The rule of a decade?

[Wyatt_Derp]

Most MMA fighters have a good decade in them unless they started at 35. Creativity and avoiding being figured out starts to fade at around that point, and this can happen to guys still in their late 20's who are physically at their best and even most skilled, but their subtle telegraphs and patterns are exposed and they can't rewire themselves fast or consistently enough to keep up.

Video games, like combat sports, have an artistic element. The most noble artists know how to stretch out their allotted creativity decade over 30+ years instead of burning out. We haven't gotten them yet.

You can apply to that many things. Music, for example. How many bands do you listen to that have been together for 30+ years and are still cranking out shit that's as good as when they debuted long ago? Yeah, there's outliers here and there, but for the most part everything gets ripped apart by entropy sooner or later. Lightning can occasionally be bottled, but it rarely strikes in the same place long enough to make a bottled lightning factory.

And to make matters worse, we're living in an age when choices are many and consumer tastes are as fickle as they have ever been. Before you're even ready to market something that you think hits the zeitgeist, ppl are already onto something else. Human desire is rapidly exceeding human capability. Plus, the law of diminishing returns cannot be ignored.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

You're wrong here. Unless you think id being a subsidiary now means we shouldn't count their newer games for some reason. Both Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal were hugely successful. In fact, Eternal is the biggest seller they've ever had.

It does not change the fact Doom 2016 was restarted multiple times and released way over budget and way over schedule. In 12 years after Doom 3 id only managed to release 2 games: Rage and nuDoom. He knows how long it would take if they were not required by Bethesda.

Someone doesn't remember Doom RPG. For a bit that seemed to become John Carmack's pet project; he got very into the idea of making a good mobile game from the sound of it. Actually a little surprised he (or just id) never made a big console or PC version since DOOM RPG was kind of a big deal for a moment.

I'd guess if they hadn't been bought up by ZeniMax before Rage came out they'd of done more stuff. They also seemed to have some publishing deal with Activision where third parties were developing games for series id owned liked Quake and Wolfenstein.

 

[Arbiter]

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

You're wrong here. Unless you think id being a subsidiary now means we shouldn't count their newer games for some reason. Both Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal were hugely successful. In fact, Eternal is the biggest seller they've ever had.

It does not change the fact Doom 2016 was restarted multiple times and released way over budget and way over schedule. In 12 years after Doom 3 id only managed to release 2 games: Rage and nuDoom. He knows how long it would take if they were not required by Bethesda.

The point is that you were blantantly wrong in claiming that Doom 3 was their last successful game.

They only managed to release anything with new decisions makers installed, an influx of new capital and the last of the founders, JC, being pushed out of the company. Whether nuDooms are great games is also debatable.

This is as if CDP was acquired by Microsoft, founders pushed out, projects restarted and then a good Witcher 4 game released 12 years after Witcher 3 and its expansions - it would not change the fact that CDP declined rapidly after Witcher 3.

 

[JDR13]

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

You're wrong here. Unless you think id being a subsidiary now means we shouldn't count their newer games for some reason. Both Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal were hugely successful. In fact, Eternal is the biggest seller they've ever had.

It does not change the fact Doom 2016 was restarted multiple times and released way over budget and way over schedule. In 12 years after Doom 3 id only managed to release 2 games: Rage and nuDoom. He knows how long it would take if they were not required by Bethesda.

The point is that you were blantantly wrong in claiming that Doom 3 was their last successful game.

They only managed to release anything with new decisions makers installed, an influx of new capital and the last of the founders, JC, being pushed out of the company. Whether nuDooms are great games is also debatable.

This is as if CDP was acquired by Microsoft, founders pushed out, projects restarted and then a good Witcher 4 game released 12 years after Witcher 3 and its expansions - it would not change the fact that CDP declined rapidly after Witcher 3.

No one said anything about the games being great. You said "successful". Now all you're doing is rationalizing. Is it that difficult to admit that you were wrong?

 

[Arbiter]

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

You're wrong here. Unless you think id being a subsidiary now means we shouldn't count their newer games for some reason. Both Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal were hugely successful. In fact, Eternal is the biggest seller they've ever had.

It does not change the fact Doom 2016 was restarted multiple times and released way over budget and way over schedule. In 12 years after Doom 3 id only managed to release 2 games: Rage and nuDoom. He knows how long it would take if they were not required by Bethesda.

The point is that you were blantantly wrong in claiming that Doom 3 was their last successful game.

They only managed to release anything with new decisions makers installed, an influx of new capital and the last of the founders, JC, being pushed out of the company. Whether nuDooms are great games is also debatable.

This is as if CDP was acquired by Microsoft, founders pushed out, projects restarted and then a good Witcher 4 game released 12 years after Witcher 3 and its expansions - it would not change the fact that CDP declined rapidly after Witcher 3.

No one said anything about the games being great. You said "successful". Now all you're doing is rationalizing. Is it that difficult to admit that you were wrong?

If a previously successful company requires ownership change to produce anything worthwhile after years of delays, then yes, I consider that a failure. If a company that created the 3D engine market loses it to a new competitor in just several years, that is a failure too in my book.

 

[J1M]

I was thinking this after watching Vogal's gay promo for Queen's Wish 2. Gone is his desire to make great games, instead we have a sales pitch about a Fallout 4 wannabee clone which he's making to purely make bank.

How is Queen's Wish 2 like Fallout 4? Just curious. I haven't watched the promo myself.

Also, when did Vogel ever make great games?

Exile 3 is his magnum opus and belongs on the usual lists you see around here.

 

[JDR13]

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

You're wrong here. Unless you think id being a subsidiary now means we shouldn't count their newer games for some reason. Both Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal were hugely successful. In fact, Eternal is the biggest seller they've ever had.

It does not change the fact Doom 2016 was restarted multiple times and released way over budget and way over schedule. In 12 years after Doom 3 id only managed to release 2 games: Rage and nuDoom. He knows how long it would take if they were not required by Bethesda.

The point is that you were blantantly wrong in claiming that Doom 3 was their last successful game.

They only managed to release anything with new decisions makers installed, an influx of new capital and the last of the founders, JC, being pushed out of the company. Whether nuDooms are great games is also debatable.

This is as if CDP was acquired by Microsoft, founders pushed out, projects restarted and then a good Witcher 4 game released 12 years after Witcher 3 and its expansions - it would not change the fact that CDP declined rapidly after Witcher 3.

No one said anything about the games being great. You said "successful". Now all you're doing is rationalizing. Is it that difficult to admit that you were wrong?

If a previously successful company requires ownership change to produce anything worthwhile after years of delays, then yes, I consider that a failure. If a company that created the 3D engine market loses it to a new competitor in just several years, that is a failure too in my book.

You must have a lot of failures in your book if those are the only prerequisites. id might be seen as having declined for a period of time, but they're just as successful now as they've ever been.

 

[Arbiter]

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

You're wrong here. Unless you think id being a subsidiary now means we shouldn't count their newer games for some reason. Both Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal were hugely successful. In fact, Eternal is the biggest seller they've ever had.

It does not change the fact Doom 2016 was restarted multiple times and released way over budget and way over schedule. In 12 years after Doom 3 id only managed to release 2 games: Rage and nuDoom. He knows how long it would take if they were not required by Bethesda.

The point is that you were blantantly wrong in claiming that Doom 3 was their last successful game.

They only managed to release anything with new decisions makers installed, an influx of new capital and the last of the founders, JC, being pushed out of the company. Whether nuDooms are great games is also debatable.

This is as if CDP was acquired by Microsoft, founders pushed out, projects restarted and then a good Witcher 4 game released 12 years after Witcher 3 and its expansions - it would not change the fact that CDP declined rapidly after Witcher 3.

No one said anything about the games being great. You said "successful". Now all you're doing is rationalizing. Is it that difficult to admit that you were wrong?

If a previously successful company requires ownership change to produce anything worthwhile after years of delays, then yes, I consider that a failure. If a company that created the 3D engine market loses it to a new competitor in just several years, that is a failure too in my book.

You must have a lot of failures in your book if those are the only prerequisites. id might be seen as having declined for a period of time, but they're just as successful now as they've ever been.

The decline happened after a decade, however, and the company had to change hands before problems could be addressed. The 3D engine market share was never regained.

If Blizzard releases Diablo 4, WarCraft 4 and StarCraft 3 over next few years and those games are considered the greatest things since sliced bread, it won' t change the fact that Blizzard has been declining since late 2000s, even if after 15 years they manage to reverse the trend.

 

[JDR13]

The decline happened after a decade, however, and the company had to change hands before problems could be addressed. The 3D engine market share was never regained.

If Blizzard releases Diablo 4, WarCraft 4 and StarCraft 3 over next few years and those games are considered the greatest things since sliced bread, it won' t change the fact that Blizzard has been declining since late 2000s, even if after 15 years they manage to reverse the trend.

Actually, there's no evidence that the company changing hands had anything to do with their following releases.

As for the decade thing, sure, you can say they went through a period of decline. In their case however, they've rebounded to obtain their previous level of success if not more.

 

[Bad Sector]

If a company that created the 3D engine market loses it to a new competitor in just several years, that is a failure too in my book.

Carmack was never really interested in engine licensing (if anything he wanted to give out his tech for free), it is something the other founders were egging him on and as he was gaining more control over the company over the years, he stopped bothering with it - and licensees never really got much from id aside from source code dumps and a day to talk with Carmack.

Meanwhile Sweeney saw engine licensing as an important source of income (especially during the earlier days of Unreal's development when they barely had any) and invested in tools, documentation, engine extensibility and licensees got continued support and builds from Epic.

 

[Rincewind]

You can apply to that many things. Music, for example. How many bands do you listen to that have been together for 30+ years and are still cranking out shit that's as good as when they debuted long ago? Yeah, there's outliers here and there, but for the most part everything gets ripped apart by entropy sooner or later. Lightning can occasionally be bottled, but it rarely strikes in the same place long enough to make a bottled lightning factory.

That's 100% it, and I almost made a very similar comment but then didn't bother... I can observe it in myself; I just don't have the same creativity, energy, passion, etc. after 40 that I had when I was in my twenties. All things grow, prosper, plateau, then die.

Virtually all the bands I like from the 80s had a circa 5-10 year period when they were at their absolute peak. They made all their landmark albums during that period, and after that it's just a looooooooong decline and capitalising on successes of the past for the next 20-30 years until they finally retire. I don't see why any other human endeavour involving creativity would be different.

Einstein also said: "A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so." I remember seeing some stats to back this up.

There's always outliers, of course, such as Miguel de Cervantes who wrote Don Quixote quite late in his life in his fifties, and that's pretty much his first and last significant contribution to world literature.

 

[luj1]

If you look at the history of game developers, it is easy to notice that many tier 1 companies experienced what you could describe as a golden decade and after that turned into mediocre companies milking their past successes. Examples:

Blizzard - the first largely successful game was WarCraft 2 (1995). After that everything that Blizzard built turned into gold, until the success of WoW (2004) and its early expansions. Blizzard started to decline rapidly with the releases of WotLK and Catalysm. I do not think I need to comment on the current state of affairs.

id Software - Wolfesntein 3D (1992) put them on the radar and Doom (1993) elevated them to the status of masters of the FPS genre (no pun intended). Quake series was also great. The last successful release from id was Doom 3 (2004), which sold well, though it was not universally praised at that time (I personally enjoyed that game). Rage was a disappointment and next Doom was in development hell for almost a decade, resulting in the company being sold.

Raven Software - once subcontractors of id Software, releasing clones of their games, they gained recognition with Heretic released in 1995. This was followed by a series of successful games, with RtCW being a highlight. Quake 4 in 2005 was a disapoointment, which, combined with failure of Wolfenstein 2009 resulted in Activision relegating Raven to the status of a DLC shop.

BioWare - BG was a smash hit in 1998, followed by great-to-decent releases. The last good old-school BioWare game is arguably DAO released in 2009.

Why do you think it happens? Do devs burn out after a decade or do owners of successful companies want to cash out as soon as possible?

very interesting

 

[RNGsus]

I think the rule can be applied to rpg forums as well.

 

[Arbiter]

I think the rule can be applied to rpg forums as well.

Are you referring to RPGWatch?

 

[J1M]

I think the rule can be applied to rpg forums as well.

Are you referring to RPGWatch?

We used to argue about square vs. hex grids. Now people argue about Fallout 3 and 4.

 

[RNGsus]

Why would anybody argue for squares?

 

[Denim Destroyer]

Why would anybody argue for squares?

I use to argue for squares but that was when my only hex experience came from Fallout 1 which had a poor orientation of the grid.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Why would anybody argue for squares?

because offset squares have all the advantages of hex

 

[Jutsun]

There are a lot of companies, so there are some that fit this kind of story and others that won't. I think that the biggest takeaway of these cases is that staying on top in an industry that is constantly changing and this competitive is very complicated. Although it's true that some of these companies ended this way because of their own actions and not because of the market or the competition.