I’ll explain this as quick as I can. Basically the bourgeoisie that own the major studios are so obsessed with profit that they make blatantly unsustainable decisions like overmonetization and shipping unfinished games every few years. Now look what’s happening, the studios have no choice but to lay off employees to recoup the costs they inflicted upon themselves and the worst affected are the fired employees naturally.
This is honestly infuriating and insulting as someone who’s been a massive video game fan since 2019 because the franchises I took a liking to (especially Halo) had countless labor and talent (stretching decades in some cases) have been completely gone to waste publishing cookie cutter generic dogshit games for the c suite’s next payday.
Indies are no better. They also suffer from the problem of shipping unfinished games but unlike their AAA counterparts, they suffer from genuine lack of time and resources to deliver games in a timely manner. So the whole “go indie” is basically lesser evil.
Come to think of it Capitalism actually enables and rewards such incompetence as long as profits are high.
It is, but the profit doesn’t come from sales, but rather recurring systems as a result of battle-passes or one-time purchases for microtransactions. I said virtually unprofitable because a lot of multiplayer games are now free-to-play, take any game, Call of Duty, Halo, etc. Most likely there is a free-to-play game available in the multiplayer sector. With that multiplayer sector, they are now gaining revenue not from sales (as it is impossible), but rather from recurring payments or microtransactions. Therefore most of the revenue that comes from games today is not from sales of a particular commodity (Note that when you purchase a game digitally, you do not own the game, you own the lease for a (supposed) indefinite amount of time, therefore it cannot be considered a ‘sale’ since you do not own your game), but rather the payment of certain cosmetics or a battlepass which is only available within that specific game. You do not own the cosmetic, you just own the lease to it.
When you shift your focus from ‘owning’ a game (as it is a lie for PC gamers, for console gamers, it makes a bit more sense), it is clear that revenue now is generated not from a game sale.
The corporations that run most of the game market (Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, Valve, etc.) are not headed by one person. They are held by shareholders, i.e. capitalists, not a single capitalist. Shareholders do not care about the quality of a game, rather how much revenue it generates. If it does not generate more profit than the last game, then there will be consequences despite the game being profitable (from sales or otherwise).
Guitar Hero is a dead franchise, for the most part. A lot of franchises are dead. Why is that? They’re not profitable enough to keep themselves running. No one aside from Guitar Hero fans wants to play Guitar Hero. Any franchise you can think of, Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, Battlefield, these are being milked, because it is a safe bet. Even a singleplayer experience like Assassin’s Creed has microtransactions. And their game instead of centering around a fun experience, it is centered around wasting your time as much as possible or force yourself to do side quests so that you can get the level you want. Not only that, most of the Assassin’s Creed games require a third party DRM tool, and tampering with your game may result in your account being suspended, or your game gone all together. This is the turn-around we see for games. Games are not calculated per sale, as it is useless (or often a minority in the game’s revenue all together) but rather how much money it can accumulate based on microtransactions, battle-passes, etc.
This is liberal speak. I’m astonished that you can say this and not see that capitalism is to blame. Every capitalist is concerned with one thing, profit. I already said what I said earlier, that being that capitalists care about how much revenue it generates. It is not based on regulatory matters, rather how much capitalists have control over how people play games and consume their product. Saying that is an effect of regulation and not capitalism is advocating the same as social-democracy, removing the “bad” aspects of capitalism whilst still keep capitalism in place.
I provided two links which shown the exact opposite. Please, do some research.
I’m not seeking to make any point about MTX or game ownership. I’m seeking to respond to OP’s central point about current layoffs as an example of capitalism ruining games. MTX is far from the majority of revenue, though. People don’t even play the games they buy, let alone buy MTX at an average rate which exceeds the license cost.
I’m assigning some blame to capitalism in my sentence, the one you quoted. I’m saying the regulatory failure is the mechanism by which the crux of the issue, the option to lay off without cause, is enabled. The specific failure I mean is the failure to require employers to have a good reason to end the work contracts they offer. It is fair to lay someone off for a good reason. It is fair to make their position redundant under macroeconomic circumstances like described in the Business article, if the employees are paid out. These statements are true under many kinds of organisation of government. But similarly under any organisation, including a capitalist one, it is not fair to broadly lay people off without cause where the positions are not redundant; rather the associated payroll expense is temporarily inconvenient, or not preferable to the similarly temporary and unrealised shareholder profits. In the case of a capitalist organisation, it’s because it’s not good for sustainable ongoing business, due to the compromise on future production. These are austerity measures enacted without conditions of austerity. The measures themselves will induce austerity in those businesses. That is antithetical to capitalism. And it is something that can be legislated against today for the protection of the employees against becoming collateral damage, without having to compel the people into revolutionary action. It is the position already held by the majority currently. It is already the status quo in the capitalist world outside America. Or is your position that only America is truly capitalist?
What I’m advocating for is direct action, over using shaky reasoning to try to compel revolutionary action. Because if your own goals are achievable within the framework of capitalism, why would the average person revolt? That’s what I’m telling you is the case. Indeed it isn’t only achievable, it is achieved. I am anti capitalist because my goals are not achievable in a capitalist framework. If directing my actions most productively within the framework in which I exist makes me a liberal, tell me your plan for direct action on this issue and I’ll be happy to consider it on its merits.