Epic Games 'actively lobbying' for more power in next gen consoles

[Dodece]

I take issue with a couple lines of thought in this thread. The first issue I have a real bone to pick with is this notion that stronger hardware equals out to higher development costs which force developers out of business. This is just plain bullshit. Stronger hardware just means more options, and it doesn't require anyone to utilize it to its maximum potential. Most developers in the current generation don't make best possible use. So what exactly is going to force such a huge about face. That all said this entire notion of development costs spiraling out of control is just a case of bad math at play.

Game development costs do not average out, and it is foolish to even try to draw conclusions based upon that. The reality is games have grown up as a medium. You are going to have a few block busters, but overall most of the games in development will probably not exceed a million dollar budget. The disparity is only going to make it more important for developers to innovate rather then use brute force. Ironically it is often the small guy that in fact makes the biggest profit. Sure Electronic Arts can make three or four times a big games budget in sales, but you know what sometimes small games make a hundred times their budget.

In the long run studios that sink actually sink due to their own incompetence. It isn't that someone or something forced them into bankruptcy. They just made some bad calls like dumping another shooter in a saturated market, or being too happy to clone a great game. Instead of coming up with a truly inspired concept. Sometimes they even manage to just play to their weaknesses instead of their strengths.

My second gripe is this notion that Microsoft doesn't want to loss lead their next console. It is rather on the face of it a counter intuitive notion. Microsoft generates most of its profit from the secondary market, and if making the hardware obviously superior means that they will increase their market share. Then why wouldn't they take a loss lead position. Even if Microsoft loses a hundred dollars or more up front it makes that back plus some within a couple years, and then it is all gravy from there. I am just not seeing why Microsoft should do that if Sony isn't going to be in a position to match them. Why not have better hardware, and price match Sony. Especially when it should be noted that early adopters are supreme tech heads. More power matters to them.