If you clicked this link, you probably know who he is, so I don't think I have to link to him. Plus some would complain about giving him hits if I did anyway.

In this thread, I'm discussing some of his notions that I agree with, but try to put it in a less combative and self-aggrandizing manner.

Or I'm just going to state my own position points, some agree with him, some not. And I'll make sure I'm civil. I am prone to bad moods, so if I end up seeming spiteful at points, let me know, so I can avoid going to far.

So my point, my defense for them, and feel free to discuss them.

The gaming industry doesn't need to die, just get smarter. The thing is that HD is costing these companies far more than it's worth right now. Sure those graphics are more detailed than SD, but at the cost of, well, cost. Revenue is up, but companies lost money, including the two HD adopting first parties. The costs are high, and combined with the increased marketing cost, are now at the point when selling a million copies, which was the magic number for the last generaions, is no longer a guarantee of profit for a typical large game. I'm not stating they just abandon the HD systems, just that they need to realize...

Big games should not be the primary focus for developers. Doesn't matter the system. They should also work on smaller games, while focusing on making them fun instead of flashy. The big games can still be there, just not overloading the market. It's not like the movie business where there are loads of extra revenue streams, like DVD releases. Firing nothing but big guns just levels the city, and leaves room for a different tactics to exploit holes in the strategy. Which brings us ot the Wii...

The Wii's market isn't unpreditcatble, just not established. The current enthusiast gamer market (I refuse to use "hardcore" on the basis of it also meaning "badass", and I wouldn't call most gamers badasses, including myself) was also seemingly unpredictable. It's just that was mainly in the 8-bit and 16-bit eras. It's just that many of the people in game development right now came in after the market was established, so they don't realize that the people with the Wii is just a matter of figuring out what they like. And it doesn't exclude the big games.

You want a big game to sell on the Wii, it has to be just as good as the best selling big games on the HD systems. I haven't found much disagreement on Dead Space Extraction not being the kind of game to sell to Wii owners, even if the reasons we assume why differ. Monster Hunter 3 was a big game. It had every chance to succeed just as much as if it was on and HD system. It was part of a hit series, had a big budget, had good marketing, had no major gameplay shifts with fancy words to try to hide it, and look at what happened. It succeeded. The third parties just need to do what they do on the other systems, and it can sell. People bought GTA IV and Modern Warfare because they thought those would be awesome games, not because they weren't on the Wii. As for making unfamiliar awesome games...

Focus on making some games awesome for the customer, not awesome for developers or the crticis. No, this isn't the "technocraty" thing (or however it's spelled) Maelstrom mentioned. This is something my mother told me when she hung out with computer programmers at her college. The guys were gushing about the tech, and how housewives were going to learn binary. They thought people would come to the tech. Instead the dumbed down GUI of Mac and Windows took off. They were hits because tech came to the people. How this relates to making games for the Wii market is that the Wiimote was made because they realized people weren't flocking to controllers with a lot of buttons if they weren't familiar with gamepads already. They made the Wiimote as the tech coming to the people. But about the software...

Don't try the games for the new market among the enthusiats, but among the gaming laymen. If there is one thing I do strongly agree with Maelstrom on, it's that getting in touch with the regular customers is a good thing. He mentioned sticking games in a bar or mall and seeing how well it does. Since those are places where the mainstream hangs out, that's about as good a test for your game among the mainstream as you can get. Of course you might still need to find out what would please them beforehand, so you don't turn them into beta testers for game ideas, so it's a good idea to find other ways to get in touch with what the mainstream would enjoy. Don't just copy the hits. It's obvious that only worked so far. Find ways to talk to these people, even if it's having the execs on the customer service lines (yeah, Maelstrom mentioned that, but it's a basic way of keeping those people on the mindset of the mass market). Don't listen to the gaming press...

The game industry doesn't need to die, the gaming press does. The thread title doesn't mention no spite, so here is where I give some. The gaming press is overrun by people who only want the big games. I don't think they game developers want the Wii and Nintendo to die as much as the gaming press does. They want all the games to be expensive and huge. They don't want the Wii to get any big games because they won't be as spectacular, while ignoring the increased cost (or even championing them), and thinking they are more enthusiast gamers like them to cover those costs. I do't have anything against the other systems. The 360 and PS3 have some games I like, and I enjoy them when I can play them. The gaming press does have a thing agains the Wii. No, not a conspiracy. It's a shared mindset. The Wii represents a thread to their dream where all the games are big and flashy, and games get respected as an artform, and the mainsteam flocks to their kinds of games (GTA IV was supposed to be the mainstream breakthrough, not Mario Kart). Not going to happen, because most of the art world looks at games as something to play, and the mainstream wouldn't have flocked to those games even without the Wii. All the is doing is proving their mindset wrong, and they can't stand it. Okay, there are a couple developers I also have an issue with...

EDIT: The next point uses the wrong words. I won't alter the post, to avoid the appearance of weaseling, but substitute "Preice gouging" for "Revenue crutches". As in Madden is no longer helping EA entire make a profit, not that the franchise itself isn't profitable.

Price gouging is not where the money is. I mean stuff like DLC and framchise milking. DLC seems to be a holdover from the dotcom mentality, that the internet is a gold mine if you know where to look. The thing is that the gold mine has turned out to just be an online form of what makes money anwya, like Amazon. You want to make loads of money, make games that appeal to a hell of a lot of people. Milking a franchise once a year isn't always reliable either. Madden can't even help EA make money anymore. But look at Mario Party. The games sold well when they were released once a year or so, but 8 and DS are the only games on their systems and they are the best sellers. Making games the customers love is where the money is. It's not like a utility where people don't have much of a choice. People don't have to play games. Developers need to make games people want to play.

Those are my points so far. They are a bit haphazard, but hopefully clear. You don't have to agree, but let's at least discuss this and not dismiss what someone who disagrees has to say (especially if you think Maelstrom does that veryt thing).

Can you finish point one 1 you trailed off

Nvm I C

Arguably if there were three HD consoles rather than two then the asset development cost would be divided over almost twice the revenue so therefore the assets could have been considered relatively a lot cheaper than they are now considering they could go further.

Its like three people holding hands going over a waterfall. if one of the three lets go and slows down the other two so they smash into rocks at the bottom you would have to ascribe some of the responsibility for the other twos injurues on the one who stopped.

  They'd have to develop on the third system, and the 6th gen shows that isn't likely.

The architectures were completely different last generation, also the ratios between coding/art/sound were more skewed towards programming. So this generation is easier to port and the art assets are make up a larger proportion of the overall budget and they are portable.

1. This is not a "what if Wii was HD" thread.

2. The architectures were not complely different last gen, and especially not more different than the PS3 to 360. Just because they have similiar specs does not make them easier to program for both. Did you not see when developers have said over and over again how different the PS3 architecture was? Just because they are actually making an effort on it does not make it easier.

Have to disagree with your last point.

Madden is still making a pretty penny and guess which is EA's most successfull game this year ? FiFA 10, another game with yearly installments..

Look at CoD for another example of yearly game making the big bucks...

1. I just wrote that Madden can't help EA make a profit now. As in it can't make up for all the money EA is just throwing around.

2. I did forget to add that sports games often need this due to rosters. But even then it's not good to depend on those.

3. Call of Duty does make money now, but the increased marketing is going to eat into the profit margin. Perhaps not as much this year, but likely others (and Activision had apparently been a smarter spender than other companies before this). Plus there are reports, not in the gaming press who touts the game, but elsewhere that MW2 is disappointing a lot of people. And if that leads to less sales next time, that will make they milked the brand a bit too much. But that's just a supposition.

There hasn't been any sign by EA that Madden itself wasn't profitable, now if you have access to information not available to the rest of us, please do share...