Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
That's not true. People other than Nintendo have been doing amazing things on Nintendo hardware for almost 30 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Who are "most folks"? The people who bought 7.5 million copies of MWX?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
In the 70s, no one bought records or books or went to movies. Videogames had no competition for the entertainment dollar.
Jack asses.
P.s. in 1977, gas was $.62 a gallon, an LP was $3.00, and a movie ticket was $2.25. Using Mech's rate of inflation, that shit all outpriced games.
I dont like paying $60 for a game, and rarely do. But you cant argue that theyre not appropriately priced for what you get.
When things moved to CD from cart, we did see somewhat of a price drop. That was because what it cost to program a game didnt change, but the physical media used for the game went from expensive memory chips to cheap compact discs. Publishers could pass some of the savings down to the consumer. That has changed. Six guys cant program a AAA game in 12 months anymore. It takes hundreds of guys two years at least. Cant you see that $60 for 8 gigs of data in 2012 is way better then $80 for 32 megs in 1995 in the extreme 16 bit rpg case or even the $64.99 most PSX games cost when that launched?
No.
Back when the Gamecube was new I didn't really want one, but I played Rogue Leader on a demo kiosk and thought, "I must have this!" I guess Nintendo doesn't want my money anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
I was pleasantly surprised by the gamepad, it's surprisingly comfortable and the d pad and buttons are a nice size. From the pics I thought they would be 3DS sized.
If you're comparing megs to gigs, I get it. If you're comparing past to present, I get it. When you compare team sizes and budgets, I get it. Games aren't that expensive in context. I don't doubt people here get that. I'm talking about the public in general - they don't look at a $60 game and consider inflation or data size to consider it a good buy. They just see a $60 game, which may end up being shitty, or even if its good only exists to be played to completion then sold for the next game that takes hundreds of people and way too much money to develop. They're willing to put down on franchises that are proven (which is why Black Ops 2 isn't some indicator of the industry kicking ass, just CoD kicking ass) and even that comes with caveats of flipping the title when they're finished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
When you couple that with alternative forms of entertainment, I don't see the solution to generating a mass run on gaming being more expensive hardware that leads to higher development costs. That means more expensive games and/or a higher need for a large volume of sales just to break even. It also means an even harder sales prospect to those who aren't us.
We're the chumps and idiots though, those who will spend $500+ when a new box comes out just because. I'm saying there aren't enough of us to make this the solution to improving game sales. Better games that appeal to a wider audience would do that and better hardware to do it on would be nice, but not the vital component. It's like putting the cart before the horse.
Yeah - a Call of Duty sells well. Holy shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Compared to stuff with an even more mainstream audience though, 7.5 mil isn't shit. Yeah, an accomplishment for gamers games, but compared to the 2 billion downloads for Angry Birds (though that number is outdated - like last year?) it's still not that great. Fuck, compared to the 20 million of New Super Mario Bros. Wii, 7.5 mil is a number only important to gamers who think the only things that count are the things they care about.
7.5 million is also an exception, not a rule. Otherwise Assassin's Creed, Medal of Honor, Farcry, Sleeping Dogs, Dishonored, et al. would be crowing about these kind of numbers.
And NSMB Wii was $50. So you're drawing the line between $50 and $60? I think your argument just hit the floor when you unzipped your pants to show us your bias.
How is that any different than people putting $40-$50 down for shitty NES games 25 years ago? With the exception that that $40 was a hell of a lot more money then than $60 is now. Not every game released was a Mario or Contra calibur game.
You act as if disappointing purchases is a relatively new concept.
You bring up cheap phone games. We had the same things in the 80s (cheap games on weak tech). They were heavily discounted early gen systems and shit put out by Tiger Electronics. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT COMPETING FOR YOUR DOLLAR.
Don't confuse him with facts; his mind is made up.
And yay, angry birds sold eleventy billion...what do you call digital sales, units?
How many others have met that mark?
I would be willing to bet that more people are making money in the console industry than there are in the iosphere.
A quick look tells me that there were over 50,000 games (not apps, games) available for ios in 2010. How many of those broke 1 million in sales, i wonder.