My Supreme Viewpoint on the Big Three

[liquidninja]

WereKitten said:

This thread is being tugged in all directions, but scarcely in the one the OP meant, I suspect. I'd rather go back to the root of it all.

I'm still trying to understand how in practice the quality of what, say, Naughty Dog or Bungie produce as a development studio would be improved if the parent company was a "games only" company. Or are you talking about a more general "bird's eye" direction of the work of the studios in a collective sense?

Because I can't see -for what I know- much difference in the way Bungie, Naughty Dog or the Nintendo studio responsible for SMG tried to cater to what they thought were the customers' needs and desires. And as such I can't see all the influence of the parent company being or not uniquely focused on games, at least at studio level.

It's a matter of incentive if Naughty Dog or Bungie had not been acquired they would have to work way harder to be noticed and their business would rely even more making well received games.

If Naughty Dog and/or Bungie came out with consoles to which they'd have to be responisble for R&D, manufacturing costs, learn distribution, learn advertising .etc they would really have to work harder on the games because it would be their companies on the line if they'd failed to sell enough systems to brake even. Investors/Venture capitalists and Banks would then try to sell those companies and offices would close down. I can't think of a better incentive to produce the most widely popular games imaginable.