Which doesn't mean they aren't necessary conditions. It just means they aren't sufficient conditions. A game needs other things too, one of which may be luck, and others of which may be incompatible with the private equity model.
Luck. Word of mouth. Anyway, things you can't control (and can barely influence) as a developer/publisher. So, we face the notion that, perhaps, if we want people to take the risk of creating and sustaining a business for reasons other than simple profit (say, to provide a needed or pleasant service), the proposition might need to be better than, "Succeed or die (sometimes literally)." Because none of it's a sure thing, and it can't be, but sane people generally aren't going to bet their life or livelihood on a risky venture (assuming that irrational passion is a form of insanity).
I understand why you think that, because when I started out making video games I thought the same thing. The reason why is that if I had heard of a video game in a review or recommendation it sold really well, but if I tried a game at random it was usually terrible. That is because there are thousands of games and most that aren't that good.
The other thing that happens is you point out a really good game and then someone will say, yeah but that's not a good game because of the art style or it's too similar to something else etc. Everyone can always come up with a quality reason why a game didn't sell. Someone has a reason not to like every game ever made. The problem with that is you can come up with the same complaints for well reviewed games. Often the review will say something like : this has been done before, or that style is a little annoying, but.. it's a great game.
Final nail in the coffin of this theory for me is having talked to many game review editors and having worked with a few, they will often tell you that they don't always expect to shape opinion as much as parrot it back. As one person used to tell me, most people read our reviews to validate their purchase or get our take on what they are playing.
And then to your challenge. Good games that didn't succeed. How about Midnight Suns, Lock's Quest, Space Marine, Company of Heroes II, Maquette.. that's just off the top of my head. If I thought about it I could make a really long list of game you've never hear of. This is probably the same for everything: music, novels, etc.
They make extremely niche RPGs that routinely rate >90% in positive reviews on Steam and they've never had an actual hit. Pretty much the definition of cult classics.
I don't think you're thinking of this in the right way. Crafting media and creative products of all kinds is like playing poker. You can go all in or you can make little bets where you think you can win.
You're making the assumption that the way to win is to GO ALL IN.
When in reality whether you're making AAA games or a small indie digital artist like Darius Kazemi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw
(Went to high school with him. Amazing guy. His senior project in the electronics lab was a teddy bear that could detect seizures.)
I think Stardew filled a niche that wasn't being catered to. There were no Farm Sims that weren't a cash grab released since Farmville. Stardew caught all the people who remembered Harvest Moon fondly.
The thing is, there's no VP of Timing. There's also no VP of Luck. These factors are ignored because there's no one to champion them. Yet they are very real.
Unsuccessful Product !== Bad Product or Bad Marketing
Which doesn't mean they aren't necessary conditions. It just means they aren't sufficient conditions. A game needs other things too, one of which may be luck, and others of which may be incompatible with the private equity model.
Bit of a rant:
Luck. Word of mouth. Anyway, things you can't control (and can barely influence) as a developer/publisher. So, we face the notion that, perhaps, if we want people to take the risk of creating and sustaining a business for reasons other than simple profit (say, to provide a needed or pleasant service), the proposition might need to be better than, "Succeed or die (sometimes literally)." Because none of it's a sure thing, and it can't be, but sane people generally aren't going to bet their life or livelihood on a risky venture (assuming that irrational passion is a form of insanity).
I'm not convinced that is actually true. Can you think of an example? A game that has near universally good reviews but is not successful?
I understand why you think that, because when I started out making video games I thought the same thing. The reason why is that if I had heard of a video game in a review or recommendation it sold really well, but if I tried a game at random it was usually terrible. That is because there are thousands of games and most that aren't that good.
The other thing that happens is you point out a really good game and then someone will say, yeah but that's not a good game because of the art style or it's too similar to something else etc. Everyone can always come up with a quality reason why a game didn't sell. Someone has a reason not to like every game ever made. The problem with that is you can come up with the same complaints for well reviewed games. Often the review will say something like : this has been done before, or that style is a little annoying, but.. it's a great game.
Final nail in the coffin of this theory for me is having talked to many game review editors and having worked with a few, they will often tell you that they don't always expect to shape opinion as much as parrot it back. As one person used to tell me, most people read our reviews to validate their purchase or get our take on what they are playing.
And then to your challenge. Good games that didn't succeed. How about Midnight Suns, Lock's Quest, Space Marine, Company of Heroes II, Maquette.. that's just off the top of my head. If I thought about it I could make a really long list of game you've never hear of. This is probably the same for everything: music, novels, etc.
I can give you an entire studio: https://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/
They make extremely niche RPGs that routinely rate >90% in positive reviews on Steam and they've never had an actual hit. Pretty much the definition of cult classics.
I don't think you're thinking of this in the right way. Crafting media and creative products of all kinds is like playing poker. You can go all in or you can make little bets where you think you can win.
You're making the assumption that the way to win is to GO ALL IN.
When in reality whether you're making AAA games or a small indie digital artist like Darius Kazemi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw (Went to high school with him. Amazing guy. His senior project in the electronics lab was a teddy bear that could detect seizures.)
You are just buying lottery tickets.
Arguably the best game of 2023, Alan Wake 2: https://wccftech.com/alan-wake-ii-recoup-expenses-tencent
Hard to argue that game was not successful. It was merely expensive to produce.
That's easy dude.
System Shock 2
Psychonauts
Shenmue
Okami
Conkers bad fur day
I think Stardew filled a niche that wasn't being catered to. There were no Farm Sims that weren't a cash grab released since Farmville. Stardew caught all the people who remembered Harvest Moon fondly.
Harvest moon was actively releasing games at that time
Yeah, but they were shit.
Sometimes it's just timing and/or luck. Think of some TV show that was big say 10 years ago, would it do the same today? Maybe. Maybe not.
Product + Marketing + Timing + Luck = Maybe Successful
The thing is, there's no VP of Timing. There's also no VP of Luck. These factors are ignored because there's no one to champion them. Yet they are very real.
Unsuccessful Product !== Bad Product or Bad Marketing