Opinion on crowdfunded games

[E.RedMark]

I think crowfunded games are ok . Like anything else in this life , you have crowfunded games that are being made by honest peoples . When you help them , its a treat and full of wonders . And you feel like you helped make that happen! 

 

Then you have those crowfunded games that are being held by **** and thief and liar . And those either take your money and run , or lie to you about something they planned to add in the game..if you only help them raise that 1mill more !!! 

 

I think its like a car dealer , shop shop shop...and make sure you are ready to never see your money and your dream . Don't bet unless you are ready . 

[TheisEjsing]

Do crowdfunded games yield sloppy programming due to the fact that money had changed hands before any game has materialized? What incentive is there for developers to provide a quality product when they have been paid in advance? I often wonder if this has negatively affected this game, as I've been finding an exceedingly high amount of bugs with this game during my first time playing.

Yes, what incentive would a company have to deliver a well received product. You haven't thought this through or you would soon realise, that a company does not live in a vacuum where it's just the now that matters. A poorly rated game will affect future projects chances of getting financed by publishers, crowfunding, or whatever. 

 

Besides Obsidians history with bugs, which has already been discussed, there is no monetary, or practical gain in sloppy game design. It hampers the game development, trust in the company, and damages sales when the game is released. 

[bringingyouthefuture]

In terms of bugs, it has to be the complicated coding that adds the most, I use Video editing software daily and the most popular platform, which also is the most complex, always has a variety of different bugs - you literally can't get rid of them all, no matter which version of the editing software you are using.  So it also isn't just regulated to video games - I think any complex program runs into issues - especially when it is a technology race to deliver new features every new version, or every game.  Also, there is a rule of thumb I have in regards to video editing systems, you can expect your system to crash at least once a day ... that is okay by my standards - if it crashing 2 to 3 times a day, then you need to figure out what's going wrong.

 

It is funny because editors if they find a stable version that works well on their system, they refuse to upgrade.  I literally know people using systems that were designed 10 years ago since they have found a happy medium for their style of pushing buttons and mouse clicks.  It doesn't matter that they can get way more out of their system and the program with all the new features that have been added.  For a software company to stay competitive though the company needs to keep innovating and pushing the envelope.  I personally enjoy the new features and like to track the upgrades and progress.  I am also a sucker for computers with a lot of capability.

 

But the real kicker, its not like different versions are better than others or more stable, they all are pretty stable in the larger sense - some are worse than others but they get patched constantly, but depending on how you use the interface and features, some people experience different issues.

[house2fly]

 

Do crowdfunded games yield sloppy programming due to the fact that money had changed hands before any game has materialized? What incentive is there for developers to provide a quality product when they have been paid in advance? I often wonder if this has negatively affected this game, as I've been finding an exceedingly high amount of bugs with this game during my first time playing.

Yes, what incentive would a company have to deliver a well received product. You haven't thought this through or you would soon realise, that a company does not live in a vacuum where it's just the now that matters. A poorly rated game will affect future projects chances of getting financed by publishers, crowfunding, or whatever.

 

Besides Obsidians history with bugs, which has already been discussed, there is no monetary, or practical gain in sloppy game design. It hampers the game development, trust in the company, and damages sales when the game is released.

he's not really trying to discuss crowdfunded games, he's just venting because Deadfire is buggy

[Verde]

 

And then some developers don't have another choice. Look at PoE: nobody was willing to fund an isometric RPG at that scale. Publishers want to make money. So they are picky. Exactly like with the movies. You know why we get a sequel if part one was successful. Save bet.

Yep. This is the heart of the problem, and this is why Hollywood, for instance, has been creatively dead for, what, like, twenty years at least? Nothing has been created, in terms of innovation. (And of course now, with the global market, the main audience of mainstream American movies is no longer even in America, it's in China. Way more profitable.)

Jordan Peele is making some solid movies. Get Out was creepy and genre-bending and supposedly Us is like a long episode of Twilight Zone, which is a timeless show. Watch the episode Time Enough at Last and tell me what you think! Edited March 22, 2019 by Verde

[kanisatha]

My main problem with crowdfunded games is on the backer side rather than the developer side. Though a minority, far too many backers have an entitled mentality and the view that only their preferences for the game must be taken into account and any deviation from 100% of their preferences means the developer is a liar and a cheat and evil ... or something. I'm really tired of these 'the universe revolves around me' backers and would rather have developers be truly independent, from both publishers and crowds. But I understand that that's a very difficult road to follow.

[rjshae]

I can live with bugs, as long as they get fixed in a few months.

[rjshae]

My main problem with crowdfunded games is on the backer side rather than the developer side. Though a minority, far too many backers have an entitled mentality and the view that only their preferences for the game must be taken into account and any deviation from 100% of their preferences means the developer is a liar and a cheat and evil ... or something. I'm really tired of these 'the universe revolves around me' backers and would rather have developers be truly independent, from both publishers and crowds. But I understand that that's a very difficult road to follow.

 

Do you have an example of where that behavior actually ruined a crowdfunding game? Usually crowdfunded games fail because the developers get too ambitious or have poor business skills, and thus run out of funds.

[kanisatha]

 

My main problem with crowdfunded games is on the backer side rather than the developer side. Though a minority, far too many backers have an entitled mentality and the view that only their preferences for the game must be taken into account and any deviation from 100% of their preferences means the developer is a liar and a cheat and evil ... or something. I'm really tired of these 'the universe revolves around me' backers and would rather have developers be truly independent, from both publishers and crowds. But I understand that that's a very difficult road to follow.

 

Do you have an example of where that behavior actually ruined a crowdfunding game? Usually crowdfunded games fail because the developers get too ambitious or have poor business skills, and thus run out of funds.

I agree with your point, actually, but don't necessarily get mad over a crowdfunded project gone south for this sort of reason because I accept that crowdfunding is, by definition, a gamble.

 

As for examples, it's hard to say because what qualifies as "ruined" or a "failure" is inherently subjective, and my taste in games is extremely narrow and so I have not backed that many games. But, I would offer two recent inXile games as my main examples: the constant drumbeat of certain people demanding that T:ToN be TB; and similarly, that BT4 not provide save anywhere anytime (which thankfully inXile overturned after the game's release).

[AlexDeLarge]

Since I like building characters and powergaming so much the idea is basically a 2D kind-of-roguelike, turn based RPG with complex but consistent/coherent mechanics and charcter creation (classless system - you can save your builds) that works a bit like Faster than Light (in the sense that you have stages and move through a graph to beat an endboss). I plan a highscore list but don't know yet how the score will come together. I also wanted a 1:1 PvP arena (bit like playing chess online ), but I guess I can't pull that off (infrastructure like servers needed and whatnot).

 

But I just started. The only things that are done are the core rules (implemented) and some pixel art for items. Ah - and a module that loads JSON files as data sources for races, dialogue, items, abilites, talents etc. So it should be plenty modable without any programming knowledge.

I also have a ruleset that determines how to implement new abilites and such - so in theory I could build an editor for that or allow "invention" of new abilites/spells ingame. But I guess that's way too much stuff for me to handle - if I ever want to be finished with this.

 

However - since today I can color my tiny pixel-char's skin, eyes, hair and beard.

 

That moment when you're actually playing FTL then stumble unto this post ^^

[Crucis]

Hollywood produces a ton of sequels - but I wouldn't say it's creatively dead. Isn't stuff like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" from Hollywood? Also movies like "Inception" may have whatever flaws, but I wouldn't say they suffer from lack of creativity.

 

It's understandable that publishers/producers etc. want to put their money on the right horse. One wrong step and you might go bankrupt. So better to spread the risk and don't try anything experimental - especially if absurd amounts of money are involved.

 

So - crowdfunding is a nice alternative as long as if doesn't get abused too much (like: collecting money and then produce nothing - or collecting money from backers, then make an exclusive deal with the Epic Store and tell your pissed backers they can get a refund - I mean seriously...).

 

Regarding Hollywood, it's not really so much about the producers as it is Hollywood's financiers/investors.  They don't hand out hundreds of millions of dollars so that some director can pursue his dread movie.  They do it because they want to make money, lots of it.  So, they invest in movies that they think have a chance of doing exactly that.  Do they always succeed?  No, of course not.  But that's why you see so many sequels and remakes.  Or for that matter, movies that are based on some old TV show or a well known book.  It's about name recognition.  Investors were probably falling all over themselves a decade ago to fund The Da Vinci Code movie adaptation, given that it was one of the most best selling books of all time, meaning that it was going to have massive name recognition.  

 

And it's not just movies when you think about it.  How many writers write series' of books?  They do it because the characters become popular and readers want to follow those characters through many novels to see what happens.  I'm sure that it's hard to come up with a popular character and setting for a series, but once the writer gets it going and it is popular, I can hardly blame them for wanting to milk that cash cow.  They are writing for a living, after all.   Coming up with something completely new and original with each and every book has got to be  rather difficult, and then there's no guarantee that it clicks with your audience.  Oh, there may be some rather artsey-fartsey writers who don't believe in series.  But something tells me that either they're spectacularly good at producing stories that people will buy, perhaps trading on their personal reputation, or … I was about to say that perhaps they were happy to be less than popular writers.  However, their publishers want to make money too, and would more than likely stop publishing unsuccessful writers at some point.  After all, publishers are sort of like movie investors in that they want a return on their investment.  They may not have to pay the writer to produce the books before hand (unless they have a contract that does just that), but I doubt that they'd want to keep paying unprofitable writers.  They want writers who produce books that enough customers want to buy that the publisher can turn a profit.

[Crucis]

 

And then some developers don't have another choice. Look at PoE: nobody was willing to fund an isometric RPG at that scale. Publishers want to make money. So they are picky. Exactly like with the movies. You know why we get a sequel if part one was successful. Save bet.

 

Yep. This is the heart of the problem, and this is why Hollywood, for instance, has been creatively dead for, what, like, twenty years at least? Nothing has been created, in terms of innovation. (And of course now, with the global market, the main audience of mainstream American movies is no longer even in America, it's in China. Way more profitable.)

 

 

I don't see this as a problem, xzar.  Movie studios are in business to make money, not to be creative, innovative, or original for the sake of being creative, innovative, or original.    What pays the bills and makes profits is producing movies that the paying customers want to see.  Period.    If you can produce a movie that both has a compelling story and good characters that people will want to pay to see, and also happens to be creative, innovative, and original, good for you.  But that's easier said than done.  And Hollywood's investors prefer to invest in things that are much more reliable.  Hence the current trend of superhero movies.  10-25 years, it was movies based on old TV shows.  Name recognition puts fannies in seats.

[xzar_monty]

It's not a problem from a financial point of view, that's true. However, I'm interested in original movies, and from that point of view it is a problem.

 

One fascinating thing about this is that precisely because the profit margins are so much smaller, creative costs are minuscule(*) in comparison, and the industry itself is so much smaller, there's a lot of good stuff coming out in the field of literature, and I mean a lot of seriously good stuff. In movies, much less so. In pop music, even less so (although there's some fantastic stuff around).

 

(*) I think this is the inherent creative/financial problem with movies. It's pretty much impossible to create a movie that's both cheap and impressive. And by cheap I mean costing less than, say, five grand. Writing a book, in comparison, costs essentially nothing. Similarly, there's a lot of good classical stuff around, as in notes upon paper, but who's going to pay the orchestras to play them? And this is why most of all global repertoire is Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, all of whom are great of course. But if you're new in town, your chances are almost nil.

Edited March 29, 2019 by xzar_monty

[Lord_Mord]

 

And by cheap I mean costing less than, say, five grand.

It's interesting that you say five grands, cause that's exactly what the average Joel Potrykus movie costs (The budget for "Ape" was just 3000). His rule is to stay under 10000. He once said that if he was given 1.000.000, he would make 100 movies instead of one. And in my opinion his films are very impressive.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Potrykus

[xzar_monty]

That's an excellent comment, and much appreciated. Thank you very much. I will check him out.

[algroth]

It's not a problem from a financial point of view, that's true. However, I'm interested in original movies, and from that point of view it is a problem.

 

One fascinating thing about this is that precisely because the profit margins are so much smaller, creative costs are minuscule(*) in comparison, and the industry itself is so much smaller, there's a lot of good stuff coming out in the field of literature, and I mean a lot of seriously good stuff. In movies, much less so. In pop music, even less so (although there's some fantastic stuff around).

 

There's a lot of good stuff coming from both the fields of music and film too. For the former, just out of last year I can recommend: Aviary by Julia Holter, Dhorimvishka by Koenjihyakkei, Your Queen Is a Reptile by Sons of Kemet, A Laughing Death in Meatspace by Tropical F--- Storm, Antología del cante flamenco heterodoxo by Niño de Elche, Isolation by Kali Uchis, The Light Is Leaving Us All by Current 93, Dian Long: Soundscape China / Destruction of Chinese Pop by Kink Gong, Collapse by Aphex Twin, Dead Magic by Anna von Hausswolff, and more. For the latter, you can find some absolutely brillant stuff in Roma, The Favourite, Shoplifters, Cold War, Burning, Widows, An Elephant Sitting Still, If Beale Street Could Talk, or even as far as Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse which is both a high-budget Hollywood film *and* an adaptation of one of the most popular superheroes out there. I see this sort of "reverse recency bias" often, have seen it for decades now, and I feel that as time moves on we gradually accept that it wasn't the case as the good stuff endures and the trash is largely consigned to oblivion.

 

For filmmakers doing films at a sub-5k budget, Mariano Llinás is another curious example of the same, having done Historias Extraordinarias and last year's La Flor at a minimal budget - it is especially impressive considering these films last 4 hours and 12 hours respectively, and the former at least had been estimated at a budget north of U$S 12 million initially. But whilst I don't know the case of Joel Potrykus specifically, in Llinás' case it was all possible largely because of a lot of good will from other people and institutions as well, who offered their talents and equipment for free, so to speak. In fact the whole film was so beyond normal regulations that it couldn't get approved by the INCAA in Argentina and thus was only shown in festival circles and specific non-commercial screens like at the MALBA museum and the likes. Pretty good films though, worth checking out.

Edited March 29, 2019 by algroth

[xzar_monty]

Wow. Thanks! Kudos to you for that. (Btw, I wish to point out that minimum budget in and of itself doesn't guarantee anything, of course; it's just that as film is an expensive medium to work in, this tends to make it learn towards a certain kind of conservatism. There are some worthwhile mammoth productions, too, as we all know. For instance -- to stay within the realm of these forums -- I thought Jackson's LotR trilogy had quite a few things to recommend it -- especially if we ignore his Two Towers -- but then the first part of his The Hobbit was so poor that I haven't wanted to even try the other two.)

[algroth]

Wow. Thanks! Kudos to you for that. (Btw, I wish to point out that minimum budget in and of itself doesn't guarantee anything, of course; it's just that as film is an expensive medium to work in, this tends to make it learn towards a certain kind of conservatism. There are some worthwhile mammoth productions, too, as we all know. For instance -- to stay within the realm of these forums -- I thought Jackson's LotR trilogy had quite a few things to recommend it -- especially if we ignore his Two Towers -- but then the first part of his The Hobbit was so poor that I haven't wanted to even try the other two.)

 

Oh, I do agree there, even if some models allow more freedom to the director than others (many countries offer funds and credits for film and in such cases directors tend to find a lot more freedom and final say on their work). But even disregarding the usual conflicts of vision and so on, it is also true that cost places a pretty hard limit on what you can do and how, just because certain things will either cost more money or be outright "impossible" whilst a few words could do. That's an advantage literature has, I suppose, where the only limits are down to the author's imagination and skill, and the reader's own imagination and comprehension. But likewise there are specific situational advantages to cinema and music over literature, be it the "a picture can tell a thousand words" effect (it is far more impressive to see Fitzcarraldo move a steamboat over a mountain than it is to read about it), and the directness with which the emotional can be captured in that medium (see Tarkovsky and Dreyer's renditions of the spiritual experience for example, which are more often that not rendered in pure audiovisual terms). Which is not to say one medium is better than the other, but they are pretty different experiences that, to me at least, often work best in pretty different areas.

 

I'm digressing anyways. The above examples I gave are of course albums or films I found to be great, and granted, they may be pretty particular to my tastes. But all the same, I hope you enjoy them, and let me know your thoughts if you do check them out.

Edited March 29, 2019 by algroth

[Verde]

 

 

 

And then some developers don't have another choice. Look at PoE: nobody was willing to fund an isometric RPG at that scale. Publishers want to make money. So they are picky. Exactly like with the movies. You know why we get a sequel if part one was successful. Save bet.

Yep. This is the heart of the problem, and this is why Hollywood, for instance, has been creatively dead for, what, like, twenty years at least? Nothing has been created, in terms of innovation. (And of course now, with the global market, the main audience of mainstream American movies is no longer even in America, it's in China. Way more profitable.)

I don't see this as a problem, xzar. Movie studios are in business to make money, not to be creative, innovative, or original for the sake of being creative, innovative, or original. What pays the bills and makes profits is producing movies that the paying customers want to see. Period. If you can produce a movie that both has a compelling story and good characters that people will want to pay to see, and also happens to be creative, innovative, and original, good for you. But that's easier said than done. And Hollywood's investors prefer to invest in things that are much more reliable. Hence the current trend of superhero movies. 10-25 years, it was movies based on old TV shows. Name recognition puts fannies in seats.

Big movie studios are, but not all necessarily.

[Crucis]

It's not a problem from a financial point of view, that's true. However, I'm interested in original movies, and from that point of view it is a problem.

 

One fascinating thing about this is that precisely because the profit margins are so much smaller, creative costs are minuscule(*) in comparison, and the industry itself is so much smaller, there's a lot of good stuff coming out in the field of literature, and I mean a lot of seriously good stuff. In movies, much less so. In pop music, even less so (although there's some fantastic stuff around).

 

(*) I think this is the inherent creative/financial problem with movies. It's pretty much impossible to create a movie that's both cheap and impressive. And by cheap I mean costing less than, say, five grand. Writing a book, in comparison, costs essentially nothing. Similarly, there's a lot of good classical stuff around, as in notes upon paper, but who's going to pay the orchestras to play them? And this is why most of all global repertoire is Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, all of whom are great of course. But if you're new in town, your chances are almost nil.

 

I pretty much agree with what you've said here.

 

Writing usually has low production costs, unless perhaps you're doing some sort of  work where you need to do some research.  For example, let's take Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame.  His books tend to take place around old churches, museums, and so on.  And I strongly suspect that Brown travels to these locations to get a look and feel for them before using them in his novels.  That's understandable, I'd think.  And it's really not all that expensive (compared to movie costs, at least), though it might be pricey if you were an brand new  writer and couldn't afford a research trip to Rome or Paris or Venice, or wherever. But so many other novels don't really need this level of research, if any at all, and can be written entirely from the imagination.  And then, of course,  about the only costs you have are the cost of owning and operating a PC (or if you're really old school, a typewriter and plenty of paper, etc.).

 

But it obviously costs money to make movies or music, etc.  You have to pay everyone behind the cameras, as well as the actors, and then the SFX studios, if there are any.  And the orchestra that does the background music.  And so on and so on and so on.

 

You also make a very fair point about performing orchestras.  They may not have to completely earn their keeps (I assume that most are getting some degree of grant money to help them stay afloat), but they do have to pay their musicians and all the other support personnel on their payroll.  And to do that, they have to get fannies in the seats. And you're almost certainly right that they can't do that by performing stuff by unknown composers.  They're existing in a very niche marketplace, and their customers are probably much more interested in seeing them perform classic pieces by famous composers, not unknowns.  They might … might … be able to slip in one modern piece per performance.  But if they had a new stuff only night, it wouldn't shock me if it ended up being their worst attended night of the season.  Taking a step back, they can get away with performing certain modern stuff, but it probably has to be exceptionally famous movie related stuff, like from Star Wars, or from famous movie musical composers like John Williams or Hans Zimmer … which in turn comes back to name recognition.

[Wormerine]

Do crowdfunded games yield sloppy programming due to the fact that money had changed hands before any game has materialized? What incentive is there for developers to provide a quality product when they have been paid in advance? I often wonder if this has negatively affected this game, as I've been finding an exceedingly high amount of bugs with this game during my first time playing.

My guess would be ambition of the project compared to the budget. Still Obsidian has reputation for launching games with... well, issues.

 

There are some crowdfunded games which release in excellent state but those tend to be smaller, focused titles. I thought as far as bugs were concerned Deadfire launched in impressively good state, but it had couple major bugs which really really hurt first impressions (import save, disposition and therefore interactions with companions) and game didn't seem to get a decent balance check until month after release. I had an impression that they didn't even make a serious attempt to balance the game, until the game was release and data started to flow in. Which I could understand if it was release as Early Access, not 1.0. As a backer I don't mind seeing project improve, but I wouldn't be happy if I bought it on day 1. 

[bringingyouthefuture]

Don't forget too that large Hollywood studios, and films studios in general are facing losses of revenue (2018 saw an uptick but the general trend has been downward the last 8 years or so) as the music industry and newspaper industry also lost revenue streams.  It gives them less chance to invest in movies, and it almost feels like they are releasing less movies, but could be wrong.  Anyway they are focused on the safe Blockbuster, as they need ones that will keep the studio afloat.

 

I recommend if you like action flicks watching The Raid - $1 million budget / $9 million box office (extremely low budget for a feature).  That's a win in Hollywood!  Great film.

 

I am waiting to see if Netflix purchases a major studio in the future.  If they keep producing great content I could see it happen - I am thinking Netflix buys Paramount Studios in the next 10 years ... just as Sony purchased MGM, and now Disney purchased Fox studios Sadly, LA Times reported that up to 3,000 people at Fox may lose there jobs ...

 

But on a positive note, the decline in the music industry led to artists having more control over the means of distribution and there own music, so we could see the same with Hollywood films.  It is important to remember that low budget film investors (say those under 50 million dollars) often have relationships with directors and producers, and finance there films until they start losing money.  There is the old Hollywood trope - the Texas oil billionaire investing in Hollywood movies because he wants his wife to be an actress yeah?  Of course the studio have these relationships too.

[xzar_monty]

 

But on a positive note, the decline in the music industry led to artists having more control over the means of distribution and there own music, so we could see the same with Hollywood films.  It is important to remember that low budget film investors (say those under 50 million dollars) often have relationships with directors and producers, and finance there films until they start losing money.  There is the old Hollywood trope - the Texas oil billionaire investing in Hollywood movies because he wants his wife to be an actress yeah?  Of course the studio have these relationships too.

 

The extent to which artists having more control has been a boon is debatable. I mean, more control to the artists is good as such, no question, but because the industry has essentially disappeared (ha, I used to work alongside it for quite some time and saw it happen; the changes were extraordinarily drastic), there is almost no way for a new artist to make a breakthrough. The reason for this is that there is simply too much content on the internet/Spotify/etc., and no outside arbiter -- for instance, no more music journalism or anything of the like to create anything more significant than niche interest.

 

To give a concrete example: what is the newest band that can go on a worldwide stadium tour and expect it to work? That would be Metallica, founded in 1981 (nothing against Metallica, their second and third albums were seminal works in the genre). This is the extent to which the industry has collapsed. I just checked the local magazine stand the other day to see what the music magazines write about, and what they wrote about was David Bowie, David Gilmour, Genesis, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. These were the artists pictured in the covers. There's nothing wrong with any of them, but the choices show where the (paltry) money is: it's in nostalgia. There are no new stars, and there won't be any.

 

But, again, excellent new music is constantly being made. Chances are, you just won't hear most of it, unless you make a dedicated effort.

[algroth]

I think the fracture in today's music scene is less the product of the disappearance of a music industry and more of the loosening of its ubiquity and monopoly over the means of circulation. I think the internet and streaming platforms have done a great service at providing a platform for niche artists and listeners alike, but there's still an entity pushing the Ariana Grandes and Taylor Swifts and traps and reggaetons out there, and even giving them a privileged position in the new platforms that have slowly been taking over radio and TV. But it's definitely feeling a bit like a jungle over here, especially as a new act trying to find its niche off a first EP or album.

 

I will also take a bit of umbrage at the use of nostalgia as a reason again, as I don't think it's what motivates the ongoing love for acts like Bowie, Genesis or the Beatles. By now their fandom extends well beyond people who were even alive at the time these were at their heights of their artistic power and/or talent. You go see a Deep Purple show nowadays and will find over half the attendance are in their 20s, and even younger. Their music keeps being a major source of inspiration for several acts nowadays and I think this is less because we are nostalgic for an era and more because either their music has never really stopped talking to the audiences since it was conceived, or because these were the shining acts of a movement that was dominant through the better part of the last 70 years. I don't believe the discussions surrounding Mozart or Coltrane have declined any amidst the followers of their respective areas either, but rock has itself been so much more ubiquitous throughout recent history. It's only through the last ten or fifteen years that the currents have really started to shift away from rock and into either hip-hop or whatever else becomes the new dominant scene, and if the former it'll be no real surprise to see endless articles about Kendrick or Wu-Tang or Public Enemy twenty years from now either. Many of these acts have become recognizable brands of their own and it's what hooks new readers to these mags, I suppose.

Edited March 30, 2019 by algroth

[xzar_monty]

I was a bit unclear there, so your umbrage is understandable. Apologies. When talking about nostalgia, I only meant the specific example of printed music journalism, i.e. it's the "old guys" who buy these magazines devoted to Genesis et al., the new generation doesn't really consume the music press in printed form. It used to, but it no longer does.

 

I wholly agree that the music of these artists does indeed capture both young and old alike, and I see that as a very good thing.

 

Clearer now? Again, apologies, I was too ambiguous.