zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:
Its completely irrelevant where you get your consoles or your games, or why. You still use them, and continue to consume games on those platforms and use all of the services you claim are ruining the game industry. You're still playing and reviewing games you feel developers should not be making. Again, it's like wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, donating and voting for Trump while writing articles blasting his policies, and begging people not to vote for him. It doesn't matter if you got the hat for free, you're still wearing it, and wearing it proudly, and people see you wearing that hat while begging people not to vote for him. That sends a mixed message, does it not?
I've not once called you anything other than a hypocrite, which you obviously are by your own admission. I don't think you're lying (and have never said as much) but you're being disinegnous by saying that it's awful that Sony is offering a service like PS+ while you're subscribed to it. It can't possibly be that bad to you if you're spending money on it. So these consumers that you're pleading to be smarter with their money and not subscribe to such services, how many of them do you want to do as you say and not as you do? How many of them are supposed to be smarter with their money than you appear to be? If Sony listens to these people you're pleading with to not buy into services like PS+ and Sony cancels the service, you'll actually be missing out on something you're willing to pay for. You will lose out one something you consume and enjoy. Why is this so hard for you to understand that this makes you look bad?
As for me apparently detracting from the site, are we or are we not freely exhanging ideas and perspectives? Of course we are. You just don't like the conversation, because the ideas and perspectives is about your hypocrisy. Besides, just because you've been here longer or "contributed more" doesn't mean you should be immune from criticism. You don't get special rules (or at least shouldn't).
Perhaps you'll consider that my stance on you and your presence on this site is similar to the stance you're taking with the game industry. I'm not mad. I didn't take any of the criticism you had against the game industry personally. You have just one opinion amongst hundreds of millions. What makes you think you're opinion on the industry has enough power to hurt me or any other developer personally, especially when your criticism is so broad and vague? It doesn't. The only reason I said what I said, is because I dig the site but like to call out bullshit when I see it here. You dig the game industry but like to call out bullshit when you see it there. Yet somehow you believe your pursuits are noble, but mine are a scourge to the site? Well as the Dude says, "that's just like your opinion, man". Afterall, I'm not the one profiting off of calling you out in any way. You on the otherhand....
Really, do yourself a favor and become more aware of your actions and how they represent you as a person. it appears that how you feel you present yourself and how you actually appear to those around you may not coincide.
|
I dont recall him ever saying those games shouldnt be made, just that there should be more of a balance among various genres and level of budget instead of a couple genres and a small percentage of games making up the majority of sales.
|
But you do realize that the only thing that's required for this to happen is for people to buy more smaller budget games, right? Most developers make high-budget, low risk games because that's what sells. Rockstar already knows they're going to get back whatever they spend in GTA VI so long as they make a solid polished game and don't deviate from the formula too much. Activision already knows the next Call of Duty is going to sell like hot cakes (although the bro-shooter crowd appears to be tapering off a bit). Naughty Dog already knows The Last of Us 2, or another Uncharted game made to their standards will sell very well. Why deviate from that?
Here's the thing. Spending 1/4 as much on 4 games that don't sell as well as they would as a single title is a bad business move. Just ask EA. Look at the period when they released Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Dante's Inferno, Facebreaker, the Saboteur etc. All smaller games on smaller budgets, most of which were well receieved by critics, but not great sellers as a whole. I think only Dead Space actually recouped it development/marketing costs. Was EA smart to do that, or would they have been better off pouring more money and resources into something like Mass Effect, or FIFA or Battlefield, and making those games better? Honestly, probably the latter.
It's easier said than done, and it's even easier to criticize without coming up with any better solutions that are firmly grounded in reality and more importantly backed by objective, knowledgeable research. Anyone can say "Sony should make a cheaper console", but I assure you that Sony is trying make the cheapest, best selling console they can because it's in their best interest to do so. So here's the question: Does a PS4 that is half as powerful as the current version that hits the market at $249 in 2013 a more successful console for Sony than the current PS4? Personally, I really doubt that. I see that as a console that doesn't get games that are as complete and as fleshed out as Uncharted 4. I see a console that gets absolutely thrashed in head-to-head third party game comparisons to the Xbox One. I see a console that third parties abandon because it takes to much time and effort to "scale down" their games to run well, if not for the poor sales. Because I don't see such an obviously weaker console selling well at all, even if its half the price of the X1 at launch. Not with Sony's target audience.
