SvennoJ said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
I can definitely understand your criticisms of Avatar come from intellectually. I feel similarly in some cases. From a mainstream appeal I don't think those desing choices would be as appealing even if they might gratify me a bit more and add some depth and complexity.
I don't disagree with that statement at all.
Surely the Toy Story 1 engine was good enough. The only reason Toy Story 3 looked much better is the advancements they had made to accomodate their artistic vision for other titles since then. It wasn't a large extra cost incurred cost.
I just think when large amounts are spent it especially needs to by parties whom can make a return on that investment. I tend to view that as those persons making middleware and engines because those features are something that sells middleware solutions and engines. If costs were reinvested as fluidly as you might see for R&D for say Pixar or the more communicative developers I wouldn't see much of an issue if any.
|
Come on, you can't be serious. Toy story 1 budget 30 million, Toy story 3 200 million dollar budget.
But yes Pixar knows it can make the money back and use the software on the next project. Same for developers. Better graphics engine doesn't mean more work over all. The less the artists have to focus on making everything fit within scene budget constraints, the more freedom they have to recreate their vision. As we go forward the concerns of can all that be rendered on screen becomes less important. Still a long way to go before artistic freedom without technical constraints is reached in games.
|
That is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't look as if R&D saved them any resources to create their next products with budgets tripling to TS2 and then doubling again to TS3. In terms of investment vs profit that looks like diminishing returns. Having almost been bankrupt so many times I thought they were better at this. If costs continue to rise and revenue not substantially I cant encourage that as a sustainable business model even if it makes for great entertainment because it means eventually the profits don't cover new ventures let alone familiar retreads.
It's also not working in the games industry either and putting many studios in a similar awkward position of not being able to make a next title. Not everyone has GTA and they can't spend money like they do. That only works with subsidies and no one is willing to subsidize forever without adequate return.
If working without technical constraints so that people can fulfill their artistic vision and have complete freedom is the concern then of course you will never have a profitable business. If it's art or business I chose business every time without hesitation.
