EightBitBlood

That would be our corporate overlords wanting to keep corn farmers employed. It's not like we have bottles of it at our table. Companies just put it in everything since it's cheap, and since we don't have an effective government that stops capitalism from killing us, it gets put in everything and we die from heart disease.

At any given time, there's about 400 million people playing game on the planet. Of those people, only 14% play NEW games released within 12 months.

It used to be 30% 10 years ago. Now it's less for a variety of factors, but one of them is less people have the income and budget they used to.

You are in that 14%.

Which is great - but the games you buy as part of that 14% are based on your taste. Not if they are exceptionally good, only if they are exceptionally good to you.

So making games that are "exceptionally good" for an audience isn't easy because your audience doesn't even know what they want beyond a genre. I'm sure you could tell me about the games you like and prefer to play, possibly even a genre of games you love.

But if I asked you to tell me what game COULD be exceptionally good in that genre, you might not have an answer. Just other games to compare it to. And if you do have an answer, there's no telling if it would actually be popular with a bigger audience that genre enjoys.

Making "exceptional games" isn't a bar to be crossed that makes a game money. Rather a game is "exceptional" once it finds an audience that feels that way about it. Games that have broad appeal have broad audiences like Call of Duty who all feel that game is exceptional too. Many who play it would argue which one in the series was the most "exceptional" and wouldn't have a great answer for what to make as a better version of that game.

People like what they play, and exceptional games are only exceptional to the audience that plays them. So it's not so much about making something exceptional, but making something that has an audience that thinks it's exceptional.

And finding that audience is the hard part. Especially when only 14% of people who plays games are even looking at what you've made.

But it's not impossible. Just difficult these days.

Based on what? Your opinion? Or is there a profit analysis and breakdown you want to pair with that to make a point?

My dude, I'm very familiar with the 14% of videogame players new game devs are vying for. And every one of the games you mentioned launched at that price because they were developed by a single dev (two at most) who could profit off of the $10 - $15 dollar space that was below the smaller studios putting out games like Shadow Complex, or Mercenary Kings, or Shank 1+2 for $20.

Now all of those spaces are being crushed together. Mostly due to economic factors. Thats where the biggest problem really lies, in the fact that people just have less money to spend on all that entertainment. Just pointing out that it's competitive at all is obvious my dude, but the direction its going in is one in where there's less anything being made (including games) because not as many people have money to spend on anything but necessities.

That's why AAA is now scavenging at the bottom of the totem pole, and pricing their older games at $10 or less on sale, it's because the few people that have money find that price point appealing. So it's now one that not just the people who made Terraria, Braid, etc compete in. The money those devs made previously in that space is now up for grabs to AAA companies that never had anything to sell at that price before.

Theres a very tried and true formula for any business, including making games, and in the last 2 years it has completely broken apart. Mostly due to the Embracer group merger failing, combined with AI, combined with economic uncertainty, combined with AAA companies stabbing indie creators in the back (Subnautica, Disco Elysium). Your game doesn't have to be a massive hit to be successful, it just needs to have a big enough audience to be profitable. But that audience has shrunk over the years as economies have tightened, and the companies getting squeezed have been invading markets they never had a presence in before.

So it's just desperate times more than anything. But that doesn't mean you can't make a living off of making games. I know dozens of small teams funded by government grants making small games you've never heard of to help kids in hospitals learn about their cancer. Or teach kids in underprivileged schools about resource scarcity. Making games as a business goes far beyond entertainment and the hopes of narcissists. It's an artistic medium like any other, and as such benefits society by making the toughest parts of it more accessible.

There's plenty of ways to run a company doing just that - and just because the world economy is in free fall doesn't mean the entire business of making games is something for the lucky few. It's just for anyone that wants to learn how to run a game company. Which isn't easy, but extends far beyond the simplistic view you are portraying.

Thanks! 🙂 Appreciate you confirming that. We actually changed the price of our latest game to $10 (from $20) because we launched last December and got buried by AAA selling for $15.

Almost every dev team we talked to this year felt the same about the $20 price. That is, it's much better to go out at $15 or $10 as a LOT of people see indie games at that price as better than modern AAA. (All while still holding out for classic AAA that go on sale for $20.)

And that being said, I'm totally cool with losing a sale to MGSV or Witcher 3 😁 Just wish the $20 space wasn't getting so crowded. It's making it rough for the smaller teams to compete at that price too now.

As an indie dev, this article is fucking stupid.

Want to know why indie games are priced at $10 to $15? Becaue AAA has been putting everything they've made in the last decade on Steam and it's all going for $20 - $25.

Indies can't launch at that price point anymore because they're competing with AAA games from 10 years ago that have been discounted to death.

The Steam winter sale is the best example of this, where most people will buy RDR2 for $19 instead of the new mega hit indie that's $20. So indies have been lowering their price to actually get sales. That's why team cherry priced Silk Song at $20.

Basically, AAA is now just competing with the bottom part of the market they spent that last decade flooding.

They're complaining about people actually choosing where to spend their money wisely because that means they might actually have to make a good product if they want to sell a game for $70.

Critical of sources? Okay, in that case the US isn't the country that banned the phrase "Tianaman square 1989" from being spoken online. Nor are they the country that will prevent you from owning a house if you say it enough.

That's China.

And it exists to silence criticism of them killing a bunch of protestors with tanks:

Then running them over with those tanks until their bodies became a bunch of organic paste, so they could wash their remains into the sewers:

http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html

(NSFW pictures: mascr014.gif to see what a human body looks like after being crushed by a tank)

There's more pictures of the dead in that last link - go ahead and be critical of them, seeing as they died fighting for the Democracy you're now critical of.

Want to be critical? Alright, why do you think the US is the only country that's capable of bullshit propaganda? It's so you don't consider Democracy as viable, rather you're raised from birth and educated to believe it's ineffecient. Something I'm sure you fully believe with absolutely zero critical thought. (Despite most of Europe being a dang good example of its effectiveness).

The real question is how a company accidentally steals something like that for a 4th time. (This was the 4th time they've been caught doing this).

https://www.thepopverse.com/gaming-marathon-bungie-art-stolen-fern-hook-destiny-2-trailer-gun

So you can't explain or define what genius is, yet judge anyone as an idiot who asks for that context?

Genius and brilliant are synonyms btw. Something pretty obvious.

So unless you want to explain the difference between those two terms, they mean the same thing.

Being pedantic about that doesn't make you right. It very much implies the opposite. You just look like someone that ate billionaire PR bait, and forgot what reality tastes like.

You are not saving face by refusing to go into the details, you just look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Something you could easily disprove if you did. Because Geniuses can go into those details. Idiots can only pretend.

So makes sense why you look up to Musk so much. You can only pretend to be smart like him.

I reject your claim Musk is a genius.

Prove it to me.

You read two of his biographies, so you should know. (Unless those were both fanfiction he paid someone to write about him.)

Musk has indeed been in close proximity to several large companies and their origins.

But genius is not something achievable through osmosis.

What has he, as a person, done with any skill, to suggest he's a genius? Aside from osmosis.

Let me drop some really basic logical observations your argument will need to overcome to be truthful:

He's not a productive man:

• As evidenced by his near average of 100 tweets a day. Confirmed by AI. Which is close to 2 hours a day tweeting, not doing anything of value or skill.
• As also evidenced by his character in Path of Exile, one played in hardcore mode, with the best gear available, that would require nearly 10 hours a day of play to achieve.

There is no difference between this behaviour and a jobless NEET or internet troll. They get shit on for this bevavioir due to how unproductive it is.

It's just as unproductive when Musk does it.

He's not an accountable father:

• As evidenced hy his 14 children with 4 different women.

This is literally the punchline of a Jeff Foxworthy "You might be a Redneck if..." Joke.

It's just as unaccountable of Musk to have this many kids with this many people. He would need to spend a lot of time with each to raise them well, and instead he's playing video games and tweeting almost all day.

Logically, if Musk actually wanted to go to Mars, it would be a 3 step process:

1. Rocket a person to Mars
2. Terraform and settle Mars
3. Migrate to Mars.

He's focused on 1, and telling you it's for the good of Humanity.

But if instead he focused on step 2, he would be fighting climate change right now while developing the tech needed to Terraform Mars, as they are the same tech. That's what a genius would do.

Instead he's trying to replace NASA with Space X because money.

He doesn't use his money to improve society. He just uses it to improve himself while lying to you that it's for the greater good.

It's not. And it's never been.

As evidenced by his Hyper loop being a lie to convince legislators in California to cancel plans for a high speed rail. Something California would now benefit from if not for his interference.

All Musk does with his money is use it to buy PR and good will so he can continue to be someone that uses Twitter and play games all day instead of being a good dad. That's not genius. That's greed and stupidity.

He could, even now, solve the world's problems with his wealth. He literally asked for a plan to solve world hunger, and when presented with one that could have done it for like 8 Billion a year, he refused. Then purchased Twitter for 5 times that amount. Because he wanted to be popular.

Yet solving Wolrd hunger would make him worshipped by the people he fed. More popular than anyone. Families would praise his name. And communities would erect statues for him. This is something he certainly wants, yet his way of achieving that goal is to spend even more than 8 billion on PR to convince you he's a genius.

That's not very genius like behavior. It's still just stupid and greedy.

Imagine, for a moment, you're a Trillionaire. What would you do with that money? Solve the world's problems? Help your family? Help your friends? That's what 90% 9f people say when asked.

And Musk does none of that. Just plays games, shit posts on the internet, and convinces you through biographies and large well paid PR teams that he knows what he's doing and should be worshipped.

His wealth, unquestionably, would be better used if it was in the hands of thousands instead of his. He wants you to think he deserves it, that he's a genius. When the most casual look at his approaches to problems immediately reveals he's not. He just a wad of unspent money that wants to use it to take credit for other people's work instead of fixing the planet.

Time to prove why you think that makes him a genius.

I've worked for him by the way. He's not a genius. He just has good PR to make you think he is.

Dude. You aren't even talking about Musk. You are entirely talking about what his well paid PR team has made you think of him.

The dude hasn't done fuck of shit. Just used his money to help others build shit he never bothered to acquire the skills for. Reusable Rockets? That was Tom Mueller you should be thanking. Not the person writing his paycheck. That could be literally anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller

Musk uses his money exclusively to get his name on things to take credit for other people's work. Tesla, PayPal, Space X, now Twitter / X. All the same. Musk lacks any actual talent or work ethic. He just has money to attach his name to those that do, and money to pay PR teams to make his image appear as someone that has skills to create instead of wealth to take all the credit from those that do.

IF you want to respect someone that has enough wealth to solve almost all of the major problems in the world but uses it instead to purchase a social media platform to shit on others and warp elections, then you go right ahead. But don't expect anyone else with a sense of reality to agree with you.

I am by no means an expert, but there has been a significant amount of studies done on the estrogen in our water levels increasing:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854760/

Detection of estrogens in the environment has raised concerns in recent years because of the potential of these compounds to affect both wildlife and humans. " The incomplete removal by publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) of excreted endogenous estrogens and prescribed estrogens leads to their introduction into surface waters and potentially into drinking water sources that rely on surface water. Estrogens, specifically estrone (E1), 17β-estradiol (E2), estriol (E3), and ethinyl estradiol (EE2), have been detected in numerous studies of wastewater influents and effluents. (Several links to the studies of the levels of estrogen in waste water are then provided after this quote).

This study in 2009 concluded that kids are exposed to more estrogen in milk and food than water, so it shouldn't be a problem to worry about. However, at least imo, it never looked at overall levels of estrogen intake increasing from all combined sources as water has certainly added to it at least marginally.

So that's all to say, I'm not 100% behind this being all true, just that there's actually quite a bit of valid scientific studies that have proven there's now more estrogen in our drinking and waste water that seems to be at least corolated to our medical use of it.