Kyros on 11 August 2008
It is not companies that are producing "Good" games that are profitable, it is companies that are producing well known properties in popular genres that are profitable
Ok this is true up to a point. I think innovative games like Spore CAN be huge sellers. But the risk is much higher. Good executed games of well-known franchises may be a safe choice but after a while you need new IP or you will be headed for a most likely slow decline. Consumers will only buy the same thing a couple of times.
Another thing is the difference between good as in good reviews and good as in many people like to play it. You can make millions with a bad game for a famous movie, IP etc. but people will see that its a bad game when they play it and eventually you loose customers. On the other hand a game like Psychonauts may get rave reviews but honestly who can identify with/ wants to play the cubistic looking hero? Good execution is necessary in any case.
BTW I think Lair is a bad example and also reeks of really bad product management. They had this huge world with battles with thousands of troops but they couldn't get the basic flying mechanic, the core of the game, right? That smells of really really bad priorities.
To produce a similar game with a visual quality appropriate for a HD console would simply be too expensive to justify.
Honestly I do not buy that. Comic graphics look the same on any console and are not more expensive to make on one or the other (At least I would think so). I think bigger reasons are that Zak&Wiki was essentially a Wiimote puzzle game, no classic adventure, and perhaps that they thought the 400$ HD console audience wouldn't be the best target group for Z&W. The xbox for example has Katamari which doesn't look very HD either
