Awhile back (maybe a month or two ago) someone posted a thread on how Indie games suck.  And yes, there is this mentality floating about how some gamers REALLY, REALLY badly want a movie-like experience with their games, with top notch stories and production value, and the rest.  I will say that the added production value, team of hundreds doing a game, and more, is enjoyable as part of the gaming experience.  But, here is why this model is not good as the dominant model, and why Indies are really the last hope for hobbyist gamers:

* The large production value Hollywood blockbuster model results very few studios at top, and just small scale indie studios about.  The mid-size studio dies off, so the bulk of the games out there are going to be rough around the edges and miss stuff.

* The budgets on the top side are HUGE, and to get funded, they aren't going to be able to take chances (plus add they take YEARS to come out).  This lack of taking chances means that you get a narrow band of similar gameplay mechanics and very little new.  If you have a said new IP, it is very likely not going to be something new.  The IP will end up being something that is already established.  Even the likes of Watch_Dogs is this.  Yes, it is a hacking game, but is is a sandbox game, following the likes of Assassin's Creed.  From what interviews showed about the game, the hacking is merely going to be point and click to interact with the environment.  Yes, it is about hacking, but the gameplay is sandbox pretty much, which has been done.

* The top end is also resorting to a game as a platform, where they continue to sell you DLC so you stick with one game for a long, long time, which also makes winner take all of the blockbuster model worse.  Money stays locked into ONE game, rather than supporting multiple studios, so studios end up going under as a result.

* As part of this model is that games MUST become franchises, and produce sequel after sequel, in addition to the DLC model.  And, the DLC usually won't carry over to the new game.  So after you have ended up spending a chunk of change on the DLC for a game as a platform, you end up starting ALL OVER again, with a new game as a platform.  Hey, you do get a nice discount with a season's pass though.

* The blockbuster model is VERY expensive, relatively speaking, to maintain. So the push is for the likes of preorders to be done, with virtual items added on.  And you also throw in review embargos until the game is released.  And the key is to get costs recovered as early as possible here.  And trying to follow Hollywood, it tries to do all this WITHOUT the same revenue streams Hollywood has.  The videogames industry skates on very thin margins, and has to think of throwiing out used sales, because it can't survivie without this.  And you get the likes of Gamestops see a need to push used over new, in order make sufficient margins to stay in business, and pay for 20 sales turkeys that didn't make a profit, as is everyone else in the industry.  And with this thin margins, studios die if they don't keep making hits.  One hit and you are gone.

* In the blockbuster model, the only studios that can afford to take chances are self-funded, work for nothing unless you find a niche, indie games with the equivalent of guys working out of garages.  These titles will show innovation, but also pile on tons of knock offs (wow, it is Geometry Wars... BUT WITH ZOMBIES).  There will be things cut and noticed, but you may find some new stuff, amongst the dregs.

And behold, welcome to the Hollywood blockbuster business model that will drive the industry.  All this to be able to produce games that are actually movies, and anything really new on the margins, lacking production values that have little to do with the game itself, but are meant to hook people.  And this is NOT good for gamers at all.  But, keep feeling you need to suck up the next FPS that has a professional writer behind it that won an Oscar for his storytelling, even if you play it primarily for the multiplayer, it is CRITICAL that it end up being like Hollywood, with the large teams, etc....

I agree with this. Games have too much of a budget now and it's costing them dearly. It was never something that was supposed to compete with movies, it took on the arcade but the movies is too much. I would rather have something new and different in my games than ones that focus on the overproduction of its cutscenes and graphics

The focus is more on production and polish than interesting new play mechanics.  You don't get a Katamari coming along too often now.  I would say someone who is a gamer lives on gameplay, above other things.  

I would say there would be a HUGE benefitting from NOT labeling everything "games" or "videogames".  If the niche here was seen as "interactive entertainment" or "electronic entertainment", that would help.  Note here: E3 stands for "Electronic Entertainment Expo", which doesn't have to mean games.  I see problems with Dance Central gets lumped with Call of Duty or Angry Birds or X-Com.

Quit whining.

Gaming is the biggest it has ever been and indie gaming has no sign of slowing down. State of Decay is proof of this. 

High budgets will eventually stagnate (if they haven't already), to a point where they only increase in relation to inflation, much like blockbuster movie budgets have been pretty much been the same in the last 5 - 8 years. I think this is already seen since the difference between this gen and next gen graphics is looking very slight. Killzone SF is proof od this. 

Big budgets mean more people are in employment. This is good for the industry.

Franchises have been part of gaming for decades... why are you complaining about more games??? If you don't want them, chose another hobby.

Yes and No

Yes = More hired people mean less unemployment, more games can be developed, and more money & growth for the company and the industry........but. . . .

No = Depending on how successfull the will game will be, if they keep making these (high budget) games without getting any returns in profit then they have no choice but to cut some people off in order to keep the company a float.

What a lot of these developers don't get is that there needs to be a balance in their development budget. If they keep spending most or all of their money on every game they release and they don't sell, then they're not going to be in business for very long. This and marketing is what killing a lot of these companies.

Gaming Industry crash 20??

The Hollywood Blockbuster model does NOT mean more games.  What it means is LESS top end games, and new content coming through the Indie route.  A Hollywood blockbuster business model is NOT good for gamers.  It means either less content, or more content of lower quality.  This is not a win-win for people at all.

The issue with big budgets and larger studios will mean LESS of them.  And that is not good.  It also means less chances taken by studios, and you might get more games, but LESS diversity.  And this is NOT good.