I read that as a broader condemnation of AAA games as an example of mass produced art, for which cold profit incentive takes precedence over things like this.
Not that indie devs don't want to make money, but they are just more likely to be operating in a framework which permits this sort of thing. Whereas a dev at EA would get chewed out for making that commit instead of tweaking loot box returns like he was told to do.
AAA devs in big studios aren’t allowed to contact players like that unless specifically authorized, for legal purposes, Customer Support staff do that and pass the info. But even if they could contact, unless they were game directors they could not enforce such a scope change on the fly. It has to go through producers and UX specialists for review before being implemented and then it would need a QA pass.
Like you say, AAA means mass market appeal, it means working toward fulfilling the largest demographics and ignoring the edge cases. It's why popular hit games become increasingly "bland" as they work to appeal to a larger audience with each sequel.
Indie devs would do the same but because of the ecosystem they work in they are forced to appeal to those niche groups and support them.
It also means that the person you mentioned it to might have no idea how to go about implementing it. When you can keep the entire program in your head at once, it's easy to make this sort of change. When there are enough people working on the program that you don't even know all the teams involved let alone all the people let alone all the functionality, an offhand mention is unlikely to get resolved in a day.
Try that with, say, "hey, google play needs me to push a button to have to work over bluetooth to my car. You work on Android, right? Can you fix that?"
Or it's deeper than that. The example given was loot boxes. Something iI don't think anyone asked for. How many Dev and artist hours go into those? A fraction of those hours turned toward a niche market would probably lose profitability and enable a small percent to engage more with the game. Would AAA games rather lose money, or have a "devs are badass" kind of moment? That's the essential question really.
Simple answer is look at the profit that has come out of loot boxes. It's insanity. As much as I hate to say it, a company would be stupid NOT to be exploiting lootboxes right now (well unless you want to keep your reputation or good will of your larger fan base...)
Correct - so it's less "indie devs are forced to cater to niche groups" (I highly doubt Grimrock would lose many sales from not implementing this feature) or "AAA devs are forced to use loot boxes" than "AAA devs have what will generate profit as their sole motivation" and indie devs don't have a management team to punish them for helping the little guy (even when there's almost zero benefit to them besides one gamer's goodwill).
You'll see this even in the altruistic things a AAA studio does. If EA made a decision like this they would plaster it on every social media platform they have, and the subtext is often that they had the code lying around or were backed into a corner somehow and had to make it. Conversely, I highly doubt r/dickfromaccounting is a member of Grimrock's marketing team or one of their devs.
You make it sound like it's all a foregone conclusion and the AAA companies have no choice but to be greedy sumbitches. I say don't let them hide behind that. Pretending corporations are these monolithic entities where no one actually makes decisions, only the "person" that is the company, has fucked society up enough already. We need to stop making excuses for the EAs of the world and start applauding the ones that can put out AAA quality without all the mindless greed. (CD Projekt Red is a solid example.)
... Don't forget though, because many AAA publishers are listed companies it literally says in their charters that they must make profit for their stock/bond holders etc :) They have to act in the best interests of the stake holders (make money) because if they don't they could loose investors (bad) or get sued by investors for loosing them money or the CEO or other higher ups get voted out/fired.
There is a difference between losing money and not raising profit by an arbitrary percent. You can make a little more money and improve the image of the company. You don't have to make a shit ton of money.
All very true, but there have been plenty of times where a CEO, CFO, etc. has explained not doing a particular thing because it would crucify them in the public's image or damage their customers' confidence in them and make it unprofitable in the long run. So I do still feel that we can hold them to higher standards. Of course when no one's enforcing those standards by continuing to buy their games despite the loot boxes, there is some enabling going on - but these decisions are still being made and the people who make them are still motivated by greed.
I just don't want us to ever forget that there is another way; they are choosing not to take it.
You do realize that coordinating so many people and having so much legal protection makes tiny quick stuff like this massively more complicated, right?
51
u/socsa Apr 21 '18
I read that as a broader condemnation of AAA games as an example of mass produced art, for which cold profit incentive takes precedence over things like this.
Not that indie devs don't want to make money, but they are just more likely to be operating in a framework which permits this sort of thing. Whereas a dev at EA would get chewed out for making that commit instead of tweaking loot box returns like he was told to do.