1384
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
1384 points (96.3% liked)
Games
32657 readers
1063 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm pretty sure EA and Activision-Blizzard have similar or bigger budgets for their AAA games and they either make shit or microtransactions-filled games.
2K is huge and they always make NBA2K decent/good but full of terrible microtransactions
Nintendo is huge and look at Pokemon Scarlet and Violet.
Reportedly, Wizards of the coast made around 1.3billion in revenue, while EA made around 7billion, and Activision-Blizzard made around 1.5billion.
I'm no financial expert so maybe I'm mistaken in some figure, but the bottom line is WotC is not the only big (and growing) company, so this are nothing but excuses.
Ok, but what does that have to do with addressing the dude who claims the game had no funding implying it had a small budget when it didn't?
He's not saying anything about the MTX or lack thereof; he's calling out the idiot saying BG3 had no funding.
What does my answer have to do with that? I'm answering the post that I actually commented on, which says the game is great because:
I'm saying others also have similar or bigger amounts of money and don't make a game like this.