| MonstaMack said: I see where your coming from you have great thought behind it we just don't agree, much like I don't agree with my wife sometimes. I personally believe more companies should stick with the same engine and make new games with it, or improved sequels/expansion packs (like ODST) because it saves companies a lot of money. Maybe KOEI was onto something for once with all those dynasty warrior games! We constantly see companies post losses (Unless your name is Nintendo) but if they were less ambitious with their engines by not upgrading them so much they would probably see more of a profit. I know that will hurt the graphics lovers out there, but someday your company has to land a profit and it should be through innovation and improvement in game play rather then eye candy to help save costs. |
That's the Valve business model. And it's worked quite well for them for games, success of their Steam DD service completely aside.
While they aren't exactly pushing the boundaries of game engine development, instead posting consistent smaller advancements with each new game, the Source engine is constantly improving, and most importantly, it's their own proprietary engine.
The only drawback is that Source engine games look and feel like Source engine games, much like Unreal Engine games often have a similar look and feel, even when being used by a licensee developer.
CryEngine 3 will also be an extremely viable development platform for licensee develoeprs in the near future.
But what most developers should try to avoid is falling into the EA pattern of releasing XXX Sports 20XX titles every year, even if they do still sell on the merits of licensed players, roster changes and minor updates that really shouldn't deserve an annual $60 purchase unless you are a hardcore fan of XXX sport.
