260°

Paradox Interactive Cancels Several Unannounced Games As It Shifts Focus to "its proven game niches"

From GameWatcher: "Publisher Paradox Interactive has announced its decision to cancel several unannounced games, as it shifts focus towards "its proven game niches and projects that better meet the company’s requirements on returns and risk."

The company has written down the value of these canceled projects, which will impact its Q3 2021 profit before tax with a decrease of 135 MSEK, roughly the equivalent of $5 million dollars. As previous financial reports show, Paradox Interactive has canceled other unannounced games over the course of the last year, amounting to a total of 265 MSEK in write-offs."

Read Full Story >>
gamewatcher.com
Darkborn961d ago

And this is a big problem in the gaming market. It's hard to innovate and try new things because the numbers show battle Royale and micro transactions sell. That's why GTA 6 isn't even announced yet. The same thing was done with epic when fortnite was found out to be successful. I actually played the save the world version before the battle Royale launched and like it as well as paragon. Both those were scrapped and another game or two once they saw the successful launch of the battle Royale.

PrinceAli961d ago

This is a GROSS over simplification and completely ignores the reality of the video games market from the perspective of the Devs and publishers! Video game development is all about scope and scale, the fact is Devs and Publishers aren't interested in making money they're only interested in making ALL the money so making millions ISN'T enough they want to make 10s if not 100s of millions from the product.
Th e games industry has shifted away from the 90s and 2000s era of development where studios were absolutely ecstatic to sell in the 100s of thousands and break into the past 1 million sold milestone which automaticlaly made the game an incredible success! Now games need to sell multiple millions and even when they do it still falls short of the expected sales target! Its sort of how the movie industry has become due to the success of the MCU, movies are ALL looking to break that 1 billion mark and use that as the target for success which is just the stupidest thing ever!

monkey602961d ago

Absolutely correct.

1 title launching and becoming a success is no good to the producers if it doesn't effect the studios fiscal year earnings enough.
Theres no reason to celebrate the financial profit of a game if it hasn't grossly increased the years earnings over prior years. This is better suited to low production costs with live service income.

This kills smaller projects because their profit to production ratios just aren't appealing enough to investors. Big money isn't enough, it needs to be all the money.

Activision are a disgusting example of this. Despite all the success of the titles they've released over the last fews years. Each one pulling in a profit, they still hit their studios with massive layoffs and closures because they wanted to protect that annual financial gain. Or the perception of it at least.

NeoGamer232961d ago (Edited 961d ago )

Your post also has problems.

Investors in publishers and developers are the ones driving the trends. Investors want the largest return possible. Therefore the developers and publishers they invest in only consider the ideas that are going to make them the money they are looking for.

Like it or not, AAA games are expensive to make. If an investor says, "I want a billion dollar idea" then that's what the developers and publishers will try to build in the least risky way possible.

I am sure that if you were to talk to most development studios and publishers they want creative and unique game experiences. The problem is convincing investors that these creative and unique ideas will yield the revenue and profit they are looking for.

Most publishers are publicly traded or are owned by an investment firm. They are accountable to make money for the investors. This is the root problem. When games weren't such big money and didn't require 100's of millions to build, the world was a lot simpler. But, now big games require big money to build and the investors don't give that for free.

Darkborn961d ago

And why are you being mad at me? I basically explained that in less words. People saw the way of money and followed that trend. Look at GTA 5, that game has made so much money it deterred them from making single player dlc and a new game. Look at rdr2 that followed the same formula and only got multiplayer stuff like GTA 5. Fortnite is all multiplayer now. Look at batttlefield 2042, only multiplayer with skins and dlc packs. This is the problem I was speaking of. It's simply hard for devs to explain to execs that there game will sell well and make tons of profit because it won't. Or at least not as much as a huge multiplayer component will that has the same formula.

GhostofHorizon961d ago

Somebody picked up Paragon and they are bringing it back under a new name - Predecessor.

TheColbertinator961d ago

Paradox does have the right to abandon uncertain gaming projects and sticking to the more profitable IPs as it seems fit.

However I found Paradox to be a unique publisher because it created experiences I could find nowhere else with such polish. Maybe those cancelled Paradox projects were more ambitious and interesting than most games out now.

Silly gameAr961d ago

Dude, I really like your troll post because they're funny as hell, but when you're being serious, you're right 99% of the time.

60°

Crossplay Will Be In College Football 25 But Not In Online Dynasty Mode

EA Sports dropped their first gameplay trailer for College Football 25 today and the game looks truly amazing. Buried in the details of the game hype, however, is a significant letdown for those who play online dynasty (a significant portion of the userbase).

Read Full Story >>
collegefootball.gg
420°

Resident Evil 1 Remake To Have Slower Pace; Will Further Expand On The Game's Lore

Many details for the upcoming rumored Resident Evil 1 remake have already leaked online. Capcom appears to have huge ambitions for it.

XiNatsuDragnel18h ago

Sounds interesting I'll be interested in the second remake of re1

Cacabunga18h ago

They game cube remake was mind blowing.. another remake would be nice but i was really hoping for Code Veronica first

-Foxtrot17h ago

If it's true they are probably leading up to RE5 with the Chris vs Wesker story

RE1, CV and then RE5

Terry_B16h ago

Their REmake is still one of the best 3 video game remakes ever made.

Cacabunga15h ago

Terry

Zero was not a remake but an amazing game as well. I hope they remake that one one day with some coop play.. great great game

maelstromb11h ago

The whole Lisa Trevor side-story was an incredible addition and really fleshed out more of the lore. It could have easily felt tacked on to artificially extend the length of the game, but it felt 'right' like it should have been in there from the beginning. I'm hoping they include that in the Re-remake.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 11h ago
fsfsxii18h ago

Cant wait until they cut the basement section and replace it with something worse.

Becuzisaid18h ago

While I want another modern remake of 1, I think code Veronica should be first. The first re1 remake holds up amazingly well. Give CV it's due.

Scissorman18h ago

As long as the Crimson Heads are back.

Nerdmaster5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

I hope they don't. They were created mainly to justify Wesker not really dying, and they do create more tension, but they don't make much sense.
Re-reviving things that were twice dead? Why would the virus stop there and not keep reviving them forever (until the head gets destroyed)?
And also the characters knowing that destroying their heads keep them from becoming crimson heads, while having a combat knife and lots of heavy objects around to do it while they're down, but having to rely on lucky shots or burning them with oil?
They can create other stuff that serves the same purpose of creating tension but that makes more sense.

Levii_9217h ago

Come on State of Play already!!!

Show all comments (34)
60°

Call Of Duty On Game Pass Is A Big Risk Big Reward Gamble

Discover the impact of Microsoft's decision to include Call Of Duty in Game Pass. Explore the pros and cons and speculate about future changes.

Read Full Story >>
gamersocialclub.ca
Elda9h ago

Most folks that have a Gamepass subscription will not spend the $70, they will use Gamepass instead to play COD. MS will most likely make their money from some solely PC players & some solely PS5 owners. Even some PC players may opt to use Gamepass instead of spending $70. I would think MS would want to make every dime they could from retail sales. As long as they put new releases of COD day one on Gamepass, MS will lose out on some sales of COD.

porkChop7h ago

COD makes truck loads of money on microtransactions. That's likely the play. Get more people in the door through Game Pass and sell more microtransactions. Have a steady stream of events to keep people interested so they keep their sub, and then just the sub alone would double the revenue from that player each year.

Elda4h ago(Edited 3h ago)

Buying the game at $70 a pop including the deluxe versions is much better than people subs for a dollar to $15 a month. Die hard fans that usually buy the game also buy into the transactions. Again putting any new COD day one on Gamepass is definitely a sure loss of making some retail money for every copy of COD. With the last iteration of COD being bad most likely people are going to sub to Gamepass to play COD basically saving themselves $70, that is a loss of retail sales.

Kakashi Hatake7h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Most that don't have Gamepass will just buy the game and he done with it. People that do will just result in a retail sale being lost. Some will buy the subscription for the month then be done. This is lose lose. Casuals aren't going to pay almost 300 dollars a year for COD.

ApocalypseShadow4h ago

The reality is that Microsoft already knows the answer as stated by them in their documents. PlayStation gamers have built up an ecosystem of games and they aren't migrating over and dropping what they have to buy an Xbox to play one game in a service you have to pay monthly for. Cheaper to just buy the game. And, I'd bet many casual COD players don't know or care about the acquisition.

Which is why Jim Ryan pushed to make sure that that one game continues to be sold as usual on Sony's platform to keep the status quo. Every other IP owned by Activision are worthless. And Activision has shown they don't care about other IP like Tony Hawk by cancelling them.

Sales WILL be lost on Xbox. That's for certain. Microsoft can only hope that Xbox gamers continue to buy up those micro transactions to make up for those lost sales. Only positive for Microsoft is that they get to dip into PlayStation game sales that we all know from history and NPD, that Sony's console sells more games. But increase subs from Sony fans for game pass? Not happening in any way that matters.

Sony, on the other hand, can have their cake and eat it too. They get COD and they can continue dropping more content for their fastest selling GaaS game which is Hell Divers 2. As the game passes 12 million sales and doesn't beat you over the head with micro transactions, Sony has a win win situation and can support the game getting more content to keep players engaged.

As a side note, COD is probably going to turn into some version of Sea of Fortnite Duty. Games as a service sitting in game pass being milked dry with micro transactions and constant updates making you feel you're playing an unfinished game that keeps going and going with no soul.

Tedakin3h ago

I'm not sure why everyone is acting like COD is a surprise. That was always the plan. They said in court during the FTC case they were doing this. They have said repeatedly and recently all first party games are going to Gamepass.