That would be our corporate overlords wanting to keep corn farmers employed. It’s not like we have bottles of it at our table. Companies just put it in everything since it’s cheap, and since we don’t have an effective government that stops capitalism from killing us, it gets put in everything and we die from heart disease.

At any given time, there’s about 400 million people playing game on the planet. Of those people, only 14% play NEW games released within 12 months.

It used to be 30% 10 years ago. Now it’s less for a variety of factors, but one of them is less people have the income and budget they used to.

You are in that 14%.

Which is great - but the games you buy as part of that 14% are based on your taste. Not if they are exceptionally good, only if they are exceptionally good to you.

So making games that are “exceptionally good” for an audience isn’t easy because your audience doesn’t even know what they want beyond a genre. I’m sure you could tell me about the games you like and prefer to play, possibly even a genre of games you love.

But if I asked you to tell me what game COULD be exceptionally good in that genre, you might not have an answer. Just other games to compare it to. And if you do have an answer, there’s no telling if it would actually be popular with a bigger audience that genre enjoys.

Making “exceptional games” isn’t a bar to be crossed that makes a game money. Rather a game is “exceptional” once it finds an audience that feels that way about it. Games that have broad appeal have broad audiences like Call of Duty who all feel that game is exceptional too. Many who play it would argue which one in the series was the most “exceptional” and wouldn’t have a great answer for what to make as a better version of that game.

People like what they play, and exceptional games are only exceptional to the audience that plays them. So it’s not so much about making something exceptional, but making something that has an audience that thinks it’s exceptional.

And finding that audience is the hard part. Especially when only 14% of people who plays games are even looking at what you’ve made.

But it’s not impossible. Just difficult these days.

Based on what? Your opinion? Or is there a profit analysis and breakdown you want to pair with that to make a point?

My dude, I’m very familiar with the 14% of videogame players new game devs are vying for. And every one of the games you mentioned launched at that price because they were developed by a single dev (two at most) who could profit off of the $10 - $15 dollar space that was below the smaller studios putting out games like Shadow Complex, or Mercenary Kings, or Shank 1+2 for $20.

Now all of those spaces are being crushed together. Mostly due to economic factors. Thats where the biggest problem really lies, in the fact that people just have less money to spend on all that entertainment. Just pointing out that it’s competitive at all is obvious my dude, but the direction its going in is one in where there’s less anything being made (including games) because not as many people have money to spend on anything but necessities.

That’s why AAA is now scavenging at the bottom of the totem pole, and pricing their older games at $10 or less on sale, it’s because the few people that have money find that price point appealing. So it’s now one that not just the people who made Terraria, Braid, etc compete in. The money those devs made previously in that space is now up for grabs to AAA companies that never had anything to sell at that price before.

Theres a very tried and true formula for any business, including making games, and in the last 2 years it has completely broken apart. Mostly due to the Embracer group merger failing, combined with AI, combined with economic uncertainty, combined with AAA companies stabbing indie creators in the back (Subnautica, Disco Elysium). Your game doesn’t have to be a massive hit to be successful, it just needs to have a big enough audience to be profitable. But that audience has shrunk over the years as economies have tightened, and the companies getting squeezed have been invading markets they never had a presence in before.

So it’s just desperate times more than anything. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make a living off of making games. I know dozens of small teams funded by government grants making small games you’ve never heard of to help kids in hospitals learn about their cancer. Or teach kids in underprivileged schools about resource scarcity. Making games as a business goes far beyond entertainment and the hopes of narcissists. It’s an artistic medium like any other, and as such benefits society by making the toughest parts of it more accessible.

There’s plenty of ways to run a company doing just that - and just because the world economy is in free fall doesn’t mean the entire business of making games is something for the lucky few. It’s just for anyone that wants to learn how to run a game company. Which isn’t easy, but extends far beyond the simplistic view you are portraying.

Thanks! 🙂 Appreciate you confirming that. We actually changed the price of our latest game to $10 (from $20) because we launched last December and got buried by AAA selling for $15.

Almost every dev team we talked to this year felt the same about the $20 price. That is, it’s much better to go out at $15 or $10 as a LOT of people see indie games at that price as better than modern AAA. (All while still holding out for classic AAA that go on sale for $20.)

And that being said, I’m totally cool with losing a sale to MGSV or Witcher 3 😁 Just wish the $20 space wasn’t getting so crowded. It’s making it rough for the smaller teams to compete at that price too now.

As an indie dev, this article is fucking stupid.

Want to know why indie games are priced at $10 to $15? Becaue AAA has been putting everything they’ve made in the last decade on Steam and it’s all going for $20 - $25.

Indies can’t launch at that price point anymore because they’re competing with AAA games from 10 years ago that have been discounted to death.

The Steam winter sale is the best example of this, where most people will buy RDR2 for $19 instead of the new mega hit indie that’s $20. So indies have been lowering their price to actually get sales. That’s why team cherry priced Silk Song at $20.

Basically, AAA is now just competing with the bottom part of the market they spent that last decade flooding.

They’re complaining about people actually choosing where to spend their money wisely because that means they might actually have to make a good product if they want to sell a game for $70.

People are just monkeys. Monkeys do what they see because they’re stupid and a product of their environment. Billionaires now control everything in that environment, so US monkies mostly see what those billionaires want.

FOX NEWS. Paid for by billionaires so USA Monkies want Citizens United, No child Left Behind, the Patriot act, and Trillions in the national debt for the first time in 200 years of being a nation. Bush W is now okay despite being an idiot because he’s surrounded by smart people. But smart people are definitley bad.

FACEBOOK ADS. Paid for by billionaires so USA monkies will vote against Healthcare, their own taxes, and educatiom to fight made up enemies like “libs” and “illegals”. Local elections are now won by the dumbest people imaginable that believe these enemies are real. Actual Proffesionals are now suspicious.

TWITTER. Now just owned by a billionaire so USA monkies think Trump is a genius, Fascism is good, and it’s totally okay more Americans died from COVID than anywhere else in the world, a death toll higher than all the wars America ever fought in combined. Trump is great because he punishes smart people, and people that point out his COVID bullshit, as those smart people are now your enemy.

This makes Elon wealthy. Zuckerberg Wealthy. And the Murdochs wealthy.

They covered the US in news that it was on fire and keep profiting off of selling fire extinguishers.

There is no fire. (Illegal immigrants, libs, trans, caravans, wmds in Iraq, war on drugs, war on terror, etc) But now half the country votes like there is because that keeps billionaires wealthy instead of actually taxed to benefit society. They are the problem. They know they are the problem. So they purchase as many media outlets as they can, like Bezos, to normalize their greed and it’s affects on our country. Just about to the point we don’t have one anymore.

Critical of sources? Okay, in that case the US isn’t the country that banned the phrase “Tianaman square 1989” from being spoken online. Nor are they the country that will prevent you from owning a house if you say it enough.

That’s China.

And it exists to silence criticism of them killing a bunch of protestors with tanks:

Then running them over with those tanks until their bodies became a bunch of organic paste, so they could wash their remains into the sewers:

http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html

(NSFW pictures: mascr014.gif to see what a human body looks like after being crushed by a tank)

There’s more pictures of the dead in that last link - go ahead and be critical of them, seeing as they died fighting for the Democracy you’re now critical of.

Want to be critical? Alright, why do you think the US is the only country that’s capable of bullshit propaganda? It’s so you don’t consider Democracy as viable, rather you’re raised from birth and educated to believe it’s ineffecient. Something I’m sure you fully believe with absolutely zero critical thought. (Despite most of Europe being a dang good example of its effectiveness).

Who do you think was responsible for convincing the middle class to vote against their own best interests?

It was the people who didn’t have to pay taxes after Reagonomics. They used their money to fill television, print, and eventually social media with propaganda. Propaganda that taxes were too high (for them) despite our entire social safety net outgrowing it’s sustainability.

And this form of propaganda was SO effective, the Russians figured they would do the same. Then the Chinese. Now the Saudis. So now we have just about every country in the world that hates America purchasing every second of entertainment they can to make sure we’re always voting against our best interests to the point we just about don’t have a country.

You are correct! And it’s crazy how effective those high corporate tax rates were at distributing wealth to better society and create a healthy middleclass of consumers to fuel an economy and prevent it from collapsing.

Weird how everything’s turning to shit now that corporations don’t pay taxes and use all their earnings to influence government elections instead of needing to actually be accountable to them.

“Too big to fail” was actually just “too big to stop.” So now where there used to be a US government, there is a handful of billionaire cultists.

The middleclass 100% existed. Billionaires just stole it. The money that drove US spending across 3 decades is now all in 5 people’s bank accounts doing jack shit to help anyone but those 5 people.

Higher corporate taxes = a middle class. See most Nordic countries as a great example that still exists.

Thank you for making this point. A middle class is the sign of a functioning society.

Same argument as holocaust deniers. Good point.

I appreciate the clarification. But let’s give the dead the benefit of the doubt before it becomes another COVID that kills everyone’s grandparents. People like you desire to see death first hand before believing it only because you likely have not seen it yet yourself, so through sheer inexperience doubt such loss can be on such a large scale. It is. Whether these stats line up perfectly yet or not. It’s still happening.

And to be clear. This isn’t the first time Trump has killed this many people through sheer negligence.

He does not have the benefit of the doubt here. Nor deserves it. So you should not be giving it. Don’t be the guy that looks the other way from the mountains of dead until someone you know is in the pile. Looking the other way is how they get there.

The real question is how a company accidentally steals something like that for a 4th time. (This was the 4th time they’ve been caught doing this).

https://www.thepopverse.com/gaming-marathon-bungie-art-stolen-fern-hook-destiny-2-trailer-gun

Trumps literally on deaths door and is the #1 suspect in what’s likely the largest conspiracy in US history involving child traffickers and their political protectors.

He’s been in US politics the last 10 years.

He’s run his course. And no one is left to replace him.

He’s also killed millions with his Covid policy. Millions more with USAID defunding. And now likely even more with SNAP and ACA cuts.

He also likely won by cheating, not by popularity.

He’s just about cooked from every angle imaginable and is not long for this world.

The end of your previous post:

Yes, it’s better than other vanity projects, but it is still a wasteful vanity project.

The literal definition of a vanity project:

https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/vanity+project

project undertaken for self-satisfaction.

Each one of the examples I provided shows very clearly this yacht was NOT made for HIS self-satisfaction. Rather, it was literally made to the satisfaction of the research team that uses the yacht.

Specifically:

“His” yacht being used to better the scientific community instead of just him.

1. Made quite literally for a large team of scientists as he is the second largest contributor to deep sea research on the planet. Nearly the exact opposite of being for vanity.

“His” yacht made to have the least environmental impact from noise or oil pollution.

2. Made for the environment. Not Gabe. So not for vanity.

Huge efforts were made to reduce noise and vibration, thereby creating a pleasant onboard environment.

3. Made for sensative aquatic life that engine noises can disturb and affect the research of. Not for Gabe. So not for vanity.

“His” yacht made to have little maintenance requirements so the crew can focus on science and research.

4. Made to be easy to work on for the hundreds of crew that maintain it. Not for Gabe. So not for vanity.

Every point of my last comment was proving your statement about this being a vanity project completely and unquestionably wrong. But I guess I just understand your last sentence better than you.

You are shitting on the best deep sea scientific research vessel in existence while implying you have the moral high ground. There’s nothing immoral about scientific research just because it happens on a yacht.

You are literally using the same logic as a cop saying a person with dark skin is a criminal. This yacht clearly isn’t a vanity project. It is for Inksea, and being used to help fight climate change and the affect that has on deep sea ocean currents.

But to you this yacht is just as criminal as a dark skinned person is to a cop. No exceptions.

Please understand: the point you are making is not incorrect. But the way you are making it very much is.

I completely agree that Billionaires shouldn’t exist, and in general most yachts are unquestionably vanity projects. But this one clearly isn’t.

So if you want to make your point heard, going about it through uncompromising bigotry is just about the worst way to make it.

It’s his vessel because he paid for it. That’s how money works. There’s no other pronoun that is appropriate.

Here’s the rest of the article that completely unwinds how far you want to stretch that term:

“His” yacht made through collaboration:

“Not only have we designed a very unusual yacht that leans into Oceanco’s strengths of innovation and design, but the team has also been willing to collaborate with us on evolving the process.”

“His” yacht made to have the least environmental impact from noise or oil polution (Diesel hybrid electric engine):

Huge efforts were made to reduce noise and vibration, thereby creating a pleasant onboard environment. The hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system is whisper-quiet, and the engine room is positioned further forward to reduce noise. The built-in battery bank also allows for silent nighttime operation.

“His” yacht made to have little maintenance requirements so the crew can focus on science and research:

Leviathan is also incredibly low-maintenance. The off-white exterior and synthetic handrails require less cleaning, for example. That means the crew can spend less time on routine maintenance and more time on more important tasks. “We adopted a crew-centric approach that really digs into how Leviathan is operated and maintained,” explains Newell.

“His” thoughts on “His” yacht being used to better the scientific community instead of just him.

“Yachts have great potential to serve as platforms for scientific research,” adds Newell. “It’s about recognizing that you’re part of a broader community and ensuring the yacht’s presence adds value to the communities around it.”

How about you ask yourself how many scientists and engineers HE paid to have a job to work on this?

How about you ask how much he pays their research salaries still and provided them a better vessel to do their job on than anyone else?

Why do you insist that you know how to better spend his money when it’s already going to people that need it for a cause that’s needed?

Just because you want to claim his money could be used better doesn’t mean it currently isn’t being used well.

You just see a yacht and think the worse. Worlds far less black and white.

Like the 3000 scientists, engineers, and designers that helped him build that yacht for research?

That collaboration started with the design and build. Newell joined forces with YTMC, Y.CO, the Oceanco Design team, Lateral Naval Architects, Mark Berryman Design, and thousands of designers, engineers, and other experts to bring his dream vessel to fruition. The names of the nearly 3,000 contributors are listed near the main staircase, in fact. “It is this level of collaboration that sets Leviathan apart from anything we’ve built before,” Oceanco CEO Marcel Onkenhout said in a statement.

Is there more efficient ways to spend this money on research? Sure. But don’t equate this effort as meaningless just because it’s not perfect. It’s a great place to be a researcher, but it’s still for research.

Your assumption all his yachts were for pleasure has already been proven wrong. Now you’re just moving the goal posts.

As I said, he’s the second largest doner to marine research on the entire planet, and the burden of proof for proving his yachts are ALL for personal use is something you’ve never provided, only assumed.

I’ve proved 1/3 were for scientific research. I’m not going to do the other 2/3 just for you to ignore and move the goal posts elsewhere.

Prove your point, and I’ll believe it.

Until then, he’s still a billionaire instead of the trillionaire he could be, so I’m not going to think poorly of him just because he’s not fitting some arbitrary number of currency tied to his worth that magically makes you think he’s moral.

Instead I will judge him based on his actions. The ones that I have detailed have unquestionably made the world a better place for many more people than him.

How about you actually tell me something he’s done wrong that’s worth your judgement, instead of basing it entirely on yachts you won’t research?

What have I said that isn’t true?

https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/billionaire-gabe-newell-oceanco-gigayacht-leviathan-1237360429/

The 364-foot Leviathan was designed for billionaire gaming visionary Gabe Newell, who acquired the Dutch shipyard this past April.

Leviathan is the latest addition to Newell’s Inkfish fleet and will be used to further scientific research in the marine sector. Occupying the place of the standard beach club is a fully equipped dive center, laboratory, and a hospital. There’s even a 3-D printing workshop where the crew can create spare or replacement parts. “Yachts have great potential to serve as platforms for scientific research,” adds Newell. “It’s about recognizing that you’re part of a broader community and ensuring the yacht’s presence adds value to the communities around it.”

You are just continuing to make assumptions based entirely on the assets he owns instead of his behaviour.

Something I keep pointing out, and is why I have also been responding.

I am completely on your side and feel that anyone with over a billion is an ethical and moral burden. However, I’m also wise enough to recognize that as a goal to strive towards not a destination to judge against. So I’m not going to chastise those actively working towards that goal, even if they are a billionaire.

I see granting access for anyone to make games for Steam as a good cause.

The opportunity cost for what profit could be made by closing that is multitudes of yachts worth.

Just because you do not value this as a good cause does not mean it is not.

Does Gabe have more yachts than are needed? Yes. But again, you can’t just say he’s greedy because he has them. That’s being incredibly biased.

Instead, how about you tell me what actions of his has made him greedy that don’t involve his assets?

I can name hundreds of ways Musk should be drawn and quartered based on his actions that have nothing to do with his wealth, but rather his actual documented choices.

What choices / actions / or anything of actual greed has Gabe done that you can point to?

It’s like saying anything with a swastika on it is for Nazis without realizing Hindus have been using a right oriented Swastika to represent good fortune for hundreds of years.

Gabe Newall has done the following with his 11 Billion fortune:

• Co-founded “The Heart of Racing” car racing team that raises money for Children’s charity.

• Donates heavily to the Seattle Children’s Hospital and several others around the world.

• Founded Foundry10, a non profit education company that helps neuro divergent kids learn through new methods of education

• Started InkFish to expand the scientific study of our oceans and is now the second highest individual donor towards marine research on the planet.

https://80.lv/articles/gabe-newell-reportedly-plans-to-invest-usd300-million-to-marine-research

That’s why he has those yachts.

Same reason Hindus have their swastikas.

Their actions speak louder than the symbols they use suggest. Even when those symbols are Yachts.

He has 11 Billion. Everyone else even close to his level of market control has several magnitudes more. Why does he have so little when he owns a virtual monopoly on digital distribution?

Because he’s not in it for maximizing his bank account.

The dispicableness of billionaires is measured by their actions not their worth. And despite being of high worth, Gabes actions are unquestionably not greedy. He’s doing almost everything he can to minimize his wealth in favor of equality to access Steam as a game dev.

If he wanted to, he could charge far more than $100 to develop for them, and buy several more yachts.

But he hasn’t.

Which makes his platform more popular. And in turn brings him even more cash to buy more yachts.

His yachts aren’t indicative of his greed, but his benevolence in the face of it.

Show me a single other company the size of Valve that has chosen to forgo profit over access to something like Steam to make money yourself. That’s basically non existent in the year 2025 aside from Valve. I’m not going to judge Gabe as a bad person for profiting from that. He could be profiting much much more and is choosing access for nearly everyone else instead.