Skip to main content
Payl's Musings

Don't Deal with the Devil (...)

How ill-intentioned big game industry sows it's own demise.

Comparision
Gerald Brom

With MTX exploitation reaching new heights with the release of Dragon's Dogma 2, I was compelled to speak a little on my thoughts on business practice in game development.

There seems to be a nihilistic acceptance for practices such as scummy MTX, gamba, re-releases and glorified shovelware as profit-incentivised. The main goal of any capitalist enterprise is to make profit. And these methods, it would seem, have proven themselves to be very profitable. Our acceptance is that any large enough enterprise, especially those taking public investment and under immense pressure to maximise profit, are sadly 'forced' into adopting these practices.

There's good discussion to be had on how much profit-incentivisation is justified, and I would defend it. Profit is good. Greater profits allow for greater games to be made. We can't really defer all blame to the involvement of 'suits', because the 'suits' serve the very important purpose of keeping the lights on. It's their job to make sure that the creation of expensive games remains sustainable. To be explicit, we're probably referring to publishers here, or the publishing arm of a game company. I'd also hesitate to make accusations of greed. Anyone selling a product would likely hope to make as much money off of that product that they could.

My romantic belief is that there's no material equivalent for the fullfillment that comes from the pursuit of our craft. Life is short, and I think too much material desire leaves the soul wanting. But the discussion I'd like to have here is from a business perspective. Sure, let's make money, I'll put my suit on. My question, now, is for the suits behind the current trends in the industry.

What the fuck are you doing?

It's so painfully obvious with a little thoughtful consideration, in my humble opinion, that these trends aren't just bad for the consumer, but bad business practice, and averse to making sustainable profit. A suit should know that a quick buck and boosting quarterly profits make no promise for the long-term success of the venture. And a suit should know that the invisible hand's more of a bitch that karma ever was. Let this be a post-mortem for those about to be crushed by it.

This manifesto comes in the form of a short and focused case study. So without further ado:

Let's start by identifying what I believe to be the glaring mistakes in business practice made by our fellow suits at Blizzard.

Mistake: Sacrificing Product Value

payl is typing furiously...

Mistake: Sacrificing Brand Reputation

You'd think designing reputation systems for your games would caution you to the importance of how the consumer base feels about your product.

payl is typing furiously...

Mistake: Sacrificing Yourself as a Game Development Practice

This one might be the least obvious, but in my view the final nail in the coffin. It's best made clear to the reader with a counter example.

Shown above is a knife to Diablo IV's throat. If this release succeeds (and I'd wager on account of GGG's reputation that it's sure to succeed), then the IP that is Diablo ends it's reign as the definitive isometric ARPG. Not to say that POE hasn't already cemented itself as the definitive game of the genre - I would certainly say so myself. But there was always the possibility that the progenitor king would return to reclaim it's throne.

And return it did: a huge financial success, selling upwards of six million copies in it's first week. Then, a slow realization in the ARPG community that the latest Diablo... was grossly inferior in gameplay to the now decade-old game that is POE. But that shouldn't be a surprise.

A little context, for the uninformed. Path of Exile was created in 2013 by the small team of Diablo enthusiasts that was Grinding Gear Games. The game drew heavily from Diablo II in aesthetics and gameplay, and was openly proclaimed as a 'spiritual successor' to Diablo II. We've mentioned Diablo quite a lot here, haven't we?

I think it's safe to say that if Diablo III was more of the successor to Diablo II that there was hope for it to be, then the frustrations that made GGG probably wouldn't have arisen. Moral of the story?

Fail to bear responsibility for the quality of your well-loved IP, and single-handedly create direct competition to that IP from your own fucking consumers.

Here's a sentiment that gets thrown around a lot by more forgiving ARPG enthusiasts: "Diablo 4 needs time in order to grow to it's potential and flourish. We cannot realistically expect Diablo 4, a newly released game, to be able to match the ten years of live service behind Path of Exile". That's in referral to the current Path of Exile of course, and not the ground-up overhaul sequel entering public beta in a few months. Oops.

And that brings us to our next point. Path of Exile isn't the nail in the coffin I was referring to - for that we need to talk in less abstract terms, and consider the game company as a workforce of game devs.

How do we suppose the workforce that is Blizzard Entertainment have been faring over the past, let's say, ten years or so?

  • Chasing trends with HOTS and Overwatch. Put some of our Diablo guys on that.
  • Numerous cancelled projects. Put some of our Diablo guys on that, then lay them off.
  • Milking World of Warcraft with expansions each worse than the last, re-releasing Classic. Put some of our Diablo guys on that.
  • Mobile cash-grab Diablo game. Put some of our Diablo guys on that.
  • A new survival game? Trendy. Put some of our Diablo guys on that.
  • Where are all the Diablo guys? Hire some new blood.

Now, let's take this hypothetical workforce, and put together a team of Diablo guys for the next main installment in the franchise.

Let's compare this to an imaginitive rendition of how the workforce at Grinding Gear Games have been spending their time, over the past ten years or so:

  • Path of Exile

I think it's too easy to forget that we're discussing people, at the end of the day. You can take a strong IP, make a cheaper, sub-standard game out of it, and hope to make good sales and 'get away with it'. But the people working on that game have now spent the timeframe of the project doing sub-standard work, instead of being pushed to grow as game developers. What kind of workforce would you expect to have, after making a habit of this malpractice? And how much of the good talent in your workforce do you expect to retain?

Blizzard can pump as much money and bodies into the Diablo as they can muster.

The fact remains that they're up now against an elite task force, so shockingly competent in ARPG design, and so deeply enterenched in the intricacies of their own game, that no other product in the ARPG space can even hope to compete with it.

GGG is now the industry giant that Blizzard so easily could have been, and purely by virtue of competence. It may not be apparent from a comparision of team size, net worth, or other surface-level indicators of company success. But compare the quality of the product being offered, and the rate at which high-value content is produced, and it's crystal clear. If I was an investor worth my salt, I'd be able to spot the real cash cow.