| HappySqurriel said: This isn't saying that pushing the limits of realtime graphics has no value, but (as a publisher) you have to know when it is appropriate to let a game's budget balloon to $40+ Million and when it makes more sense to keep the visuals simpler and the budget at a more modest level. |
Or in other words when your game is titled GTA #, MGS #, Halo #, Gears of War #, or God of War #? I might have missed some but that should get the point across =p
Basically the only way the expenditure is worthwhile is if the publisher knows the title has a large existing fanbase that will buy the game...and even then it's only worthwhile if that fanbase evaporates in the absence of those great graphical leaps.
But let me ask this: Does anyone think Halo bots wouldn't buy Halo 4 if it had Goldeneye equivalent graphics?
There are only two scenarios here:
Scenario A: Most would buy it anyway because they enjoy the game and the gameplay thus calling into question the need for graphics.
Scenario B: Most wouldn't buy it and the publisher should ask themselves if constantly building up graphical expectations for a fanbase whose major purchasing factor is graphics is a smart business model (which it almost certainly isn't given the diminishing returns on time/$ invested into improvements).
That's about as objectively proven as you can get that mindlessly spending gobs of money on graphics is simply not worth it in the vast majority of cases. I think we are at a point where graphics improvements are only economically sustainable at a significantly slower rate than the current inflated pace..and does anyone even question that the current pace is inflated?
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
