| noname2200 said: Close enough for me to say agreed, so <Snip> Tell you what, let's make an agreement. If, in one year's time, most developers are reliably profiting from HD gaming, and the tide of development has not significantly shifted to the Wii and DS because of developers' not being able to play in the HD pool, we'll both agree that Malstrom was wrong on this point, which in turn means that a part of his overall thesis was flawed. Until then, we'll both wait and see what cards the industry deals us. This doesn't mean the discussion is over: as others have been pointing out, Malstrom's analysis has quite a bit more to it, so we can continue to discuss disruption et. al. But for now, it seems we've reached a stalemate, since we're both drawing radically different conclusions from the same peices of data. How about this, we target a specific genre - I say the shooter genre and we compare the performance of games released q3/q4 last year to this year on both platforms? Or even a Calendar year it doesn't matter. It just shaves 4 months off the time of maturity thats all. We can include things such as the number of titles, average sales between them so we can perhaps agree on a hypothesis sooner. The shooter genre is something Malstrom argues about often both directly and indirectly. Its the arch typical HD console genre as its expensive to develop for and exists within a crowded market place. This specifically relates to his "Ocean Theory".
|
Tease.
