ils411 said:
A. Not all developers are tossed a bag of money by MS, NIntendo or Sony (wait, does nintendo even moneyhat?) and moneyhatting is done mostly to get outright exclusivity, timed exclusivity or exclusive content. Developers and Publishers are out to make money. getting money to cover development cost just to break even is not what I would call "paid for". your argument on moneyhatting is weak and irrelevant. B. If a car had 4 standard wheels, then I took out the two front tires and replaced them with round pices of wood, would it still run just the same? No it will not. any game developer only has so many good talent that if they are working on two or three versions of a game either one version gets the best team of talent or these talents are split up into teams thus resulting in diminishing returns. C. It has happened before. Look at the PS1 and the PS2 era. both dominated and crushed the competition that both got exclusive games without spending a dime. with a single dominant console with the mass majority of the market share, games flurished. just look at how much shovelware the ps1 and the ps2 and even the wii got. tons and tons of shovelware. why? total domination allowed for game developers to only focus on one platform and not have to work about picking the "right" console to support. with just one uber dominant console, they can just go with the flow and make games for the playstation. D. it isnt sony's falt that nintendo and ms sucked balls with all the stupid mistakes they made on the wii u and the xbone. so, no, there is no monopoly breaking law here. One only needs to look at the PS1 and PS2 era to realize that total domination of a console in a generation is best for the gamers...not the industry mind you, but to gamers. that one dominating console gets all the games coz thats where everyone is playing. Some would argue that the Wii dominated like no ones business and yet it got crapy third party support. that is true, but one only needs to look at who actually bought the wii. the wii was eaten up by casuals and a bunch of non gaming people who just wanted to "party". the true games who bought the wii were actually the minority of the entire wii population. no lets look at the ps360. both HD consoles when combined soled more games than the wii. so, why bother with the wii? honestly, i dont really care which console dominates, I may be a sony fanboy but i jump ship so often that its not funny. I go where the games are and if its on the xone, i'll jump on a boner, if its on the U, then lets have a wiipad party. bottom line, total domination ensures that that dominant console gets all of the games which is good for gamers. i could care less if the other losers belly up, as long as i get my game on. |
Anything that they sell beyond what is already covered is pure profit as opposed to having to cover the entire cost of development as well as marketing, producing, distribution and the other costs associated with it. As I said, that way there is no risk involved. You don't need to agree.
Yes, every company does it in one way or another. Nintendo does the same thing, or similar, with the likes of Bayo 2, Devil's Third, and works much the same way as like Smash where they cover the cost for development but have someone else develop the game with close supervision or help and cooperation to get the game developed.
They will just save money on development and use less people to get it done, not more making better quality because that wouldn't mean as much profit for them. Likely a lot of developers will find themselves out of work because there likely won't be more games, publishers will just put out what ever crap they feel like putting out with nobody to stop them because with a lack of games people will either buy them or not and there won't be any choice left in the matter to try another console.
I didn't say it was a monopoly yet, but playstation is certainly dominating. If this does continue it COULD become a monopoly. In some ways it kind of is already. It makes no difference as to the reasons why something happens, if a monopoly happens it happens. And again, there is a reason that laws are in place for that kind of thing.
In many ways the industry was better during that time. It was healthy enough that many studios were flourishing, much because it cost a lot less for a game to hit the shelves plus there were quite a few good mediums that got the info out about the games (not that there isn't now, but it's far more directed now).
Making excuses for "who" buys consoles is BS as to the whole dominance argument. It certainly garnered massive interest from loads of different people, but there is however when you look at the statistics of what people do with their consoles. The amound of media and the like that has been increasing due to the massive amount of usage showing that people are doing far more than just gaming on their consoles. Of course two consoles that equal 160 million users (roughly) is going to be more than a single console that has sold 100 million. That's like saying you are surprised that the PS4 is selling more games than the X1 when it has an 80% larger user base.
Then keep on enjoying gaming. Were you alive during the Atari era?
Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.
