can't wake up
The Fable 360 games were terrible, but Fable 1 really was a pretty good game. I'd play a remake if they put in some of the stuff they said they would back in the day.
Hostages? **** em'
Yeah, Fable was a fine game.
I don't really care about better graphics that much but I'm interested in seeing the increase in scale that can come with the processing power. Also hopefully giving developers less room for excuses for technical issues (ie: capcom can't blame the system when they don't have enough processing power left after the graphics for a good netcode)Originally Posted by icarusfall
Electronic cigarette.
They added screenshots to that article. With the Lost Chapters it felt much more complete, so I'll buy that remake (just not at full price).
I understand that increases in dev costs have always happened. I'm just saying that back in the day $1 mil on a AAA title sorta-worked because the audience was there. At that price enough people existed who could buy the game and recoup a studio's spending.
20 mil on AAA is much different. so is the current economic climate. You can't just say "games always get expensive and survive" and leaving it at that. So much context has changed between 10 years ago and now.
Right. 10 years ago not everything was PC based, which makes multiplatform development significantly easier. Third parties should be and are welcoming the new generation with open arms. Many of them have been demanding it for a while.
Electronic cigarette.
The way you phrase this seems to indicate that the audience was proportionally larger back then, which doesn't make any sense. Is that what you meant?
There will obviously be fewer new IPs in the AAA landscape, but they will be there. What's going to happen is that a large publisher will have their flagship FPS, their flagship military FPS, racer, etc, so if they don't have one of those yet, they will be pushing an IP there. Then they will be introducing some if they feel the old one has run its course. If it succeeds, that's the replacement, if not, then they didn't spend as much money anyway (probably, obviously a lot of times you have to spend $ to make $). But a big reason why new IPs happen within 2 years of launch is that they aren't competing with 600 established games.
That's an interesting hypothesis about the portfolio and quite possibly an accurate one. I hope it's not quite that "paint by number" though... at least for companies that aren't EA and Activision.
That may be nice for third parties and fun for them, I just don't believe that an escalation of budgets for diminishing returns, especially in light of how nutty this gen was for dev closures, is the smart move given the economy today. You may believe that it's ok as long as you get yours and devs are having fun. I just don't see it as being sustainable.
Then again, that could be for the best. If devs just want consoles to be dumb pcs that are easy to work on, then that means pc is the ideal choice for consumers. There are multiple channels to get games, indie is alive on it, and everything consoles now aspire for, pcs can do better and cheaper. If all that matters is how much fun third parties have, that is.
It's every developer surviving that isn't sustainable. We've lost some studios I'll miss, but that's the way the world works.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks