Biggerboat said:
1) I never said they did want any 1 platform to win just that they definately didn't want Wii to. From what I can gather Sony treated devs pretty fairly last gen even though they dominated. I think hardware manufacturers have learned that acting like N did in the SNES days doesn't pay off long term. Also extra expenses like training staff on multiple architectures and porting is largely avoided if 1 console 'wins'. 2)"Higher costs = higher risk = less profit" In general I'd say yes but when you don't know what a certain audience wants or how to make it the waters become more muddied. For instance it would be cheaper for Michael Bay to make a period drama than an eplosion filled, CGI heavy action flick but if I was a studio boss with stockholders to answer to I know which one I'd give the green light. |
1) I'd argue that Sony's dominance allowed them the confidence/arrogance to make the PS3 and launch it at a price that made 3Ps cringe. Under "not Sony's problem", the dominance of the PS2 hurt sales of games for other consoles.
2)The problem is that almost all video games are essentially Michael Bay pics, almost all going after the same niche market. Either they minimize competition by doing non-traditional games, or they minimize risk by developing cheaper game, or they attempt to recoup costs by going for the largest audience. Either way, Wii wins.







