View Single Post

Default 

December 15th, 2012, 08:43
Some comments are very off in the list of articles.

This one (and its context)
"Paying $60 upfront for a full game is a huge commitment. Very few games can sell millions of copies at that level. And consumers at this point in time have a resistance to even very small payments like 99 cents because there’s tons of free content out there, because we all struggle with assessing the value of the experience we’re going to get and because of the hassles associated with making payments on the Internet. With ads, we get you started right away, let you enjoy the product, so long as you can suffer the occasional ad."
This guy puts on the wrong shoes. He is on the selling side, not the buying side.
Getting paid to let people see the content of a game is not an issue. On the very contrary.

One comment to follow
Tim Sweeney, one of the smartest people in gaming, expressed concern at the cost of making hardcore, visually stunning games for new platforms. “Budgets are always going to continue marching upwards," he said. "We are hoping costs at the start of the next generation to only be double the cost of the start of the previous generation."
Not sure this guy earned a badge of smartness thanks to comments like that but it will shape the future of gaming.

Production costs are going to rise while the customer basis is stalling or increasing at a slower rate.

One can expect even more of the same old as dropping out of the race for better graphics is out of the question and that limitations of costs must come from somewhere else. So it has to come from gameplay.
It is likely that publishers are going to lend ears to gamers reclaiming a return to the past as this will allow them to diminish costs of production.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#13

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,889