osed125 on 26 January 2013
| pokoko said: I can't imagine any developers would hang onto the RAM constraints of the 360/PS3 when they can work with quadruple that, at the least. Most of the games designed for next gen consoles won't have a prayer of running on this gen devices. They're building these titles on the new dev kits, not on 360/PS3 dev kits. All the new IP will be next gen exclusive--if they aren't, then those games will look like crap compared to games from other publishers. How will Activision looks if EA's games are far and away superior, or vice versa? We might see some games in development now do as you're suggesting, but no one wants to be left behind in quality. If we have a Battlefield in 2014 that absolutely and completely blows away CoD, how is that going to look? Or the same for any major franchise out there? I can't see that kind of situation lasting more than a year, and that's only with smaller developers and big franchises. New IP are going to be next gen exclusives. |
I can agree with what you are saying, but will that make sense financially? Most people are fine with the graphics of CoD and Battlefield (we can deduce that from the sales), they already have the console and they would just have to pay $60 for those games. So why would devs and publishers invest in a big franchise for a console with limited install base? Like I said before ignoring a 140m install base will not be easy for 3rd party developers (especially the big games with a high budget) even with moneyhat from MS or Sony.
I can't see Activision risking a 10m+ sales of game for what's most likely going to be a lot lower than that.
Nintendo and PC gamer
