318
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
318 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
14452 readers
935 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, within reason.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm curious though, viewing movies as investments has made a some studios filthy rich. Why does that seem to be different for games?
Why do they need to get filthy rich? Why not settle for rich and having a good game?
This is the problem with capitalism now. No one is happy making a good profit. They have to extract maximum profit by cutting everything else.
They absolutely don't. I'm just wondering why it works out financially for Marvel and Mission Impossible movies but not for games
Nevermind, I just remembered Call of Duty exists
Suppose this is why Marvel films just don't work for me. Like, I can appreciate the artistic talent that went into things, I can appreciate that they've got impressive budgets and teams working on it, but narratively they kind of suck.
Sat down and watched Antman with a friend recently. I liked the moments the main character had with his kid. I liked it when the step-dad showed equal care for the kid as the father, and them sort of resolving some of their differences in that moment. That was nice.
I'm still bothered by the whole "when you shrink you retain your mass, so you're essentially like a bullet" part, and how that concept got completely shit-canned for the rest of the film. You can't just punt an ant-sized object weighing 90 kg, yet I think there was a moment where he literally got flicked away. Why even bother with some scientific-sounding BS if you're not going to adhere to it?
Guess you're just not supposed to think about it. But then, what is the point? I don't read books to not think, I read books to experience something new, and have something to think about. Film works the same way for me.
Movies have a bigger audience, require less time commitment, are heavily marketed, and cost less to see. Easier to convince people to see a so-so movie as long as it has a couple of good scenes. Harder to do with games, and gamers are usually at least somewhat more aware of games before they buy them.
Because filthy rich is more attractive for capital.
On a movie set, the director has a huge amount of authority. It's been baked into the culture for about a hundred years that the director is one step below God. A studio treats films as investments, but they also hire a director and (mostly) get out of the way. Sure, producers do meddle, but it's nowhere close to the same amount as with games -- and all the meddling is still pointed at the director, not the crew. I think this limits the damage that can be done.
Also, the film industry has strong unions. Most of the abuses in game dev simply aren't allowed. I suspect that the horrible culture of game dev can cause developers to stop caring, which bleeds through to the final product, and that won't happen to the same extent for movies.
"Popcorn movies" are a big thing, and most of those big investments are these. They're "turn off you brain for two hours and chill" events. A game, even the most chill ones, almost always last much longer and require more engagement. That is the defining trait of the medium. If you can totally turn your brain off then you didn't make a game, you made an expensive movie. Games, for players, are an investment. Movies often aren't.
Even then, turn your brain off and chill only fits a certain market segment. Sure, it's a large market segment, just look at how popular the Marvel films are, but it's not the entire market, and just like with gaming when something truly compelling comes along it tends to shake things up a bit.
Might be because you're not just spending 2-3 hours with games, but >30h, often hundreds or even thousands of hours. Making that a compelling experience that people don't quickly get tired of is much harder.
It's not. Plenty of game franchises are similarly profitable.