| DieAppleDie said: i think devs and publishers should take a break with all the superproductions, a game should never cost 100m € to be made, its just ridiculous...GTAIV wasnt worth 100m €, at all... |
Personally, I'm happy I live in a world where games are being made that cost that much, that I can play games with the level of polish and scope of Bioshock (kinda agree about GTAIV though). I'm also happy I live in a world where games are made by two dudes in a basement and are kickarse, the world has room for both extreme's. I'm not saying all games should cost that much to develop, and a game that is fun to play can be developed for much less, but like movies there is space in the market for the low budget but clever movies (District 9 as an example) but I still bloody like having the massive budget Inception/Lord of the Rings type movies.
You can say that it should be possible to make a game with the level of polish and fun on a much smaller budget, and it can be if you have extremely talented developers with a certain confined vision, but at the same time some developers have vision that just requires a lot of resources (Artists, actors, testing) and I'm glad some developers take on the risk to realise their vision. Sure, some games miss the mark and the developer ends up failing, just like some blockbusters turn out to be shitty movies that bomb (waterworld). But I'd hate for developers to stop trying.
People act like developers are a finite resource, that when a company goes under its all doom and gloom and the end of gaming. But its not, the demand for games is still there, the developers don't physically die when a company goes under, they are absorbed by other companies or start ones of their own and start anew. Successful companies grow which allows them to take on bigger projects, some will fail, some will be blockbusters.
