Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This economic model for games is kind of required at this point, but the author is hitting on something true about the industry: it's not as good as it used to be.

The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish, and now the vast majority of games are derivative and often worse than the originals in terms of gameplay. They sell because people like new content. They are also less about the art, and more about the money. That may have always been the case in some sense, but I know that studios used to be very proud of their achievements and had ambitious visions for their IP.

As far as I'm concerned, the gaming "industry" is basically dead. The few exceptions are games like Dank Souls and Path of Exile, which bring something new to their respective genres. I know Dark Souls is technically a sequel, but that's the version of the game that first went mainstream, and is considered the corner-stone of the franchise. The point is, those are the kinds of games that actually matter to me, everything else is content.

Rocket League is one of the "real" games, and yeah the micro-transactions are annoying but it works well for that specific game. I'm not sure how to improve the monetization to make it feel more fair to consumers, and the developers need money, so what's the alternative? Keep cranking out crappy sequels?



>The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish.

This kind of statement definitely requires a source.

>They are also less about the art, and more about the money.

There have never been more experimental and indie games released than now.


Not sure a source is required when he's simply providing an opinion, albeit assertively.


>The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish, and now the vast majority of games are derivative and often worse than the originals in terms of gameplay.

Major studios produce derivative, uninspired, and stale sequels. Much like the movie and television industries. They're in it to make money. So their products will be interesting enough, and often show the desires of the creative employees. But their decisions are strongly driven by profit, and they have to regularly publish something even if their creatives have writer's block or a desire to totally pivot a project.

Real gems are produced by the middle-sized studios that grew from talented developers and great designers. I've only ever learned of them through word of mouth, and even then I only enjoy half the games I try.

>Path of Exile

Best example of freemium, IMO. Cosmetics are a big source of income, but the developers still put out new game mechanics every couple of months. Bug and quality-of-life patches are frequent. There is a category of real-money purchases that affect gameplay (storage tabs to help organize items you collect), but I don't mind it. Once bought, they're available to all your characters forever. Not having those tabs only became a problem after many (>100) hours in the game. So I saw it as upgrading from the trial version. I've spent less than $100 on it, but have played for almost a decade.


RDR2 was released in 2018, it's the best video game in the history of humanity, so your date of the golden age is not correct.


RDR2 was a masterpiece.

I wouldn't call it the best video game in the history of humanity. Certainly the most immersive open world game in the history of humanity with a story and cinematic flair on par with the best films from Hollywood. An achievement by rockstar that has yet to be toppled. No other open world game including their own GTAV even comes close. Not even elden ring beats it.


I don't agree. Mobile gaming went to the roof in terms of annoying monatization models. But you still have good games. The Witcher 3, Mass Effect. Minecraft. All pretty good games with no real shortcomings.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: