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. |
I think the answer is because A and AA budget games are struggling in the marketplace and have been doing so for a good few years now. Even indie developers are struggling to get any exposure at all because of just how much content there is.
I don't think we can look back at what Sony was doing 10, 20 years ago because the marketplace was different, budgets were different. Games like Flower, PaRappa and Gravity Rush could more easily see a ROI, something which is less likely now. I hope it's not lost on you that Studio Japan was closed down because of their inability to consistently make money on the games they were making. Their failures didn't turn into success stories because they were kept around to make more games.
When we're talking about a $200m budget, of course things are going to be more cut-throat: if Concord is completely dropped, how long and with what budget does it take for Firewalk to make a new game? Another 4-5 years? Another $150-$200m?
| PotentHerbs said:
I just don't see how wishing these games to fail means you aren't hoping that these developers lose their jobs. Many developers can't afford a game bombing, yet alone a catastrophic bomb like Concord, especially if they are independent. I'm sure some of you guys hoping it fails don't have that intention, but that's not the reality. |
Wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
Whether it was the intention of not, the continued dogpiling of a game and the continued hope that it bombs because it was not a game you wanted (hence a game you most likely didn't even bother to play/ interact with it) is really no different to hoping devs lose their jobs, or at best shows a complete lack of concern of the part of devs.
firebush03 said:
that makes me sick…$200m is now cheap by Sony standards? I feel like Nintendo doesn’t even spend that amount when combining all their first-party release for any given year. |
$200m is cheap relative to $315m, not that $200m is cheap in general for Sony.
| curl-6 said: Hopefully devs and publishers get the message that we don't want trash like this. |
Considering how many successful live service games there are and continue to be made, this is highly unlikely.
