Pristine20 said:
Your point isn't realistic. Any project that has no returns would be discontinued. People say HD games are so expensive to make so companies would go bankrupt. Why would they even take on the project in the first place if they weren't sure of generating a profit? If they could only make profits from releasing casual games thats what they'll release. Casuals tend to not do any research and buy games by the box cover thats why many casual titles sell irregardless of how bad they are. Companies don't have the luxury of releasing HD crapware because they would most likely take a loss Squaresoft back in the ps1 gen had almost nothing but hardcore titles yet they were making lots of profit (at least before the dumb movie). What gives? Many devs don't have the talent to make games that are very good hence casual is the way to go because they'll buy your games--good or bad so there's no real risk.
|
I'll let ya go for this one due to ignorance.
Otherwise comparing this gen back to the Ps1 gen is simply stupid. What he's saying is AAA core games this generation cost millions of dollars and take lots of time to develop. So for 2-3 yrs you are pouring in money to something that generates no revenue. Too keep this going you need other projects to succeed on the market. Most of thise has been compensate by ports and "casual" games. Why? They are cheap to make, have short development time(less than a year), and sell well due to being mainstream titles.
Thus this is what keeps core titles from breaking companies. It's not saying that their core titles won't sell, just that to keep a lot of those titles going they need revenue from these other games. Especially from companies that aren't EA, Activision, and Ubisoft.
