News from the lovely world of the Games Industry.

[crazy canuck]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

[garbon]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

It is okay to let things go.

[crazy canuck]

Fair

[Jacob]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

I'm not reasoning, I'm stating an aesthetic preference.

There's a certain volume of advertising in games beyond which I will find it off-putting ("terrible" is the word I used).

Thinking of EA's soccer game I'll easily accept ads that add to verisimilitude and doesn't interfere with gameplay (ads on jerseys, sideboards et.al.). I'm more skeptical of advertising that feels real, but interferes with the flow of gameplay (e.g. half-time product ads feel realistic, but the players probably want to manage their team in various ways so they can still be annoying); but if handled well it could be okay. And I can imagine implementations that are just awful.

How will turn out? Time will tell, but I can't say I'm supremely confident that EA will handle it in a way that I appreciate.

I understand why a corporation like EA finds the idea of selling advertising attractive. The potential upside is pretty big, the risks are relatively small. As a consumer of video games (though not EA Sports titles, so that example is academic) I'm skeptical, and worry that this is a step towards enshittifying a medium I enjoy.

[crazy canuck]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

I'm not reasoning, I'm stating an aesthetic preference.

There's a certain volume of advertising in games beyond which I will find it off-putting ("terrible" is the word I used).

Thinking of EA's soccer game I'll easily accept ads that add to verisimilitude and doesn't interfere with gameplay (ads on jerseys, sideboards et.al.). I'm more skeptical of advertising that feels real, but interferes with the flow of gameplay (e.g. half-time product ads feel realistic, but the players probably want to manage their team in various ways so they can still be annoying); but if handled well it could be okay. And I can imagine implementations that are just awful.

How will turn out? Time will tell, but I can't say I'm supremely confident that EA will handle it in a way that I appreciate.

I understand why a corporation like EA finds the idea of selling advertising attractive. The potential upside is pretty big, the risks are relatively small. As a consumer of video games (though not EA Sports titles, so that example is academic) I'm skeptical, and worry that this is a step towards enshittifying a medium I enjoy.

I am not sure why but you continue to miss the point of my first post. I don't quibble with your personal preference.  You made a comparison to sporting events which was not accurate.  Advertising is all over sporting events, from the branding on players and equipment be, to the branding that pops up in the commentary.  It is so prevalent we don't even notice it anymore.  We are a long way from the days when Nike had to pay a fine to the NBA when Jordan wore their red shoes.

[Syt]

IGN has bought Gamer Network, which includes Eurogamer, RockPaperShotgun, Gamesindustry.biz, (parts of?) Digital Foundry, etc.

Alice Bell, Editor of RPS was led go (IGN let go a bunch of people across sites, but mostly it seems folks working from outside the UK).

Some RPS writers have posted what seems random posts in protest with (ex-staffer, now freelancer) Brendan Caldwell posting:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-best-alices-in-pc-games, a farewell article that celebrates Alices in games, but pointedly not mentioning Alice Bell.

Other posts are:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/why-do-game-custscenes-always-fade-to-white-a-sincere-plea-on-behalf-of-the-mole-people
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/screw-it-im-building-a-house-of-graphics-cards
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/you-can-get-my-old-battered-gamer-chair-for-oh-i-dunno-50-quid-1

At any rate, RPS has been up and down for me. 10, 15 years ago they were really good with most original founders around and interesting feature articles, interviews and investigative stuff. Obviously, the most (in)famous of the site probably remains John Walkers, erm, "combative" interview with Peter Molineux. I recall reading that at work when it went online and reading through it the way someone watches a slow motion mass car crash: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter

With many of the writers that pulled me in leaving, some new names came on and left and came on and left, and at times the content was not "for me" anymore. I liked Adam Smith who covered RPGs and strategy games (before leaving to become lead writer on BG3); his de facto successor was Nate Crowley (before leaving to write WH40K books). Strategy is not much covered these days - I like Sin Vega's articles which often cover weird indie strategy-adjacent niche titles that often catch my interest on Steam but that I'm too coward to pull the trigger on.

Recently, Nic Reuben and Ed Thorn have been decent on the site, but some of the "punk" charm of earlier days is missing. Recently Alice O left after 10+ years, and their Editor in Chief, Katherine Castle, also left. Maybe partially because the network was up for sale for a while now and they saw the writing on the wall?

While not as good as "in the good old days," RPS still has some interesting takes and stories. I hope someone will step into their shoes.

There's https://aftermath.site/, formed by former Kotaku writers mostly, most prominently Nathan Grayson who left the WaPo for this. Regardless of some ethics concerns about his 10 years ago (notably not disclosing close association to developers whose games he positively showcased on sites he was working for - Kotaku, RPS,  ...), he always seemed a bit of a hack. He's surely a "woke warrior", and I don't have an issue with that per se, but he used to be so deep into that persona (even before woke was a term widely used) that he seemed more parody than real deal to me.

Beyond that ... no idea? John Walker has his issues (see Molyneux interview), but I like checking his website where he reviews indie titles every week or so: https://buried-treasure.org/

I check https://tallyhocorner.com/ occasionally, Tim Stone's exile after leaving RPS. But its content is mostly his weekly quizzes, some news roundups and community games now. A google search also reveals https://strategyandwargaming.com/category/news/

But I actually read PC Gamer now a lot more than RPS. Their articles are usually fine, their reviews I might not always agree with, but they seem much less prone to score bloat (a 75% score is still pretty good for them), and they usually have competent writers for various genres. But of course it also has plenty of articles (lists, best ofs, guides ... ) geared for SEO, because that's the internet we have these days, I guess.

[Tamas]

RPS (well, its writers) just seems to have become so self-important, these protest-articles seem to underline that.

[Syt]

I think they're a lot less activist than they were 5-8 years ago.

[Syt]

On Paradox canceling Life By You, devs are sharing their view.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/life-by-you-devs-spent-a-month-in-purgatory-prior-to-closure-says-laid-off-designer-despite-their-sim-like-exceeding-paradoxs-expectations

Life By You devs spent "a month in purgatory" prior to closure, says laid-off designer, despite their sim-like exceeding Paradox's expectations
"We were a strong team on a strong project ready to launch to a strong audience."

Yesterday, we learned that Sims-like Life By You had been canceled, and its developers Paradox Tectonic had been shut down by parent company Paradox Interactive. Later the same day, game designer Willem Delventhal shared more a detailed account of his experience working on the game through to its cancellation, via LinkedIn.

Paradox delayed Life By You indefinitely on 21st May, having previously announced that it would launch on 4th June. According to Delventhal, however, it wasn't till some weeks after that the developers were told that they were being laid off.

"Two weeks before launch we were told we wouldn't be launching, and just now that we've all lost our jobs" Delventhal writes in the LinkedIn post, which has attracted messages of support from other former Paradox Tectonic staff. "We were only informed of this via a public announcement."

The "public announcement" in question was yesterday's post from Paradox Interactive CEO Fredrik Wester. "This is difficult and drastic news for our colleagues at Tectonic, who've worked hard on Life by You's Early Access release," said Wester. "Sadly, with cancellation of their sole project, we have to take the tough decision to close down the studio."

Paradox, says Delventhal, never really communicated the reasons for suspending Life By You's release. "Instead we spent a month in purgatory, and did everything we could to prove to them we were worth launching, including things like finding potential buyers or suggesting cutting ties and going indie. We heard virtually nothing back."

Life By You has long had a reputation for being a difficult project, thanks to repeated delays, but Delventhal - who's part of educational workshop The Indie Game Academy - says the team had been doing "extremely well" in recent months.

"I cannot share specific numbers, but I can say that we had an internal metric we were aiming for that had been approved, and that we exceeded that number by a significant portion," he writes in the post. "We also got a thumbs up a few weeks before launch."

Delventhal has his own speculations about why Life By You was cancelled, commenting that "as a business owner, some of them are understandable, but many of them are not", but he doesn't want to indulge in conjecture.

"We were a strong team on a strong project ready to launch to a strong audience," he concludes. "Really I'd like to be much more fire and brimstone about it. I'm pretty pissed, not gonna lie. But I'm trying to stay kind and respectful. So instead I'll say: this industry has become a place in which you can deliver more than expected, have AA money behind you, and still have the rug pulled two weeks before launch."

Paradox Interactive reported record revenue last year, but a decrease in profits.

I mean, without looking at the game at time of cancelation it's hard to say how good it was (or how good the devs believed it was), but also a bit iffy that Paradox wouldn't let them go indie with what they had. I know publishers sometimes like to keep an IP after they shutter a studio, but unless they plan on doing something with it - why care? (Though obviously there'd be the question of revenue sharing if they do release a game, considering Paradox probably has been footing much of the bill up till now and would want to see some return on that if the game ever was released.)

[garbon]

The game was only destined to become a laughingstock. So while P'dox did some shitty things, if that's how things went down, there really wasn't much to salvage, let alone the product being ready for EA.

[garbon]

Well not unless there was a secret version they had kept hidden from the public.

[Syt]

Yeah. I mean, exceeding internal target metrics can mean anything, and you might hit them but still have an unfun game. Or your targets were too soft. Etc.