Oh my, I wonder how many posts I've gotta make before you actually READ what I say. Please, PLEASE read this one and MAYBE you'll get my meaning.
Your first point was that marketing is where all the money goes.
No, NO, and NO it wasn't. I said marketing and media manipulation are the BIGGEST parts. You're focusing obsessively on this as if marketing was everything I was talking about. Read the FIRST part, which is that technology ISN'T the problem as the second poster claimed, and which is sorta what the article is pointing at - which is why the article is looking at this from the wrong angle. Technology, in itself, is simply a tool and you can make GREAT use of the advances WITHOUT hiring a ton of people for added content.
I said - and you can read this in my quotes above, that PRODUCTION values is the problem - and that production values INCLUDE things like the list I made - which incidentally includes several things that are NOT marketing related.
I've said - twice now - that my one regret in terms of being clear, is that I DIDN'T include obsessive content detail because I didn't think of it. However, in my first response to YOU, I explained that this was just the kind of thing I meant by Hollywood production values and why it's NOTHING to do with gameplay or mechanics.
Translated just for you = The NATURE of Altair and the work done to make him look so DAMN HOT, is THE PROBLEM. The problem isn't the level of technology that made it POSSIBLE. It's that they CHOOSE to add that much detail INSTEAD of developing the actual GAME - as in gameplay and mechanics.
So, marketing is the big expense. You don't actually back those statements up and others (including myself) respond that developing the in-game assets really does cost a lot of money.
For typical AAA productions, you're damn right marketing is the big expense. Look at GalCiv 2 - which is just a small middle-market title, and yet the marketing budget is HALF the ENTIRE budget. But when I say "the big expense" it doesn't mean that it's bigger than everything else COMBINED - I'm saying the money spent on marketing and media manipulation COMBINED - is bigger than any other one aspect of the product. Do I know this for certain for all titles? No, it's a matter of looking at what's being done to market things and listening to what it costs to make that much noise.
Is this ALWAYS the case? How would I know - and maybe AC is the exception with a 450 man crew. I honestly can't begin to calculate how much money goes to their wages. But I'll promise you this: the marketing budget is OBSCENE. Why don't we see if numbers are revealed that we can trust.
Again, the REAL money apparently doesn't go on developing in-game assets - it's Liam Neeson and the marketing.
Tell me, can you do ANYTHING but focus on tiny aspects that you want to be my whole point.
Liam Neeson is an EXAMPLE of what makes the game SELL - not BETTER. JUST like Altair is an example of what makes the game SELL - not BETTER.
Ah! Maybe the money is spent on in-game assets - it's just you don't agree with their priorities. Fair enough but most of us don't disagree - that was Shamus' point! Here's a similar statement:
Yeah, as I've repeated to a nauseating degree - a LOT of money is spent in an effort to make the game SELL - not BETTER. Which is my entire point about production values.
Does that sound a bit like your Stardock example. Like, exactly like your Stardock example?
Yeah, that's exactly right. I agree that I would LOVE for the industry to go that way.
What I DON'T agree with is that technology is the CAUSE of the problem.
Furthermore, the article is talking about making games BETTER - not SELL. You get it? It's the entire reason games will NEVER be better as long as gaming is Hollywood 2. That's why the article is flawed - because it's based on the assumption that the market actually wants games that are BETTER - not COOLER.
The only way I see this happening, as I've said several times as well, is if they spend all that marketing cash on SHIFTING focus from Hollywood crap to GAMEPLAY. As in manipulating the casuals to change their tastes.
