_honeybadger_ said:
dunno001 said:
_honeybadger_ said:
dunno001 said:
gekkokamen said:
@dunno001 why should they put any more effort than what Nintendo does with their own games? You ask nintendo for games and they do what? throw you another one of the SAME bones? |
I'm not asking for more effort, I'm asking for a comparable effort. They're assigning B and C teams to making spinoffs. This is not equivilant to Nintendo's AAA efforts. And then those B and C games are released to the market to die- no marketing, no hype, no nothing. They have no right to complain about sales if they're not going to actually try to make a good game, let alone sell it. Of course, like any rule, there are exceptions. Note the exceptions, though; they're all niche games. Some people here complain about the sales on them, but the developers, knowing that they're niche, seem to be happy. Why's that? They may not be AAA games, but they are A games for a niche, and they were marketed to sell.
As for Nintendo, they're not throwing just the same bones like you claim. Yes, there is the NPC line, I won't deny that. But what they are good at doing is throwing like-shaped bones. If we see a Super Mario game, we know what to expect. Likewise with Zelda. Metroid? Check. Those of us who've been around a while know what we are getting. The same can not be said of the 3rd party games on the Wii, due to the sheer number of spinoffs. Oh, and Nintendo's not the only party guilty of throwing out the same bones, some of the 3rd parties do that also. In fact, most 3rd party sequels, not just on the Wii, are more closely linked than Nintendo's sequel "bones". But that's an argument for another thread... |
So If Im a A team developer, have gained multiple skill/capabilities to creat and program games for the HD consoles/PC, I would have to take less money, stop moving forward with the Industry and regress just so that I make a game on the WII? that makes total sense.
The B an C teams make games for the WII because thats the platform that is more adjusted with their skill set and pay level. Remember Nintendo said that WII games would have lower development Budgets and lower prices, but to achieve those results this is the compromise.
|
You're actually showing a very strong bias in your first paragraph. Firstly, if you think that all it takes to make a good game is to throw a ton of money at it, you're horribly wrong. (You'll also go out of business in short order.) What you need is a team that wants to make fun games. Secondly, "stop moving forward and regress"? The only "regression" is in graphics. The motion controls are a way of moving forward; look at how both Sony and Microsoft are adding them to their repetoire now. A game has to be in HD to be good? Bull. And this gets me to your second paragraph.
Yes, Nintendo did say that games would be cheaper to develop. But that's assuming that everything else was equal. Yes, a B or C team gets paid less, thus a B or C team game on HD would cost less than the AAA team. And besides, isn't part of being an AAA team the ability to adapt to changes? If you can't do that, you're not an AAA team. A true AAA team could make a great game for the Wii and a great game for HD systems. And, given this, the Wii game would be cheaper due to several other factors. (Technically, the AAA team is paid less, but only because of the shorter development time. Their payrate remains unchanged.) But the fact is, the AAA teams aren't even assigned to Wii games. No, the compromise of lower costs isn't only using B and C teams. That creates a further discrepency in costs, and is why companies can afford to whine about "bad" Wii sales. Spend a little more per manhour, and actually have the AAA team make a Wii game. If they do, it will sell. If not, well, then, it should be considered if they're really an AAA team or not, and their pay equally under consideration. |
A) game developers salaries is part of the budget for a game, hence the more skilled and competent the developer the higher the game budget will be. so I never said that the only thing you need to do to make a good game is to throw a ton of money at it is you spin on what im trying to express with my post.
B) Technology wise when you stop pushing the limits of what you do and being more static you have already regressed, moores law, They would regress because the type A developers have stop keeping up to date with the latest advancements and tecniques that are discovered daily to concentrate on things they were doing roughly 10 years ago. its a regression you cannot spin that to make it look like bias when is a proven fact.
B.1) Motion controls are nothing new, they have been available for years before the WII at an arcade near you, But I guess most WII owners forget that fact in order to sustain their dilusions.
C) Your example has a fault in that you dont and I dont know how much time it takes to make a Mario Galaxy type of game, or a Zelda Type of game on the WII, and how much money the artist and programers are getting during the development time. I used those examples because they are generally considered to be WII core games of extreme quality.
P.S I can fault 3rd party Publishers/developers for trying to get their WII FIT/WII Play type of hit with the expanded audience, and neglect the minority of hardcore WII gamers. |
A: You will note that my prior reply had already acknowledged this. I said that they would have to "spend a little more" to use the AAA team. What I read from your post was that you would need to give them their higher pay, AND that they would need more money in resources to make a good game. The idea is, that the AAA team should be able to make a better game than the B or C team, even if both are given exactly $5 million in resources. The only difference in cost between the games now would be their pay.
B: Not quite. What is "pushing the limits" in what you can do? You're implying that gaming is a straight line only for development- along graphics. Just because the PS3 and 360 are going straight down this road doesn't mean it's the only way to go. Nintendo took a left turn, and decided to push how you play the game. And when Nintendo starting finding more customers off that straight road, Microsoft and Sony both decided to take a left turn themselves and add motion. Now, say motion catches on with all 3 systems. These AAA teams which you advocate for only pushing graphics have done no training in this motion control concept. Some of them will be unable to produce a game of high calibur, as those who made the turn earlier have more experience in this new direction. That's why I say that the AAA team can adopt to varying conditions. And right now, those AAA teams are not being given the opportunity.
B1: I never claimed that it was "new", rather, I said that it was "moving forward." Yes, I know that motion was around before the Wii, with success in the arcades, even. However, in the home markets, it never really got a lot of traction. Yes, there was the EyeToy, but how many people could I count on having this? If 10% of 120 million people have it, then if I require it, I've only got a market of 12 million potential customers. However, the Wii gave companies an assurance that the user would own something with motion. I can use the Wiimote and Nunchuk, with the knowledge that 100% of Wii owners have this. I may think twice about requiring the Balance Board or Wii Motion Plus, as I target a smaller market. This is how Nintendo pushes things in another direction- never before was motion a guarantee for consoles.
C: You are correct in that neither of us know how long a specific game is in development. And yes, I will acknowledge a flaw, as I worked on the assumption of averages; the Wii's average is skewed low due to the amount of crap shoveled out. However, I would assume that the teams on Mario and Zelda are their AAA teams (and thusly getting AAA pay), as these names are so closely associated with the Nintendo brand.
Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. " thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."
