Alterego-X said:
1.From in-game advertisments. If I can watch my TV channels for free, it can't be that hard to apply the same business model for games. Or even if they would need to reduce the budgets, it wouldn't bother me, the $100 million blockbusters of our days are overrated.
2. From hardware sales. Nintendo could easily support its developers from the tons of money the DS and Wii make. Sony and Microsoft would either have to release cheaper consoles next time, or sell them for more money. Third parties could get their money directly from the console company, for the number of hours their game was used, or whatever. I would gladly buy a $600 console if it would mean no later responsibility at all, but loads of free games. I'm poor, and while I had that amount of money once, I instead grabbed the opportunity to buy a gaming PC, because I was afraid of the razor and blades model, afraid of getting tied to a console, and paying the price of the cheap hardware later. |
that razor and blades model seems like it could work out, but even if the console was really expensive I'd think that only the higher quality games would actually receive funding, which would most likely cut the game development business. Why bother funding for really low-quality games if no one will buy them and it won't lead to higher sales?
I also agree with in-game ads, but this would probably only be able to compensate for the low-budget titles. Hey, wait, if you combine those two models you could actually retain the entire gaming market. Hmmm...
Enjoy 
