Majority of japanese titles arent graphically impressive either. Outside of MGS, Resident Evil and FF, Japan has no technically impressive looking games.

There is a big difference in budget with western AAA titles like GTA and Watch Dogs and Japanese AAA titles such as Dark Souls 2, where the budget is still considerably small compared to a western triple A game

This is the kind of irrationality that ssems to be driving these pompous, snobbish rants against "indie" games. If a game is fun to play who cares if it is 4 hours or 400 hours? Except with the cost of the game I don't care, I'll play them. If we were talking about these smaller bite sized games costing $59.99 then perhaps we coould take all the fervor over the indie market serious but that simply isn't the case.

And I really find your statement on PCs funny because a good gaming PC will run you more than a $400 console and you'll find a plethora of indie titles for the PC so I'm not sure how your point on price means anything here. And no the time taken for development time would most certainly NOT be the same. If there wasn't a regular release of games developers would be under the gun to deliver their games on time so that gamers would have something to buy for their consoles. I've been through all eight console generations. I can honestly say this is the BEST games drought I have ever seen on a console.

Some gamers are a curious bunch, shit on devs for pushing out shoddy half-baked games requiring patches on the backend or never actually finishing them but then rail against them taking extra time to get the games right and then blame it all on the recent surge in popularity of indie titles.

PS4 is selling very well and I think plenty of well reasoned gamers are enjoying their $400 purchases by playing all the great games, indie or AAA, that are available right now. I feel sorry for people who are so caught up in this AAA or die mentality as they are most likely suffering the worst case of buyers remorse ever.

Again, this is a good thing.

Therefore the stuff you don't like on PSN that's indie hasn't got quality problems, you just plain don't like that content. Acclaim and THQ put out some right dross in their times, particularly in the 8 and 16 bit days despite being huge players in the industry at the time.

It's just a matter of time. Wait till they get used to dev kits and the flood gate will open.

Dev Kits have nothing to do with the quality assurance process.

I edited my above post. Again, there is no simple button to push to publish on PSN. There are still lots of hurdles to jump to get your product listed. So it won't open the floodgates as no one is going to put more effort into getting something published than they did into the actual product.

Sure rubbish will hit PSN that is indie, but no more or less than rubbish that is AAA.

Ehhhh, it might have helped with keeping out the muck, (although stuff like the patching fee actually kept devs from trying to patch glitched games,) but the old publisher policies were rife with their own issues; for one thing, many of the Publishers involved were, to put it bluntly, complete dicks and abused the crap out of their role. Given Microsoft would assign a limited number of 'slots' to each, based I believe on some objective measure of the Publisher's size or sales... in any case, only publishers who sold physical games at retail qualified for these slots, and because the slots were limited, publishers would often use their 'supply' as leverage. A developer looking to release on the Xbox 360 would sometimes end up having to either accept insane conditions, ("If we publish for you, not only do you have to give us a cut of the revenue from the 360 platform, you have to give us a cut from ALL the platforms, even the ones that you could self-publish on.") or simply not publish on the Xbox 360 at all. And since the Parity clause meant if you published anywhere else first, you COULDN'T publish on Xbox 360 afterwards, plenty of devs were hesitant to burn that particular bridge.

So at best you were signing up with a 'partner' who, really, didn't contribute anything except a 'ration token' that only existed because Microsoft created that sort of artificial scarcity, a Publisher who in exchange for the token would often get a piece of the ENTIRE pie, not just the part they were 'helping' with. They weren't contributing to development costs, weren't doing aaaanything to help make the game, just holding a golden key with one hand, and holding the other out for payment.

The kicker is, this option was viewed as the lesser of two evils compared to publishing with Microsoft, with whom publishing meant giving the platform cut, and a publisher's cut, and agreeing to timed exclusivity at minimum. Given announcing to the world that your game will be coming out on Xbox 360 first generated a fair bit of bad PR, and hurt sales potential on future platforms, it was an option devs wanted to avoid at all costs. And said costs were, generally, pretty severe.

Reports from one Dev suggested that getting his title released on the Xbox 360 was vastly more expensive, and time consuming, than releasing on ANY of the other platforms, without really offering enough revenue to make the whole ordeal worth it. So it wasn't just a matter of whether a developer could afford it; more and more, it became a matter of 'Why am I bothering with all this junk at all, when I can go publish over there, ignore the Xbox platform entirely, and probably make more money in the long run?"

So by the time the Xbox One was readying for release, the indie devs were starting to drop away in droves and pass on the Xbox One altogether, which is why Microsoft ended up changing their policies to begin with. Because it wasn't just the shovelware devs that were leaving, it was actual indie devs who made games audiences LIKED, games that did well on their own merit. If they hadn't removed the Publisher requirement, forget just bad indie games, Microsoft would have been lucky to get that many GOOD ones on their platform, or indie games at all. =P

___

Anywhooo, back on topic I go. x3

To be specific, I do believe that there should be a gateway, as it were, even if it's a small team making sure that the game is not complete crap, making sure we don't get flooded with Flappy Bird clones, etc. Everything that has been streamlined, in terms of application time and cost, is great, but there should definitely not be any form of automated 'let em in when the counter strikes ten,' ala Greenlight. Right now Sony seeeems to be doing okay, if a bit over-enthusiastic, and I am hoping they'll reign that in and be a tad more discerning. If nothing else, I haven't yet seen any disasters on PS4 that match Soda Drinker Pro, and God knows those 'developers' (very loosely speaking) would get on PS4 if they had the chance. =P

But just like unmoderated self-publishing is getting abused by crap developers, Microsoft's old policies got abused by crap publishers. =P A balance needs to be found between the two, that will benefit both the developers who actually release games that draw an audience, and the audience that won't have to dig through mountains of crap to find it.