What's Killing the Video-Game Business?

[darkjak]

The problem is that many developers have completely forgotten about what makes a quality game.

 

Assassins Creed and MGS 4 are more eyecandy than good games.

There are many hugely hyped games that turn out to be crap.

 

Saying that casual gaming is the future is quite false. The casual games of today need to approach the core games in terms of variety and immersion. The casual game of today can't sustain the game industry.

 

The Military has usually pioneered with technology. The army developed channel hopping technology, which has enabled the modern cellphone. The army developed the jet engine, 4 wheel drive. Arpanet was developed in the 60's and is the precursor to the modern internet. The army developed the GPS among other things.

The gaming industry needs to look more at what the worlds armies are up to.

For example, in the 60's it was clear that Sweden wouldn't afford to develop new bombers, fighterjets and reconnaisance aircraft. So they decided to make one aircraft that can do all of this:

 

However, in the 1960's the technology to make a true swingrole fighter was unavailable. It wouldn't be untill 1979 when the Thornado was introduced that a true Swingrole aircraft was put into service. But the Viggen existed in several versions, and appart from a select few parts, almost all parts were interchangable between the planes.

 

In 1997, Sweden finally put the plane they wanted in the 1960's into service:

 

Sweden has run into the same problem with ground vehicles. Sweden needs APC's, ambulances, terrain vehicles, among others. The result is the SEP program:

 

If the SEP goes into production it will be available with four, six or eight wheels, or tracks. It will be available with different kinds of weapons and interiors, but it will still be the same vehicle, with computers, engines, navigation, armour and so on being interchangable.

 

 

The same should be applied to the games industry. A development for an at least partially universal game engine would be higly beneficial. Or like with the SEP: one platform where you easilly can swap different engines. You can for example throw in the graphics from cryengine, the AI from MGS4 and the Havok physics engine.

 

I study games development so I know that the most expensive work force is the programmers. So by buying finished game engines and letting the programmers focus on what makes the game unique you can save a lot of cash.

[david.dakota]

Over the last few years we've seen the start of that worrying trend. I honestly don't think creating an anticompetitive market is a good idea, do you?

 

Firstly, in a market dominated by a monopoly, prices vary little, and when they do its still being managed.

 

A single engine provider can set the level of technical support (something Denis Dyack has already alleged against Epic).

 

A single provider could possibly place restriction on product (only licensing it to certain companies, or for particular genres/games) and prohibit 'adaptations' to their product (altering AI, adding new effects)- all resulting in a rather stagnant games market with a handful of genres, with a similar look and feel.

 

All things we desperately need to avoid. You've said you're studying games development- but you've completely forgotten to factor in the economics of it (something it seems the development communtity is equally guilty of- and i certainly hope the next wave of developers are not being taught in that way).

 

Put simply, we still need developers and publishers to show more financial restraint. Perhaps, choosing two smaller projects to share the financial risk, taking HVS's lead and having many small projects to balance the big risks. That does not necessarily mean more casual games/cheap shovelware.

[Shino]

And all that would limit the artistic input of the designers. They could modify the original engine to their needs but it would be just as expensive as developing a new one.

[david.dakota]

And all that would limit the artistic input of the designers. They could modify the original engine to their needs but it would be just as expensive as developing a new one.

 

I'm not sure if that was in reply to my post. If it was, i can't see how.

[jammy2211]

@darkjak, I'm no expect but surely by making companies 'buy' an all purpose engine, it'd turn out more expensive then the current model? Because well, whoever made this all purpose engine is going to sell it at a profit, no?

 

Not to mention being potentially very inefficient to certain game developement, and leading to all sort of potential monopolies. Also I'm not sure how different it'd be to what Epic are doing with the Unreal 3 already?

 

It makes more sense to me what companies are currently doing - creating their own engines which are used over a range of games. I think EA used their Godfather engine to make over 5 games, one being The Simpsons game they released a few years back?

 

I'd guess the problem arises in that most companies don't have a team as quality as Epic do...which shouldn't be a problem for companies the size of EA or Activision though.

[rizz]

What killed console gaming off for me is the expense. The GameCube was the only console I bought new at launch, and man did I save for maybe 2 years to get that thing.

 

As if I am going to spend £3/400 on a machine, which I can't enjoy unless I spend another £50 or whatever on a game which I might not like or get bored of quickly. They won't even be making games for it in a few years so i'll have to spend more hundreds of pounds all over again.

 

With PC, the requirements are always too high. I don't want to spend all that money on a game because i'm worried it won't run very well, but I sure don't want to spend a load upgrading my computer just to play a game.

 

That said, i'd rather be a PC gamer. I use a Mac atm (lol) so I can play World of Warcraft and that's about it. Which brings me to the obvious point that I will actually pay for a quality game. I won't bore you with how 90% of games are crap blah blah. . .

[Shino]

I'm not sure if that was in reply to my post. If it was, i can't see how.

 

It was a reply to darkjak.

 

What killed console gaming off for me is the expense. The GameCube was the only console I bought new at launch, and man did I save for maybe 2 years to get that thing.

 

As if I am going to spend £3/400 on a machine, which I can't enjoy unless I spend another £50 or whatever on a game which I might not like or get bored of quickly. They won't even be making games for it in a few years so i'll have to spend more hundreds of pounds all over again.

 

With PC, the requirements are always too high. I don't want to spend all that money on a game because i'm worried it won't run very well, but I sure don't want to spend a load upgrading my computer just to play a game.

 

That said, i'd rather be a PC gamer. I use a Mac atm (lol) so I can play World of Warcraft and that's about it. Which brings me to the obvious point that I will actually pay for a quality game. I won't bore you with how 90% of games are crap blah blah. . .

 

WoW players...

[Emasher]

Perhaps developers don't have to start from scratch, but for a decent game, they're going to need to at least modify the engine.

 

One thing I've heard being suggested on a podcast once was that if developers are all lets say trying to make a realistic blade of grass, why should every developer have to model that blade of grass when everyone is trying to do the exact same thing. And while I'd prefer every game didn't look the same, it might speed things up if they had some sort of starting point for common things, not just graphic things either.

[Daft]

The problem is that many developers have completely forgotten about what makes a quality game.

 

Assassins Creed and MGS 4 are more eyecandy than good games.

 

Well that's a massive load of shit.

 

Assassin's Creed scored respectfully (80/81 on metacritic. Personally I think it was the best game of 2007) and turned out to be the fastest selling new IP since 2002.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/assassins-creed-is-fastest-selling-new-ip-since-2002

 

MGS4 has a metacritic score of 94 which, even if you don't completely go my their scores, is a decent indication of quality.

 

It's also sold to date 4.5 million copies and was actually a big reason for Konami's growth.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22189

[darkjak]

Well that's a massive load of shit.

 

Assassin's Creed scored respectfully (80/81 on metacritic. Personally I think it was the best game of 2007) and turned out to be the fastest selling new IP since 2002.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/assassins-creed-is-fastest-selling-new-ip-since-2002

So what that it sells well? The Bratz and Barbie games sell well too. Do you consider them good games?

 

The game has a crappy combat system, stupid AI and repetitive missions. Unfortunately, nowadays some publishers buy reviews. I've talked to several people whom have played it more than me, and many say that the best part of the game is climbing up on a roof and jumping into a haystack.

 

MGS4 has a metacritic score of 94 which, even if you don't completely go my their scores, is a decent indication of quality.

 

It's also sold to date 4.5 million copies and was actually a big reason for Konami's growth.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22189

 

MGS4 is a good game, no question. But it's got more cutscenes than gameplay, in other words it's more eyecandy than a good game. From what I've heard, the actual game is under 5 hours.

 

 

 

@darkjak, I'm no expect but surely by making companies 'buy' an all purpose engine, it'd turn out more expensive then the current model? Because well, whoever made this all purpose engine is going to sell it at a profit, no?

Why do many of the cars within GM or Volkswagen share parts? Because it's expensive to develop parts. If several companies or car models share the same parts, said companies or models have shared the costs. If 20 companies buy a certain engine and use them in 40 games, then the company that's developed the engine will be filthy rich, while the companies whom use the engine have saved a substantial amount of money. And also, that would mean that several companies would like to join such a luscius market. If there's competition, you can't have any price you want, and even if that were the case, companies still WOULD be able to develop their own engines.

 

Not to mention being potentially very inefficient to certain game developement, and leading to all sort of potential monopolies. Also I'm not sure how different it'd be to what Epic are doing with the Unreal 3 already?

The Unreal engine is a complete package of physics engine, graphics, etc. It's nearly only suitable for first person shooters, in other words it's not an universal engine, nor does it have interchangable parts.

 

It makes more sense to me what companies are currently doing - creating their own engines which are used over a range of games. I think EA used their Godfather engine to make over 5 games, one being The Simpsons game they released a few years back?

That is partially true, but still a lot of companies rather develop a new engine for every game, which is why the costs of games are rising.

 

My question is the following: why make something that already exists? Rather than making the programmers do stuff that already exists, why not just make them focus on what makes the game unique.

 

Modern games have less and less actual content. Remember Goldeneye? 20 missions, nearly as many multiplayer maps, 40 guns and an absurd ammount of unlockables, some of which weren't discovered until 2001. No first person shooter can compare to it when it comes to quantities. That's because the costs of graphics and programming have increased.

 

The problem is partially the mentality of programmers. They have complete disregard for costs or the real world. For example the Duke Nukem team nearly only consists of programmers. And hence they've been swapping, modifying and making engines from scratch for fourteen years. They allways think that they can do everything better, but by the time they've succeded, some other programmer's done it better than that, so they want to start over.

[jammy2211]

 

Why do many of the cars within GM or Volkswagen share parts? Because it's expensive to develop parts. If several companies or car models share the same parts, said companies or models have shared the costs. If 20 companies buy a certain engine and use them in 40 games, then the company that's developed the engine will be filthy rich, while the companies whom use the engine have saved a substantial amount of money. And also, that would mean that several companies would like to join such a luscius market. If there's competition, you can't have any price you want, and even if that were the case, companies still WOULD be able to develop their own engines.

 

It depends on the intergrity of the company doing this - if they know there engine is the one and only then they'll charge higher prices - potentially even charge a royalties rate per copy manufactured of any game using the engine.

 

Competition could potentially drive costs down but we're way off being in a position for competition at the moment.

The Unreal engine is a complete package of physics engine, graphics, etc. It's nearly only suitable for first person shooters, in other words it's not an universal engine, nor does it have interchangable parts.

 

I'm pretty sure Square Enix are using it (Albeit The Last Remnant failed hard for whatever reason). It's been used well outside just FPS's to success though :/.

 

That is partially true, but still a lot of companies rather develop a new engine for every game, which is why the costs of games are rising.

 

I very much doubt that is why costs are rising. Art assets are the main reason, along with the 'type' of games dominating the industry at the moment, huge, epic experiences.

 

My question is the following: why make something that already exists? Rather than making the programmers do stuff that already exists, why not just make them focus on what makes the game unique.

 

Modern games have less and less actual content. Remember Goldeneye? 20 missions, nearly as many multiplayer maps, 40 guns and an absurd ammount of unlockables, some of which weren't discovered until 2001. No first person shooter can compare to it when it comes to quantities. That's because the costs of graphics and programming have increased.

 

The problem is partially the mentality of programmers. They have complete disregard for costs or the real world. For example the Duke Nukem team nearly only consists of programmers. And hence they've been swapping, modifying and making engines from scratch for fourteen years. They allways think that they can do everything better, but by the time they've succeded, some other programmer's done it better than that, so they want to start over.

 

With reference to the Goldeneye thing - I think part of that is due to online. Half of the game nowaday is treated as online, and when the games cost nearly the same price at retail obviously offline is going to be subsidised, as people arn't just paying for an offline experience.

 

The question I raise is the feasibility of an all-purpose super engine. Would making an engine so 'open ended' drive costs down, or require any developer to 'adjust' it and recode it to do what they want, ultimately raising costs. Would it's apparently complexity make developement more difficult and lead to greater problems for the developers?

 

I dunno, I don't understand much of this stuff. If it was technically possible I'd assume someone would have already done it though. I'm iffy on the economics too, I'd imagine a much better solution would be a 1 console type market, at least for the HD side of things.

[Guest Captain Falcon]

I'm iffy on the economics too, I'd imagine a much better solution would be a 1 console type market, at least for the HD side of things.

 

A moment ago, you were worried about the monopoly generated by a single game engine provider, and now your advocating a solitary platform as the solution.

 

Wouldn't that make things even worse?

 

Sure, you could develop an engine that if up to scratch and versatile, it could be used across multiple games and genres (though it's pretty unlikely), or you could turn to the established products and get your game on the self in double quick time.

 

I'd imagine you'd find in the short to medium term, that the licensing costs are more than offset by reduction in development overheads, particularly on games that aren't doing massive numbers.

 

Obviously there are some games and genres where that wouldn't apply though.

[rizz]

WoW players...

 

Ok, whatever that means

 

Just so you know, I have a DS too, and I can download any game I want for free. But I don't. Thats how much interest games developers are generating from me.

[jammy2211]

A moment ago, you were worried about the monopoly generated by a single game engine provider, and now your advocating a solitary platform as the solution.

 

Wouldn't that make things even worse?

 

Sure, you could develop an engine that if up to scratch and versatile, it could be used across multiple games and genres (though it's pretty unlikely), or you could turn to the established products and get your game on the self in double quick time.

 

I'd imagine you'd find in the short to medium term, that the licensing costs are more than offset by reduction in development overheads, particularly on games that aren't doing massive numbers.

 

Obviously there are some games and genres where that wouldn't apply though.

 

I never got how a single console would be a monopoly - the only iffy part is the manufacturers could charge a higher retail price, but the fact is they'd still be competiting with what the public are willing to pay. After that, you'd still have competition on software from the fact that all the different publishers want the most sales.

 

However there may be a problem with the console manufacturer charging over-the-odds royalties to third parties, thats the only issue I could potentially see.

 

It's too hard for us to estimate where costs of these games come from, would having some sort of multi-engine to license really reduce costs that much? Are the highest costs from making the game engine or producing the art, graphics, programming the final game etc? I dunno, I don't follow this stuff enough.

 

It just seems an odd idea that Ubisoft, EA, Capcom etc would want to license an engine like this when they have tons of their own that are already used for multiple projects. From what I've read Unreal 3 was used short-term to get games out as quickly and easily as possible, but less and less games are using it from now because all the major publishers have their own engines - ultimately that would happen with this idea of an engine too?

[Guest Captain Falcon]

I never got how a single console would be a monopoly - the only iffy part is the manufacturers could charge a higher retail price, but the fact is they'd still be competiting with what the public are willing to pay. After that, you'd still have competition on software from the fact that all the different publishers want the most sales.

 

However there may be a problem with the console manufacturer charging over-the-odds royalties to third parties, thats the only issue I could potentially see.

 

It's too hard for us to estimate where costs of these games come from, would having some sort of multi-engine to license really reduce costs that much? Are the highest costs from making the game engine or producing the art, graphics, programming the final game etc? I dunno, I don't follow this stuff enough.

 

It just seems an odd idea that Ubisoft, EA, Capcom etc would want to license an engine like this when they have tons of their own that are already used for multiple projects. From what I've read Unreal 3 was used short-term to get games out as quickly and easily as possible, but less and less games are using it from now because all the major publishers have their own engines - ultimately that would happen with this idea of an engine too?

 

 

It was just the idea that a sole manufacturer could charge royalties as they pleased and make the system so difficult to work with that developers would be forced to buy additional development tools and engines from them in order to ship a game that wasn't the product of a 3 or 4 year development cycle.

 

Maybe I'm wrong on this but I was under the impression that U3E was still in heavy use.

 

As for what part of the development costs the most, again that would come down to the game I reckon. But until the underlying engine is working, you can produce textures all day long, but there is no guarantee they are usable and you may find yourself having to re-write the thing because it doesn't do all you need it too.

 

Of course, like yourself, I don't follow this kind of stuff very closely either so I merely hypothesizing here.

[darkjak]

I never got how a single console would be a monopoly - the only iffy part is the manufacturers could charge a higher retail price, but the fact is they'd still be competiting with what the public are willing to pay. After that, you'd still have competition on software from the fact that all the different publishers want the most sales.

 

However there may be a problem with the console manufacturer charging over-the-odds royalties to third parties, thats the only issue I could potentially see.

 

It's too hard for us to estimate where costs of these games come from, would having some sort of multi-engine to license really reduce costs that much? Are the highest costs from making the game engine or producing the art, graphics, programming the final game etc? I dunno, I don't follow this stuff enough.

 

It just seems an odd idea that Ubisoft, EA, Capcom etc would want to license an engine like this when they have tons of their own that are already used for multiple projects. From what I've read Unreal 3 was used short-term to get games out as quickly and easily as possible, but less and less games are using it from now because all the major publishers have their own engines - ultimately that would happen with this idea of an engine too?

 

Like I said, sharing engines is good, and it is happening already, but many, if not most games are made from scratch.

 

Even if many developers still would prefer to create their own gameplay engine, since their gameplay would be too costly to implement on an existing engine, they could still buy a physics engine, graphics engine, AI engine, sound engine and so on. Today, bar the Havoc physics engine, you buy the engines whole and modify. Developers should be able to mix any way they want.

 

And yes, a lot of the costs come from the art, however what's lacking in modern games is design work. I'm studying design, and it's really sad how developers keep underusing designers. Because of that we end up with uneven challenges, poor stories and overall bad gameplay.

 

The gaming industry needs to move away from reinventing itself (make programmers program something that's already been done and could potentially be bought for a fraction of the money), rather than making good, well balanced games with deep stories and gameplay.

[mcj metroid]

Casual gaming is the future but Most developers even nintendo included are approaching it the wrong way.. They only hit the basics with wii sports and wii fit.. but wii music was a step far backwards I think even they know that..

 

There is also a difference between casual games and kids games.. ubisoft mostly release kids games

 

It's just developers don't know how to approach the casual yet and all of them seem to copy nintendo..

It all started with brain age it seems and remember all the copies? How about nintendogs?wii sports and now wii fit?(not going to see any copies of wii music lol)

 

 

Point is innovation is KEY! and I believe approaching the non-gaming audience and making games EVERYONE can enjoy is also KEY to moving on.

[Grazza]

I've got a lot to say and I'm afraid it's all over the place...

 

What killed console gaming off for me is the expense. The GameCube was the only console I bought new at launch, and man did I save for maybe 2 years to get that thing.

 

I'm with you there. From my point of view, things will get going a lot more when they're all £130 for the full console. Yes, the 360 is that cheap already, but then you have to think about whether you want a hard drive and then you have to think about the innards.

 

On top of that, we've got HDTV to think about this generation. Do you get keep the SDTV that suits your Wii and normal TV or get an HDTV that will suit the PS3/360 and the few HD broadcasts at the moment?

 

This generation is so complicated compared to previous ones. Still, that's just me. Going by my friends, these consoles are selling.

 

If games like Grand Theft Auto IV don't have quite the legs they were meant to though, then something's wrong (or right - personally, I've never liked those games).

 

The only games that seem to create any buzz are the occasional FPS. It seems to me that people are spending the time and money on less individual games, but are playing them more over Xbox Live.

 

I never got how a single console would be a monopoly - the only iffy part is the manufacturers could charge a higher retail price, but the fact is they'd still be competiting with what the public are willing to pay. After that, you'd still have competition on software from the fact that all the different publishers want the most sales.

 

Agree. I always thought a single format would be like DVD, which is not a monopoly. That format was agreed on by the DVD Forum, so surely we could have a "Games Console Forum"? A new standard would be agreed every 5-8 years and anyone would be free to manufacture it.

 

As for sharing engines and modelling resources, if we are ever to have a "go anywhere, do anything" game, it seems inevitable that more cooperation of this type will be needed.

 

We are three generations into 3D gaming and it seems a shame that there are still games that are "flops" with the critics. Moving around a 3D space should be perfected, and yet how many games are there where you can fly, run or walk anywhere and go into any building?

 

This is a bit esoteric, but I enjoy travelling on ferries. As I was leaving Portsmouth last year, I daydreamed about a game where I could glide over to one of the three forts I was sailing past (one of them was used in Dr Who and I wanted a closer look). After I'd explored them, I'd hookshot onto an even bigger ferry and have a good look round that. Then I'd fly over to the Isle of Wight and run up the hills.

 

If we ever want games of that scale and scope, we're going to need more co-operation with design. I don't think there'd be a monopoly, as you could have rival engines and several different modelling companies, design specialists for different vehicles.

 

Still, I do not deny accessibilty is key. In the old days, I used to try coin-ops like Double Dragon, Dragonninja and Shinobi (the first three examples I thought of) and it was immediately clear how the game played and how the characters moved. However, these were "hardcore" games and there was a lot to them if you wanted to get into them.

[Emasher]

We're never going to have all the console companies come together and decide on a standard and just have everyone develop to the standard and everyone manufacture their version of that console. But I think we will see less and less exclusives and more and more multi-format titles. Exclusives will end up mostly being games that are paid for buy the console company (Like the way MS bought the GTA DLC) or made by the console company. It seems to be already heading in that direction. A while back, all you could buy on multiple consoles for the most part was licensed games, but every generation, more and more games are coming out on multiple platforms. A good portion of the major games for Q4 2008 were on PC, 360 and PS3, and even some on the Wii. We're going to see more of that in the future, especially once the Wii HD comes out and all the consoles are closer together in terms of power.

[McPhee]

It's a simple case of too many games. Nothing to do with them being the wrong genre, on the wrong platform or development costs being too high. They chould change all of those attributes and the underlying problem would still be there; too much choice for consumers.

 

Losses have been high over the past few months because far too many games were released to market at the same time. It forced people to choose between two games, when under normal circumstances they would have bought both. For example, before Christmas i picked up Spore, Fable 2, Gears of War 2, Mirror's Edge, Guitar Hero: World Tour and Left 4 Dead. The list of games i didn't buy due to financial and time constraints was pretty high; Naruto, Fallout 3, Brothers in Arms, C&C: Red Alert 3, CoD: World at War, Disaster, Animal Crossing, Far Cry 2, Crysis: Warhead, Rock Band 2, Tomb Raider, Dead Space. That's a lot of missed money due to an oversaturation of the market.

 

To "fix" the industry publishers simply need to churn out fewer games and spread them more evenly throughout the year. I'm still catching up on what i missed before Christmas and yet i'm getting bombarded with titles again! Street Fighter IV, Dawn of War 2, Halo Wars, Empire: Total War and Resident Evil 5 all within 5 weeks. I can't keep up and i doubt many can. If the consumers can't keep up then sales aren't being maximised and profit is being lost.

[Jimbob]

The problem is people taking 5 fucking years to make a game everybody thinks they want and in the end the "core" gamer and media poo-poo it. That's one game per generation that quite probably won't sell what it needs.

 

That could probably be the case with why some developers go bust. Hence why some developers like EA, Ubisoft and Nintendo make smaller games during and after making the bigger titles like Prince of Persia, Mario and Call of Duty in the hope of making money to produce such big titles, but in some cases like Midway these titles don't sell or make enough including the big titles then they end up down the pan in administration.

 

It may also have something to do with too much choice for the consumer, like McPhee said.

 

Nintendo 64 Games launched with a £70 price tag 0_o. Even late games like Donkey Kong 64 and Conkers were £60.

 

All brand new games, no eBay at that time. Maybe it is the onset of dementia.... I'll hide under my tartan blanket.

 

I never once paid below £50 for a brand new N64 game, last one i bought brand new was Conkers Bad Fur Day at £55. Even No Mercy was £50 itself. It was the cost of the cartridges that probably made these games so expensive to purchase in the first place.

[Shino]

It's a simple case of too many games. Nothing to do with them being the wrong genre, on the wrong platform or development costs being too high. They chould change all of those attributes and the underlying problem would still be there; too much choice for consumers.

 

Losses have been high over the past few months because far too many games were released to market at the same time. It forced people to choose between two games, when under normal circumstances they would have bought both. For example, before Christmas i picked up Spore, Fable 2, Gears of War 2, Mirror's Edge, Guitar Hero: World Tour and Left 4 Dead. The list of games i didn't buy due to financial and time constraints was pretty high; Naruto, Fallout 3, Brothers in Arms, C&C: Red Alert 3, CoD: World at War, Disaster, Animal Crossing, Far Cry 2, Crysis: Warhead, Rock Band 2, Tomb Raider, Dead Space. That's a lot of missed money due to an oversaturation of the market.

 

To "fix" the industry publishers simply need to churn out fewer games and spread them more evenly throughout the year. I'm still catching up on what i missed before Christmas and yet i'm getting bombarded with titles again! Street Fighter IV, Dawn of War 2, Halo Wars, Empire: Total War and Resident Evil 5 all within 5 weeks. I can't keep up and i doubt many can. If the consumers can't keep up then sales aren't being maximised and profit is being lost.

 

That's a good point, I only have 3 platforms to play with and I'm still a bit lost. Not only are there loads of games, but some consume a lot of time, add that the back catalogue of classics I would like to play and they could very well stop making games for a couple of years.

 

We've been consecutively having some of the best years in the industry, 2007 was great, 2008 was even better and 2009 seems to keep up the quality and quantity,

 

They're also developing the biggest budget titles for the smallest audience this generation, and even worse, its fractured by two consoles.

 

All this factors add up to what we have now.

[mcj metroid]

too many games is hardly a complaint though.. for the consumer we have so so much choice.Most publishers do spread their games out pretty evenly like Nintendo and others.. It's nobody's fault that games are released the same day as others.. It's hardly a complaint as long as they are quality titles.

[darkjak]

What made the game industry collapse last time arround was the fact that it was impossible to tell a good game from a shite game, and the fact that tere was so much shite out there. And of course it had to do with developers being overoptimistic with sales. Atari for example bought the ET and Pacman licenses for a s**tload of cash. Then they quickly churned out the games in record time and

 

And also it had to do with there being too many consoles, making parents and retailers unable to tell which game that worked with what.

 

Developers need to step away from todays cash cows and be reasonable. It's straight out stupid to count on a game selling 2+ milions just to break even.

[RoadKill]

How did Activision-Blizzard lose money? Fuck that shit, Blizzard make so much money they probably wipe their assholes with 1 million dollar notes and snort cocaine through rolled up gold leaf

 

If they say they have 11.5 million subscribers, and a monthly subscription is $12.99 - $14.99 based on the term length, the mean being (12.99+14.99)/2, that is to say, $13.99, $13.99 * 11,500,000 = $160,885,000 income a month