Currently Online 
| Mnementh said: I guess a lot of that is down to budget. You don't easily walk away from a 200 million failure (or possibly more). But again: that is on Sony. Why not start with a smaller budget and smaller game with an unproven and new studio. Sony did that once upon a time: they had games like Flower, Parappa, Gravity Rush and so on. Small experiences. How many similar games were cancelled or uncussessful? With such small budget it is easy to forget a failure. And these games still allow the studio to learn and grow. So no, wishing a game to fail because we dislike the direction it takes should not mean that the devs lose their job. That is a corporate decision, and it is bad as it prevents studios to build up experience and good workflow. |
I mean, that's the thing. A lot of people claim that the industry is missing AA games, that everything nowadays is too expensive and time-consuming and that's costing the industry, etc.
But the thing is, people nowadays don't buy AA games. Period. They almost unanimously fail with rare exceptions, meaning going back to the old PS2 days where that used to work seems out of the question with today's market.
So, you might as well go for high-risk, high-reward GAAS in that scenario. Blame the game, not the players.
