Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by syntheweave 1472 days ago
I think it reflects maturity in the business that increasingly, video games compete with their past.

That used to be so much not the case that it was a surprise at first: the "gaming fad" died down until another generation of graphics came along and made things a little more complex, animated and detailed. Then it became the business model to bank on repeatedly surfing the technology curve, which eventually gave us AAA size productions. New platforms in different markets like portable systems and web games could reset the curve for a period, but this has been reduced to niche hardware ideas(headsets and hand-cranks). By now, everyone is saturated in games of some sort if they want to play them.

The consumptive packaging has also gradually broken down. While everyone still demands good, quality assets, playing the actual game isn't as highly treasured a thing since one can easily find a gameplay video and experience the surface assets that way. One is left with mostly stuff intrinsic to interactivity: well-crafted scenarios, the chaos of physics behaviors, the emotions of another human opponent or ally.

1 comments

> One is left with mostly stuff intrinsic to interactivity: well-crafted scenarios, the chaos of physics behaviors, the emotions of another human opponent or ally.

I think a good testament to this are Steam statistics. If you look at the top 15 games on SteamDB for example, the list is usually dominated by games where social interaction or PvP is key, e.g. battle royale, MOBAs, MMOs, etc.

How much of those games topping the statistics is because they are games you can keep playing for a very long time? I can play a storydriven games only that much before I've recolored it all and move on to something else