcing their stock prices to go up. That's the problem right there, it's much more immediately profitable for EA to siphon money from stockholders than waiting years for a game to be developed, marketed, sold, with the very real possibility of said game simply dropping dead like a fly at market.
So, at major events like E3, publishers, and even hardware manufacturers, cater to their stockholders. Now, stockholders know near nothing about gaming, publishers know a little more, and developers know a whole lot. What I'm assuming EA did with their stockholders, is they told them that by, say, adding more action to Dead Space 3, they will gather some of the Call of Duty crowd. This is wrong in every way, but like the gullible fools they are, the stockholders bought it (I'm still assuming here). The stockholders think everything will work out because if Activision publishes action games and makes absurd amounts of money, then EA can too. But, EA is going to market Dead Space 3 as a horror/survival game, and underneath the facade of their marketing, it will be an action packed Call of Dead Space. The casual Call of Duty group their aiming for will likely miss the memo that Dead Space 3 was made with them and horror/survival fans in mind, because it will be marketed as the very thing they're not looking for. Horror/survival.
To be completely honest, I'm not even sure if EA has figured this out yet. If they have, it means that they're getting enough money out of their stockholders to remain profitable even if Dead Space 3 should fail (however, here's hoping it doesn't because many developers rely on that game to succeed). If they don't realize it, then they are simply being a foolish publisher. Moving on, because the core fans of the Dead Space series are being completely ignored by EA, some will likely buy the game, dislike it, and not buy the sequel. Some will buy it, like it and buy the sequel, but for the sake of my credibility, I'm going to say that more consumers will dislike its weird combination of action/horror.
Publishers should stop catering to their stockholders. They should let their developers on a longer leash, we'll call it the Leash of Free Will, so that developers on said leash may use their wise, honed skills to develop mind-blowing, original polygonal worlds. When the gamers begin buying their games in droves, they'll make enough money back that they should be profitable. Stocks will rise steadily over a long period of time, instead of rising sharply, only to fall, over a short period of time. It's the long term method, let's call it the Very Long Leash method. Bad name? Publishers will buy it, don't worry. With this method in mind games can be made specifically for certain genres, without trying to attract the consumers of another genre, which often turns out horribly. I suppose it's up to the publishers, whether or not they want to stick around until next generation, or ride the Roller Coaster of Financial Disorder. Good name? I think so.
Sony announced its financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2025, alongside the traditional update on PS5 shipments.
Nintendo Switch 2 is crushing PS5 though and will largely out perform it.
“ In terms of financial figures, net sales for the Game & Network segment (which includes PlayStation and PlayStation Network) were 68.7 billion yen, down 4% year-on-year. This was due to the decrease in hardware sales year-on-year.”
Oof
Tell me you don't understand what you're reading without telling me.
Edit: for goodness' sake, is it always the same person who keeps making new accounts to write the most inane stuff, or it's a general trend?
Whenever words like "Sony" or "Playstation" appear in the headline, he triggered. Best to ignore him, before you know it, his comments get flagged as "spam" and rightly so
Honestly who cares, they are either a bot, mentally unstable, or a kid. I do wonder if switch 2 can defy the odds with all the portable stuff launching soonish. I was wrong about switch 1, but I do not think switch 2 will have as good legs due to to costs and competition. Nintendo games due tend to work miracles though.
MOUSE P.I. For Hire, DenshAttack, and more will appear during the indie games event.
My Hero Academia: All's Justice Review - Following the conclusion of the manga and anime, now fans get a chance to experience it in game form.
Sooo true. It sucks, but a publisher has to listen to them or risk bad financial consequences. Stocks are the devil
Yup, it's a horrible system.
If I ever got super rich I would make games for the gamers. After the core game had been made I would tac on a casual mode for the non-gamers that want to be tricked into thinking they actually achieved something when they finish the game, but my games would be foremost for the hardcore.
Maybe one day.
* Claps *
It's always good to see another gamer well aware of how the business side of the industry works. It's nice to see you point out a logical reason why EA does what they does instead of just saying you hate them and they suck.
I thought i was one of the few people who knows about the stockholders, investors, etc.
Sadly, this situation is repeated more and more as companies are reliant on the stock market, and it's not just the customers that get the short end of the stick.
Nine months ago I left a car main dealership after Ten years of service. For the first eight years it was a decent company to work for, being owned and run by the same family for thirty plus years. The owners valued their staff and customers, funds were always available for specialist tools, maintenance and supplies. All in all it was a pretty relaxed and happy environment to work in. Profitable as well, with if I recall eight different dealerships at their peak.
When the economy hit the skids, they took a dive and were forced to sell off most of their sites and survived for another 18 months if I recall with what was left. When it all became too much they were then left with selling the business as a whole which was snapped up by an investment company which was in possession of fifty plus dealerships throughout the UK.
Now, my point of explaining the above is to illustrate the difference that a shareholder driven company can make. They did come in claiming we wouldn't experience a difference and bleated on about core values and mission statements, which did look like they were passionate about the business. But that is about as far as it went, money was always tight even though they'd send out the sales people to dinners with free bars. Specialist tool supplies ceased and repairs took weeks to be completed. However hard you worked it was never enough and you were encouraged to rip off customers, which I refused.
Any self respecting company would take value for the customer and job satisfaction for the staff as the main qualities to strive for, but not this bunch, value for the shareholders was the main buzz words I kept hearing over and over again.
From this experience I can fully understand why games are starting to lose their edge.