Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Games don't need venture capitalism

iatia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#61

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

dumpsterlid wrote: post #44
jokethrowaway wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art is a sort of enjoyable endeavour for the artist and I certainly wish I would be paid to paint or make a videogame - but the world has way too much art being produced and it doesn't need another one - so I can keep writing crap react app for 300k and my soul or make a game for 50k (or go indie and likely starve). In particular I think fiat currency and inflation drives the industry to stupid investments trying to…

yawn another libertarian blaming things on too much government. I could sure use some more government right now cracking down on industries with oligopolies that feel no threat of consequence for completely undermining the quality of their products while raising prices. Who says way too much art is being made? There are a dizzying array of video games outs there but there is still clearly plenty room for more. The pr…

artists are a dime a dozen, I say this as someone who has been dating one for 12 years now.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#62

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #50
hresvelgr wrote: post #18

Games in this day and age ideally need generous government subsidy to be successful. I feel we're a long way off universal basic income worldwide so at the very least, something like an artist's living wage provided by the government is a necessity to produce good independent video games. Most professional indie developers tend to survive rather than thrive, barely kept afloat by money from publishers who also have t…

Why would you want it to be divorced from success? Seems like popularity/commercial success is the best measure of "being good" societally that we have for art. People making art/games only for themselves is fine of course, but I don't see why society should subsidize it (as long as we have finite resources - beyond that everything goes of course).

It's not clear to me how you can say that in good faith.

There are just too many instances of artists who died destitute only to be considered one of the greats many years after the fact.

And the ones that didn't were bankrolled by a wealthy individual.

thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It's optimizing for a different thing than what the other poster is claiming should be optimized for.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#63

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

minimaxir wrote: post #32
TillE wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a couple people refer to BG3 as if it's some out-of-the-blue success. Larian has a strong history of consistent success, and reached another level by licensing an extremely popular franchise. Similarly, nearly every AAA franchise game will do very well. Maybe there are some ups and downs, but overall it's boringly predictable. I can absolutely guarantee that GTA6 will be one of the best-selling games of all…

BG3 was an iteration into a niche genre (CRPGs) where previous iterations in that genre underperformed (Pillars of Eternity and Divinity: Original Sin). Everyone, including Larian, was surprised.

It's _Larian_.

They've always been good. very good. And you know they're committed for the right reasons because they re-did large parts of DOS2 for free based upon community response.

I can't think of another studio who has willingly done that for people who have already paid.

Go back and play the original divine divinity. It's very good.

BG3 being a masterclass in game development shocked no one who has followed Larian over the years.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#64

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

Gigachad wrote: post #12
jmyeet wrote: post #6

This is ancient Internet history at this point but does anyone remember Rovio? In the early days of the iPhone/iPad they made a large amount of money with the Angry Birds franchise, even licensing the IP to a movie (or was it 2?). In 2011 Rovio took ~$40 million in VC funding and I distinctly remember thinking "well, that's over". Creative ventures don't scale. You cannot reduce them to a magic and infinitely-repeata…

I think you actually can reduce a lot of it to a formula. Most major games that come out are basically a modern remake of something that already exists and was popular. Just rehashing the same concepts and improving them is a pretty solid strategy. This strategy won’t create the Minecrafts and Stardew vallies, but it covers the bulk of game development.

Far Cry is a perfect example.

They hit upon a working formula in 3 and every game after has basically been the same game in a different environment.

When the original FC came out, if you had told me it would end up being what it is, I wouldn't have believed you.

But FC1, 2, and 3 were all such vastly different games it's obvious in hindsight they were fishing in many ways.

For the record, while I do like the FC formula, I haven't played the latest one because not enough time has passed for me to enjoy it (since it's all basically the same).

imo 2 is the best in the series if you can forgive it's flaws (like soldiers constantly re-spawning). I don't think I've ever experienced a more immersive game.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#65

Post by klik99 »

Ekaros wrote: post #26
klik99 wrote: post #11

5 years ago I would have agreed, VCs invested in games, rather than studios and most games never get released, let alone be successful if they are released. Rovio is a good example of that time period. But so many games people have exited and formed their own VC studios, or hired people who get games, and the focus has switched to investing in teams which is way better. So while it's true that "games don't need VC",…

Wouldn't the traditional publisher model somewhat modified be reasonable solution? They have been around for decades and they know the industry, have the connections and so on. Just have to leverage it right way. Real issue with VC money in games is that returns most of the time just aren't big enough. And picking the winners is very hard.

This is a good question.

Publishers typically invest later in a project to help finish get it over the finish line. They used to invest earlier but over the years started investing later and later - as game engines got better and better, teams could do more with less funding so they stopped doing as much.

IMO VC entering the picture was a reaction to less early funding from publishers - it's filling a need for larger more ambitious projects.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#66

Post by ImprobableTruth »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #62
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want it to be divorced from success? Seems like popularity/commercial success is the best measure of "being good" societally that we have for art. People making art/games only for themselves is fine of course, but I don't see why society should subsidize it (as long as we have finite resources - beyond that everything goes of course).

It's not clear to me how you can say that in good faith. There are just too many instances of artists who died destitute only to be considered one of the greats many years after the fact. And the ones that didn't were bankrolled by a wealthy individual. thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It's optimizing for a different thing than w…

Because what other good measure is there?

You mention great artists who died destitute - but we consider them great because they are posthumously popular. We can't look into the future to see what stands the test of time, so current popularity and commercial success seem like the best proxies.

>thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It's optimizing for a different thing than what the other poster is claiming should be optimized for.

Since the proposal isn't about UBI in general, why should we care about artists in particular? Many (most?) people work jobs where they do things they don't really want to because it's more useful to others than what they'd actually like to do.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#67

Post by ImprobableTruth »

hresvelgr wrote: post #56
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want it to be divorced from success? Seems like popularity/commercial success is the best measure of "being good" societally that we have for art. People making art/games only for themselves is fine of course, but I don't see why society should subsidize it (as long as we have finite resources - beyond that everything goes of course).

> Why would you want it to be divorced from success? Because art is not inherently successful, and using commercial success as a metric on whether it's "good" is philistinism. Art that is "bad" is at the very least interesting in more than one dimension. I have come to appreciate art that to most would be off-putting because where it excels and interests me, it does so in such unique ways I would never expect. There'…

Commercially successful art is that which is "popular enough". The value of art is completely subjective, so what other measure do we have?

If there's "bad art" that appeals to you and others enough, then it isn't bad art. There's lots of art that critics and the general public would consider poorly made that is still commercially successful because it has its fans.

"Real" bad art is art that almost no one cares for enough to shell out money. Why should we subsidize that? Just writing this off as philistinism isn't convincing in the least.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#69

Post by spacemarine1 »

klik99 wrote: post #65
Ekaros wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the traditional publisher model somewhat modified be reasonable solution? They have been around for decades and they know the industry, have the connections and so on. Just have to leverage it right way. Real issue with VC money in games is that returns most of the time just aren't big enough. And picking the winners is very hard.

This is a good question. Publishers typically invest later in a project to help finish get it over the finish line. They used to invest earlier but over the years started investing later and later - as game engines got better and better, teams could do more with less funding so they stopped doing as much. IMO VC entering the picture was a reaction to less early funding from publishers - it's filling a need for larger…

I see equity funding as useful starting funding.

Publishers are great for finishing funding once you know what your game is.

Re: Games don't need venture capitalism

#70

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #66
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me how you can say that in good faith. There are just too many instances of artists who died destitute only to be considered one of the greats many years after the fact. And the ones that didn't were bankrolled by a wealthy individual. thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It's optimizing for a different thing than w…

Because what other good measure is there? You mention great artists who died destitute - but we consider them great because they are posthumously popular. We can't look into the future to see what stands the test of time, so current popularity and commercial success seem like the best proxies. >thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It…

There's a common complaint you'll see about google.

They hired the brightest minds of our generation ... to work on ads rather than the betterment of humanity.

You're saying artists should optimize for money, the other poster is saying they should optimize for fulfillment.

The output you get from one vs the other is vastly different because the underlying incentives are vastly different.

> Because what other good measure is there?

Why does there need to _be_ a good measure?

Do we have a good measure for sex? is it length of time, size of organs, number of orgasms, how deeply the participants care about each other?

Why can't something just simply be?

Post reply on HN