MontanaHatchet said:
toastboy44562 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
toastboy44562 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
toastboy44562 said:
It seems like in the United States, and much of the worl for that matter, either someone is rich or poor. This is due to the crappy economy. The video game industry is the same way with few exceptions.
If you think about it, only the big blockbusters are making money, the rest are what is sinking the game devs. Games like Halo 3, Uncharted 2, gears 2 are examples of hard hitters and games like Darksiders, too human, etc would have tunred huge profits under a better economy.
So do you get what im trying to say? Do you agree that the video game industry is directly related to the current economy and that videogames are not recession-proof?
|
You're wrong about a couple of things in this post. There are plenty of middle class people around the world (especially in the United States), even during the recession. Second off, you don't have to have a blockbuster title to turn a good profit. Look at Just Dance. That is by no means a blockbuster, and it's still turning a good profit. There are a lot of games on the Wii and DS that can turn a good profit without being blockbusters (Touchmaster, Rayman Raving Rabbids, etc., there are a dozen examples). It seems by your post that you believe that only HD games exist. And even then, there are still games that can turn a profit on the PS3 and 360 without being humongous blockbuster titles.
And the video game industry isn't recession proof. That was just arrogance from developers.
|
1) sorry i didnt mean to say all people of the US were either poor or rich, i was saying it was more common during a recession.
2.) By blockbuster I meant a large seller, so just dance would qualify
|
1. I guess...
2. Well now you have to say what defines a large seller. If you're saying that there are few titles that can sell modestly and still turn a profit, then that wouldn't be true. If that's not what you're saying, well then, I don't really know.
|
hmm ok, by large seller i mean a game that sells so much, it can cover the dev cost of other game. fair enough?
|
Okay, so you mean that there are either games that sell enough to cover their development costs, and games that don't? I'm not trying to frustrate you, just understand what it is you're trying to convey.
|
yupp games that cover their costs as well as costs for other games developed by their devs. And its cool, im perfectly fine explaining what i meant (Probably means i should've been more specific in OP)
