"Let's just all make Clair Obscur/Minecraft/Blue Prince" is not a repeatable strategy (every indie dev is trying to make good games). How much did it cost to make the Beatles' albums? A piano, drums, a couple of guitars and salaries for 4 guys? Why don't the big studios today with all their money just hire another Beatles?
Same reason why Ubisoft isn't just making another Balatro. Industrializing culture isn't (yet?) a solved problem.
> How much did it cost to make the Beatles' albums? A piano, drums, a couple of guitars and salaries for 4 guys?
The Beatles did only take a few days to knock out each of their earliest LPs. However, per Wikipedia, "the group spent 700 hours on [Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]. The final cost [...] was approximately £25,000 (equivalent to £573,000 in 2023)."
So, actually, envelope-pushing cultural landmarks typically do require a lot of effort and money to complete.
On the other hand I'm kind of shocked that the big gaming studios never seem to be fast followers. It feels like we've been through multiple waves of Balatro-likes from indie developers already. Where is the Ubisoft Lethal Company or something? You'd think having a studio full of experienced developers with tons of tech they could hop on trends quickly. It seems like they think it's beneath them or something though. Or maybe they're just structurally incapable of moving quickly. It did take 11 years and like 4 redesigns to make Skull & Bones after all.
This is a conjencture, even if I do work in the industry but not AAA, but: Following the trends simply isn't part of their business model. Following current trends is a very unpredictable business. Many try, and many fail. AAA had the luxury of somewhat predictable sales. They can make big bets like working years on a game, since they know they will have millions of players. And they know smaller studios can't compete with them in that business.
But, of course, making games is hard, and sometimes they fail. And now the free tools are getting really good, and smaller studios are becoming increasingly competent. Will we soon see the big ones fall? Their only way to survive is to keep going bigger, escaping the smaller studios to a place they can't reach. Now we have AAAA games. But is there a limit where players stop caring how many As a game has?
The more people you add the slower you get, not faster. Large companies are nutorously slow moving (and particularly slow to change directions) vs small upstarts.
yeah, but at this point it's weird they just don't grab a studio, give them a funding for 2 years and say them 'copy the latest indie trends with a tad more polish' and let them cook to see what comes out.
They tried that, e.g. "EA Originals"[0] is basically that (there are similar programs at other major publishers). I suspect it proved to not be a big money maker at the scale required to move the needle at publishers of that size., and that they are keeping these on as a sort of prestige programs.
Your example is weird tbh. Gates was doing capitalist things that were evil. His philanthropy is good. There is no contradiction here. People can do good and bad things.
I feel that's overly easy to label someone else as lazy. Some people might be of course, but we dont have insight into their inner selves. And so we dont know ehat burdens they are carrying and grappling with currently.
What looks like laziness might actually be very prudent resource conservation if you know the whole story.
It's so difficult to explain this to people who have never been burnt out. It adds to the frustration and depression when people see you that way and don't recognize how much you've been grinding in your day job while working on something else or other. It's deeply demoralizing.
Because AI content is at minimum controversial nowadays. And if you are ok with lying about authorship then It is not further down the pole to embelish the lie a bit more
Freedom refers to a potentiality. You are conflating a potential (freedom) for a hoped-for benefit (highly competitive). A free market is a means towards a competitive market because it lowers the artificial barriers to entry into the market. Those barriers imposed by the universe simply are and while we can invest into R&D and education, market forces cannot change the laws of physics.
> A free market is a means towards a competitive market because it lowers the artificial barriers to entry into the market. Those barriers imposed by the universe simply are...
Are you talking about tariffs or about banning the sale of semiconductor equipment to China, so they can't compete in the market for high performance chips? Is that "a means towards a competitive market" or is it "barriers imposed by the universe"?
High barriers to entry have nothing to do with free markets.
>In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers.
> A free market does not directly require the existence of competition; however, it does require a framework that freely allows new market entrants. Hence, competition in a free market is a consequence of the conditions of a free market, including that market participants not be obstructed from following their profit motive.
The barriers to entry being referred to in the Wikipedia article are presumably government related. No government is stopping Intel or Samsung or any of the other chip makers from selling what TSMC sells, hence the “framework that freely allows new market entrants” is there.
And the subsequent paragraph seems to be exactly what is happening in the market of high end chips:
> Hence, competition in a free market is a consequence of the conditions of a free market, including that market participants not be obstructed from following their profit motive.
You don't see a discrepancy between your claim that free markets have nothing to do with high barriers to entry and your own link claiming free markets require free entrance to the market?
And no, it is not specifically referring to government related barriers, although those certainly count. Government is very often the thing that generates barriers to entry, but it is by no means the only barrier to entry. Any barrier to entry is, from a strict theoretical sense, a departure from a pure free market, although that's more in the "spherical cow" sense of the idea.
You are using "free market" as a political term. In that sense, it refers to little more than to the absence of unnecessary regulations.
Economics is more concerned about whether "free market" is a useful description of the system. If there is nothing in principle to prevent the emergence of new competition, but barriers to entry (e.g. availability of capital / talent / machinery / raw materials, long-term contracts, or the time required to set up a new business) make it difficult in practice, the system may not behave like a market. Then you need to focus more on politics, both between and within governments and companies, to understand how the system is actually working.
This is an overly simplistic view of what "free market" means in practice. The most obvious issue is that, in a free market economy, government protects private property, ensuring that any capitalistic definition of "free market" does, in fact, require government intervention into the expression of supply and demand.
And now that we've established that capitalism necessitates government intervention, capitalism is incompatible with such a simple definition of "free market." We can begin negotiating just how much government interference in the market is allowed before it's no longer a free market, but it's categorically impossible for a capitalistic free market to be pure expression of supply and demand.
I can throw another example /r/lectures was a really cool place were people shared mostly academic lectures. Mod took over, put the sub in approved posts only and is just doing token approves very rarely without any way to reclaim the sub.
