I didn't finish watching the video, about a few minutes left but... does he not realize what he's saying? The ONLY reason costs have come down is because of publishers making practically no games. They're making no games because they're making consistent money with DLC. If there was no DLC they'd have to make money per game, which more or less leads to huge budgets, since you'd have to have 5+ games releasing yearly running around 20 million dollar budgets each. That's a 100 million dollars just making games annually without marketing. These huge budgets put a lot of companies last gen out of business. The companies that survived WAS because of DLC. He also doesn't prove that DLC is not necessary. Even with Battlefront 2, for instance, it'd lose money without DLC (Don't think they need loot boxes at that point though). He also mentions Hellblade. Hellblade was designed specifically to keep budgets down. Should all developers be trying to develop games with this mindset? Of course, but most game developers are mismanaged. You can't say "Oh Ubisoft can make Assassins Creed Unity with 5 million dollars" when they had 1000 people working on it. I don't like where the game industry is going, I really don't, but to say publishers can release something like 5+ titles annually with huge budgets per game without going bankrupt is ludicrous.
Interesting video. I hadn't released the general trend of releasing less games nowadays. Don't agree with everything but it's a good timeline of how we got here.
If you hadn't noticed, this is Forum 2.0
