almost certain this is behind a paywall and usually FT is one you can’t get around, so some choice excerpts:

The $200bn video games industry is reckoning with its biggest slowdown in 30 years, as the huge growth driven by smartphone gaming and the latest generation of consoles reaches its limits.

Hardware sales are slowing, with Sony cutting its forecast for PlayStation 5 sales this week. Consumer spending on mobile gaming declined last year, down 2 per cent to $107.3bn according to Data.ai, which forecasts low single-digit growth in 2024.


Many in the gaming industry expected to bounce back quickly after 2022’s post-pandemic decline, last year did not deliver the growth initially hoped.

The latest quarterly numbers from some of the biggest publishers, including Electronic Arts and Take Two, has underwhelmed investors. Meanwhile, games developers have been forced to cut thousands more jobs this year after already slashing as many as 10,000 in 2023.

“There’s a lot of commercial anxiety: about growth, about profitability, about keeping budgets in check and about making an impact in the market when there are so many established products,” said Piers Harding-Rolls, games research director at Ampere Analysis, a market researcher. “We are in a much slower growth era.”


Cutting prices is a double-edged sword. The huge popularity of free-to-play online games such as Fortnite and Roblox consumes hours of playtime that had previously been spent on $70 titles. The strong network effects of multiplayer games, such as Call of Duty, also make it harder for new entrants to succeed. “Thousands of titles are hitting every month and the success rate is very low,” he said. “You’re faced with significant challenges in trying to break new product into the market.”

The rising costs of developing blockbuster games has also raised the stakes. “When you’re talking about a budget that’s $100mn plus, even for a big company, if you miss with two or three of those then commercially you’re on the ropes,” Harding-Rolls said.


That has driven a Hollywood-style dependence on rebooting the same big franchises by Sony, Microsoft, Electronic Arts and other big games companies. At the same time, entertainment giants are showing a renewed interest in gaming — adding new competition for existing players in a shrinking market.

Disney made a $1.5bn investment in Fortnite’s creator Epic Games this month to create what the studio’s chief Bob Iger called “a huge Disney universe that will be for gaming and for play”, while Netflix is also expanding its games offering.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The rising costs of developing blockbuster games has also raised the stakes. “When you’re talking about a budget that’s $100mn plus, even for a big company, if you miss with two or three of those then commercially you’re on the ropes,” Harding-Rolls said.

    Oh boo hoo, is the only type of game you can think of to release is a"blockbuster" type game?

    Because last I checked, small titles regularly do quite well, like Hi-Fi Rush did so well compared to the fucking bomb that is Starfield. Same company, small game vs. big game. Small game did well, big game tanked.

    • DdCno1@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hi Fi Rush had 3 million players, including Game Pass. Starfield had over 12 million players, including Game Pass. It was one of the most successful releases last year, the single best selling game in the US the month it came out. That’s not what tanking looks like.

      • VoterFrog@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Did Starfield only cost 4x as much to make as HiFi? Doubt it. I’d bet the marketing budget of Starfield alone dwarfed the lifetime cost of HiFi. I agree that “bombed” is maybe too harsh but the problem that the article is talking about is ROI. As I continues to balloon, R needs to keep up and it’s not.

    • money_loo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean the dude has a point still.

      Alan wake 2 was Remedy’s fastest selling game ever, and it’s still not even broken even on development costs.

      I don’t know about you, but I loved that game and don’t want to see a world where the developers are too afraid to take a risk on a game like that.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I hate to be that guy, but if you’re wanting to live in a world where you can spend an absolutely obscene amount of money on a game, and still have the studio able to succeed despite not recouping enough money to cover development costs… it sounds like you want to live in a fantasy world where money is meaningless.

        Alan Wake 2 is a really bad example as its a sequel to an otherwise relatively obscure game with a large cult following. I liked Alan Wake as well, but I can see why they are struggling to sell enough to recoup costs. 1. The lack of popularity of the original (not that it was unpopular, just not popular enough) combined with 2. The length of time between the original and the sequel as well as 3. making it an Epic exclusive game are all things holding it back and every single one can be labelled as a “bad business decision.”

        There’s definitely blockbuster games with big budgets that are making their development costs back and then some. Larian and Baldur’s Gate 3, for one example. I don’t think we should be making excuses for companies that can’t manage it. They should go out of business instead of being the video game equivalent of the banking world’s “Too Big Too Fail.”