Warner Bros. Discusses 'Volatile' AAA Console Games, Will Lean Into Free-To-Play And Mobile (gamespot.com) 47
During a recent Morgan Stanley conference, Warner Bros. Discovery gaming boss J.B. Perrette discussed some of the company's strategy for gaming going forward, and it includes more live-service, mobile, and free-to-play games. From a report: He said, "We're doubling down on games as an area where we think there is a lot more growth opportunity that we can tap into with the IP that we have and some of the capabilities we have on the studio where we're uniquely positioned as both a publisher and a developer of games."
Perrette said WBD's recent gaming output has focused on AAA games for console, and that's great when a game like Hogwarts Legacy sells 22 million copies and becomes the best-selling game of the year, but this kind of success is never guaranteed in what Perrette said was a "volatile" market. He pointed out that one of WBD's latest big games, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, was a disappointment for the company.
So the plan going forward, he said, is to help reduce volatility by focusing on core franchises and bringing at least some of them to the mobile and free-to-play space, as well as continuing to invest in live-service games that people play--and spend money on--over a long period of time. This will help WBD generate more consistent revenue, he said, going on to tease that WBD had some new mobile free-to-play games coming this year. Also worth noting is that just because WBD may push into new places, that doesn't necessarily mean it will stop making big single-player AAA games.
Perrette said WBD's recent gaming output has focused on AAA games for console, and that's great when a game like Hogwarts Legacy sells 22 million copies and becomes the best-selling game of the year, but this kind of success is never guaranteed in what Perrette said was a "volatile" market. He pointed out that one of WBD's latest big games, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, was a disappointment for the company.
So the plan going forward, he said, is to help reduce volatility by focusing on core franchises and bringing at least some of them to the mobile and free-to-play space, as well as continuing to invest in live-service games that people play--and spend money on--over a long period of time. This will help WBD generate more consistent revenue, he said, going on to tease that WBD had some new mobile free-to-play games coming this year. Also worth noting is that just because WBD may push into new places, that doesn't necessarily mean it will stop making big single-player AAA games.
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
Free to play is not going to make it better.
"Free to play" is never really about better though, it's about hooking impatient people with addictive / hoarder personalities and an obsession with the IP into buying the endless amounts of in-game currency required to get all the game's exclusive items. For people like this the quality of the game isn't really important, once they've latched on to collecting the stuff for their specific IP obsession they'll spend whatever it takes to get it.
I got into that when I was young with the Star Trek collectors plates. I got the 25th Anniversary [google.com] one because it was limited and a one time deal. Then I started getting offers for "limited runs" of other plates for the crew, then the ships, then different shows, then different movies, then ancillary but "well loved" characters. Teenage me tonne of paper route and early part time job money to collect a monster box of the things in my garage somewhere and, other than perhaps a small handful, the plates ain't worth what I paid for them.
It took me a while to realize that, to the plate company, I was what they call a "whale". Now WBD is going whale hunting with their IP hoping to snag a few suckers like I was in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought F2P was about getting cheap people to supply free 'AI' opponents for the P2W players.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought F2P was about getting cheap people to supply free 'AI' opponents for the P2W players.
In general, it's about creating an addicting gaming mechanic with either a power-imbalance or artificial scarcity (or both) that can be solved by clicking the pay-now button.
They're always eager to convert someone from F2P, but even if they can't...yes, they'll get enough currency, resources, or whatever else to be easy fodder for the whales. The whole concept is just the direct monetization of the social media/gambling/doom scrolling/etc. addiction that companies are not only engaging in but actively enco
Re: (Score:2)
I thought F2P was about getting cheap people to supply free 'AI' opponents for the P2W players.
Honestly, modern bots without aim assist will be beating most P2W players, they pay to win because they suck. P2W people need to think they're beating actual people to feel satisfied about paying to win.
Re: (Score:2)
"Free to play" is never really about better though, it's about hooking impatient people with addictive / hoarder personalities and an obsession with the IP into buying the endless amounts of in-game currency required to get all the game's exclusive items.
The industry even has a somewhat derogatory term for this... "whales". Those small percent (less than 1% in many cases) of users who generate more than 90% of the revenue from in-app purchases are what drives most of the free-to-play model, the rest of us are just along for the ride.
The problem with free-to-play is that it has led to developers implementing many gimmicks and psychological tricks that range from obnoxious to downright evil. Loot boxes is probably the most infamous example, where games went
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Games actually get played. And when they suck then they do not do well. Unlike movies where you can con enough people in on opening weekend that you may still break even.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Games actually get played. And when they suck then they do not do well. Unlike movies where you can con enough people in on opening weekend that you may still break even.
But "F2P" do get played even if they suck...because there's no barrier for entry they can get people and then addict them to the endorphin-reward cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
I detest the business model, and won't contribute to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember this one F2P where the next section was item gated. To obtain the item I could:
A) Battle through a difficult dungeon (3 attempts per day) and hope to get the item from a *random* drop.
B) Pay $ to purchase additional attempts per day to Battle through the same dungeon (for that random drop).
C) Pay $$$ to purchase the item in the "auction house".
Really? What gamer is running this dungeon over and over again, to obtain a low drop item just so they could sell it?
I suspect the "seller" was the game i
Re: (Score:2)
There's a real monetary advantage to be made by manipulating the market, and zero legal oversight of such activity.
Re: (Score:2)
I've played a few, but only dropped bucks on World of Tanks/Warships because they were good games and I played a lot. Good value for the occasional nickel or dime that I tossed at them. I couple of others I played free for a few months then never went back, but I did provide noobage for other players. I almost got hooked on the phone version of Star Trek Fleet Command for a couple of weeks (in the mountains with no comp). It provided casual amusement while sitting out in the woods. But I dropped it when I r
Re: (Score:2)
I have 2 friends who put themselves into debt with F2P. Sure it's their fault for not having the self control. But the system is designed to whittle away that self control.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. And no. Personally, one experience (World of Tanks, where you compete against people that paid-to-win on higher tiers and it stops being fun) was enough. I am not doing F2P again. But I can see that many people do not realize what model these work on and can get sucked in.
Re: (Score:2)
So much of their IP portfolio is garbage. Suicide Squad has been a loser in nearly every incarnation, just not as much so as Aquaman 2. Free to play is not going to make it better.
I doubt it matters that their IP is garbage, their implementation of it is also garbage. However they're hoping that they can hook people on mediocre games if the "first one is free", their ultra-expensive advertising of a crappy game isn't working so they've given up on praying for the next COD, now they're praying to be the next WOT whilst forgetting that their more pressing problem is that they make crap games.
Also, free to play is rarely free.
Could it be another reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
That end cut where Harley just kills an apparently hypnotized, helpless Batman with a gunshot to the face at point blank range after a really asinine speech would turn just about any fan of Batman off from buying the game.
I can say with high confidence (Score:3)
that if the game was good, this wouldn't matter at all.
Re:Could it be another reason? (Score:4, Informative)
That end cut where Harley just kills an apparently hypnotized, helpless Batman with a gunshot to the face at point blank range after a really asinine speech would turn just about any fan of Batman off from buying the game.
That would have been a shitty move at the best of times, but this came just after Kevin Conroy (the batman of the Arkham Knight) died of cancer. Why not just just go out and piss on his grave if you have that little respect. Fuck whomever came up with is idea hard with a gardening tool.
F.E.A.R. is the little death (Score:3)
This is the way the industry has been going for a long time. Without getting into a nerd debate over comic book characters, AAA titles are a huge risk and can easily flop. Studios take almost no risk with games now, and just churn out sequels and even reskinned copies of those sequels to hedge their bets even further...
It's too bad. It's clear how this stifles any creative freedom. Monolith Productions is one of my favorite studios, but is owned by WB and has basically been condemned to churning out bland Lord of the Rings sequels for the past decade. They have some good IPs lurking in here but are too afraid to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way the industry has been going for a long time. Without getting into a nerd debate over comic book characters, AAA titles are a huge risk and can easily flop. Studios take almost no risk with games now, and just churn out sequels and even reskinned copies of those sequels to hedge their bets even further...
It's too bad. It's clear how this stifles any creative freedom. Monolith Productions is one of my favorite studios, but is owned by WB and has basically been condemned to churning out bland Lord of the Rings sequels for the past decade. They have some good IPs lurking in here but are too afraid to use them.
Which is why you need to stop buying AAA titles. Of course they're going to be designed by committee for mass market appeal because they want to monetise it until the "property" is a withered husk and then send the husk to MIT to see if it can be monetised some more.
That studio you're fond of, it ceased to be long ago, after getting bought up the names you never knew left to form other studios and the generic sequel failed because gamers weren't designing a game any more.
Fortunately, if you're a part
Risks No Longer Allowed - Consequences! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm 53. I got to experience the bulk of the growth of gaming. I played Zork a few years after it was introduced. I played a Coleco Telstar with the white lines burned irrevocably into the CRT. I had an Atari 2600. I was 27 when Diablo was released. I had a Dreamcast, and reveled in the beauty of Soul Calibur.
But most importantly, I got to experience that window of time when a company could take the risk, and know that even if the game bombed, they could probably make back enough to at least cover the costs. That's because the lag between release and reviews was wide enough to allow some sales to occur before the magazines arrived on the shelf declaring the product substandard.
Now that might sound less than optimal for the buyer.. but it does mean you weren't risking the whole company every time you released something. Now, with widely read reviews hitting the waves in advance of the release, some games are doomed before they launch. And sometimes that isn't fair. A mediocre game now drops like a stone, and can lose millions. That shouldn't be true.
The expectations of modern gamers are, frankly, just plain absurd. For decades, you would buy a game, get something between 15 and 45 hours out of it, and that was that. Sometimes it was "alright" and you ended up paying $1-$2 hours per hour of entertainment. Sometimes the value proposition was fantastic! I don't know how many hours I lost to Lemmings. And, for that matter, the whole Diablo series - in terms of dollars per hour, I can't imagine a cheaper way to play, except perhaps for an empty field and a second hand soccer ball.
The move to microtransactions, freemium, and other revenue streams, while being looked down upon mightily, is a direct consequence of these ridiculous expectations. A lot of people want the old value proposition, but not the old fee structure. Worse, they feel entitled - they are "owed" it. And so if they can't get it for a song, they steal it.
The same sort of thinking permeates the streaming world. You would be hard pressed to find a better entertainment value than most streaming services provide. I just gifted my nephew a year of Crunchyroll, as he's going into a year as a starving student, and he likes anime. The cost is tiny for the value delivered.
In summary, and with my Gen-X smug in full force, the balance was way better in the past. In fact... everything in entertainment was better in the past. Music... movies... bookstores... "...ah, look at me... I'm ramblin' again"...
Re:Risks No Longer Allowed - Consequences! (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen these trends as well, and I am still optimistic. These AAA game companies do very little anymore except dream up ways to screw over their fans. However, the barrier to entry is so low now, anyone can make and release a game. There are so many small and indie studios developing awesome games that it's hard to keep track of them all. The beloved studios of the past have become hollow shells. It's time to let them die and enjoy the golden age of indie gaming we live in now.
As an example, I just purchased WRATH on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com... [steampowered.com]
This could've easily been an AAA title in the past but is now a minor indie game with a cult following. Fact is, you don't need a huge budget to make a great game anymore. Those big studios can go to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen these trends as well, and I am still optimistic. These AAA game companies do very little anymore except dream up ways to screw over their fans. However, the barrier to entry is so low now, anyone can make and release a game. There are so many small and indie studios developing awesome games that it's hard to keep track of them all. The beloved studios of the past have become hollow shells. It's time to let them die and enjoy the golden age of indie gaming we live in now.
This, last game I bought was Exogate Initiative (think Stargate meets Evil Genius). Had it about 2 weeks and already put about 40 hours into it.
When it comes to AAA games, I don't buy them until they're at least half price these days, too many turds pushed out before they're ready and never fixed (or really were just designed to be turds with terrible gameplay and no story).
Re: (Score:2)
Props for the Dreamcast shout out! Easily one of my favorite consoles, especially for local multiplayer games.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is also related to the size of the gaming studios now relative to the late 90's.
Previously you'd have a group of dudes who were extremely passionate about gaming, struck out their own and made what THEY wanted. But at some point wallstreet bux came into play and suddenly devs/producers had to answer to share holders and the board -- which shifted the emphasis from making enjoyable games, to satisfying revenue targets.
Pandering, focus groups, representation etc -- and then ridiculous amo
Re:Risks No Longer Allowed - Consequences! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but these are expectations brought upon us by the game development industry - the advertisers (er, I mean game magazines) and developers both.
When was the last time you saw an honest review of a AAA game? We're talking about the big games launched by established studios, the ones which would have been amazing as recently as 2005.
I can count on one hand the number of AAA titles in the past 15-20 years that weren't anywhere from underwhelming to horrible.
There are a number of reasons for this:
* Consoles. Consoles brought the bar down for developers, leveling the playing field and limiting what could be done with a game, and then using this as the basis for what would be released across all platforms (PC included). This was much worse back then, when consoles were not even mediocre computers.
* Hollywoodification. Partially due The game studios are all looking for "the next Halo" or "the next ". They've turned it into a commoditized, highly derivative, advertising and bling-driven circlejerk. The die off is expected, and very similar to what has been happening with peoples' regards towards A-list big productions in Hollywood, for similar reasons: enshitification. Unlike Hollywood, games have no financial excuse: they've got much better DRM and reap huge financial returns for their products.
* Extremely large advertising budgets rivaling blockbuster movies. In short, these AAA game titles have put a disproportionate amount of funding into things that are not the game itself, to hype it and get the big launch. This is made easier if they focus on 'bling', now possible due to computer graphics.
The net effect is that these AAA titles are effectively still trying to suckerpunch customers with their "best" by releasing sub-par games, they're just doing it with AAA titles which, in the 80s and 90s, were almost always a massive success which spawned a lengthy gaming hegemony. The mere existence of studios like Bethesda, Activision, or Rockstar is evidence of just a couple good games being able to launch them into the stratosphere. Or even looking at the 90s 3drealms, the same thing applied largely. They don't need every game to be a massive windfall, they really can get by operationally without it.
I mean, for fuck sake, there were FPS games in the late 90s where you had some pretty advanced physics (destructible corpses and walls), great writing and in-game development, with fun and unique gameplay (I'm thinking of one game in particular where you started out with a Desert Eagle and could blow up walls and ragdoll the corpses, but also blow off limbs - can't recall the name at the moment). The games were fun, creative, and well developed. Duke Nukem 3d, Shadow Warrior, are two fantastic FPS examples, and nothing like those could be produced today - not only due to the undoubtedly R rated nature, but also because they're clever and witty, and took risks by funding the development of the game - not just a cinematic gameplay experience. There's as huge difference between those two things, and more often than not, games are developed to just give a couple hours of play before the user realizes what a lemon they purchased.
15 hours would be a fantastic return on most modern AAA titles. That hasn't been my expectation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's fair. I think all of your points make sense. AAA now carries the implications you mention, with cost contributors that aren't reflected in the quality of the product.
So I'd like to amend my claims slightly. Yes, the expectations of modern gamers are still absurd. But they didn't arise out of nowhere. They are instilled from without. The gaming producers and publishers boxed themselves into corners, and now they're pushing that problem outward.
Perhaps the best outcome for the long term would be
Re: (Score:2)
That one had top ratings, one of the 'best games of the year', if I recall correctly. It almost got me to look at it.
The only games I play anymore are the ones my peers tell me don't suck. That's very few. Stellaris - far better than anything Sid Meyers has released in years. Cybperpunk 2077 - decent but not great storyline, gameplay was fairly fun but a bit repetitive, world character development was on par with Deus Ex from 1999. Ashes of the Singularity, OK but not great. There were a couple others in th
Re: Risks No Longer Allowed - Consequences! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's two sides to this coin. People's expectations are absolutely nuts. They get an early access game that's in an Alpha state for 10$ and cry that it's not a complete game and has bugs. Instead of accepting that they're wrong, they're trying to change the terms that alpha should still mean a complete bug free games. It's crazy, these people are bad people.
The other thing is however, is that companies did fail, and go out of business. It happened a lot in the early days, still does. If you're game isn't
Re: (Score:1)
WB: Endless money train did not make endless money (Score:2)
WB: We put out a crap game aimed at getting people to continually pay for it. Very few people did.
Rest of the world: This is nothing new. Bad live service games have been failing left and right.
WB: Double down! We'll bleed this stone dry as we are the only ones that can do it. Everyone else that failed were just chumps who didn't know any better.
Re: (Score:2)
WB: by the time anyone realizes this is fulloshit proposition, the C-Suite would have exited with their goldens
They made a crappy live services game (Score:4, Insightful)
EA just did the same thing more or less. At least they made an actual single player game, Immortals of Avenum, but it was an utterly bland and mediocre game so surprise surprise it didn't sell well.
Mega corps want guaranteed free money and that's just not how creative media works. It's why Konami got out of the businesses. It's too high risk. You can blow $100m on a game and sometimes it just doesn't come out all that good no matter how much money and talent you've got.
More F2P isn't the answer though. As Jim Stephanie Sterling points out live services aren't sustainable. They're designed to be endless money and time sinks, and the industry can only support a handful of those games because there just isn't enough money and time to go around.
And by her count there's 500 in development. 500 crappy live service games trying to be Destiny and Fortnite.
FTP =! video games (Score:2)
FTP doesn't have much in common with a good computer/video game except in that it also involves dopamine.
It's got more in common with a slot machine than it does the kind of computer games we played in the 80s and 90s, where the game itself was the draw.
Who Can Blame Them? (Score:2)
The best way to monetize a AAA game now is to set up a streaming channel and bitch about it.
Retro games and emulator (Score:3)
Get off my law! Since the semi-recent trend of games to "must online" for no viable reason I've played so much less. The race to the bottom of 12yo trolling, cheat/anti-cheat wars, and "micro-transactions" which are often anything but...has happily pushed me out of most modern gaming. There's a few titles with solo mode that can be acquired by 'ways' and remove the BS lock-outs.
Otherwise, I spent maybe 50 bucks for a handheld emulator similar in size to a gameboy...despite claims otherwise it DID come pre-loaded with 1000's of old school roms. I can save-scum the hard parts and enjoy the fun parts and play thru every game from my adolescence through adulthood. Oh, and not a single one of them even has an OPTION to pay for extra lives. 3 and bye bye to this kind of nonsense from WB and their ilk
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get off my law!
No I'm staying on your lawn and shouting back at you angry man. You've based your world view on what I only assume is the few titles which have made it into negative press. You don't need retro gaming to find some an abundance of absolutely incredible high quality games (including single player), heck there's one in the summary, from the very studio we're talking about.
Don't judge an industry exclusively by every negative thing you see in the press. The industry is rich with great things, Suicide Squad just
This tracks (Score:2)
What sort of animal is this "brunswick"? (Score:2)
Entertainment-industry execs keep trying to boil novelty and human joy down to numbers on a spreadsheet. That's not possible, and that's why they start to suck immediately and fail eventually.
Sometimes, a small company manages to keep the focus where it belongs, on quality, for a time. But sooner or later, some mega-conglomerate makes them an offer they can't refuse, and their beautiful art, along with the culture that made it, gets wadded up and thrown in the 100-megaliter stew vat.
The megacorp, having n
There is no volatility in the market (Score:2)
Good games make good money. Bad games sell poorly. You made a bad game and *shock* *gasp* it didn't make as much money as a good game.
Stop producing shit games and you will have success.
But hey we don't need you WB. There are plenty of other studios with a rich amount of quality IP happy to make the excellent games you refuse to make. You go produce your shovelware, we'll be busy playing *good* games.