this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
131 points (98.5% liked)
PC Gaming
8205 readers
554 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not an expert on making videogames, but couldn't this game have been made with only a fraction of the budget? I mean, I heard there wasn't much content to begin with which is why so many people complain it's so repetitive. What was the money spent on? The massive headcount of artists and programmers working on the same small details? Overpriced consultants who are there just to critique the game's script as being "too offensive" on some parts? Reworks to plot points because overbearing producers want to find ways to shoehorn in some kind of paid DLC? The whole game is a money pit with no way to know how deep it goes.
They wanted it to be a live service, which is famously expensive to develop. They have to pay people to be constantly developing content on top of the insane prices of releasing and marketing a AAA game in the first place. Usually these games make money through microtransactions and/or subscription fees but no one wanted to play the game in the first place so hardly anyone was buying any of the extra content after initial release.