VanceIX said:
DrDoomz said:
You comment about how not all indies pan out was pretty irrelevant. I mean, the Earth has a lot of water, too, but don't see how that has to do with anything.
Not dissing, just downplaying it in your usual passive-aggressive-I-think-they're-doing-good-but-not-really kind of way. They've done great for the indie industry. It is also a great business decision on their part. No one said (in this thread at least) that they were the "powerful patron of indies", what they have done was go in the opposite direction of MS' initial indie strongarm policies. Credit where credit is due. Geez.
|
1) I'm downplaying them?
2) Just pointing out that the notion that Sony is nurturing indies so that they may one day become great studios is a bit overstated.
3) There are only a few indies that they have prioritized, and even fewer that will become anything.
4) Their policies are great, as I've said in this thread and in others, so I'm not downplaying them, just pointing out that people shouldn't get their hopes up about Sony amassing a lot of successful indie devs. Jeeze.
|
1) In your usual passive-aggressive-I-think-they're-doing-good-but-not-really kind of way, yes.
2) Based on?
3) "Few" is a subjective term. In comparison to their competitors, certainly not "few". If you're talking about all indie devs in general, then duh, water is wet, too but isn't really relevant.
4) People aren't "getting their hopes up" about succesful indie devs at all. At least not in this thread. It was about the intelligent business decision making that came into the supporting of indie devs as some of them may very well become AAA's in the future. Which makes sense and is the same principle followed by venture capitalism.