misterd said:
Biggerboat said:
misterd said:
I think you're missing a few things:
1) 3rd parties traditionally do better when all consoles compete for their support. When one console dominates (Nintendo, SONY) it tends to result in terms being dictated to the 3rd party. If there is parity, the 3Ps are in a better position to set their own terms. Thus I don't believe that they want anyone to "win" the way the NES and PS2 did.
2) It doesn't matter who the developer is. Higher costs = higher risk = less profit. Many 3Ps didn't want Sony to go the route they did (see #1), which is why they are so willing to abandon it in its time of need. So long as Nintendo's dev costs remain low, they don't need to sell so many games in order to turn a profit, and that gives them the freedom to figure out what will work on the Wii. |
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. |
1)The potential demise of the PS3 will hurt Sony though, not devs, in the mid to long term anyway. If the PS3 had exploded out of the gate and as expected secured the no.1 spot this gen then I'd agree with you but 3rd parties have the option of developing for consoles with smaller costs and larger userbases. Biggest beneficiary of PS3 = BlueRay, biggest loser of PS3, Sony's gaming division/PS brand name.
Yes some devs already have PS3 games underway but if early enough in development they can can them and if too far along they can port to 360.
2)I'd say in terms of games I'd associate expensive action flicks with GTAclone27 or generic FPS#562 and art house flicks with Pikmin, Katamari or Viewtiful Joe.
"they minimize competition by doing non-traditional games"
I fail to see how those games are comparable to a Michael Bay film?
