DrDoomz said:
VanceIX said:
1.) Yeah, no. I'm optomistic on pletnty of threads, I just don't heap compliments when none are due. It's also really weird that you claim to know about my posts, since that would imply you read the majority of them, which I really doubt you do.
2.) Based on the fact that most indies die very fast in today's crowded industry. Some make it after their first game or two, but a lot of other simply crash. And most of which that do make it are NEVER going to be AAA studios. AA, maybe, but AAA? Doubtful. This isn't the '90s, where indie studios had little competition and could grow. And the support Sony gives them won't magically make them bigger studios.
3.) Few, as in a very small fraction of indie games released on PSN. The indie games on PSN are also just a fraction oif the indie games on PC.
4.) And that's the exact mentality I'm talking about. There is very little chance any of those developers will ever become AAA. Once again, maybe the smallest fraction of indie devs go anywhere near AAA, and Sony would need some great luck to single out any noticeable amount. The pressure on indie devs is crazy, prety much none have any sort of cash needed to jumpstart a legitimate AAA studio, and won't even after Sony helps publish or develop the game. The amount of money, manpower, and skill needed for a AAA studio is a huge barrier to entry. Most indies are made by just one person or a small team, none of them experienced in the type of game design needed for AAA blockbusters.
|
1) Your "passive aggressiveness" has nothing to do with your behavior or optimism on other threads. Might wanna read what I was saying as I think you're not comprehending what I said very well.
It has to do with you being feigning supportiveness (hey! i think they're doing great things for the indiezzz!) while subtly trying to insert negativity (but it's pretty overblownz!!!) in an attempt to downplay what they're trying to do. Basically, the I-think-they're-doing-good-but-not-really approach.
Also, never said I've read many of your posts. That would be silly. Insert words in people's mouths much? I'm speaking only from the posts of yours that I've read. And from our last debate, passive-aggressiveness with a hint of persecution complex seems to be your standard M.O.
2) No one made the claim that the majority of indies that Sony is nurturing will succeed, no one said that. At all.
What I was asking was where exactly you are finding this whole "overstated" perception you seem to be arguing against? That's what I meant when I asked "where are you basing this?"Who's been (over) stating that the indies that Sony is nurturing will all become big AAA devs someday? Especially in this thread. This, to me, just sounds like another one of your loosely-supported generalizations about common perceptions.
3) And, like I've already said (repeatedly at that) this is what makes your comment 'completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and your logic kinda crappy. What is basing it on the overall number of indies on PC or PSN have to do with anything?
Indies fail more than they succeed. We all know that. What Sony has done is offer support to more indies than their console competitor has. Thus, relative to their direct competitor and relative to how this would benefit Sony's strategic planning on the PS4, it is not "few".
4) You understand that what I said (and been trying to say all night) is that people are NOT thinking that all or even most or even a decent number of the indies Sony is supporting will become AAA's someday? That people understand that indies tend to fail and only a select few of them make it? Fact is, people know it's a freakin long shot. But indies are cheap (relative to what Sony can afford) and if you bet on enough long shots, you're bound to find a winner eventually (especially with a little help from Sony). That is the same principle behind Venture Capitalism.
And (for the purposes of this thread) just one potential strategic advantage Sony could be taking advantage of with their current approach to indies.
|
