-5
How could Arc raiders be a failure after more than tripling it's budget? (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/gaming@lemmy.ml
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hey everyone.

This is an impromptu rant I made about wtf are we even talking about with success these days.

I was just browsing videos when I came acrossed a video from inside gaming.

I was kinda stunned by how badly the video was made, and how many points were either wrong, or just straight up insane.

Arc Raiders made at least $500,000,000 on a budget of $75 million. That's a wild success anywhere in the world, but since it wasnt an inginite CS2 level success it's called a failure multiple times.

How are we even measuring success anymore?

all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 10 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

So, don't take this the wrong way, but if the video is bad and many points are wrong or straight up insane, why are you sharing it and increasing the view count? That will just mean people want this content more so they will keep making this. Isn't this how these things work?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago

    I can see that, and if it was a small time creator I would agree.

    These particular people have been in and around the games industry for decades now.

    That's why it kinda blew me away in the first place hearing how much trash they were slinging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I measure success by how much I spent on a videogame, and how much time I spend playing it.

    idgaf how well the company does. I don't work for them. I only care about my own finances and my own entertainment.

    did I spend less then $30?

    did I have 15 or more hours of playtime?

    if both are yes, then its a success to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Fair enough!

    For me it's a bit harder personally.

    Having a 10 hour experience like the original last of us is still worth I'd say, $50 to me where it might not be to someone else.

    I have 600 hours in Arma 3 so the cost to dollar ratio is great, but I also definitely value a good story as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    if I used Arma or DayZ as the baseline for entertainment/dollar ratio, nothing would ever be considered fun hah, I should actually boot up DayZ or Arma, it's been a bit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • 5 comments in c/arc_raiders@jlai.lu view that post
    [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    we're so deep into capitalism that even journalism base their reports on numbers must go up

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Arc raiders isn’t a failure, it just ran its course. One disadvantage of the live service model is that the content updates made the game worse (and drives adults away from playing the game who can’t dedicate all their free time to playing a single game)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago

    Fair! . There's a reasonably decent update dropping soon, and as long as dev costs made sense and enough players show up, it'll continue to be a success.

    I could never stand the seasonal model of live service personally and I'm really happy to see it die..

    I don't share the view that so many seem to that going away from seasonal FOMO is some admission that your game is a failure.

    I think we should applaud different approaches at this point if they work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent