36. Cross-Pollination: A Potential Solution for the AAA and Live Service Game Industry
Discussion about cross-pollination and how it could improve from structural point of view solving the issues we're facing currently in the game industry.
The game industry is at a crossroads. AAA and live service games are facing increasing challenges in capturing and retaining players, as competition has intensified and UGC platforms continue to dominate players' time.
While some suggest AA games as a potential industry-saving idea, I believe they act more like a painkiller rather than addressing the core structural issues that have led to stagnation in innovation (among many other things) in building sustainable games and businesses.
Note: This is an analytical and constructive article. My intentions here are good, and I’m not pointing my finger towards any parties with this. I’ve been also personally in the past blind to some of these things, because of my brainpower and attention has been focusing into different things. And, I think, there’s nothing wrong in that — it’s how we operate as humans. These points said, this article should be taken in and read as “educational material”, with own best judgement in taking it as “educational”, that has good intentions in giving a new fresh view for building games in better ways — on top of which, I’m hoping this article gives everyone an optional way for building smarter and sustainable businesses.
The Problem: Stagnation in Game Development
Many games are being developed with significant budgets, yet the fundamental approach to creating them has not evolved smart enough. The industry has reached this point through past milestones of innovation and industry-shaping shifts, but it now seems that the momentum for refreshing game development formulas and/or structures has slowed down.
The reason? I think one part of it is within the lack of cross-pollination — a failure to bring in new perspectives, fresh insights, and (domain / facilitator) expertise from broader disciplines and segments to inform and evolve game creation — to reach sustainability and making games properly targeted to smart opportunities in terms of positioning strategy, audience understanding, and knowing how you could shine over competitors.
The Issue of Small Worldview Perception
A key underlying issue is that many studios, particularly in AAA and live service game development, operate (or are led by) with a small worldview perception (again, this article is constructive and comes with greatest good intentions). This means that teams are often structured in ways that “limit” their ability to introduce truly innovative thinking. Whether it’s leadership stuck in old-styled development cycles, teams lacking diversity in perceiving the world through larger views, and/or rigid production processes that don't allow for bold experimentation, the industry has found itself unable to break free from a reliance on predictable formulas.
At the same time, shifts in consumer behavior, economy, and neuroeconomics —driven by factors such as social media (incl. how everything is short, instant, AI / bots driven, etc.), recent pandemic, economic landscape’s changes, political shifts, changing attention spans, and evolving entertainment consumption habits — have changed the way people engage with entertainment and how they perceive games in this sense in their daily lives. On top of that we’ve seen macro-level changes caused by platforms (e.g., IDFA changes), legislation changes, and such. These things, among many others, have compounded to more harder factors to properly navigate in — whilst there are still dynamical changes coming by AI, and many others.
Yet, many game studios have moved slow in adapting their structural thinking to reflect these changes. Constructively saying, I’ve been also blind in the past, when I’ve focused on running my own businesses, to some of these things and how they affect to things — and it’s totally okay; whilst I’m hoping that my thoughts and learnings on this topic would be used in operating businesses more smarter in the future.
Note: Interested to explore the topic of worldview perception more? Read my article about it here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/34-optimized-tribes-vs-sports-teams):
The Cross-Pollination Solution
One way (among many others) to rejuvenate the industry is through cross-pollination — integrating domain experts and facilitators with large worldview perceptions and/or proper expertise into AAA, AA, and live service game development (and vice versa, in terms of e.g., bringing AAA experts to mobile studios).
This means in particular:
Bringing in Experts from Other Domains: Scientists, behavioral economists, media strategists, and social network analysts can help game teams better understand modern player engagement, attention spans, and monetization models beyond the conventional frameworks.
Refreshing Competitive Positioning: Studios need to rethink their unique selling points (USPs) and value propositions beyond traditional gameplay loops and monetization mechanics. Innovation must stem from an informed understanding of e.g., emerging audience needs and competitive landscapes.
Adapting to New Consumer Behaviors: Understanding why players spend time on e.g., UGC platforms or why specific live service games succeed while others fail requires a broader perspective than simply following past industry trends.
Re-evaluating Structural Workflows: Some studios remain led or operated by small worldview teams, limiting the ability to pivot effectively in a rapidly changing market. Incorporating fresh perspectives allows for better structural decisions and adaptable business models — e.g., bringing in mobile games experts to AAA, AA, live service space, and vice versa.
Note: Interested of finding more ways to improve game development formula? Read my article about Future Principles and DNA for Sustainable Games here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/32-future-principles-and-dna-for):
Why Cross-Pollination is Necessary Now More Than Ever
The industry can no longer afford to stay within the confines of small worldview perspectives (again, this is constructive while it might be tough to realize). The broader shifts in entertainment consumption and player expectations require a deeper understanding of player psychology, cultural trends, and economic shifts.
By embracing cross-pollination, studios can break away from old patterns and instead adopt future-proofed methodologies that align with evolving player behaviors and market demands. This is not just about survival — it’s about positioning game development to thrive in an increasingly complex and competitive landscape.
Overall I believe there are just smarter ways for doing things, while I also acknowledge there are also many other methods — methods that just work properly already for many studios; so there are multiple truths. As a specific example, many studios still do really good and are able to scale still towards the future.
I'd say the most productive time of my life was when I was working at Wargaming. I was able to blast out complete econ/meta designs and business models in just a few months on titles like World of Tanks Blitz and World of Warships. It was hard work but it was so exciting to build such great games in short periods of time that I felt energized by the work.
But I was working directly under "Serb", one of the original founders of Wargaming, and the original designer of World of Tanks. We got along great and he would even lend me his flats when I was deployed to Minsk or Saint Petersburg. I think the reason we got along so well was because Serb is a nuclear physicist. So he thinks like a scientist and welcomes the application of science to the products made by his company. Non scientist nationalists objected to so much access to an American, but in the 2 years I had before they convinced the other founders (behind Serb's back) to lay me off, we did some amazing work.
I think your suggestions are all positive and constructive. The primary barrier in corporate environments, and in the gaming/movie industries in particular are the creation of monocultures that prevent diversity of thought (regardless of DEI checklists that don't include thought diversity) and lead to what we've recently been calling "toxic positivity". Which, forcing everyone to agree with the leader harkens back to books like "1984" by George Orwell. But the dystopias he warned about have become commonplace and prevent divergent or creative thought.
Since studios are generally populated by non scientists, this also prevents the hiring of scientists in studios that have the budgets to best make use of them, and who's products are hard capped in quality/efficacy due to a lack of scientific understanding regarding both their product and the consumers that could potentially buy them.