| RicardJulianti said:
http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/14/making-of-the-xbox-1/ The "State of Panic" section. Bill Gates saw the PS2 as an affront the PC.
When I speak about the market, I am speaking of the overall size. As long as consoles continue to sell, the market gets larger. We will see if the market is bigger or smaller next gen. The more consoles that are available, the more people are able to buy games so the market is larger. It is most certainly larger than it has ever been before. Even if there are less people buying games overall, the potential is still there. Disagreements and development hell becomes worse with a larger development team size. Too many people giving their input. I know that Sony's game division isn't doing poorly (other than the fact that it lost them at least $4bn with the PS3 alone), and I said "if Sony doesn't reign in their other divisions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983 In '83 PC games were a factor.
Like I said, Nintendo helped spur competition by imposing their own draconian rules on third parties. 38 Studios did buy Big Huge because they had started on a game, they did want it to be an MMO and developed it as such and then it was changed to a single player RPG. Mass Effect 2 was still made by EA even though the developers were Bioware. Like I said, Schilling mismanaged the entire thing. By buying the studio, the office space, moving to Rhode Island, taking out the loan etc....he was mismanaging the budget. Just because I didn't mention every little detail involved doesn't make it inaccurate, it isn't as if the information I provided was false.
"Clearly untrue" and "clearly poorly researched" are gross exaggerations, seeing as nothing is inherently untrue, and I did research. Not including every minute details doesn't mean something isn't true. The article was long enough as it is. The quote here is pure semantics. "Oh no, he said crash instead of contraction!"
|
I assume this was meant to be a reply to me.
So you read "One of the apocryphal stories was that Bill Gates approached Sony’s CEO, Noboyuki Idei (pictured right), before the PlayStation 2 game console was announced. Gates wanted Sony to use Microsoft’s programming tools, but Idei turned Gates down. Idei said that Gates flew into a rage, taking the affront surprisingly personally. " and got from that the PS2 was an affront to PC? You do know what apocryphal means right? And you realise being personally offended by Sony refusing to use MS tools in their dev kitts is a seperate issue right? MS tools were already used for some Dreamcast games (tho the partnership wasn't as strong as MS wanted) at that point showing that MS had an interest into getting into the market long before the PS2. "Games were on the cusp of breaking out into the mass market and could even become bigger than the movies. The fear that Microsoft would miss out on this lucrative market flowed down from the top." is they key part it was a market they wanted in on.
PC gaming was still very small at the time (especially outside of the UK and Europe) it's effect on the 83 crash was minimal at most. And PC gaming has grown stronger ever since (with a few slumps) without negatively effecting the console business. Don't take wikipedia too seriously when it comes to stuff like that.
Gaming is much much bigger than the console market that your article still seems to ignore. And the big 3 console makers relly heavilly on the major publishers support, none of them have the resources to maintain major consoles without 3rd party support. Even Nintendo (tho them by far the least of the 3) relies on the income brought in and the additions to library that they bring. And without that revenue stream they could afford even less internal development. The loss of major publishers would cripple all console manufaturers. Also the loss of AAA publishers would hurt outside investor confidence which would also cripple new publishers and developers. The console space is already feeling the pinch of a lack of investor confidence in Console games as investors move to make a quick buck on mobile, social and Free 2 Play. Which has lead to the loss of several 3rd party developers that used to work on console and "retail" PC games. With a big publisher collapse investment in console games would dry up increadibly quickly, and move even more into mobile and Asia (F2P, Social) because that is where the money is. It would not lead to a renasonse of mid tier games by mid tier studios and a death of franchises and "exploitative" business models as you claim. Quite the opposite in fact it would just kill that segmant once and for all as well as the average AAA games, leaving only mega franchises and tiny 1-15 man indies and social/F2P/Freemium.
No you are still getting the 38 Studios stuff wrong they were developing their MMO for 2 years before they accuried Big Huge Games. Reckoning was repurposed into a prelude to the MMO nothing more, it was always a singleplayer RPG. Project Copernicus was the MMO that 38 Studios was developing, a seperate game intirely, and was still in development at 38 Studios after Rekoning shipped. 38 Studios isn't a publisher (Rekoning was published by EA partners) they were a studio in their own right developing their own game completly seperate from Reckoning. And the situation around that studio has nothing to do with the state of the industry, and very little to do with the lack of success of Reckoning. There was a reason that Epic accuired most of Big Huge Games after 38 Studios went under, tho after Tensent aquired a large stake they let them go in the restructuring.
