# Concerns about the games industry.



## ADF (Jun 15, 2009)

So apparently games are too expensive to make today, hence why so many of them are going cross platform or using some other profit increasing measure (e.g micro-transactions). Were last generation developers simply chose which platform to develop for; it seems console companies are now having to offer financial support to keep their favourite devs from spreading their franchise across platforms.

The reason for this is as new hardware is introduced the quality expectations go up, higher quality of course leading to higher content development costs. Every time a new generation of hardware is introduced the content development costs take a leap, it is simply we have reached a point were measures have to be taken to keep it sustainable at today's retail prices/sale figures.

But here's the thing, what about next gen? And the gen after that? Platform owners are having to buy exclusive downloadable content to differentiate themselves from the competition, the majority of titles are cross platform today, if it is like this now what is it going to be like next time? And the time after that?

Surely this means at some point we are going to hit a wall were the cost to make games restricts progression? Plus when every game is too expensive to stay exclusive to any one platform, how are platforms supposed to differentiate themselves from the competition?


----------



## Lukar (Jun 15, 2009)

Honestly, they need to keep the current platforms around longer than before so that they can make the most of what they have at the moment. I'd say atleast until around 2013 or 2014.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 15, 2009)

Well, next Gen is gunna be kinda ridiculous...It's going to come down to like...pure name brand loyalty. I figger they'll be running the same or equal hardware, just with encoding or certain discs that only allow it to be played on the respective console.


----------



## Dyluck (Jun 15, 2009)

It's because no one fucking pays for games anymore, everyone just pirates. :V


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 16, 2009)

They said the gaming industry was one of the few that were to survive the recession with little loss.

I still believe it. Developers often reuse the same engine across different games, allowing for a good portion of the work to be done only needing to be completed once. At that point, only minor updates are required and only until advances make way for potentials unaccomplishable by their current engine do they need to actually invest in starting from scratch. With the internet, distribution can also turn out to be very inexpensive.

I think I understand what you're saying, with all these extra bits of knowledge, it takes more work to compile them all in the interest of an end result, which would definitely cost more considering the extra time involved. I wouldn't be worried, however, because even if it did become incredibly costly to produce games, companies would find alternatives to halting manufacturing. Plus, new technology always starts off expensive and gradually tapers off. I dunno.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 16, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> It's because no one fucking pays for games anymore, everyone just pirates. :V


 
Well except the PS3 games, cause you can't mod PS3s.


----------



## CrispSkittlez (Jun 16, 2009)

Lukar said:


> Honestly, they need to keep the current platforms around longer than before so that they can make the most of what they have at the moment. I'd say atleast until around *2014 or 2014.*



You really want 2014 to be the year for new game consoles, eh?


----------



## Lukar (Jun 16, 2009)

CrispSkittlez said:


> You really want 2014 to be the year for new game consoles, eh?



Oops, my bad. Typo. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 16, 2009)

ADF said:


> So apparently games are too expensive to make today, hence why so many of them are going cross platform or using some other profit increasing measure (e.g micro-transactions). Were last generation developers simply chose which platform to develop for; it seems console companies are now having to offer financial support to keep their favourite devs from spreading their franchise across platforms.
> 
> The reason for this is as new hardware is introduced the quality expectations go up, higher quality of course leading to higher content development costs. Every time a new generation of hardware is introduced the content development costs take a leap, it is simply we have reached a point were measures have to be taken to keep it sustainable at today's retail prices/sale figures.
> 
> ...


 
Video game companies have already tried to reduce development costs by using pre-existing engines, but that technique has resulted in the proliferation of "Unreal Engines" everywhere, _for everything._

I have a lot of ideas concerning the industry and it's direction, and right now I think it's safe to say that during this economic hitch, we'll more than likely see a quality bump before anything starts to change.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Jun 16, 2009)

I'm really happy with almost every game going cross-platform (but MGS4), since it allows PC users to play very good games without having to buy one of these useless, bug-crippled consoles.


----------



## Bambi (Jun 16, 2009)

FrancisBlack said:


> I'm really happy with almost every game going cross-platform (but MGS4), since it allows PC users to play very good games without having to buy one of these useless, bug-crippled consoles.


Not to start a counsole vs. PC war, but the XBox 360 and PS3 seem to be pretty stable (as long as you're buying from the most recent generation of counsoles.)


----------



## Dyluck (Jun 16, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Well except the PS3 games, cause you can't mod PS3s.



PS3 rep, awww yeeeaaaah 8)


----------



## Sam (Jun 16, 2009)

But you can put Linux on it.



You can put it on everything.



I Linux as my KY before I penetrate. ;3


----------



## ADF (Jun 16, 2009)

FrancisBlack said:


> I'm really happy with almost every game going cross-platform (but MGS4).



They announced the next MGS game is PC, 360, PS3 cross platform.

I think what happened with MGS4 is they went in staying Playstation exclusive like they usually do, looked at the gain/cost of doing so, then decided they needed to spread out like every other developer. 

MGS4 was fan service and hence not the best game to take to other platforms, it was also highly PS3 optimized; which makes it very different to traditional games.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 16, 2009)

But MGS4 was SO good. PS3 is fine, so is the 360, and so is PC; cross-platforming is a good thing.


----------



## ADF (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But MGS4 was SO good. PS3 is fine, so is the 360, and so is PC; cross-platforming is a good thing.



But in a cross platform dominated market; how does one differentiate themselves? The differentiators this gen seem to mostly be paid for, which is increasing the cost for platforms to operate compared to last gen.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 16, 2009)

Differentiate themselves? Why and how do you think that's a good thing?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Differentiate themselves? Why and how do you think that's a good thing?



well it would be a good thing to have every game on every system but everyone would buy the cheapest system then. whats the point in spending more money for a PS3 or a high end gaming PC if you can run every game on the 360, which is the cheapest current gen system?
in my opinion a console needs its distinctive games. mario for nintendo consoles, snake for the playstation and the master chief for the xbox. otherwise every console would be exactly the same, only the price and the control sceme would be different.


----------



## Tycho (Jun 16, 2009)

IMO some of the most genuinely entertaining games I've ever played do not cost a penny to begin with.


----------



## ADF (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Differentiate themselves? Why and how do you think that's a good thing?


I'm a consumer so it is not relevant to me, what's happening just means I get access to more games on my platform of choice. The only impact that should concern me is less games taking advantage of the individual traits that set my platform apart, my platform choice becomes less relevant as games become more carbon copy on all platforms.

But to the games industry, which this thread refers to, you have a problem. As CaptainCool said platform owners need their exclusives to justify you picking them over the competition, without those exclusives Sony/Microsoft struggle to come up with justifications why you should pick their console up. This is why Sony and Microsoft seem to be buying up anything they can get their hands on; from paid for exclusives, to downloadable content to even paying MySpace to integrate their services on only your system (Xbox 360). This recent E3 can be summed up as loads of cross platform games being claimed as exclusives, jumping on the motion detection bandwagon to not fall behind the competition and paid for exclusives.

These companies are getting desperate to differentiate themselves, next generation when costs take another leap it is only going to get more difficult for them.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Jun 16, 2009)

I've had the same concerns about development costs for a while, and I think at this rate a wall is going to be hit.

And I agree with exclusives for the sake of competition. Without any the only differentiating factor would be online, but then again not everyone uses their consoles online. 

Also, from my understanding MGS4 wasn't crossplatform was mainly, as someone said, the fact it was PS3 optimized. That shit filled up a double sided Blu-Ray, and even then Hideo lamented about cutting things out.

@Francis: buggy consoles? I'd rather have a "buggy console" than some BS copy protection that forces legit buyers of a game to pirate.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 16, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> well it would be a good thing to have every game on every system but everyone would buy the cheapest system then. whats the point in spending more money for a PS3 or a high end gaming PC if you can run every game on the 360, which is the cheapest current gen system?
> in my opinion a console needs its distinctive games. mario for nintendo consoles, snake for the playstation and the master chief for the xbox. otherwise every console would be exactly the same, only the price and the control sceme would be different.



So basically because consoles cost more and people waste their money other people miss out who were smarter? Cool, that sounds more like butt-hurt morons that purchase a super powerful PC (OP) and complain that the good games coming out are cross platform (OP), as well the same goes with the PS3 owners because they know their exclusives kick ass they don't need all of the 360's exclusives and the stuff only on PC usually won't work on consoles. I see NO PROBLEM with how the industry is flowing, none at all. If anything they need to make more games. 

The PS3 is cheap now anyway, almost the same price as a 360; the PS3 also has the luxury of being a Blu-Ray player, so you get your moneys worth instantly right there. It also has a web browser, and many other features the 360 doesn't have as well more power and ability for larger, more detailed or complex games. The PC has no limits at all. The 360 is the throttling console, and the stuff coming out on that compared to PC and PS3 exclusive isn't all that impressive, besides that the stuff coming out on PC is usually (as in almost always) better than their console cross platform versions.

Either way, you're complaining about nothing and your arguments are heavily flawed due to butthurtness for no reason. If you chose a console, it's not anybody's fault but your own that it's not VASTLY superior than the competition backed by all the great games...costing less than a hundred dollars more.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The PS3 is cheap now anyway, almost the same price as a 360;


 
Dude the Xbox starts at $199 for the Arcade system while the PS3 starts at $399.  Sure the Xbox 360 Arcade doesn't come with a HDD but it does at the $299 price point.

I'm sorry but it's not 'almost the same price' as the 360 and the consumers are going primarily for the 360 with price as a major considderation.


----------



## ADF (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie for once can you not be an insulting prick in one of my threads?

Anyway... fancy something like this appearing in the news.

Ubisoft: Development Costs To Double Next Gen

"Creating a major title for PS3 or Xbox 360 typically costs between $20 million and $30 million. Guillemot told CNBC that he expects the cost to rise to $60 million with the coming of new hardware."

This would force everyone who is not a big budget developer out of developing for these platforms, the expectations set by the hardware are far too high for anyone but already well established game developer companies.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 16, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Dude the Xbox starts at $199 for the Arcade system while the PS3 starts at $399.  Sure the Xbox 360 Arcade doesn't come with a HDD but it does at the $299 price point.
> 
> I'm sorry but it's not 'almost the same price' as the 360 and the consumers are going primarily for the 360 with price as a major considderation.



$400? I see them here for $300. Still, blu-ray player as I said so price is balanced, seeing as you get more even if all the games were the same.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 16, 2009)

ADF said:


> Ubisoft: Development Costs To Double Next Gen
> 
> "Creating a major title for PS3 or Xbox 360 typically costs between $20 million and $30 million. Guillemot told CNBC that he expects the cost to rise to $60 million with the coming of new hardware."


That says "*Creating a major title* for PS3 or Xbox 360 typically costs between $20 million and $30 million." and either you missed that part or think all game developers that start up go for the platinum edition out of gate.


----------



## ADF (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That says "*Creating a major title* for PS3 or Xbox 360 typically costs between $20 million and $30 million." and either you missed that part or think all game developers that start up go for the platinum edition out of gate.


The point of the link/quote was to demonstrate how much development costs jump each generation, Ubisoft expects them to significantly increase next gen for their major titles. That they referred to only major titles in this case isn't relevant, because needless to say this applies to the cost of all games; big or small. Even cheaper games have their costs go up because the minimum quality bar is pushed up by that generations expectations.

There's no room for indie/small developers in that sort of environment, less room for exclusives that aren't paid for by the platform owner.


----------



## Undaunted (Jun 16, 2009)

... meanwhile, in a has-been town called "Nintendo-ville," the gamers sit and wish that cross-platform games still meant that they came out on the Gamecu- er, Wii.


----------



## Lukar (Jun 16, 2009)

Undaunted said:


> ... meanwhile, in a has-been town called "Nintendo-ville," the gamers sit and wish that cross-platform games still meant that they came out on the Gamecu- er, Wii.



Amen to that.


----------



## ADF (Jun 16, 2009)

If the hardware of the Wii was closer to current gen systems, not modern just closer, I have no doubt there would be allot of PC/PS3/360/Wii multiplats out there right now.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 16, 2009)

The gaming industry is fine.  The rise of the casual gamer has helped significantly in my opinion, as well as the "games on demand" sort of service that all three consoles are offering now.  Financial concerns hasn't really deterred quality games from coming out, nor has it deterred exclusive games from being made.  Sure, there's less third-party exclusives than there used to be, but I don't see the problem with that.  

Sucker Punch just released a friggin awesome game with inFamous which I think is leaps and bounds deeper than the cross-platform [Prototype], Uncharted 2 looks absolutely stunning as it's unlocking more of the PS3's processing power while throwing in an addictive multiplayer mode, and God of War 3 is God of War 3.  Metal Gear and Final Fantasy are moving cross platform, but they still leave the Playstation owners with good memories and great games.  Plus, as Kojima pointed out, Snake is staying right with Sony in the form of the PSP Metal Gear game coming out.

Microsoft's got Halo and Gears of War, two excellent shooters, plus Mass Effect 2 coming up which is sure to be epic.  They're taking some of Sony's old exclusive third-party games, but I agree with what's been said that it's ultimately better for the consumer.  The more money these developers make, the better chance they have to keep producing the games we love.  And at this point, unless a developer is producing a game specifically for the PS3 to use it's monster processing power, then graphics-wise games aren't going to look too different anymore.

Nintendo's got the casual gamer market cornered.  It's no secret they found a formula to make money and are sticking to it.  But they found some pretty good looking exclusives coming their way, with an improved Red Steel and Metroid which can't friggin wait to get a hold of.  The vitality sensor looks awful, but then again, that's not a game, it's just a cash ploy from the big-wigs at Nintendo who are obviously running out of ideas on how to innovate gaming and, hopefully, will realize that they just need to start focusing on the games.

tl:dr, there's plenty of exclusives to give consoles a unique field of games while also allowing quality cross-platform games to pump money into the game industry.


----------



## TehSean (Jun 16, 2009)

http://www.onlive.com/beta_program.html

The future of gaming


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 16, 2009)

ADF said:


> The point of the link/quote was to demonstrate how much development costs jump each generation, Ubisoft expects them to significantly increase next gen for their major titles. That they referred to only major titles in this case isn't relevant, because needless to say this applies to the cost of all games; big or small. Even cheaper games have their costs go up because the minimum quality bar is pushed up by that generations expectations.
> 
> There's no room for indie/small developers in that sort of environment, less room for exclusives that aren't paid for by the platform owner.


That's not true at all and you have no proof at all, you're assuming it does but if you note what he means is the quality of the game, as in graphically and complexity.
A simple game might cost a little more, but not much. If you design a game for a "next gen" console and want to make a large profit you'll have to put a large amount of money into it, if you want to start small (like all companies must) it won't cost nearly as close depending what audience you're shooting for. Sure, it makes it hard for new companies to make top-selling games, but it's not atari days and if you want to strike big and make big titles join a larger company, see if you can get support and your own division (dice in EA) where you get paid to make your amazing ideas come true. If you don't have these ideas that sell big, why bother?

Games are getting better, and because it costs more to make the big titles doesn't mean the companies don't make it all back and then some. It's an illusion, the more it costs to make the more money they'll make, unless they're morons and make crap.


----------



## Vintage (Jun 16, 2009)

i think that for the first time at least that i've seen, that the consoles actually do differentiate themselves, but it's not at the software level.  look at each of these consoles.  the services are different and each console has its own pull besides the games for a change.  if you want a stellar online package, get an XBOX.  if you want motion control and classic videogames, get a Wii.  if you want a multimedia powerhouse, get a PS3.  each console has a reason to buy it besides the games.  as more games go multiplatform, there needs to be a different reason to make the purchase and all three companies are providing reasons.

i don't think the concern lies at the console level, but at the media level.  first, look at this shit.  does ign ever really rate a game below a six?  does ANY outlet, paper or virtual, cover indie games for more than like a page?  

second, all i've seen on major media outlets are the games that are coming out.  curiously, i've never seen a spread on game _concepts_ the writer would like to see.  you may think this sounds ludicrous, but media editorialists do this all the time.  someone doesn't like the president's policy, they butt in and posit an argument for what THEY would like to do or what THEY think he should do, not "man, i hope this policy really shapes up; it's gonna suck if he fails," which is exactly what this media does with games.

thirdly, companies need to stop buying "ad space" in magazines (read: paying for a good review and punishing those who give a bad review by pulling sponsorship).  also, reviewers need to (a) grow some balls and and fight it when the above happens and (b) need to untether themselves from this notion that they're using the position as a stepping stone into the game industry.  

if you are a game reviewer, do me a fucking favor.  put the DREAM of becoming a consultant for a company whose games you've reviewed as far from your mind as possible until you quit, and not because Joe, the General Manager of Games, Incorporated, invited you to work at his humble little workshop.



> ... meanwhile, in a has-been town called "Nintendo-ville," the gamers sit and wish that cross-platform games still meant that they came out on the Gamecu- er, Wii.


or they buy another console and stop bitching about it.  early adopters can't bitch because they're early adopters, and others knew full well what they were getting into when they swiped their credit card.  this is a console where it was known well before release that it would not have the processing power of an XBOX 360 or a PS3.

in the end, you are really paying for potential with one of these things.  you're paying for the potential that it's going to have games you like.  if you don't like them, sell the console to, i don't know, my grandmother.  no one's holding a gun to your head.

in conclusion, i would like to back this fine gentleman up:



Tycho said:


> IMO some of the most genuinely entertaining games I've ever played do not cost a penny to begin with.


----------



## Kajet (Jun 16, 2009)

Of course games are getting more expensive to make, everyone's just focusing on graphics and a fifty trillion or so model is probably gonna take as much time to make than the entirety of all the sprites of a NES game...

So it's not just casuals ruining my industry, it's also graphics whores.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> $400? I see them here for $300. Still, blu-ray player as I said so price is balanced, seeing as you get more even if all the games were the same.


 
You havn't seen them NEW at that price unless they were on sale. $399.99 is the lowest MSRP for any model of PS3 in The United States or in Canada.

The PS3 is NOT the same price as the 360, it costs a hell of a lot more. Hell the 160GB units are still $499

PS3 Pro Tip: 80GB PS3 costs $399, 160GB PS3 costs $499. The PS3 supports hard drive replacement without voiding the warrenty. Any user can swap in any 2.5" SATA drive and the PS3 will happy take it and you'll not have broken any warrenty. You can buy an 80GB PS3 for $399 and then get a 320GB HDD or MORE from a computer store for about $100 and install it yourself. So don't get that 160GB unit kiddies.


----------



## Envy (Jun 17, 2009)

^ Wow, that's actually really useful to know XD
Thanks.



ADF said:


> They announced the next MGS game is PC, 360, PS3 cross platform.
> 
> I think what happened with MGS4 is they went in staying Playstation exclusive like they usually do, looked at the gain/cost of doing so, then decided they needed to spread out like every other developer.
> 
> MGS4 was fan service and hence not the best game to take to other platforms, it was also highly PS3 optimized; which makes it very different to traditional games.



Actually, it's more because that game couldn't -fit- on 360.
The blu-rays discs can hold as much as five times the data as a DVD, which the 360 continues to use. The DVD was excellent for the last generation, but because of the risen memory requirements it's... Less so now. That's why your starting to see games on multiple discs again; it's required for some of the longer games.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 17, 2009)

Envy said:


> Actually, it's more because that game couldn't -fit- on 360.
> The blu-rays discs can hold as much as five times the data as a DVD, which the 360 continues to use. The DVD was excellent for the last generation, but because of the risen memory requirements it's... Less so now. That's why your starting to see games on multiple discs again; it's required for some of the longer games.


 
An Xbox 360 version of MGS4 could have easily been spanned across multiple discs.  The original MGS was on two CDs even.

It's also important to note that the Xbox 360's usage of a DVD drive is a money saver.  DVD technology is cheap, you an buy a DVD Burner for like $30 these days.  Blu-Ray on the other hand is only entering it's second generation and the PS3 features a first generation type that is slower to read data and the Xbox 360's DVD drive.

This is more so underlined by the 360 getting out of the gate an entire YEAR earlier than the PS3, a year can make a a real difference in technology prices.

The Sega Dreamcast team actually wanted a DVD dirve but in 1998-1999 that would have added $200 to unit price.  Two years later when the PlayStation II rolled out it was cheap enough to be included in the PS2 and maintain only a $299 USD MSRP.

Honestly, only having a DVD drive in the 360 is not a major limitation and the PS3 being built on a lot of first generation hardware is what puts the thing at $399.  The 360 is a far, far more conventional design based on tried and tested technologies.

Not to trash on the PS3.  The thing is beautifully engineered and reliable but it's engineering comes at a cost to the consumer.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jun 17, 2009)

Envy said:


> ^ Wow, that's actually really useful to know XD
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> ...


Kojima's head is just up his arse. He also have the nerve to complain once that a blu-ray disc was too small to hold MGS4.
I personally think DVD's still have a few years of console life left in them. The medium is fine, it's just the developers/publishers still aren't using them properly.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Jun 17, 2009)

Bokracroc said:


> Kojima's head is just up his arse. He also have the nerve to complain once that a blu-ray disc was too small to hold MGS4.



He seems ambitious. Not going to give him flak for that.


----------



## ADF (Jun 17, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's not true at all and you have no proof at all, you're assuming it does but if you note what he means is the quality of the game, as in graphically and complexity.
> A simple game might cost a little more, but not much.


You are over relying on their mention of high quality titles as a counter argument, you assume just because they mentioned high quality titles that those are the only ones that will significantly go up in cost. 

Does or does not the minimum graphical bar jump up each generation for every game? Even the cheaper games? Just off the bat everything they have to make has to be up to a higher standard, you cannot get away with simply copying over a PS2 game to PS3 and upping the res. Everything has to be made to a higher standard and that costs more money.



NewfDraggie said:


> It's an illusion, the more it costs to make the more money they'll make, unless they're morons and make crap.


Now whose making assumptions without evidence? You can only sell what your audience allows, it doesn't magically scale to cover your costs. Killzone 2 failed to break the 1 million mark during the launch month for example and is still under the 2 million mark today. For a game of that development cost and time you would expect better performance, it still made a profit but when you compare it to the launch day million sellers on 360 you can see something went wrong for a title hyped to Halo/Gears of War level. By your rationalization the expensive game should have sold more.

If sales really did simply scale to your investment business would be allot simplier.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jun 17, 2009)

The main thing that I have is the fan dumb in the games industry. this includes myself, fyi.

They all want exclusive high-budget games, except that they don't know that in order for an exclusive game with the budget and developing staff the size of a small country to be worth producing, that they'll have to make the game net a profit. Naturally this is why they try to appeal to non-fans as well by "Slimming it down" or "dumbing it down" so it will appeal to non-fans who will then buy it and put money in their pockets. Because you know, not EVERY genre is for EVERYone, adn even then certain things aren't for everyone. (Cue the "omg it's popular now it sucks" tropers)

Then they bemoan games that do stuff they don't like to try new things and then when companies release experiments, it's often met with reception such as "omg that's a gimmick" and "They Changed it now it sucks" or "You copied it and now it sucks". Release a game where you train and battle monsters or demons and oyu instantly get the "You ripped off pokemon or Megaten!" line. Release any "Sandbox game" and you'll instantly get "Grand Theft Auto ripoff" on top of comparisons to said game, despite ANY individual freedoms granted. Remember Dark Cloud? It was instantly flagged as a zelda ripoff, despite that several elements are common in almost every RPG and third-person action game in existence. (This also includes Shadow of the Colossus.) 


And now let's look at those "Casual" games that everybody bemoans and says you can not enjoy...Would a budget for a game like Metroid Prime Pinball be even near the budget for something like System Shock 3? I imagine so, because the higher the budget, the more people would have to buy the game and give money back to make it worthwhile. As much as it hurts to say this, this is also why some games don't get localized, probably cause a market dominated by male-centric-power fantasies doesn't sound like the place for a game with colour and linear gameplay? And does a market dominated by colourful sprites and linear gameplay sound like the place for male-centric power fantasies with laws forbidding colours outside of Green and Brown? 

Also, no one truly understand the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" at all so they can't imagine why people just don't like FPSes or RPGs or RTSes or platformers or sports or whatever and insult everyone who likes stuff that's different, and of course, people who won't touch a game that scores less than an "8" from magazines. Sure you can get some good games that way but there are plenty of other games you'd enjoy that the reviewers didn't like so much. Valkyire Profile: Covenant of the plume got scores in the 6-7 range yet that game was probably the most enjoyable DS game I've ever played. And Halo got perfect 10s yet people who genuinely like the game I swear are few and far in between.


And ADF, of course everything has to be higher...you can't release a sprite-based game anymore cause everyone says it has SNES sprites. Despite that anyone who has *ever* played with sprites could tell you that even King's Quest VI and VII have too many colours on the screen and wouldn't work on the SNES. I'm still waiting for someone to try making HD sprites with hand-drawn backgrounds...whatever happened to those? Or heck, making the sprites go super fast.




Kajet said:


> Of course games are getting more expensive to make, everyone's just focusing on graphics and a fifty trillion or so model is probably gonna take as much time to make than the entirety of all the sprites of a NES game...
> 
> So it's not just casuals ruining my industry, it's also graphics whores.



I'm very glad to see more rational-minded people responding to this thread. See my point about sprites being flagged as "SNES Graphics" above. There's plenty of wasted potential with sprites...


----------



## Carenath (Jun 17, 2009)

Always fun these kinds of threads... so I'll just add my 2c

Ignoring the "Microsoft is invading everything" and "Sony are evil root-kit DRM-lover" arguments (basically not turning this into a PS3 V 360 thread).. one of the biggest issues with developing any kind of software, to run on consoles, is the exuberant copy-protection that's forced on everyone... more often than not, to enable illegal price-fixing. That... and the extortionate licencing fees levied on the game developers to have access to the development kits. Costs like those, should be scrapped, and the market for game development, opened up to smaller groups that have some real talent at producing some pretty decent games... rather than the market being limited to the paltry offerings by companies like EA that, like MTV and the music industry.. cater only for their larger markets, ignoring the niche market that has the better chance of producing some pretty decent games that people will play.

I look in our local game shop.. and prettymuch most of the titles are either First-Person-Shooters... Movie knock-offs.. or Soccar titles. No originality at all... just the same old rehashed shit as ever. This I think, is a bigger problem.. than the fact that game devs cant keep games exclusive to a specific console anymore.

Consoles already differenciate themselves technologically.. the PS3 is technically the best console on the market in this sence, but like the 360, it is also crippled with price-fixing region-locking.. even if that doesnt effect the playability of games from different markets.. so much as it effects DVD and BluRay playback.. my only real axe to grind with consoles, is region-locking that serves no purpose other than forcing europeans to pay higher prices for games than their US counterparts. Same argument I have against DVD/BluRay region-locks. (The second I find a mod-chip that defeats theses, I'm installing it).

I fail to see how someone can claim 'butt-hurt' because games they bought for the PC are now available on the 360 or vice/versa.. the PC is arguably the best gaming platform out there, you get better control and you can have a more customised setup that suits your playing style. Consoles are cheap and cheerful. I have a PC, its a gaming system... but it's old, I have a PS3 because most of the games I like to play, are on it, and I didnt see any point in buying a 360... when just about every game I've seen on it, is crap.

$20-30m for a game? Sounds like major resource-waste to me, spurned by pure greed and nothing else.. its reminding me of the same cycle that the banks went through.. before they crashed and burned.. maybe gaming houses should realise that budget isnt everything, and that some pretty decent games can be made if you have some good ideas.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 17, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Ignoring the "Microsoft is invading everything" and "Sony are evil root-kit DRM-lover" arguments (basically not turning this into a PS3 V 360 thread).. one of the biggest issues with developing any kind of software, to run on consoles, is the exuberant copy-protection that's forced on everyone... more often than not, to enable illegal price-fixing. That... and the extortionate licencing fees levied on the game developers to have access to the development kits. Costs like those, should be scrapped, and the market for game development, opened up to smaller groups that have some real talent at producing some pretty decent games... rather than the market being limited to the paltry offerings by companies like EA that, like MTV and the music industry.. cater only for their larger markets, ignoring the niche market that has the better chance of producing some pretty decent games that people will play.


 
While I think that this could benifit small developers, the SDKs shouldn't be universally accessable.  This would allow any crap dev to start pumping out shit for the consoles and we could likely see a repeat of the Video Game Crash of 1983.  And we already have enough problems with the shovelware coming from the LISENCED developers!

I also don't think DRM is a console issue.  DRM access is included in the console and it's basicly just an encryption key to all the software.  In a closed hardware scenario it's a lot easier to enforce.  The security features of consoles is WHY a lot of developers are moving to consoles.  Their shit can be pirated less.

Piracy On PC: Download, Replace Game's EXE with Cracked EXE.  Done.
Piracy On Wii: Previously required maticulace mod chip installation, but now uses cracked system software.  While somewhat accessable, even with guides a lot of 'end users' will just look at such instructions and go 'Duh, whaaat???? ;;;;;'.  No problem for computer compotent users but that's NOT a lot of the Wii user base.
Piracy On The 360: Starts with ripping the machine open to get to the DVD drive and some not so fun times in trying to flash the drive.  Not accessable to many users.
PS3: Can not be modded at this time.  (And I'm sure the Sony guys are real proud of this)

Sure, you can mod most of the machines but on the PC it's nothing but dragging and dropping in a cracked EXE.  It's a cake walk in comparison.  If I was a game dev I'd be going to console over the PC just for priacy concerns.

I look in our local game shop.. and prettymuch most of the titles are either First-Person-Shooters... Movie knock-offs.. or Soccar titles. No originality at all... just the same old rehashed shit as ever. This I think, is a bigger problem.. than the fact that game devs cant keep games exclusive to a specific console anymore.



Carenath said:


> Consoles already differenciate themselves technologically.. the PS3 is technically the best console on the market in this sence, but like the 360, it is also crippled with price-fixing region-locking..


 
Uhh... The PS3 is region free.   (However it continues to support region locking on PS1 and PS2 games)  Import whatever you want from where ever you want for the PS3 and it'll run.  Just make sure you can understand the language it's in.


----------



## Carenath (Jun 17, 2009)

If you read the rest of what I said, you'll realise I was referring to the fact that the PS3 does support region locking, not so much for the games (most are region free as you said), but for the blu-ray and DVD playback. The latter is why I still have my DVD player.. most of my DVDs are from different Regions.. some are Region 3 and some are Region 1... the rest are 2.

Regarding the SDKs... they should be available to others.. charging $$$ for them.. so that only big companies can afford them.. is silly.

Piracy is a function of price... overpriced but good games = pirated. Charge less.. less people steal it. Its a pretty simple thing that most of these companies just wont get into their heads. Piracy is in effect, a form of competition.. but rather than compete they bitch about copyright and force worse DRM schemes on us.. that hurts the end-users more than the pirates IMHO.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 17, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Piracy is a function of price... overpriced but good games = pirated. Charge less.. less people steal it. Its a pretty simple thing that most of these companies just wont get into their heads. Piracy is in effect, a form of competition.. but rather than compete they bitch about copyright and force worse DRM schemes on us.. that hurts the end-users more than the pirates IMHO.


 
Yeah, piracy is a function of price relating to 'WOO, FREE STUFF'. That's why I pirate PS2 games.  Except my light gun collection and whatever tidbits I get at EB for like $9.99.

Besides, video games have done nothing but come down in price if you considder inflation. Prices now vs the mid 1980's, then account for inflation, you're paying less than you did back then. Inflation has pretty much doubled since.

DRM does not affect the users enjoyability on a console.  There is no arguement agianst DRM in a home console.  The DRM in a console game prevents you from ripping the disc and burning it to portable media.  That means it YOU HAVE TO BUY THE GAME.  It's as easy as that.  It's not like you'll have StarForce fucking up your Xbox 360 or something.  No, if you have a ligit disc it'll work.  Simple as that.  Disc all scratched up?  Hey, you can get a one year warrenty for like $3 at EB/GS.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jun 17, 2009)

And if you have games on consoles, you can sell them back, even if some places like Gamestop are asswipes and will buy it for maybe $10 and then sell it for $20. Well hey, that IS how they make their money after all...they buy used games for like $10 then sell them for like $20-30, whereas a new game they make like $5 profit on. 

I remember you used to be able to buy used PC games as easily as you can buy used SNES or GBA games. And I actually liked some of the copy protection they used on some old PC games. Some got pretty creative about it. Sadly thanks to gamefaqs it won't work anymore. :<


----------



## Carenath (Jun 17, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> DRM does not affect the users enjoyability on a console.  There is no arguement agianst DRM in a home console.  The DRM in a console game prevents you from ripping the disc and burning it to portable media.  That means it YOU HAVE TO BUY THE GAME.  It's as easy as that.  It's not like you'll have StarForce fucking up your Xbox 360 or something.  No, if you have a ligit disc it'll work.  Simple as that.  Disc all scratched up?  Hey, you can get a one year warrenty for like $3 at EB/GS.


DRM does.. if you want to play games from outside the console's region.. or play DVDs or BluRay discs from outside the console's region. This makes shag-all difference to Americans.. Region 1, Region A.. and low prices on games, DVDs and BluRay discs... over here in Western Europe.. we get fleeced by game and content companies using DRM to region-lock the discs, to force us to buy local... and pay anywhere from 30-100% more than our American counterparts. This, and this alone, is why I'll chip my PS3 as soon as I can.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 18, 2009)

Carenath said:


> DRM does.. if you want to play games from outside the console's region.. or play DVDs or BluRay discs from outside the console's region. This makes shag-all difference to Americans.. Region 1, Region A.. and low prices on games, DVDs and BluRay discs... over here in Western Europe.. we get fleeced by game and content companies using DRM to region-lock the discs, to force us to buy local... and pay anywhere from 30-100% more than our American counterparts. This, and this alone, is why I'll chip my PS3 as soon as I can.


 
Firstly, regeion lockout is not a form of DRM.

Secondly, agian, the PS3 is region free for PS3 gaming.

Thirdly, the vast majority, 70% of Blu-Ray discs are not region locked.

Fourthy, it's not looking likely that the PS3 will have a mod any time soon anyway.

Quit yer bitchin'.


----------



## Carenath (Jun 18, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Firstly, regeion lockout is not a form of DRM.
> 
> Secondly, agian, the PS3 is region free for PS3 gaming.
> 
> ...


Region Lockout is a form of DRM, DRM refers to any system the content owner uses to control the use of their content. DRM does not automatically refer to copy-prevention systems that prevent consoles from playing pirated discs.

The PS3 is still region locked on BluRay and DVD titles. The PS2 and 360 are region locked for games as well as movie discs. The PS3 therefore would be the only "region free" console available, but its not completely region free, if you cannot play all BluRay and DVD regions on the unit. Like it or lump it, but many people, like me, bought the PS3 for the added ability to watch BluRay discs.. considering the cost of BluRay players at the time.

And what of the other 30%.. while many BluRay discs are either Region Free.. or encoded for all regions.. a majority of the new releases, are region locked. With DVDs this was a non-issue as my DVD player is region-free. To my knowledge, there are no region-free BluRay players available.

True, but those hardware hackers are a pretty determined bunch.

I argue against restrictions unnessarily applied to game consoles, and you cannot refute them. Try again.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 18, 2009)

Carenath said:


> The PS3 is still region locked on BluRay and DVD titles. The PS2 and 360 are region locked for games as well as movie discs. The PS3 therefore would be the only "region free" console available, but its not completely region free, if you cannot play all BluRay and DVD regions on the unit. Like it or lump it, but many people, like me, bought the PS3 for the added ability to watch BluRay discs.. considering the cost of BluRay players at the time.
> 
> And what of the other 30%.. while many BluRay discs are either Region Free.. or encoded for all regions.. a majority of the new releases, are region locked. With DVDs this was a non-issue as my DVD player is region-free. To my knowledge, there are no region-free BluRay players available.


 
The majority of new releases ARN'T region locked.  Entire film companies have chosen not to bother with region coding.



> Major studios have different region coding policies. Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios have released all of their titles region free.  Sony Pictures and Warner Bros. have released most of their titles region free, but titles released by Warner's New Line division were, initially, region-coded but subsequently have been released without being locked. Titles released by other labels on behalf of New Line are still subject to some region locking.  Lionsgate and Walt Disney Pictures have released a mix of titles that were region free and region coded.  20th Century Fox has released all but eleven of their titles region coded.


 
You're freaking out over a minor issue.

Ontop of that the PS2 was partially region coded by video signal alone.  PAL and NTSC games, even when run on modded systems, would only put out the video signal the game disc was encoded for.  So take an NTSC U/C PS2, mod it, pop in a PAL game on DVDR and the PS2 will be generating a PAL signal.  Which is quite useless in North America.


----------

