AAA Games Don't Want Us To Play Them
Table of contents
- Casual gamers are often left behind in a world designed for daily players, highlighting the struggle of balancing life and gaming.
- AAA games used to be a promise of trust and innovation, but now they often play it safe, sacrificing originality for profit.
- Modern games are losing their authenticity as big budgets push developers to prioritize broad appeal over genuine experiences.
- A bad launch can haunt a game forever, making it nearly impossible to change players' minds, no matter how much it improves later.
- When game developers chase broad appeal, they often lose sight of what made their franchises great, leaving everyone dissatisfied.
- AAA gaming has its gems, but the disappointments can overshadow the good. Don't get too attached; there's always something new to explore.
- Investing in a game franchise can lead to an unhealthy relationship; sometimes it's better to just move on and explore new experiences.
- Gaming should be about exploration and enjoyment, not a daily chore driven by FOMO and monetization. Let players progress at their own pace and rediscover the joy of immersive worlds.
- Gaming has lost its magic as profit-driven strategies overshadow creativity and player experience.
- AAA gaming is losing its spark as greed takes over, but indie developers are lighting the way with creativity and passion.
- Gaming today is thriving not because of blockbuster titles, but due to the creativity and passion of indie studios that are delivering unique experiences.
Casual gamers are often left behind in a world designed for daily players, highlighting the struggle of balancing life and gaming.
Yesterday, a guy came into my stream and said, "I want you to watch my video." I replied, "Okay, if you want me to watch your video, post it on Reddit and I will watch it if people upvote it." People did upvote it, and here’s the video:
"Hey everyone, welcome to my very first ever YouTube video! I'm wanting to give a perspective of how I see the current state of modern gaming as a casual gaming enthusiast. Just to introduce myself, I'm a married man with a full-time job, and I'm dedicated to a lot of various other commitments in my life. While gaming is definitely my favorite hobby, I don't always have the time to enjoy it. There are times when I'll go weeks without touching a game, and then there are stretches where I can squeeze in maybe a few hours every day. This is the reality for many of us trying to balance work, life, and the hobby we love—gaming.
As a casual gamer, I think that's one of the big issues that casual gamers face: a lot of times, they can't play regularly every day. However, many games are built around a daily reward structure. For a guy like this, let's say on Tuesdays he has to take his kids somewhere, so he has way less time. Now, he's systematically getting farther behind every single week because of the way that the daily rewards for the game are structured. It's called having a life.
What I'm saying is that the way the rewards in certain games are structured is designed to frontload the reward for logging on every day. There are login rewards, daily missions that give you a significant experience boost, and so on. For many guys like this, they find themselves stuck. They just don’t play that game every day. A lot of games are structured for people with no life.
It's not just that they are structured for people without commitments; they are also designed for people who have a consistent schedule. The games are built around playing them regularly, but life isn’t designed around playing video games regularly. This creates massive problems. I think he brings up a good point. I’m not one of those hardcore streamers or YouTubers who can dedicate countless hours year-round to gaming, but I do enjoy watching other content creators who live and breathe this stuff. I’m glued to a chair, but that’s not quite my reality, and I know I’m not alone.
In this video, I want to represent the casual gamers out there—people like me who balance a lot of gaming with everything else going on in their lives. I hope to give a balanced view on controversial perspectives and also shed some light on what I think are very important topics that can impact the future of gaming.
Alright, first things first, and this is the breaking point that finally pushed me to make this video: I want to dive into the current state of triple-A gaming. If you do a quick Google search, you'll find that triple-A games are defined as high-budget, high-profile titles typically produced and distributed by major, well-known publishers. However, I feel like it's kind of like this weird bell curve now.
On one end, we have indie games, and on the other end, we have these massive studios. I unironically think that the quality for games is like this. Am I crazy? It’s almost like these mid-level studios are able to produce a better game at a much higher ratio. As someone in my mid-20s, I’ve been playing some truly incredible games from these big developers.
Triple-A used to mean something more; it stood for quality, reliability, and most importantly, innovation. I think back to 2007 when I went on a Christmas trip with my family to South Africa. I very quickly discovered Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare at a local game shop. I was completely hooked. It probably wasn’t the best for me, as I was only 9 years old at the time, but I fell in love with these games. While most kids would want to spend their summer vacation outside having fun, all I wanted to do was stay inside and play these amazing titles on my dad's MacBook, which he had installed Windows on just so I could play.
These games weren’t just entertainment; they were groundbreaking. From that point on, I had...
AAA games used to be a promise of trust and innovation, but now they often play it safe, sacrificing originality for profit.
Standard playing has evolved significantly over the years, with some truly incredible games emerging from big developers. AAA used to mean something more; it stood for trust, originality, and most importantly, innovation. I think back to 2007 when I went on a Christmas trip with my family in South Africa. I very quickly discovered Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare at a local game shop. I was completely hooked. It probably wasn't the best for me as I was only 9 years old at the time, but I fell in love with these games. While most kids would want to spend their summer vacation outside having fun, all I wanted to do was stay inside and play these amazing titles on my dad's MacBook, which he had installed Windows on just so I could play.
These games weren't just entertainment; they were groundbreaking. From that point on, I had complete trust in AAA developers and publishers, and rightfully so. It’s also true that you need to have that trust because those were the most expensive games. They kind of standardized everything by the time the PS2 and especially the PS3 came out. By that time, pretty much all games were the same price. However, back in the day, during the N64 and Super Nintendo eras, there was a massive gradation in what games cost; some games would be $20 while others could be as high as $70. These AAA games were really expensive back then, and I think that's how the expectation was built up. Even now, I think that's true. For example, Helldivers 2 came out at $40, while if you want to buy the new Assassin's Creed, it can cost $70, $80, or even $90 if you want to play it three days early.
Seeing the Ubisoft, Activision, Sega, Blizzard, or EA logos on game covers and in magazines was a sign of quality. Those logos were like a seal of approval, a way to gauge whether I was making a good decision when getting hyped for or even picking a game. I remember feeling this way with Blizzard; I had no interest in Overwatch since it wasn't the kind of game I played. I was a World of Warcraft player, and the only FPS I had played before then was Modern Warfare 2, along with Gears of War and Halo. After that, I played PUBG. I thought, "What would I care about Overwatch for?" But because it was made by Blizzard, I thought, "Oh, I bet this is going to be really good because Blizzard's really good." That was the way it used to be, and it was the same with Bungie. Anyone who played the old games knew the Bungie logo; Bungie used to be massive.
I remember that feeling of seeing those logos pop up when loading a game. Games challenge everything. Especially when it was blue, that rush of excitement knowing you were about to dive into one of the best gaming experiences of your life. The last time I really felt that way was with Elden Ring and Black Myth: Wukong. It was such a wild card, considering it was a Chinese developer with a pretty unproven record with AAA games. What were you really expecting to get out of this? But with Elden Ring, I sat down and I knew today was the day; it was great.
Unfortunately, over the years, something has been happening. It didn't happen overnight; it's been a slow, gradual change, much like watching someone age or noticing yourself slowly gaining weight. It's happening right in front of us, but we don't fully grasp how much things have changed until one day we look in the mirror or even at an old photo, and the difference is startling. Over the years, the originality and innovation that once defined AAA companies has been slowly fading.
I think one of the really big weaknesses of games now is that they are produced with such a big budget that they need to appeal to a broad enough target audience. This target audience, at least through simulation and financial projections, is essential for developers to make their money back. So, logically, if you can make 200% of your money back, you would want to invest the most amount of money possible. If you want to invest the most amount of money possible, you have to appeal to the most people. What happens is that games become more and more complex. One thing I can really notice with old games is that many of them play like Space Marine 2, which has a pretty narrow breadth of content.
Modern games are losing their authenticity as big budgets push developers to prioritize broad appeal over genuine experiences.
Games now are produced with such a big budget that they need to appeal to a broad enough target audience. This is a target audience that, at least through simulation and financial projections, can ensure that the developers make their money back. Logically, if you can make 200% of your money back, you would want to invest the most amount of money possible. Consequently, if you want to invest the most money, you must appeal to the most people. As a result, games become more and more complex.
One observation I have made is that many old games play like Space Marine 2, which has a pretty narrow breadth of content. In these games, you cannot do everything; there isn't a big open world. Instead, there is a lobby, and you can only engage in that specific activity. I feel that Monster Hunter is somewhat similar in a different fashion. However, most games are striving to become your "everything game." They are doing this because they cannot justify the budget they are investing unless the target audience can be projected to be everyone.
When I look back and play many of these old games, like Dragon's Dogma 1, I realize that the game really isn't that complex; there isn't a lot to it. Yet, what exists is good logos from developers I used to admire, which now fills me with skepticism and even a strong urge to avoid their games. What I find surprising is how patient and forgiving gamers have been towards AAA companies for so long. A great example of this has been the Battlefield franchise, particularly with the launch of Battlefield 5 in November 2018. This was the first game in the franchise that was surrounded by quite a bit of controversy and received a lot of mixed and negative feedback.
Despite being part of a well-loved, longstanding series of games, Battlefield 5 faced backlash after its revealed trailer, primarily due to perceived historical inaccuracies. The inclusion of female soldiers in a World War II game led some fans to criticize the game as unrealistic, sparking a debate over political correctness. The developer, DICE, faced criticism for this decision. The problem is that you cannot have a historical game set in World War II and depict women with claw hands beating up men fighting on the front lines. Anyone observing this would think that the reason for such portrayals is political correctness.
Every normal person knows that this is not what happened; it is completely unrealistic and silly. When you look at what you are seeing, you understand that you are not going to get an authentic experience. Nobody asks for that; it’s ridiculous. It’s a game; it’s fantasy. However, if it was fantasy, then why are they making things that aren’t realistic? If it’s fiction, then why can’t it just be all guys? This is not fiction; they are making this based on something that happened in the past—specifically, World War II.
Moreover, it is such an obvious attempt to insert a woman into the narrative for no reason. Anytime I see something like this, I automatically assume the game is going to be garbage because, to these developers, it matters more that the game represents some sort of ideology rather than being good or having any real gameplay. At a very basic level, these people are more concerned with the aesthetics of the game and making it conform to modern standards than with making it faithful to what it is trying to represent. This creates a priority list that is immersion-breaking. Indeed, it is massively immersion-breaking.
A bad launch can haunt a game forever, making it nearly impossible to change players' minds, no matter how much it improves later.
The discussion revolves around Battlefield 5, a game that, despite being set in the context of World War II, faced significant criticism. Many players felt that the inclusion of a female character was unnecessary, leading to the assumption that the game would be of poor quality. The sentiment expressed is that for some developers, it seems more important to represent certain ideologies rather than focus on creating a game that is genuinely enjoyable or has solid gameplay. At a very basic level, these developers appear to prioritize the aesthetics of the game and ensuring it conforms to modern standards over being faithful to the historical context it aims to represent. This approach is described as immersion-breaking, which detracted from the overall experience.
The controversy surrounding the game was exacerbated by a dice executive's infamous response to criticism: "if you don't like it, don't buy it." This statement alienated a portion of the fan base, leading many, including the speaker, to refrain from purchasing Battlefield 5. The game's marketing was criticized for being unfocused, with the reveal trailer presenting a chaotic and almost cartoonish tone that left fans confused about whether the game was intended to be a serious, historically themed shooter. This lack of clear direction resulted in uncertainty about what to expect from the game upon its release.
Upon launch, Battlefield 5 felt incomplete, missing key features such as the promised firestorm battle royale mode and tides of war live service content. The absence of these elements was particularly problematic, especially considering that the game was released in 2018, a time when battle royale was a dominant trend in gaming. Although some features were patched in later, the initial release lacked other promised modes, such as the combined arms co-op mode, making the game feel quite bare-bones compared to previous entries like Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 4.
While it has been acknowledged that Battlefield 5 has improved over time and is now considered a decent game, the speaker notes that once players form a negative impression of a game, they are often reluctant to admit they were wrong and return to it. This phenomenon is not unique to Battlefield 5; there are numerous examples of games that struggled with their initial launch, such as No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk 2077, which took considerable time to rebuild their reputations. Even games like Lords of the Fallen faced similar challenges, with players not returning despite significant changes.
In summary, the launch of Battlefield 5 was marred by controversy, miscommunication, missing features, and technical problems, resulting in a mixed reception and disappointing sales. While redemption stories exist in the gaming industry, it is not a pattern that should be expected for every game. The speaker emphasizes that a beloved IP from a company known for creating incredible games should not continually face such issues. If a studio is on a downward trajectory, it is crucial for them to recognize the signs and make necessary changes. The speaker encourages listeners to reflect on whether they can identify similar trends with other IPs from AAA developers over the years, suggesting that these issues occur frequently and often lead to disappointing outcomes.
When game developers chase broad appeal, they often lose sight of what made their franchises great, leaving everyone dissatisfied.
The gaming industry has seen a mixed reception and pretty disappointing sales for several titles. This situation can happen to any game, and while there are some awesome redemption stories, it shouldn't become a pattern. It is particularly disheartening when this occurs to what was once a beloved IP from a company known for making incredible games in the past. If a franchise is on a downward trajectory, one would expect survival instinct to kick in, prompting a turnaround.
In line with this, I encourage you to reflect on whether you can spot any of these trends with other IPs from AAA developers over the years. This phenomenon occurs constantly, as many games attempt to appeal to a broader audience. Unfortunately, this often leads to a watered-down experience that ultimately fails to satisfy anyone, including the original audience. A prime example of this is World of Warcraft, which has undergone significant changes to attract new players. Other titles, like Anthem, also exemplify this trend, despite my not having played it.
Moreover, many gamers tend to grade the quality of a game based on how long they spend playing it, which I believe is a really bad metric. Instead, the quality should be assessed based on the enjoyment derived from the time spent playing. There are numerous games that I would recommend after investing 15 hours into, more so than others that I played for 50 hours without enjoyment.
Take Anthem, developed by BioWare, the studio once celebrated for the very successful Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises. Unfortunately, Anthem suffered from confusing marketing, a lack of in-game content, and pretty terrible technical issues, which quickly drove players away. Many players were deterred by how bad the gameplay looked compared to the launch trailer. Similarly, Mass Effect Andromeda faced criticism due to terrible animations, off-putting character design, and a lackluster storyline that severely damaged the franchise's reputation.
Then there's Assassin's Creed Unity, infamous for its buggy and nearly unplayable launch. As for Halo, it saddens me how 343 Industries has mishandled the series through ego, greed, and shortsightedness. While I believe ego plays a role, I think the core issue is that they simply do not know how to make a good game. For instance, the fact that Halo Infinite did not launch with an official Battle Royale mode is, in my opinion, unforgivable. Battle Royale is one of the most popular modes in gaming today, and it should have been a top priority.
Despite some Halo fans expressing disdain for Battle Royale, the popularity of these games is undeniable. The absence of a Battle Royale mode in Halo Infinite is a significant oversight, especially when looking at the success of Modern Warfare and its Warzone mode, which revitalized the entire Call of Duty franchise.
Lastly, we cannot overlook the decline of Bethesda with Fallout 76, which launched in a very broken and unfinished state. The game was missing NPCs, plagued by constant bugs, and exhibited very poor performance, leaving fans frustrated with how Bethesda handled such a beloved series. This trend of AAA companies tarnishing their reputations has become all too common in the industry.
AAA gaming has its gems, but the disappointments can overshadow the good. Don't get too attached; there's always something new to explore.
Talking about it, it completely blew my mind. In my opinion, War Zone revitalized the entire COD franchise. They should have done this with Halo, and it is unforgivable that they didn't with Halo Infinite. I know that there are a lot of purists out there and people who don't like BRs, but it is undeniable that there are a lot of people that do. It was really stupid not to release the game without one.
This brings me to the decline of Bethesda, particularly with Fallout 76, which released in a very broken and unfinished state. The game was missing NPCs, had constant bugs, and exhibited very poor performance. This left us fans quite frustrated with how Bethesda handled such a beloved series. Even after AAA companies have tarnished the reputations of so many once-beloved IPs, we as casual gamers still find ourselves getting hyped over their new announcements. Well, at least many of us did until recently. Perhaps we should have let go.
I vividly remember how much money they put into that project; it really is crazy. After watching the Battlefield 2042 trailer in 2021, I told my friend, "This Battlefield is it! This is where Dice and EA will redeem themselves." Despite the numerous missteps and disappointments I experienced between Battlefield 5 and Battlefield 2042, myself and a lot of gamers still maintained our patience and trust, believing that a AAA company like Dice would finally deliver.
Unfortunately, I think that a lot of AAA companies can be trusted, but it really seems like there are just a half dozen really bad ones that create this entire negative perception. When you look at all these studios together, I think you've got Larian, which I would say is now a AAA studio, along with From Software, Nintendo, and many mainline Nintendo titles that are effectively AAA games and really good. Capcom, Rockstar, and HoyoVerse, if you like gacha games, are also among the best. CD Projekt Red has produced some great titles, too.
However, I feel like everybody focuses on the likes of Ubisoft, Blizzard, and EA. Those are probably the big three that a lot of people complain about. There are good AAA games that come out, but when there's a bad one, I think there's a lot more focus on it because of how heavy the marketing is. As for Square Enix, they hit and miss; it really depends. For their big games, I feel like they almost always hit, but they also release a lot of secondary games that are usually not great.
In short, my friend and I ended up refunding Battlefield 2042 within just 10 minutes of playing it. I'm now focusing on Battlefield M because it has been my go-to franchise in the past. I loved it; I was an OG Battlefield 2 player. Unfortunately, I was too young when Battlefield 1942 came out, but I thoroughly enjoyed the Battlefield 2 experience. Bad Company 1 and 2 were absolute gems, introducing the destruction mechanic that truly set Battlefield apart from other FPS games. I remember growing up in South Africa, playing Battlefield 3, which I played at 27 to 28 FPS. I think I clocked over 900 hours playing like that on my old PC. I loved that game!
To be fair, back then that was normal. I'm sure many of you who are old enough can relate to this experience with other beloved franchises. Maybe you were a die-hard Halo fan or couldn't wait to see what Ubisoft would deliver after the experience of Assassin's Creed Black Flag, only to find disappointment year after year. I feel like that's the way I felt with a lot of studios. Now, I try not to get really invested or emotional about whether a game is going to be good or bad. I just hope that it's good, and if it's not, I just move on and play something else.
I also feel like there are so many games always being released that there's no reason to tie yourself down to one individual game franchise and invest everything into it. Unless you really want to do that, because that's what I did with World of Warcraft, and it was a pretty unhealthy relationship. I think there are some people who are still kind of in that cycle. It's true with games like WoW and League; I think there are a few others that are like that too. The state of AAA gaming is devastating, and there are only a few companies that truly deliver.
Investing in a game franchise can lead to an unhealthy relationship; sometimes it's better to just move on and explore new experiences.
I’m not really invested or emotionally attached to whether a game is going to be good or bad. I just try to hope that it's good, and if it's not, I just move on and play something else. I feel like there are so many games that are always being released that there’s no reason to tie yourself down to one individual game franchise and invest everything into it unless you really want to do that. For instance, that’s what I did with WoW, and it was a pretty unhealthy relationship.
I think there are some people who are still kind of in that cycle, and it’s true with games like WoW and League. I believe there are a few other games that are like that too. The cycle of gaming can be devastating. There are only a few companies that seem to still have their fans' best interests at heart, even among these cracks and doubts that remain. Rockstar Games and From Software are notable exceptions.
However, today I want to focus on what I grew up defending, admiring, and loving: Ubisoft. I used to brag to my friends about how much I loved Ubisoft and their games, urging them to join me in this passion. But now, I find myself checking the news and stock prices to see if they finally pulled the plug on their life support. It’s taking me to a funny place.
The funny thing about that is that there is actually a post I saw today stating that Ubisoft is "reviewing all of its strategic options for its future." That always sounds good, right? But it makes me feel like I want to see Ubisoft crumble and go bankrupt. They’ve made me feel stupid for supporting them, treating casual gamers like we’re not in the know somehow or that we live under a rock.
I also think that they treat casual gamers as if they’re stupid. They release something that all the hardcore gamers hate, and they’re like, “That’s okay, we’ve got a bunch of morons—these dumb dads—that are going to buy the game, and we’re going to be fine. Guys, don’t worry.” It’s nuts. Whatever you think about it, they don’t respect our time.
As a casual gamer, I don’t pick up on the behind-the-scenes politics of game companies. I’m just living my life, playing whatever games I think look cool and enjoyable. But locking me out of gaming content at launch with superficial pricing is frustrating. I think this is so true; I absolutely believe this turns off casual players.
You’ve got to think about this logically: if you’re a casual gamer and you’re a gamer dad, the odds are that if you’ve got kids and a wife, you’re budgeting money. Money is a factor for you, so you’re thinking about it. You see a game priced at $109, and that’s going to immediately not appeal to you just on a base level. It’s not like this is some kind of super hardcore gamer take; you pull up the screen and see $129—what the heck? You won’t have that much time to justify the price.
They’re throwing innovation out the window and flooding their YouTube promotional videos with obvious bot comments and likes. If you look at Ubisoft, every single positive comment is within 4.9 to 5.1 thousand likes, and every single one of them is made by an individual with a first name, last name, and number combination. This has been the final straw for me. It’s disheartening to watch a company that once felt like a beacon of creativity and passion turn into what seems like a cash grab machine.
Remember when Ubisoft used to take risks, crafting immersive worlds filled with depth and rich storytelling? Games like Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell felt innovative and challenged the norms of gaming. Now, it feels like they’re just recycling formulas, relying on the same IPs or brands year after year. That’s one of the things that really kind of burns me out on some types of games. It’s one of the reasons why I didn’t really stick around and play Zenless Zone Zero.
Gaming should be about exploration and enjoyment, not a daily chore driven by FOMO and monetization. Let players progress at their own pace and rediscover the joy of immersive worlds.
Interests when they usually converge are not a coincidence, but I would never say they didn't; there's not enough evidence for that. The creativity and passion that once defined gaming have turned into what seems like a cash grab machine. Remember when Ubisoft used to take risks, crafting immersive worlds filled with depth and rich storytelling? Games like Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell felt innovative and challenged the norms of gaming. Now, it feels like they're just recycling formulas, relying on the same IPs or brands year after year.
That's one of the things that really burns me out of some types of games: they have the same formula. For example, it's one of the reasons why I didn't really stick around and play Zenless Zone Zero. I had already played the gacha game formula a lot with games like Honkai: Star Rail and Weaving Waves. So whenever I saw Zenless Zone Zero basically have the same formula, I thought, "Okay, I know what I have to do; I know what I can and can't do." I feel the same way about World of Warcraft; I know what the formula for WoW seasons is.
I think the difference is that I wish there were more games that allowed you to play at your own pace. This is a big issue, and I believe it’s also a significant problem for casual players. Casual players often think that these games are helping them by providing daily and weekly rewards, especially if they don't have time to play. However, for many of them, all it does is create another chore in their lives. By the nature of being casual players, they generally do not prioritize gaming. What ends up happening is that they get so focused on trying to log on every day that they burn themselves out.
I think that games which allow you to play at your own pace, like Elden Ring, Black Myth: Wukong, or Cyberpunk, are actually better for casual players than those with artificial catch-up mechanisms. What I believe FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) does—I've said this many times—is act as a barrier. FOMO keeps people in the game, but it also keeps people out. For instance, I would love to play Destiny 2, but because the game has been out for so long and seems so complex, I'm not going to play it until they release Destiny 3. There are many games like that.
If you look at it from a casual player's perspective, this is a problem that a lot of fan bases have. Fan bases often take for granted a lot of knowledge they've earned by playing the game extensively. For example, playing Final Fantasy 14 is the best example of this. The hardest thing I ever did in Final Fantasy 14 was buy the game; to me, that was harder than any boss like Alexander Savage. It was awful.
So, that's really what I think holds a lot of players back. Giving people the ability to progress at their own pace is crucial. Some days, you won't have any time, and some days you might have three hours. Whenever there's such a big discrepancy, on days when you have no time, you can't log in to get the rewards. On days when you have a lot of time, you might feel like the first ten minutes are great, but then the rest of the time feels wasted because the game is balanced around that.
I just wish games would move away from this Skinner box mentality of needing to log on every day. It's very exhausting and seems to try to squeeze more and more money out of their fans. It's not just the content that's lacking; it's the connection. I remember the excitement of discovering new worlds and characters that felt alive and engaging. Now, it seems like the focus is solely on monetization strategies, such as season passes, microtransactions, and limited-time events that prioritize profits over player experience. This is a big issue, too, especially when you have a game that has microtransactions in it.
Gaming has lost its magic as profit-driven strategies overshadow creativity and player experience.
The current state of gaming feels kind of wasted because the game design is heavily balanced around monetization strategies. There are just so many aspects that contribute to this issue. I wish games would move away from this Skinner box approach, which creates a continuous need for players to log on every day. This model is very exhausting, as it seems to be an attempt to squeeze more and more money out of their fans.
It's not just the content that's lacking; it's the connection that players once felt. I remember the excitement of discovering new worlds and characters that felt alive and engaging. However, it now seems that the focus is solely on monetization strategies, such as season passes, microtransactions, and limited-time events, which prioritize profits over player experience. This is a significant issue, as microtransactions fundamentally change the DNA of the game. When reward structures are built into the game, and then microtransactions are introduced to bypass or multiply those rewards, the game becomes centered around spending money.
Imagine how much more fun gacha games would be if you had $100 to spend every single day—theoretically, of course. If that amount was credited to your account, you would be able to progress and truly enjoy the game. Unfortunately, many games are not designed that way. A perfect example is Grand Blue Fantasy Relink, which functions similarly to a gacha game but allows players to progress on their own without any monetary involvement. This stark difference highlights how monetization can detract from the gaming experience.
The monetization in many games makes them less enjoyable. Gaming has been overshadowed by this relentless push for profit. Developers are less likely to add exciting armor sets and content into the game itself if they can sell them in the store. They want store items to be more appealing to drive sales, which is just basic logic: do people want to buy something that looks cool, or something that looks like everything else?
I know this sentiment is echoed across YouTube, but I come to you as a casual gamer. Many of us are only now discovering these issues, whether it’s been in the last few months, years, or even today. The shift towards live service games is also demanding and draining for casual players. Each live service game requires a certain amount of attention, and dedicating that attention can feel very exhausting. How many of you have played a live service game that felt like a job?
What I find crazy is the grace we show these companies; we still tend to trust their trailers and advertisements. Gamers are only one three-minute cinematic away from being over. We’ve seen gameplay trailers and cinematic trailers that have not delivered on their promises. My first experience with this was with the initial trailer for The Division. I remember thinking it was going to be a next-gen experience, only to be disappointed by the actual gameplay footage.
Over the years, it's strange how we have normalized this disappointment as gamers. We expect that gameplay trailers will not live up to the final product, yet we accept it. For quite a while, I believed that Ubisoft had the potential to return to its roots, to listen to fans and reignite that spark of creativity. However, their idea of making money seems to be very different. Everyone is trying to be the new Fortnite with their battle passes, DLCs, and paid content.
Take, for example, a battle pass; look at this armor set. This armor set is awesome and looks really cool. In an old video game, this would have been obtained through gameplay rather than purchased.
AAA gaming is losing its spark as greed takes over, but indie developers are lighting the way with creativity and passion.
The gameplay trailer was released, and many of us thought, "Okay, I know it's going to be worse on launch, but it is what it is; we just accept it." After all this time, I believed that Ubisoft had the potential to return to its roots, to listen to us fans, and reignite that spark of creativity. The driving thought behind this belief was, don't they want to make money? Are they not tired of losing money? However, it appears that their idea of making money is very different.
Everyone seems to be trying to be the new Fortnite, with their battle passes, DLCs, paid content, and add-ons. For instance, consider a battle pass; look at this armor set, for example. This armor set is [__] awesome and looks really cool. In an old video game, this would have been obtained by beating the game on the hardest difficulty, but now it seems you can just buy it with money. This is especially frustrating in single-player games, which makes no flipping sense.
I used to believe that there was a way for Ubisoft to come back, but I definitely don't believe this anymore. A wise, bold man once said, "I believe you cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into." In this case, the "person" is a large AAA company. The greed, ego, and toxic positivity that permeates their messaging doesn't stem from reason; it comes from a disconnection with the very players who once supported them. It is frustrating to see how these companies prioritize profits over passion. The decisions being made seem driven by a broad mentality rather than a genuine love for gaming.
As the company grows in scope and scale, it involves people who are not endemically involved with the industry. For example, if a CFO comes from a company like Kellogg's and now works at Ubisoft, he may not understand all the nuances of video games. This leads to massive disconnects, as people from outside the industry often do not grasp what the "secret sauce" is for making a game. They understand it theoretically, looking at numbers or flowcharts, but they lack a fundamental understanding of the creation process. This shift towards maximizing shareholder value instead of crafting meaningful experiences means that the heart of what makes gaming special gets lost.
Despite these frustrations with the AAA landscape, I am actually quite grateful for indie developers and smaller game studios. In my opinion, this year has been one of the best years for gaming that I've experienced in a long time. I completely agree with this sentiment. If you're the kind of person who only plays AAA games—essentially, if you get all your games from cable news television commercials—you probably hate video games more than anyone else. However, if you are a more invested gamer who pays attention to smaller indie titles and plays games that friends recommend, I believe you will have a great experience.
Gaming is better now than it ever has been, not necessarily because there are so many super amazing games like Elden Ring, but because there are so many options available. Numerous small studios are creating unique experiences. For example, Dredge was very popular last year; although I never got a chance to play it, I watched a bit of gameplay.
In my own experience, I work at John Deere, where they brought in a marketing director who previously worked in welding glass and supplies at a large chain. This individual spent three to four years here and still could not sell tractor accessories to anyone; he couldn't even name one [__] thing about most of the add-ons, although he did know about gas. This illustrates the disconnect that can occur when companies bring in talent without a proper understanding of the industry.
Gaming today is thriving not because of blockbuster titles, but due to the creativity and passion of indie studios that are delivering unique experiences.
You're going to have a great experience, and I think gaming is better now than it ever has been. The reason for this improvement isn't solely because there are so many super amazing games like Elden Ring, but rather because you have so many options. There are all these little studios that are creating unique experiences. For example, Dredge was very popular last year; I never got a chance to play it, but I watched a little bit of gameplay.
I work at John Deere, where they brought in a marketing director who had experience in welding glass and supplies at a large chain. This individual spent three to four years here and still could not sell tractor accessories to anyone. He couldn't name one thing about most of the add-ons, although he did know gas. This situation illustrates what happens when a studio gets big enough to hire people who operate on a theoretical level, losing sight of the actual creation process.
I find myself with multiple games on my Steam account. Another example of this issue is FaZe. Remember when FaZe had a problem? Then FaZe Banks bought out the company again, and he returned it to doing what it does best: creating content for teenage guys. FaZe is now killing it because it was taken over by corporate suits who had no understanding of the actual product they were trying to sell.
There are many titles I want to dive into, but I just don't have the time to play them all, like Blackmouth, Wukong, Hell Divers 2, and Hell World Enshrouded. I say that, but I actually finished the campaign of one game because I enjoyed it so much; I think I finished it within two days, which is a lot for me. All these games have really captured my attention this year. They are innovative and original, with some not being original but expanding on what we've loved in the past with innovation. Hades 2 is a great example of that. While I kind of like the gameplay of Hades 1 more, I didn't play enough of Hades 2 to make a definitive comparison.
I think Elden Ring, like many other games, isn't really new, but it's just done very, very well with a passion and obvious zeal for gaming. For example, everyone loves Pokémon. People enjoy it, but I never really got into it myself. However, hearing the stories and watching YouTube videos, it’s crazy to see how garbage some of the recent Pokémon games look. They appear as if they came out of a GameCube game, which is insane. I have been waiting for a Pokémon game like Po World, which scratches an itch that many people have been dying to scratch for years. This is why Po World has been successful.
I bet you a million dollars that there are people at Nintendo who are thinking, “See, I told you they’d want a game like this. Why aren’t we doing this?” They probably realize they were wrong for not pursuing this idea, especially after seeing how many copies Po World sold. It’s clear that they are not stupid; they know how to make money.
There are other games I am also looking forward to playing, like Deadlock or even the DLC for Elden Ring. These games, along with many others, remind me of the creativity and passion that still exist in the gaming world. However, one of the reasons I haven't played much of Deadlock is that it's a competitive game. I feel like the skill cap for competitive games rises so quickly that it’s not as fulfilling for a casual player anymore. There are so many nuances and esports-focused designs that make the game highly technical and hard to play.
Take Fortnite, for example. Many of us loved it when it first came out, but as people started power building and turbo building, it became overwhelming. I could build a wall and a ramp, but the guy next to me was building a mansion and shooting rockets at me. This shift can be disheartening, as it affects my excitement and hope for what is to come, particularly from AAA games.
In an ideal world, I would love to see Star Wars or Assassin's Creed in the hands of a company that genuinely cares about the fans. I think I'm going to end this video here, but I plan on doing a part two, so do subscribe if you're interested in that. Thank you so much for watching, and I hope you have a wonderful day.
To be honest, if this guy had 100,000 subscribers, I would say he deserves more, especially since he only has 232. I’m going to link you guys the video; it was such a great video made by someone who must be one of my viewers. He mentioned a few things I said, and he asked me to watch it. I definitely feel like it was a good idea to watch it; it was a great video. I really liked it a lot, and I plan to watch part two at some point as well.
There are smart viewers out there, and I think part two will be worth watching. I want to cover some other stuff today, but we’ll probably watch part two tomorrow because I think it’s really good. The editing was well done, and there wasn't anything obnoxious that would make you want to turn the video off. A lot of people try to keep your attention with transitions, but for me, that can be overstimulating.