| forevercloud3000 said: @Dodece Lol what? I am all but done arguing with you as you obviously have no clue what YOU are talking about. There are far bigger obstacles slowing down BR progress, and it is still expanding. That convo DONE! SquareEnix is/was market leader when it came to RPGs, and they lost it due to multiple misteps and rooting for the wrong team. Every exclusive game release for 360 was a flop. If not for their acquisitions, they wouldn't even be breaking even. All the money that MS moneyhatted them for games was a total bust in the long run. They...just like you, are too proud to admit that was an utter mistake.convo DONE! The only reason their fanbase is shrinking is because of what I stated above. They have alienated those who have supported them for so long by playing for MS's gain. In the past, when Square made such a radical change up in their actions (IE switching to PS1), it was for the better, PS1 was more powerful and more capable for the game. This time they have opted to spread themselves so thin that nothing they come out with is filling at all. This is my last response to you, so flame away |
Please. You know I know what I am talking about, and that is what has you scared. I would offer you a counter argument, but you didn't make a argument at all, because there wasn't any kind of argument that you could make that I wouldn't rip to shreds.
They were a market leader at one time, but they lost their edge, because they were mired in traditionalism. This isn't just my opinion a whole slew of Japanese developers have admitted to becoming stagnant. Compared against their Western counterparts. Sometimes failure is about the others guys success. Western developers got leaner by licensing software. Meaner by pushing their narratives in maturer directions, and more adaptable by challenging themselves to do something new. Rather then something that had been done before. In that kind of market place Japanese traditionalism, and corporate culture is out of place when it comes to the wants of modern gamers. We generally don't tolerate a lack of innovation. Their market share is shrinking, because other developers in the genre are doing a better job.
That doesn't mean Japanese studios are destined to die off, but what it does mean is that they are going to have to change the way they do business. That does mean they will have to adopt the best practices of Western developers. That means they are going to have to start licensing engines to reduce their budgets, and to reduce their development times. Something they are starting to do. They will also need to combat design complacency by shuffling up their staff. While it is true a old developer can learn new tricks. It is decidedly hard for them to abandon their entrenched mindsets about what makes for a good game. They are a big part of the problem. Finally they have to be willing to fail, and that is probably the thing that is going to be hardest to do. They will have to be willing to gut treasured ideals to come up with something new.
I have only one thing to say to you, and that is your missusing the word flop. It means something very specific, and shouldn't just be tossed about, because you want to throw a fit. It means to fail completely. When a game flops it means that it failed to generate a profit, and was received poorly by the press, and was recieved poorly by the public. It doesn't need to meet just one of those criteria. It needs to meet them all. A well received game can lose the developer, or the publisher money, and not be a flop. Hell a game could be blasted by everyone, but earn enough from sales to make a profit, and it would not be a flop. The truth is that most of the titles they published were profitable, and most of them got average to good meta reviews. They weren't smash hits, but they were on par for how the genre has fared this generation. Don't use words if you don't know what they mean.
They didn't switch to the PS1, because it was a better machine. They embraced the platform, because it was a far more economical alternative. Nintendo was using a cost prohibitive format on their machine. The medium cost far more then CDs, and Sony was offering buy back on unsold games. It not only reduced the risks involved for third parties. It increased their profit potential. Which would you do, and be honest with yourself. Would you rather spend fifteen dollars on every game you shipped, or as little as two dollars. With a promise that you can get that initial investment back if it doesn't sell. Square is in business to make a profit. Not to accomodate a nerds fetish. They did what they did to make more money, and to avoid risk. Your acting like they were fucking Sony in a back room somewhere.
You know you are like the second poster I have broken in a week. You do realize this is going to make me more bold, because your stroking my ego. You really are just making my day. Thank you.
Essay Pro