Yeah "graphical fidelity" is a luxury status signal within games.
I agree with your complaint on their monetization strategy. Games, as creative works, should be understood to have loyal followings, and publishers should be making money off of their diverse array of products that hit lots of little niches. Not the "it does everything" single game model. To be honest, publishers should be trying to build passive income by releasing different games, not trying to get people addicted to one and only one game.
What's weird is that you would think the "Games as Service" model would allow for exactly the type of development your talking about. Making a 10 year game playable consecutively on all modern platforms, constantly updated, and always working with minor feature improvements here and there. Instead they just bounce from one gimmick to the next and never fix anything, assuming they even released the game.
I think it's just because the people running these companies are shit.
Yeah "graphical fidelity" is a luxury status signal within games.
I agree with your complaint on their monetization strategy. Games, as creative works, should be understood to have loyal followings, and publishers should be making money off of their diverse array of products that hit lots of little niches. Not the "it does everything" single game model. To be honest, publishers should be trying to build passive income by releasing different games, not trying to get people addicted to one and only one game.
What's weird is that you would think the "Games as Service" model would allow for exactly the type of development your talking about. Making a 10 year game playable consecutively on all modern platforms, constantly updated, and always working with minor feature improvements here and there. Instead they just bounce from one gimmick to the next and never fix anything, assuming they even released the game.
I think it's just because the people running these companies are shit.