No, this is the reality. The likes of Activision, EA, Ubisoft, and Take Two rule the industry by market cap, but that's because their games notable sell to the type of person who only buys a few video games per year at most. If they utterly dominated the material reality of the industry, how on earth could Baldur's Gate 3 or Palworld even happen? How could Hades or No Man's Sky, made by former EA devs, happen? Your view of reality is quite overly pessimistic. How can you even measure some of the claims you're making?
dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I don’t know, my ideas are so wild and I am pulling them totally out of thin air. It isn’t like there is a massive amount of scholarly work and many political movements that explicitly attempt to define and critique these processes at our fingertips on the internet waiting to educate and inform us.
And you know, the funny thing is I really for once was feeling a little optimistic about this kind of material existing for me to read and educate myself but I guess in this case my pessimism is well founded.
ampersandrew@kbin.social 4 months ago
You slipped in an edit while I was responding, and I think the gist of it is that you and I fundamentally don't agree, especially not the hyperbolic flourish you used. I think you'll continue to see plenty of great games come out in the next decades, because people still want to buy games and other people still want to make them.
dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If you are only concerned about this from the perspective of having enough good games to keep you personally occupied and not a step further to the experience of working in the industry that makes the art you love, then yes you and I fundamentally disagree and I would never want to be construed as making the kind of argument you are making.
ampersandrew@kbin.social 4 months ago
There will continue to be games to play because people will continue to make them. A bad experience in one place leads to a new studio designed not to repeat it.