[kevingadd]

We've had a considerable number of layoffs impact the video game industry over the past few years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932025_video_game_i... ) and executive incompetence is a big factor in it.

Deciding to set a "success" target of 100 million players and then spending upwards of $400 million USD developing one title is a recipe for studio closures and/or layoffs when it inevitably "fails" because executive leadership didn't set reasonable targets or come up with a reasonable budget. It's a big house of cards.

A more diversified portfolio of titles with more reasonable budgets would be a much safer choice, and it's how things were done successfully in the past.

[soup10]

i'd rather see studios take creative and financial risks personally, not saying I care about yet another battle royale game, but in principle it should be about good games that are innovative and push boundaries, not milking a sequel from an established ip for the sake of stable employment.

[AlexandrB]

Creative risks and financial risks are almost diametrically opposed. It's a lot harder to take a creative risk when a lot of money is on the line. It's also harder aligning a large team to execute on a novel vision.

[soup10]

>It's a lot harder to take a creative risk when a lot of money is on the line. It's also harder aligning a large team to execute on a novel vision.

well indie games are their own separate thing and large studios will never have the creative freedom and the ability to align a small team to a novel vision that they do. However studios with deeper pockets and larger teams can still innovate and push the boundaries of what gaming can be so long as the executive team isn't a bunch of spineless losers.