> I really wish there were investors who could better invest in the indie game market and at least take more risks and burn more cash, even if it's socially questionable.
The challenge is that many games are labors of love that are fantastically unprofitable. AAA games with microtransactions are unpopular but very lucrative.
Profitability cannot be the only motive. A small fraction of those profits could be invested in indie games to diversify and just have "better games", not just profits.
Stop using the devil's advocate at every occasion.
Whenever people mention the awful state of the industry, I feel an urge to point out that the only thing that matters in a capitalist society is what the consumer votes for with their wallet
Ubisoft is far from bankrupt. EA is far from bankrupt. All the microtransactions, all the stupid "big open world" bollocks, all mind numbing grind-a-thons, the sheer creative bankruptcy that AAA games often show... they are what people consistently vote for, every year
In the last month, the last Carl On Duty has made more money than Ultrakill ever will. By a few orders of magnitude. And the same will happen for the next one
If gamers wanted quality, they should have spent their money accordingly instead of consistently buying shit
There are a small number of whales that support micro transaction games.
These games tend to be F2P to have a community for the whales to play with, but the games aren't particularly fun and popular enough to attract a large player base that will pay for the game.
Free things that people play because it's free aren't the most popular, they are just available.
The challenge is that many games are labors of love that are fantastically unprofitable. AAA games with microtransactions are unpopular but very lucrative.