site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2532 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 19, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You wouldn't need to charge $60 for your game if you only needed to pay 3 salaries. And on the other side, there are lots of cheap indie games that are crap in comparison. Why can't all of the 3 people studios produce games of this quality?

I'm not in the industry so my impression might be off, but there's a few reasons I can think of:

  • Programming is hard. For as long as I remember there was some gray-suit asshole that tried to come up with a paradigm that would make it work like all other forms of engineering - you get one guy that sits at the drawing board for a while, you pay him relatively well, and when he's done you send off the blueprint to an army of worker ants, that get paid peanuts. This had several manifestations like trying to ship IT jobs to India, or trying to ship India into the west, I think now they're hoping they can hand it off to AI. For whatever reason this has always been a disaster. I can't explain why, there's just something whimsical about the entire field, that makes it resist cookie-cutter solutions, and ends up requiring talented people who are quick on their feet. It's actually counter-intuitive for me, I'd expect IRL engineering would be the thing that would keep falling flat on it's face, due to the inherent dirtiness of the physical realm, but somehow it's the opposite.
  • Programming games is even harder. All the things I said apply to your run-of-the-mill, boring-ass, web applications. Games are insanely complex systems where a tonne of stuff is interacting with a tonne of other stuff in unpredictable ways (and that's before the user input is taken into account), in real-time. Every paradigm that was invented to make the boring forms of software engineering a little bit more legible, go right out the window in game programming - at least if the code from games that ended up open sourced is any indication. This makes it even more resistant to standardization.
  • You know what else games need? Art. That other thing that doesn't go quite well with soulless, standardized, production pipelines.
  • You know what big organizations really like? Soulless, standardized, production pipelines. This one is the actual core of your question, and I now realize I don't actually have a good answer. Why? I don't know, but companies will literally eat massive costs if it buys them a sliver of predictability. In theory it should make no difference, if you have a lot of money, you can just throw it on thousands of creators, and more than make up for the money with the few good hits you get. Maybe it's because the good ones start acting like divas? Once they make a name for themselves, you need them more than they need you. No self-respecting industrialist wants to be in that position, so they prefer to throw half a billion dollars at a game with a list of credits longer than a Holocaust memorial, and get a billion dollars back, and rely on a million mindless drones, than to get the same amount of profit for a fraction of the investment, and risk your drones getting uppity.
  • Why do all the other indies suck? Well, see all the "this shit is hard" points. Yeah, this one might have been made by 3 people, but I'll bet blindly that each of them is in the top <= 0.1% of their respective field. On top of that, finding 3 talented people is not enough. You need to find 3 talented people that get along well, and can work with each other.

For whatever reason this has always been a disaster. I can't explain why, there's just something whimsical about the entire field, that makes it resist cookie-cutter solutions, and ends up requiring talented people who are quick on their feet. It's actually counter-intuitive for me, I'd expect IRL engineering would be the thing that would keep falling flat on it's face, due to the inherent dirtiness of the physical realm, but somehow it's the opposite

I think it's the thing where, if you have a cookie cutter solution to a problem, that problem is now solved and your engineers should no longer be spending an appreciable amount of time on it. If you're a civil engineer, and you get really good at determining how to design supports for a bridge on certain kinds of soil, you can (I think) make a career out of it. If you're a software engineer, and you write substantially the same code more than twice, you have almost certainly done something wrong.

Yeah this is a good point. From a certain perspective, the computer takes the place of the grunt worker and does its job for free. Programmers are the guy at the drawing board designing something brand new, and then bam you copy/paste it to a million different people's computers across the internet without having to hire thousands of grunt workers to physically build a million copies in a factory. So we're comparing different levels across industries and then wondering why the hard to automate level (design) is hard to automate.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats