this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
99 points (99.0% liked)
Games
17611 readers
480 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is amazing to me that developers now are paid more and given more time, yet developers from 20 years ago made way more with way less. Games come out now and the graphics might be great, but the gameplay and story is garbage, bug-riddled, etc. For an old game with a smaller dev team, smaller budget, and only like 1 or 2 years of development time, that is completely understandable. These days we get games that take 6+ years to develop with 150+ person studios and budgets averaging over $100 million per game, and we genuinely see these games get massively outperformed by 20 year old games in almost every way.
What do they hope to achieve with this? I understand they want more pay, but if their work output does not reflect that they are deserving of more pay, then they're going to end up jobless anyway. Businesses are not charities, and work output that is subpar cannot sustainably be given bigger pay. That's just rewarding lazy or bad work instead of rewarding good work. If part of their terms do not include "shareholders have no say in the product at all" (which is impossible, by the way, that's not how that works), then they cannot possibly look to achieve anything other than getting a possible extension for a short time before ultimately being cut loose.
LOL. Classic Lemmy.
Yeah this is Lemmy so I can't say your votes turned out unexpected. But you're right, all this will do is make their job end quicker. There's no money to give, Ubisoft is dying as is.