THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Himu on October 12, 2006, 06:58:06 PM
-
Seriously.
Brain Age has sold 7 million world wide...
And yet..
Okami did 87k.
Yakuza did less than 25k.
Valkyrie Profile Silmeria 32k.
......Ugh. Is anyone else worried about our little hobby as much as me? The non games are starting to take over America as well...
-
Thats hype for you.
Also puzzle-esqe games are in a totally different league when it comes to popularity.
My mom plays games on pogo.com for instance. (owned by EA lulz)
-
Seriously.
Brain Age has sold 7 million world wide...
And yet..
Okami did 87k.
Yakuza did less than 25k.
Valkyrie Profile Silmeria 32k.
......Ugh. Is anyone else worried about our little hobby as much as me? The non games are starting to take over America as well...
Okami/Yakuza/etc would bomb whether Brain Training existed or not. Those games simply do not attract casual gamers. Okami looks amazing, yes, but Viewtiful Joe looked amazing too and we know what happened there.
-
Not to mention Clover is dead.
Today has been a horrible day for gaming.
-
LOLZ GAMUHZ AND DER GAHMZ
-
"non games" is a ridiculous term.
-
Oh right, the game that sold 7 million world wide was Nintendogs, not Brain Age.
-
The videogame industry is heading towards a huge crash, but it won't derail the industry for years as it did with the Atari. Publishers just can't afford the costs and as a result, you're going to see just a handful of mega-giant publishers instead of a bunch. By next next generation, I imagine that the videogame production and distribution system won't be too far different than it is for Hollywood, where a few companies control the money, resources and dictate the market. I think you're already starting to see this.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason E3 is gone. And not pseudo-journalists parading about. That show was going to bankrupt people soon.
-
I think VJ outsold Okami actually.
There's alot of problems with the industry, but brain age isn't one of them.
-
Garrito, those games aren't made for the mainstream audience. The companies that create those games most likely know this. It's been this way for a while.
And Willco is right about the direction of the industry. We're seeing it already with so many companies playing it safe by rehashing the same crap over and over... just like Hollywood.
-
Those games aren't for the mainstream audience but for them to bomb THAT badly is horrible.
-
Those games aren't for the mainstream audience but for them to bomb THAT badly is horrible.
Have you cared when it happened to similar games over the past 10 years?
-
Yes, ofcourse. But in the past 10 years, we didn't have non-games that are supposedly going to start replacing them either.
-
Yes, ofcourse. But in the past 10 years, we didn't have non-games that supposedly going to start replacing them either.
What's the problem with Non-Games? They're just a genre. These games you're pointing out have been continual failures for years without the help of Non-Games. The industry should always welcome new genres.
-
Not when it's cleaning dog poo or testing your brain for points in a psychoanalysis exam. I'm fine with non-games because they could coexist, but when the non-games outsell the other games and we start getting less and less certain types you bet I will be pissed.
-
It's the generational change.
PS3 and X360 are too damned exciting, no one notices/cares about stuff coming on PS2 except hardcore gamers.
Everyone else is either playing 360 or waiting for PS3.
If next year, sales are still in the toilet, THEN we can worry.
-
Not when it's cleaning dog poo or testing your brain for points in a psychoanalysis exam. I'm fine with non-games because they could coexist, but when the non-games outsell the other games and we start getting less and less certain types you bet I will be pissed.
But there are always dominated genres. In the PS1 lifecycle it was JRPG's. In the PS2 and Xbox lifecycle it was FPS and Sandbox games. Non-Games are currently dominating handhelds and moving over to consoles. It will pass.
-
Wii will save us all, save them idiot's that think control innovation is the end of gaming.
-
The 'video game crash' is bullshit. There was an Atari bankruptcy .. gamers just went elsewhere else to get their 'fix'.
That's why the industry will never die and HAS never died ... it will just become further and further fragmented. Gaming is an addiction, gamers need to find their fix somewhere.
What you are seeing with these "non-games" is an untapped market of new users and old users tired of the same games archetypes. That's why the numbers are so explosive.
---
The genius of the Wii, is not the silly control scheme. It's taking known quantities (old NES/SNES games) + a lower price base and trying to get into the homes of the Mothers and Fathers of the NES generation (30+). Once you do that, you get a whole new generation of tykes to play Mario and Zelda.
-
The videogame industry is heading towards a huge crash, but it won't derail the industry for years as it did with the Atari. Publishers just can't afford the costs and as a result, you're going to see just a handful of mega-giant publishers instead of a bunch. By next next generation, I imagine that the videogame production and distribution system won't be too far different than it is for Hollywood, where a few companies control the money, resources and dictate the market. I think you're already starting to see this.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason E3 is gone. And not pseudo-journalists parading about. That show was going to bankrupt people soon.
Wow, you don't know anything about the industry. Every single talking point you brought up has been disproven already.
It doesn't take $20 million to make a next gen game. Half of that goes into most of the games we're seeing now. And with developers opting to use next gen game engines such as UE3.0, costs are less of a problem.
The gaming industry isn't going anywhere. Sales continue to pick up, and developers continue to make monies.
-
The 'video game crash' is bullshit. There was an Atari bankruptcy .. gamers just went elsewhere else to get their 'fix'.
That's why the industry will never die and HAS never died ... it will just become further and further fragmented. Gaming is an addiction, gamers need to find their fix somewhere.
What you are seeing with these "non-games" is an untapped market of new users and old users tired of the same games archetypes. That's why the numbers are so explosive.
---
The genius of the Wii, is not the silly control scheme. It's taking known quantities (old NES/SNES games) + a lower price base and trying to get into the homes of the Mothers and Fathers of the NES generation (30+). Once you do that, you get a whole new generation of tykes to play Mario and Zelda.
Exactly
-
Yes, ofcourse. But in the past 10 years, we didn't have non-games that are supposedly going to start replacing them either.
BG&E bombed before keyboard jockeys even thought of the phrase non-game. It's not non-games killing those games, its the fratboy sector who are afraid of those games.
Let's look at this honestly.
You take Okami, since this is the new holy grail, and you have a choice of which fanbase to give it to out of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. Then you look at non-games and you have a choice of which fanbase would be more receptive to them out of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft.
In my estimate, you would give Okami to the Sony or Nintendo fanbase. Non-games you would give to the Nintendo and Sony fanbase(since guitar hero should qualfy as a non-game).
What you don't have in either is the Microsoft fanbase, which is a very rigid and stereotypical fanbase, not open to new ideas or different things.
Then you have forumites blaming non-games for financial flops.
These dots do not connect. Stop blaming non-games for the indsutry selling out to the overused 18-35 male demo.
-
I'd kill for my x360 to have a more varied list of games and I avidly await some JRPGS. But I see what you are saying if you mean from a company standpoint not consumer. Microsoft is trying new things in the online market if you ask me (XBLA), and seem to have a winner.
-
The gaming industry isn't going anywhere. Sales continue to pick up, and developers continue to make monies.
Uh, where did I say the industry was going anywhere and publishers wouldn't make money? Way to not read. And talk to me when you have lunch meetings with people in a position to talk about the industry.
-
The gaming industry isn't going anywhere. Sales continue to pick up, and developers continue to make monies.
Uh, where did I say the industry was going anywhere and publishers wouldn't make money? Way to not read. And talk to me when you have lunch meetings with people in a position to talk about the industry.
That doesn't give you any credibility. There are plenty of publishers in the industry who are progagating these doom and gloom forcasts while doing nothing to change; EA comes to mind. Yet we constantly get information that game development costs have not increased by huge margins, and that it's pretty easy to make a cheap $10 million game.
-
Well thankfully I am at an age where I could just stop gaming if the market decided it just wanted to pimp brain-age clones and pet simulators. So whutever.
-
The industry is not moving in that direction. Why are people so upset that Nintendo is reaching out to other audiences? If they could do that and keep hardcore gamers happy, more power to them; but it seems like they can't do both at the same time, thus opting to create a system built around short play sessions.
Nintendo is going to make far more money than Sony and Microsoft this generation, as usual.
-
Well it can also be said that as usual Nintendo will make zero money off of its half-baked console, and tons off its Gameboy line-up.
Honestly I cant attribute ANY Nintendo success to its console division.
-
Well it can also be said that as usual Nintendo will make zero money off of its half-baked console, and tons off its Gameboy line-up.
Honestly I cant attribute ANY Nintendo success to its console division.
The Gamecube was profitable
-
Well it can also be said that as usual Nintendo will make zero money off of its half-baked console, and tons off its Gameboy line-up.
Honestly I cant attribute ANY Nintendo success to its console division.
The Gamecube was profitable
Correct. Nintendo made a good deal of money off of GCN.
-
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
Yesterday or, today, or WHATEVER DAY
GAMERS REJOICE
one more retardo studio DONE
FINISHED
Yakuza SUCKS
Okami SUCKS
Valkyrie Profile 2 SUCKS
LONG LIVE THE DS MAY IT LIVE IN PROFITABLE PARADISE
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't go suiciding Himuro HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
-
The 'video game crash' is bullshit. There was an Atari bankruptcy .. gamers just went elsewhere else to get their 'fix'.
???
Where else did they go? The video game crash of '84 was very, very real. Thank god for Nintendo or we'd all be reading books or something *shudder*
-
That doesn't give you any credibility. There are plenty of publishers in the industry who are progagating these doom and gloom forcasts while doing nothing to change; EA comes to mind. Yet we constantly get information that game development costs have not increased by huge margins, and that it's pretty easy to make a cheap $10 million game.
For EA it's easy to make a $10 million game, which pretty much proves my point. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about and all that college education hasn't helped your literacy skills. Don't make me tear you down again.
-
The 'video game crash' is bullshit. There was an Atari bankruptcy .. gamers just went elsewhere else to get their 'fix'.
???
Where else did they go? The video game crash of '84 was very, very real. Thank god for Nintendo or we'd all be reading books or something *shudder*
Arcades, Commodore 64...etc
-
Arcades, Commadore 64...etc
True, a lot of people did migrate to the C64 but arcades were also having a rough time, with lots of companies pouring their budgets into Laserdisc games that were nowhere near as profitable as Dragon's Lair was.
Think of the poor gamers that were loving their ColecoVisions only to the supply of new software dry up because Atari proved videogaming was a fad. You know why the NES had R.O.B. as a pack in? So gun-shy retailers, afraid of getting burned again, could say "it's not a videogame, it's a toy!". Again, thank god for Nintendo.
-
I'd kill for my x360 to have a more varied list of games and I avidly await some JRPGS. But I see what you are saying if you mean from a company standpoint not consumer. Microsoft is trying new things in the online market if you ask me (XBLA), and seem to have a winner.
360 is getting a pretty good varied amount of games. And it also has the largest amount of jrpg support.
-
That doesn't give you any credibility. There are plenty of publishers in the industry who are progagating these doom and gloom forcasts while doing nothing to change; EA comes to mind. Yet we constantly get information that game development costs have not increased by huge margins, and that it's pretty easy to make a cheap $10 million game.
For EA it's easy to make a $10 million game, which pretty much proves my point. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about and all that college education hasn't helped your literacy skills. Don't make me tear you down again.
No, it proves my point. Many PS2 games costed $10 million to make Willco. See where I'm going?
The development costs have been blown out of proportion in order to justify higher retail prices. Sure there will be some huge $20 million games developed, but that won't be the standard this generation. $10-15 million is nothing to sweat over. They certainly didn't sweat over it with the Xbox or PS2.
-
Many PS2 games costed $10 million to make Willco. See where I'm going?
COSTED! Im glad youre going to college
Correct. Nintendo made a good deal of money off of GCN.
Proof! That the world is full of suckers. Lol
-
I bought a used GCN! NO PROFIT 4 U NINTENDO
(well, okay, I had to buy a new controller cuz GROSS)
-
Many PS2 games costed $10 million to make Willco. See where I'm going?
COSTED! Im glad youre going to college
I'm glad youre going too
-
i dun get it, pd
-
:punch
-
I am known for lacking punctuation, but at least I dont say costed. lol
I mean costed just sounds and looks wrong. Dont you read books?
-
I am known for lacking punctuation, but at least I dont say costed. lol
I mean costed just sounds and looks wrong. Dont you read books?
Pfft costed is still an actual word. "Cost" is a faggy word
-
costed is a word in the uneducated south maybe.
-
I've used it in papers and never got marked down for it.
It's a word that is perfectly acceptable in normal conversation, but on paper it looks a little strange.
-
It sounds horrible out loud too. Listen, I am sure its in the dictionary, tons of horrible shit have somehow made it in the dictionary.
I refuse to use the word costed, it sounds wrong and it looks wrong.
-
Phoenix Dork is right, sadly
One entry found for cost.
Main Entry: 2cost
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cost; cost·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French custer, couster, from Latin constare to stand firm, cost -- more at CONSTANT
intransitive verb
1 : to require expenditure or payment <the best goods cost more>
2 : to require effort, suffering, or loss
transitive verb
1 : to have a price of
2 : to cause to pay, suffer, or lose something <frequent absences cost him his job>
3 past cost·ed : to estimate or set the cost of -- often used with out
-
Ok I added it to the list. Now when you say cost.ed you will say cost LOL
Oh I know its in the dictionary, but it really shouldnt be. I cant believe people support something so horribly WRONG
-
PDork used it in the wrong context, though
"many games have set the price of" -- WRONG
"many games have estimated" -- WRONG
PD is FIRED from Evilbore
-
Cost.ed is banned from Evilbore. Forever!
-
EVILBOWNED :punch :punch
-
BAM!
-
PhoenixDark, I was mostly referring to the fact that you lambasted me for predicting the end of the videogame industry with all my doom and gloom naysaying, when I said nothing of the sort. We are heading for a crash (one that I said will not derail the industry) and it's already occuring. The industry is adopting the Hollywood model and why not? Cinema and videogames are intertwined already.
When talking about the issue of costs (cost.ed lol), you have to be painfully naive if you think they're not huge. Why the hell would you bring PS2 costs into discussion when we are past that console generation (I would hope PS2 development would be somewhat affordable, it's only been out for five years). Is $10 million no sweat for EA? No, millions are millions no matter who you are, but EA is not going to crash and burn if NCAA MVP '08 doesn't break its projected sales. My entire commentary was about a few controlling the industry, and I think common sense would say that EA would be the equivalent of NBC Universal for the videogame industry.
The bulk of development and marketing costs are for next generation development. It is expensive. Middleware does not level off costs until about a cycle into console software. Even then, most AAA games are so expensive that it just takes one flop to really change a publisher's output forecast.
I had the pleasure of having dinner with people who have coordinated E3 in year's past, talking off-the-record about finances and well being of certain publishers. Last May, it was certain that there was a change coming.
But I don't know why I am bothering to discuss this with you, when you neglect marketing costs, seem completely ignorant of the developer/publisher relationship (I swear I've seen you use the term developer in context of a publisher) and use words like "c0sted".
-
I hate the word c.osted
-
I wonder if his instructors did not mark down his papers because they laughed so hard that they thought he deserved extra credit for hilarity.
-
its a word, its just a DUMB word.
-
It's worse than instructors who have accepted the word "ain't" in papers, which I have actually seen first hand.
-
Oh, Willco,you scholarly motherfuck you
-
i <3 valedictorians
-
PhoenixDark, I was mostly referring to the fact that you lambasted me for predicting the end of the videogame industry with all my doom and gloom naysaying, when I said nothing of the sort. We are heading for a crash (one that I said will not derail the industry) and it's already occuring. The industry is adopting the Hollywood model and why not? Cinema and videogames are intertwined already.
When talking about the issue of costs (cost.ed lol), you have to be painfully naive if you think they're not huge. Why the hell would you bring PS2 costs into discussion when we are past that console generation (I would hope PS2 development would be somewhat affordable, it's only been out for five years). Is $10 million no sweat for EA? No, millions are millions no matter who you are, but EA is not going to crash and burn if NCAA MVP '08 doesn't break its projected sales. My entire commentary was about a few controlling the industry, and I think common sense would say that EA would be the equivalent of NBC Universal for the videogame industry.
The bulk of development and marketing costs are for next generation development. It is expensive. Middleware does not level off costs until about a cycle into console software. Even then, most AAA games are so expensive that it just takes one flop to really change a publisher's output forecast.
I had the pleasure of having dinner with people who have coordinated E3 in year's past, talking off-the-record about finances and well being of certain publishers. Last May, it was certain that there was a change coming.
But I don't know why I am bothering to discuss this with you, when you neglect marketing costs, seem completely ignorant of the developer/publisher relationship (I swear I've seen you use the term developer in context of a publisher) and use words like "c0sted".
$10 million games didn't kill anyone this generation Willco. It's not going to magically kill off developers this time, especially considering what we've seen so far. In terms of marketing, most publishers aren't spending huge amounts. Do you ever see a lot of videogame commercials on TV, or in non-gaming magazines? It's not as expensize as movie ads, which are everywhere in great abundance.
The industry is currently controlled by a handful of big publishers (mainly EA, Activision, and Ubisoft). Ubisoft seems to be the only one who gets what "next gen" truly means. Activision is extremely imcompatant, and they might go the way of Midway if they don't get their act together. For them, a game either looks half assed or costs millions. Spiderman 3: The Game is going to cost them $30 million to produce, according to them. That's Activision's choice; that game could be produced for half that money if Activision was smart.
With $60 games, publishers don't seem to be worrying too much. Even games that have "bombed" by GAF standards have brought in a very large amount of revenue and profit for publishers, in part thanks to the high retail prices.
There will be no small scale crash, especially now that the PS3 and Wii are a few weeks away. Publishers will be able to tack off losses with great software sales as well as the pure profit from PS2 software sales, which will continue to rise (similar to what happened with the PS1 after the PS2 came out).
-
EA needs to die for the EA Trax
-
They make a killing off those shitty songs. Record companies pay to get those songs in games. It's not like EA says "you know what, I think we need a Fall Out Boy song in Madden..."
In game advertising is another avenue that leads to pure profit for publishers.
-
$10 million games didn't kill anyone this generation Willco. It's not going to magically kill off developers this time, especially considering what we've seen so far.
You didn't discount anything I said and in fact, are agreeing with me. And - yes - this generation did kill off publishers (not developers wtf are you talking about). And a lot got gobbled up.
In terms of marketing, most publishers aren't spending huge amounts. Do you ever see a lot of videogame commercials on TV, or in non-gaming magazines? It's not as expensize as movie ads, which are everywhere in great abundance.
Yeah, um, this proves you don't know anything.
The industry is currently controlled by a handful of big publishers (mainly EA, Activision, and Ubisoft). Ubisoft seems to be the only one who gets what "next gen" truly means. Activision is extremely imcompatant, and they might go the way of Midway if they don't get their act together. For them, a game either looks half assed or costs millions. Spiderman 3: The Game is going to cost them $30 million to produce, according to them. That's Activision's choice; that game could be produced for half that money if Activision was smart.
The industry is not currently controlled by a handful, but it is becoming dominated by a handful. I'm talking about the industry being exclusively controlled by a handful, with anything outside a few publishers seen as "indie" titles. Again, you're really proving my point.
With $60 games, publishers don't seem to be worrying too much. Even games that have "bombed" by GAF standards have brought in a very large amount of revenue and profit for publishers, in part thanks to the high retail prices.
Where are you getting this from?
There will be no small scale crash, especially now that the PS3 and Wii are a few weeks away. Publishers will be able to tack off losses with great software sales as well as the pure profit from PS2 software sales, which will continue to rise (similar to what happened with the PS1 after the PS2 came out).
What other information resides in the hallowed halls of your rectum?
And game advertising is a necessary revenue source for publishers. It has to go that way.
-
Ive given up arguing 'the gaming biz' with anyone who originated at GAF. Despite the fact that for years I coordinated crap with publishers, talked to them, according to most I know nothing about the biz because I cant spin the latest sales charts.
I've also discovered I dont give two shits about the biz. Either the games I want come out or they dont. I have complete control over my spending habits.
-
I do agree with your last point, if a sales chart dictates your purchases, you're distinguished mentally-challenged. And yeah, the speculation and sales spin of GAF is ridiculous.
I mean, I was only a paid employee of Imagine Media (damn, I should've stuck around for some of that phat Fox NewsCorp cash!), special guest of the ESA, friends with a number of developers and publishers and personal friends with the President of Factor 5 (Eggy!) for a number of years.
WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW.
-
You didn't discount anything I said and in fact, are agreeing with me. And - yes - this generation did kill off publishers (not developers wtf are you talking about). And a lot got gobbled up.
How so? After I exposed you, you back tracked. $10 million games didn't kill anyone on the PS2, period. You can't wiggle out of that. Why is it going to kill people this time? :lol
Yeah, um, this proves you don't know anything.
lol
The industry is not currently controlled by a handful, but it is becoming dominated by a handful. I'm talking about the industry being exclusively controlled by a handful, with anything outside a few publishers seen as "indie" titles. Again, you're really proving my point.
Do you pay attention to NPD data? EA, Activision, and Ubisoft make up the vast majority of third party software sales. They do indeed dominate the area.
Where are you getting this from?
Once again, do you pay attention to NPD data?
What other information resides in the hallowed halls of your rectum?
Are you denying that the PS3 and Wii's arrival is going to increase publisher's revenue? Look at any third party publisher's forcast report, and you'll see they expect massive hikes for Q4 2006 and Q12007, mainly because new hardware=more oppurtunities to sale software.
With respect to PS2 development, you do realize that system will continue to outsell next gen hardware through 2007, and that publishers will take advantage of that? PS2 development is going to further help these publishers sustain costs.
-
The only thing I MISS about game journalism was killing Derek Smart in an online FPS and having it MEAN something to me. Oh those days...
-
So to sum up the thread: Nintendo ruined gaming. I can get behind that.
-
How so? After I exposed you, you back tracked. $10 million games didn't kill anyone on the PS2, period. You can't wiggle out of that. Why is it going to kill people this time? :lol
... When did I ever say $10 million games killed people during the PS2 era? How can I backtrack on something I never said. Don't blame me for your illiteracy.
Do you pay attention to NPD data? EA, Activision, and Ubisoft make up the vast majority of third party software sales. They do indeed dominate the area.
... That's exactly what I said. Since you're abolutely postively braindead, let me break it down for you. This is what I said EXACTLY just moments ago:
The industry is not currently controlled by a handful, but it is becoming dominated by a handful. I'm talking about the industry being exclusively controlled by a handful, with anything outside a few publishers seen as "indie" titles."
Having exclusive control of an industry and dominating sales charts are two completely different things. MAYBE THEY WILL TEACH YOU THIS IN COLLEGE.
Once again, do you pay attention to NPD data?
Oh, NPD data includes the profit margins for publishers now? Really? OH WAIT THEY DON'T.
Are you denying that the PS3 and Wii's arrival is going to increase publisher's revenue? Look at any third party publisher's forcast report, and you'll see they expect massive hikes for Q4 2006 and Q12007, mainly because new hardware=more oppurtunities to sale software.
That's because launch sales are always high for the titles on launch day. That doesn't mean afterwards it's gravy, smarty.
With respect to PS2 development, you do realize that system will continue to outsell next gen hardware through 2007, and that publishers will take advantage of that? PS2 development is going to further help these publishers sustain costs.
PS2 development is not going to save anyone past this year, it'll just been an additional source of revenue for publishers, but nobody is going to bank on it being their primary source of revenue a year from now. Nor will it offset potential losses.
-
So to sum up the thread: Nintendo ruined gaming. I can get behind that.
PhoenixDark ruined gaming.
-
I accidentally ruined you post (meant to hit quote), but I'll replied to the key points below.
-
You didn't. I use $10 million as an example because it discredits many of your assertions. If many next gen games have the exact same development costs as the PS2, how does that warrant doom/gloom predictions? Come on.
Uh, I have no doom/gloom predictions. I said the industry is going to consolidate power into a handful of publishers that'll control the industry, I never said it was going to die. That's your own hyperbole.
And next gen costs are the same as PS2 costs? ... ... hahahahahahaha!
You suck Willco. I said the industry is controlled by a handful of publishers. Here's your responce:
"The industry is not currently controlled by a handful, but it is becoming dominated by a handful."
So no, that's not "exactly" what I said. Reading comprehension is important Willy.
Actually, this is what you said: "They do indeed dominate the area."
You can't even read your own posts now. And you can't recognize the difference between controlling the marketplace's policy and resources and marketshare.
For the last few years EA, Activision, and Ubisoft have controlled more than 60% of the third party software marketshare in terms of $$$. How is that not domination? :lol
Uh, I did say they dominated the market. You even posted that above. How dumb are you?
You're 100% correct, it doesn't.
END OF DISCUSSION.
-
Fuck, I did it again.
-
How is [your original post] not doom/gloom shit?
... because it's not. It's only what you interpret, because you're some kind of sissy. I said there's a crash coming where publishers will consolidate resources and power, thus enabling exclusive control of the marketplace. Is that necessarily negative? I don't know. Is it positive? I don't know that either.
I said it will not derail the industry, and I said you'll see a new production and distribution model. I didn't say the industry would collapse. I didn't say developers would die. That's just your conjecture.
You will see publishers merge and developers bought outright. You will see some file for bankruptcy. I'm sure some will just be added to EA's portfolio.
Again, don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.
PS2 games and next gen games have similar costs as of right now.
No, they don't. And don't compare Final Fantasy XII's budget to that of like, the Xbox 360 port of Gun. Original PS3 development content costs a lot more than it would for PS2. Xbox 360 isn't so bad for obvious reasons. Wii is like developing for GameCube, but it's so far out of the videogame spectrum it really doesn't have an impact on the industry.
-
:-*
-
wtf is going on here? Who cares? This thread is about the murder and abortion of gaming!
-
You mean Hideo Kojima?
-
wtf is going on here? Who cares? This thread is about the murder and abortion of gaming!
No, this thread is about Garrett's mis-interpretation of the current status of the industry. You've always been paranoid. Remember in High School when you thought people were stealing your pencils?
-
I have no recollectino of this! >:( However, I would not put it past me that people would break a nicca's style and steal his pencils! >:(