| Bodhesatva said: That's a strawman, Kasz. I never said they sold exclusively on graphics/tech; even in the case of Epic, I said they "partly or largely" sell on graphics/tech. This isn't black and white. We all have our priorities. Some people, like me, place very little emphasis on graphics and much more on gameplay; others place some emphasis on gameplay, some on I/O, and some on graphics; some put a large emphasis on graphics or "immersion," and less emphasis on gameplay and I/O. I largely agree with Sullla, by the way. I think there are missed opportunities on the Wii; I just think the situation a lot less obvious than "put all your AAA games on the Wii and you will see the sales!" One other thing to consider is that a game that costs 20 million to produce on the 360 and sells 5 million copies makes more money than a game that costs 10 million to produce on the Wii and sells 5 million copies. Therefore, the AAA games that sell 5-10 million (like Gears or CoD4) are particularly profitable on the PS3/360. This is one of the things discouraging blockbuster development on the Wii.
|
I don't think it's a strawman. I think you could point to plenty of games that have sold soley on the basis of gaemplay... and that those who focus on graphics also do focus on gameplay.
Therefore it's not that difficult to make the change. I'd argue that in most cases, even when they do put an emphasis on graphics, their is larger emphasis on gameplay.
Outside of people like Epic, who's main customers aren't regular people... and the occasional first party sony game to show off it's graphical prowess vs 360.
After all, why else do a lost of companies liscense the urneal engiens, so they don't have to put too much focus on the graphics. (Well those with projects where they try.)
The only people who are going to be hit hard are the people who put a focus on neither, but instead put a focus on copying success... and these people haven't been successful anwyay.
