Xbox One

    CliffyB's take (pretty much agree with him): http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/534576068…s-whole-debacle

    Quote

    My money is on the PC, mobile and tablets for the near future. I wandered around E3 looking at (too many) fantastic games shaking my head and worrying about how many are going to be deemed a failure due to the fact that yes, it may have sold 4 million copies, but it cost too much to make and market, so it was a wash. (Do your homework, several very high profile games have had this issue and no, I’m not going to call them out here.)At the end of the day I suppose it’s a beautiful thing that so many gamers actually give a shit and are willing to participate in the debate. Just remember one of the (positive) aspects of Capitalism is that it encourages competition. You don’t want one system to “win” because what happens is that the “winner” then becomes fat and lazy and the consumer has no choice. That choice is what often forces a business’ hand. (Look at the mess that is cable right now; many markets only have one choice so you could wind up fucked with Time Warner.)

    By the way, Apple may be the ones who wind up “winning” this entire thing now.

    Quote from Dude Huge

    Those of you telling me “then just lower game budgets” do understand how silly you sound, right?*

    can someone explain to me why this is silly? why can't those developers make shorter games instead of having kamikaze-budgets? should consumer rights suffer just because some game developers experience the negative consequences of having a risky business model?

    also, how can it be any better for developers to have microsoft's sharing model? wouldn't that make it even easier to not buy games? there are only a couple, at best a handful, of games that I buy on launch date every year. if microsoft went with this "friends sharing"-feature I would just wait until my friends finished their games.

    TotalBiscuit's explanation (no video needed, only sound). Real eyeopener for me. Completely changed my point of view. Thanks FrieChamp.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from csyver

    can someone explain to me why this is silly? why can't those developers make shorter games instead of having kamikaze-budgets? should consumer rights suffer just because some game developers experience the negative consequences of having a risky business model?

    We're going to keep increasing game budgets and offset the costs by making consumers pay more. What could possibly go wrong?!

    I mean, it's not like there are successful indie games out there making millions, or successful long-running series that are still using the same out-dated engine after five games. Increasing development costs is the only way.

    Quote from FrieChamp

    CliffyB's take (pretty much agree with him): http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/534576068…s-whole-debacle

    That blog post was amazing! CliffB really made some awesome points, +10 respect for him.

    And yes, SpronyvanJohnson,

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    was AMAZING and a real eye opener! We as an industry need to find a way to solve this problem and crush GameStop. Microsoft tried and look what happened!

    Games are already shorter than ever, The 6-8hrs long campaigns flourished because of costs, but also because gamers weren't finishing 20+ hours games. Look at the stats of the HL Episodes... and you would have thought HL gamers are only hardcore fanboys.

    Quote from Taylor

    I mean, it's not like there are successful indie games out there making millions, or successful long-running series that are still using the same out-dated engine after five games

    True, but (i mean no offense) myopic: the industry cannot turn to the indie format as a whole. People expect and demand huge megaproductions that give value to their 400$ video card, to their new console.

    I'm coming up to the convincement that short-running huge blockbuster are crucial to the prosperity of the "smartly and strategically developed" titles. Analogy: you can enjoy the cheap "Moon" movie ($5 mln), but you wouldn't want to go see such a "boring" movie every month, to appreciate it you need the costy "Oblivion" ($200+ mln) to break it up. Does that makes sense?

    So for COD to be successful, you need the Crysis, Dead Space or even Battlefield. It's just my gut feeling, but I bet you: take all the FPSes out of the market, and after a while COD would decline.

    This is a side-point but IMO if a game is genuinely great it should last someone 12–25 hours and remain exciting and awesome throughout. Ones that last less then that aren't a bad thing as clearly there's a demand for that short but sweet experience, but I don't like the fact that games lasting 5–8 hours are out there costing as much as the ones that last literally twice as long.

    Nowadays I have to go looking up forum posts and shit to get an idea of how long a game actually is because it's not like they actually print 'oh yeah this lasts a few hours LOL' on the box.

    Well, you can't keep increasing game budgets, leave gamers with the bill, and expect the whole thing to not crash. That's lacking foresight. We're already seeing mass layoffs every other month, even with the whole industry running on contracts now to stop the headlines. I actually don't follow why Call of Duty needs competitors with bigger budgets to power its own success.

    Quote from Thrik

    Nowadays I have to go looking up forum posts and shit to get an idea of how long a game actually is because it's not like they actually print 'oh yeah this lasts a few hours LOL' on the box.

    http://www.howlongtobeat.com

    I always look at this before buying a game. These days I'm not so inclined in buying one when it's over 10h long.

    as i've said before; most gamers are size queens. they want that huge and long game just filling their brains up with all that c...ontent.

    Quote

    ' timestamp='1371839389' post='336137']And yes, SpronyvanJohnson,

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    was AMAZING and a real eye opener! We as an industry need to find a way to solve this problem and crush GameStop. Microsoft tried and look what happened!

    Yeah, but they fucked up. They should have sent a clear message instead of all this confusing back and forth. If they would have said:"Look, we're doing this because we want to be like Steam and give you cheaper games and features, such as cloud use" nobody would complain.

    Plus, like CliffyB said, the being online and region lock were unnecessary and caused even more bad press. In the end it was, for the most part, a good idea with poor execution.

    Quote from Sentura

    CoD should already be declining. Selling the same product over again only works so many times.

    I dunno about the amount of active players, but I guess suits only worry about sales, and Black Ops 2 beat the previous entry yet another time "to become the biggest entertainment launch of all time" so... we'll have to see with the next one.

    Quote from Taylor

    Well, you can't keep increasing game budgets, leave gamers with the bill

    Just sayin' that gamers are expecting better graphics with better systems

    Quote

    I actually don't follow why Call of Duty needs competitors with bigger budgets to power its own success.

    As I said, it's just my gut feeling, so I don't know very much how to explain it. (And can very well be simply wrong.)

    I'd say that you need that shiny new toy, people love to see two entities clash in a challenge, but the challenger needs to sparkle attention. Also, the new visual standard will attract new buyers.

    Baseline of my argument is that you need variety, which is also achieved by the means of production value; if the environment gets stale, the market contracts. (I suppose.)

    Maybe i've misinterpreted your previous post, but as you cannot simply increase budgets, you can't either just stop pushing technologies and think that low-production costs will keep you afloat/ahead of the others because now you have a bigger margin.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login