Games TOO EXPENSIVE to Succeed?

So the studios should just scale back on unimportant things. I mean, Assassin's Creed Syndicate was kind of scaled back from Unity in a few ways, such as having fewer character models on screen at any given time. Seriously, games that aim for art styles like most Nintendo games, age much better then games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty. Those games basically look old within a few years of release.

When will we see the sequel to 

BURNIE TEACHES MICA TO RIDE A BIKE?

How about 

MICA RIDES 2: The IceCreamSammich HEB Run

Maybe with a cameo of The Mad King 

demanding a personal side quest by Mica for some LittleDebbies

I'm not a big fan of Cliffy B, he seems like a bit of a twat to me but he is right about one thing for sure, Singularity was a great game and not enough people played it.

I found that too with how AAA games aren't as good as they use to be.  

So I don't play them as often.  I found I have been playing games that don't cost as much but are still fun to play,  Since AAA games aren't giving me the most bang for my buck in terms of how much enjoyment I get out of them I had to find games that do.

It's funny how some devs are saying that they can't make a decent game with lackluster budget, yet some of the most amazing games to have ever existed, became legends due to the fact that the devs took the time and effort to actually make a great game. CD Project Red's Witcher Series. Blizzard's Overwatch, Warcraft, Starcraft series. Rockstar's GTA and Red dead Series, or almost every freaking Nintendo game. I can go on but these few devs are pretty much what other devs should try and aim for. 

Not the typical Activision's COD yearly BS or Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed games. These are the guys who make a game meh, either cut content or charge overpriced DLC, yet dump so much into marketing that no wonder the budget skyrockets and sales aren't expected. Don't blame your greediness and lack of consumer awareness on us. You want your game to be good and sell? Stop being fcking lazy, stop screwing your customers over, and start actually giving a fcking damn about your projects. Otherwise, you'll end up with shit like No Man's Sky and Mass Effect Andromeda.

*drops mic*

I think the counterpoint is that, for most people, there's only so much game they will play. How many people play more than sixty or seventy hours of something like Skyrim, tops? I suspect there will come a point where we hit 'peak content', so to speak; a limit beyond which adding more time-consuming things to a game will not be worth the development time to do so, and, as tools for making games improve, time and resources required to create a game will plateau. 

I think we need to face the fact that it's time for games to go up in price. It's been like 15 years. Instead of a $35 season pass maybe a quarter of people will buy, just make bigger games like Zelda and Horizon and Persona and Final Fantasy $70. Then again, the short games that DON'T have 100 hours of content like Fifa, Madden, and CoD would still follow the trend and charge the same price for a fifth of the content.

I think that it's wrong to say "promptly" went back to WW2 for the next iteration of Call of Duty. I'm pretty sure that it's been in development for 2 years at this point so it's been planned for a while. Even though Infinite Warfare didn't do as well as Activision had hoped, I don't believe it has any bearing on what the next game was going to be. You guys should've known this already because you've commented on game development before and you've explained, in this same video, how games take several years to make so to turn around in 1 year and produce a full fledged AAA game because of a poorly received yearly installment is impossible. That's about the only gripe I have with this update.