Bodhesatva said:
2) You're welcome to believe we're all crazy and that you alone have a firm grasp of grammar and contextual implications, but that doesn't explain why we're still having problems. If you didn't understand me the first time, why hasn't any of my myriad, lengthy attempts to explain what I'm saying to you worked? Surely, if that initial phrase didn't stick for you for whatever reason, my later, more extensive explanations made my point crystal clear, yes? If so, why are we still discussing this? 3) I am saying BOTH generalizations are true. The Wii does, generally speaking, have more casual gamers; the PS3 does, generally speaking, have a lot more people who expect Heavenly Sword level graphics from their games.
And I agree that there is no way the cost jump was as steep, but the fact that the PS1 -> PS2 jump in costs isn't as large doesn't change the point, does it? We agree that there is a significant jump in development cost in either case. If so, why didn't they develop games with PS1 level graphics? This is barely even a generality -- past perhaps the first year when developers were still grasping the new hardware, can you think of any games for the PS2 with PS1 level graphics? I can't, but I'm definitely not an expert on the PS2 library. Even smaller, A/AA games with low expectations still surpassed this threshold. Why did practically no one decide to make a game with graphical power that low? Answer: because PS2 owners had certain expectations of what a game should look like, and games with graphics lower than that would see their sales profoundly impaired. |
