28
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
28 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
5068 readers
42 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yet with all that investment and labor, most of those games aren't even as good as smaller games made for a fraction of the cost.
We could just make 50 unique smaller games and it'd probably be better than making one bloated AAAA game.
My example was a modern B game. AAAA games like Cyberpunk have 4986 people in the credits. Code Vein is at the lower end of what modern audiences will tolerate. I picked it because it came out this week. The top review presented to me by Steam right now complains about: Technical competency, frame rate, and missing high end visual features. These aren't things you can fix without man-years of engineering time. The review calls the game cheap several times. They also call it rushed. The person praises the story and the characters and the designs. Things that are actually cheap, but get locked in early and then take armies and years to be able to present to audiences to see if they resonate.
The user explicitly says they want the game to have cost more to make, and that lower budget games shouldn't can't justify full-price. "229 people found this review helpful".
So the numbers are even more absurd than I thought but that just emphasizes my point!
We could stick with cheaper graphics and reusable assets while focusing on stories and designs. We can make 200 good games instead of making 1 AAAA game that's published in a broken state. Customers will whine, but that's all they ever do and your own example shows they don't know what they're talking about anyway. Focus on the art form, rather than the commodity form.
I wish we could. But there isn't evidence that anyone can make a living doing that. The handful of mega hits that people use as examples of successful cheap games isn't that evidence, it's just anecdotes.
Instead my hope is that as AI can automate much of the work and raise the quality floor of the parts that aren't unique, the parts we actually don't care about but expect to be there, that it'll start being possible to spend half a year, a year on something, and then earn the equivalent of half a year or a year's salary in sales, and have also made something that is actually able to speak for itself, to show the unique part without the jank and missing features dictating the conversation.