Yeah, I see what you are saying. I guess I just push back on all the armchair video game analysts (I know I’m one too…) sometimes b/c all we have are some steam ccu’s and monthly playtime rankings. We just have no idea what quantities most games sell at, what their development costs were and how other factors play out like gamepass. It just turns into vibes and vibes turn into facts on the internet once they are stated often enough. We end up going from OW2 didn’t show up on my twitter feed much therefore it clearly bombed. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t.
1 Like
It relates because fewer people will be able to afford new systems/pc’s, and companies will want to get as much out of those who still have access as they can. Over time prices will go down but it’s going to take years.
1 Like
I would burn COD to the ground if it allowed the developers at Activision to actually make the games they want. I wish the freedom that Double Fine has could be the norm.
1 Like
Oh i thought you meant now or in a close future, that scenario could happen but developers would find a way, like not asking for higher requirements.
For multiplatform games there has never been so many potential buyers, which explain why many games are selling so much, good times for software i’d say
Its an interesting question for sure. Assuming the same budget. The next COD vs the best original game the devs could come up with. And the devs consider bonus/incentive payouts, how many would pick the safe COD bet b/c it will pay the bills vs take the risk of the unknown sales an original game would make.
3 Likes
Yeah it’s a rock and a hard place situation, as you said in one hand you need to pay the bills and continuing with the sure and established IP is the safe thing to do but on the other hand as a big ass AAA publisher you should make the next big new IP and that means risk of losing hundreds of millions. Every IP will inevitably decline and there is always the danger of someone else creating the next big thing plus in some IPs (like Resident Evil for example) it’s easier to make big changes than others (like CoD) and that can also limit how the IP evolves through the years.
To be honest this is a difficult riddle to solve and a very risky business proposition especially with the current AAA budgets so I don’t blame Xbox/Activision for being risk averse with these things but I think they are inevitably going to try (and probably lose a lot of money in the process) and make the next big new AAA IP if they want to stay relevant.
COD makes more money in one release than any other franchise they could work on combined 20 times over. If COD goes, Activision goes.
3 Likes
I think part of the reason Double Fine can even afford that freedom is because of the consistent big bucks a game like COD brings.
What I’m getting reading the replies is that Microsoft’s overall gaming revenue growth is now incredibly reliant on COD, and specifically that COD itself continuously grows each year (for the quarter that encompasses it’s launch window). I guess ideally Xbox would be able to offset that reliance with more incredibly financially successful games, game pass, and operating a storefront platform. And maybe it is? It’s also just kinda difficult to see the full picture when the focus is on comparing this quarter to last year’s quarter. Black Ops Six itself might have been a double edged sword. Performing better than the biggest COD in a long while (or ever, idk exactly) was never going to be easy.
1 Like
Maybe Double Fine’s head count is what helps the team. I would speculate that they’re one of the smaller size studios and their game budgets are sized accordingly
In a perfect world, COD would get back to just having Infinity Ward the studio for COD games every 3 to 4 years while the other studios work on other projects. I hope we’ll never get a new COD with forced 4-player online co-op ever again. What on earth was the team thinking?
2 Likes
I think Double fine’s budgets are really small considering they were able to fund some of their projects on Kick starter, same goes for Obsidian and ninja theory. Xbox has Halo. Forza and Gears this year, these titles should perform very well considering 2 are well known shooters. There is also a Doom DLC coming out.
6 Likes
I would imagine Ninja Theory are small too, their issue seems to be a protracted development period for their game, while Double Fine can work on multiple titles
TBH Double Fine doesn’t get enough credit. The Studio made some of the best use of Unreal tech out of any studio, and their studio seems a great place to work for, with a great happy boss, good vib and where the studio actively encourages staff to pitch ideas.
Hope Phil can look after that studio
2 Likes
DF is a gem of a studio. If they were to be shut down, I’d be willing to personally contribute financially to help Tim buy the studio back from MS and go back independent if needed.
2 Likes
Would second that, I sure hope Kiln is a hit. I would love to see it take of like many others.
I hope Tim’s game is a hit.
As for the smaller titles, I hope they determine how to go full multi-plat on day one with these indie-like games. They’re not going to drive hardware or subscription purchases, so getting out in front of as many potential buyers on day one should be priority.
2 Likes
Stuff like Kil’n and even Keeper would do great numbers on Switch 2 imo. Really need to get those dev kits and ports going!
6 Likes
In this case I would forget the Switch 2 and get it on the Switch if possible, and let backward compatibility be handled on the Switch 2.
5 Likes
Would Nintendo allow that? I’m actually curious what the strategy with the Switch 2 is surrounding cross gen. Nintendo is heavily reliant on getting customers to buy the new hardware, but this is the first time their “next gen” console has been so close to their previous console in form, function, and name. This was somewhat the case for the DS systems, but even I think the only time it was for the home consoles was the WiiU… and that didn’t go great… 
Nintendo, when the Switch 2 released, said to devs to make games for Switch 1 still. They don’t force devs to make Switch 2 only games. A lot of games, mostly indie/smaller games, will still come to the Switch 1 for a long long time because of the large install base (only caveat is that devs don’t always do a Switch 2 version which is a bit concerning).
The market has changed. Chasing graphic fidelity isn’t the trend. Switch 2 is powerful enough to run most current-gen games, that’s all that matters.
And Nintendo has always been like that. Switch 2 is not comparable to Wii U. Wii U had other problems: the second screen was a bad gimmick, there was almost no games for it and people didn’t see it as a Wii successor.
4 Likes
Not about the market, I just expected Nintendo as a business to be more reliant on their customers upgrading to new hardware. If they’re good without doing that (and the Switch 2 is looking good sales wise without current Gen only exclusives) then that answers my question.
1 Like
Yeah, I think they expected a much faster upgrade rate (access to dev kits should have helped that). I think they are OK with people staying on Switch 1 at the moment.
1 Like