These changes are grounded in prioritizing high-impact titles and further investing in Bethesda’s portfolio of blockbuster games and beloved worlds which you have nurtured over many decades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 140 points 6 months ago (3 children)

> Tango makes a great game
> Put it day one on Game Pass
> Close the studio when it doesn't meet sale targets

Corp. logic truly is something else.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 64 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Meanwhile Larian studio reminding everyone that a good way to make money and avoid layoffs is to be nimble and make good games.

Big Corps sees nimble and good studio making a good game, starts layoffs immediately.

The real murderers are the people that sell their studio to a big publisher. They immediately seal the fate of their teams. They will have layoffs eventually...

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I love Larian and am ride or die with Swen et al. Have been ever since Divine Divinity was "we have Diablo at home" but ended up being a shockingly good (for its time) hybrid ARPG/CRPG.

But Larian are very much not the example of "how to do business". Like Digital Extremes, they are a "legacy" studio that is INCREDIBLY lucky to have survived. Larian themselves had to deal with really shitty publisher deals (Beyond Divinity and I think also Divinity 2?) and games so bad it almost killed the studio (even Mortismal himself will acknowledge that Divinity 2 was a trash fire before the DLC... and was still a mess after). It was mostly "lucking out" and embracing Kickstarter before everyone hated it that saved them. And... Dragon Commander still got close.

And you know what has REALLY made them stable? That's right. A deal with a major company to work on one of the most famous IPs in gaming (tabletop and video) history.

Larian are smart to try to maintain their size and not overly grow. But, like countless game devs have said and gotten shouted down for, they are far from "typical" and got REALLY lucky. Hell, Swen himself has mentioned the same in between the blurbs that outlets love to reference.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You forgot to mention they sold 30% stake of the company to the world‘s largest game conglomerate Tencent. They‘re also working on a supposedly much larger game than BG3 now and plan to release it within the next 4 years which means they will have to at least double their staff. Honestly, judging a developer entirely by a recent success isn‘t a good practice even when it‘s as massive as BG3. Most people who talk about Larian have a very warped impression. Even when their games are great recently, the tides can change rapidly in this industry.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago

You know, Hi Fi Rush is a good game, yet Tango still got axed because "fuck them". Larian wasn't nimble with BG3 either, they were thorough

[–] Defaced@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Hmmm it's almost like Jim Ryan was on to something when he said gamepass wasn't good for the industry and publishers didn't like it during the antitrust trial with Microsoft.

It blows my fucking mind how stupid some people are just to be able to play the next rehashed bullshit CoD on gamepass instead of paying $70 a year for the same garbage.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah did someone just run or interpret reports incorrectly? If a person subscribes to Game Pass and plays Hi Fi Rush for X months, I'd consider that a sale.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If they play it exclusively, sure. But people play tons of games on Gamepass. HiFi Rush and a dozen other games splitting that $15/month/account is a lot less rosy.

I've had Gamepass since the beginning, and since it was launched it I've bought maybe 1 or 2 Xbox games that weren't on gamepass, whereas I used to average 2-3 a month. My overall spending on games has dropped massively since getting gamepass - especially on Xbox.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just the fact that they played some minimum amount should tell them the game contributed to the subscriber's enjoyment of Game Pass. Otherwise if they are both selling a game and giving it to Game Pass subscribers for free I'm not sure what they are expecting. Can't have your cake and eat it too, but I'm sure they would like that.

Maybe they are hoping that Game Pass is like extended demos and will lead to more game sales. But there are too many new games all the time for most to hold my interest.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think they expected more casual gamers to sign up for game pass while the more dedicated among us would still be buying new products.

Honestly, they'd probably be doing better if they didn't put games on there day 1. Sony doesn't put their biggest titles on PS+ at launch for a reason.

Halo and starfield had shit sales because we didn't have to buy them. If they required people to buy the triple-A in-house titles at launch, the double-A stuff like HiFi Rush could still be released on gamepass day 1 as an incentive for people to subscribe.

As it stands, Starfield and Forza burned the money that should be used for HiFi Rush and Ori.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Absolutely agree, just recently instead of buying Manor Lords I just found a good deal on a month of Game Pass. I played it as much as I wanted (for now) for less than $10.