| Dodece said: @wlakiz I fully supported my conclusions, and I did so with the best data available. Which was provided by a reputable firm to a reputable site. Your attempts to discredit the source and the purveyor are purely laughable. Some sources are just plain indisputable. You shouldn't be a sore loser about this. You should be happy that you are better informed now then you were before. You are going to become more knowledgeable about the subject in the future. I know you think you have a case when it comes to averages, but it isn't the case that you think it is. For your own pricing schemes to be valid. That must mean that there are a number of terribly expensive games that have been developed for the platform to raise the average that high. You are basically proving my point for me. Either this platform has a number of painfully expensive outliers, or the majority of games actually cost that much to make. You don't have a point when it comes to advertising either. There is a direct correlation between marketing and sales. Strong advertising results in strong sales. Weak advertising results in weak sales. The most popular form of advertising is television advertising, and that costs upwards of ten thousand dollars per thirty second spots on even semi popular cable networks at peak hours. Even a modest advertising campaign can cost a company five million dollars. I sense you are going to try to argue that they could advertise at non peak hours, or on poorly received channels, or poorly received programs, and you are right they could. It wouldn't be terribly effective though. In fact it might be counter productive. They have to target their key demographics, or it will not have the desired effect. Gamers are many times more likely, and in larger numbers to watch a wrestling event. Then they are to watch a rerun of Little House on the Prairie. Even targeted internet advertising costs real money. As for the rest I have explained it to you, and it doesn't need to be repeated. You are just intent on not listening. I will however give it one more go. If you are spending three hundred plus dollars on a platform. For the exact same experience as can be had on a platform that is a couple hundred dollars cheaper. Then you are getting well and truly fleeced. Most gamers are intelligent enough to see that they shouldn't pay a premium for a generic service. The justification for this platform is high end games, and low end cheap and easy games aren't a substitute. I would say the same for any other platform if someone was arguing that they could. This platform cannot, and will not gain traction if this is going to be the library on tap. This has nothing to do with personal preferences. There is room for some, but it cannot be the focus of this platform. Sony is selling a specific experience, and marketing their product as the home of that experience. If they aren't delivering that. Then they are going to get judged harshly. High end platforms are for high end games. Lastly get off your first person shooter trip. I never brought it up, and I never equated it with AAA gaming. That is all your own doing. There are a lot of AAA games in a lot of genres. Last I checked The Elder Scrolls, Gran Tourismo, Mario, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, and God of War. Were in fact AAA franchises that weren't specifically about gun play, or even a first person perspective. Do me the service of not placing your prejudices on top of my words. |
I think you offically degenerated into grasping at straws. The time it takes you to come up with that reply, you could have looked and searched for more evidence to support your argument but instead, you decided to cling on to your citation-less source. If being more informed and knowledgable means making baseless-illogical assumptions and posting more sources-less articles then I rather stay uninformed and less knowledgable; I sleep happier at night knowing I can defend my argument with facts and sources.
My case with the average stems from the lack of raw data and other statistical information. If you have taken any stats courses or read up any stats book, you will know that SD would give you the variation from the average. If there is a high SD, it means the data could be skewered by 1 or 2 development firm that overspent on their game - which by the way does not help your argument/logic of pinning average game production cost at 20 million. Other stats to look is the sample pool, how many developement firms did they collected information from? Did they take into account the thousands of low cost startup developers or Japanese developers? Maybe Yes, maybe no? Like I said, unless we see the full extent of their study, the 'average' is just taken out of context. SInce this is your only argument source, I can see why you are desperatly trying to validiate it.
I think you have a serious comprehension problem. I never said marketing does not improve sales. I said it's not logical for people to spend triple the development cost on marketing. Here take a look at this: http://www.visualscope.com/marketing102.html#2 . It has some usual insight to how marketer thinks and how much money people generally allocate to marketing. Lets apply this to our example: Lets say a game manages to sell all 500k copies of thier game at $40 a pop.. thats $20 M in revenue, taking 1-5% of the revenu to marketing.. we get: 1 million dollars! Even if you go crazy and spend 10% of your revenue to marketing.. that only equates to 2 million dollars. Do you still want to argue that a developer would put 50% of their revenue into marketing? /facepalm
Games are about enjoyment, not about budget. You can spend 100 million on a game, and it may still flop badly if it does click in with the audience. I think you seriously should go back to playing games instead of hanging around here making baseless assumptions and doom threads.
I brought up FPS because it its the console quality of late that people talk about. COD/ Halo 4.. etc. If you dont' like it, replace 'FPS' with any other popular genre but it doesn't change the argument one bit.
