now this is what i like reading! i loved the original xbox!
![]()
| FlamingWeazel said: Sounds like as much an indictment of MS culture then gaming as a whole, not everyone operates like that. |
Agree. I want to see AA gaming back, indies just arent adequate. Their budgets are too small and often they're stuck in the 2D sprites era.


Very good read, Indie games are starting to become more and more popular. You don't need this AAA mega budget titles to make lots of cash. The industry needs a shake up and it'll be happening soon.
| forevercloud3000 said:
"So the conversation kind of goes, 'You're not making enough money.' And I'd say something ridiculous like, 'Well we could make more money if you'd allow me to put Halo on PlayStation.' 'You can't do that,' they say of course. I say, 'Well stop bugging me about making more money then.' So you're kind of in this box where you're really expected to do platform leading work but if you're also trying to make a profit it's very difficult with the size of the market you can address when you're a minority share console," he lamented. |
I wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive. In fact, I kind of assumed that ideally the two went hand in hand. But then the guy said that losing money on hardware was "classic," so maybe he just doesn't understand how a first-party usually works?
RolStoppable said:
If rising development budgets are the problem, then the solution would be a cap, no? Are you familiar with American sports? They have a thing called "salary cap" which prevents clubs from spending as much as they wish on players, thus it's impossible for a super rich owner to buy up all the best players and win by outspending the competition (there is no Chelski and the like). Consequently, each club needs to compete on fostering talent, forming a good team etc. In other words, it's competition on sportsmanlike terms, not about who has the most money. If an appropriate cap were applied to gaming, meaning that publishers can't simply win by outspending their competitors, then it wouldn't only be an environment where innovation is beneficial, but absolutely necessary. |
That's interesting and extremely surprising in a country that is more or less built upon super-capitalist principals. It's a really good thing though, not entirely unlike the engine and tyre restrictions in F1 or the turbo restrictors and effect cap on moder rally cars. Caps like these forces you to move all the pieces forward in order to achieve success rather than relying on brute horsepower/outspending/overindulging on gaming budgets for ease, this could be just what the doctor ordered. It would be difficult to impose on an actual open, competitive market though; sports and business are very different arenas, but I still appreciate the principle behind it.
brendude13 said:
Rising game budgets > Fear of failure and less room for experimentation > Franchises become milked and gaming stagnates > DOOOOOOM. |
We will probably see a new hollywood type of phenomenon, with AAA studios bankrupting and AA coming back and inspiring new AAA with indies.

| RolStoppable said: What does "usual" mean? What is common. You have to get with the times. If two of three console manufacturers do the same thing, then that is the usual thing. Don't cling on to standards of the past. Which means that it's usual for first parties that they don't know what they are about. |
Well that part seems downright universal today. But the interviewee was around during the PS2 generation, so not only was the idea novel, but there was a 2-2 split on the matter.
The loss of licensed games is hurting the consoles a lot.. They would soften the money loss if a new IP didn't work.. Not only were those games made with lower budgets and good return of investment it also lost a lot of "casual" audience.. People are happy to play them on mobile were they even have a better return on investment.. We really should have had an Avengers/Dark Knight Rises/Inception etc videogame this last gen..







Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!)
Companies don't want to take major risk anymore and I can't blame them. This is why we keep seeing rehash after rehash, this is the reason for CoD, AC, Halo, Mario, Gran Turismo Total War, and etc... These big corporations have executives that have to answer to shareholders and when games such as Puppeteer, Starhawk, W101, Lost Odyssey and others don't garner the proper sales it looks bad for the gaming division.
Companies no longer want to waste a good amount of resources on something that may or may not sell well.
We know Halo is gonna sell unit's, we know AC is gonna sell unites, we know Mario will sell and so on. So it's just much easier to stick with what you know is gonna be easy to market and has a history with consumers. Shooters are easier to market and sell to consumers than puzzle games or platformers(not named Mario).
Now were seeing the rise of indie games, low risk with a mid-high reward and we get to pay 60 dollars or 45(I think?) euro for a game we just played not to long ago.
RolStoppable said:
If rising development budgets are the problem, then the solution would be a cap, no? Are you familiar with American sports? They have a thing called "salary cap" which prevents clubs from spending as much as they wish on players, thus it's impossible for a super rich owner to buy up all the best players and win by outspending the competition (there is no Chelski and the like). Consequently, each club needs to compete on fostering talent, forming a good team etc. In other words, it's competition on sportsmanlike terms, not about who has the most money. If an appropriate cap were applied to gaming, meaning that publishers can't simply win by outspending their competitors, then it wouldn't only be an environment where innovation is beneficial, but absolutely necessary. |
Great idea but I'm not sure how you would put an international cap on game development budgets. Usually the market needs to sort itself out, especially when no one government can legislate to control it.