Ubisoft Says Gamers Are "Starving" for Next-Gen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

I can't help but suspect that the motive behind the big 'social media connection' push, particularly with the PS4, is an attempt to revolutionize profit margins by bringing a massive influx of non-gamers into the hobby.

Specifically, a lot more women. Categorically speaking, the only "video games" we consistently play in significant statistical numbers are social media games. Maybe they're hoping to reverse engineer more women into the fold? The same concept also holds for Millenials in general regardless of sex, who can't stand being unplugged from social media for any length of time. Apparently even the time spent on a console.

Who knows...maybe that could happen, even if that isn't an actual projected goal. But it won't work for the female side until some of the obvious problems with games (and the gaming community by extension) have been worked out first.

Vivi22:

Would you have been less pedantic if i had specified everything they SAY and do? Because despite a small flub in the wording my meaning was pretty damn clear.

Your meaning was clear, you're unhappy with what Ubisoft have been doing, but you do need to clarify what about this post angers you, otherwise there is no context. What about that statement made you annoyed? The fact that they want the next gen? The fact that they're saying consumers want the next gen? Are you annoyed that they are trying to justify moving forward? It could also be interpreted that you were assuming that Ubisoft had some part in the next gen consoles. By simply writing, "Hey, Ubisoft already makes up whatever bull they want to justify everything they do so why stop now?" it can be confusing, even with the article right above. Clarify what about this statement is bullshit, and what part they are making up to justify wanting the progression of consoles.

I'm starving for more devs to be able to more easily develop shit on consoles so I can have a more interesting library to choose from with, hopefully, more creative work.

I'm starving to not get games with astronomical production costs rammed down my throat. Or worse, reboots of shit that I might be willing to look into being called a failure because it can't match the astronomical expectations that the dev costs forced. Actually, I'm starving to not have any more shitty, vanilla-fying of games that I used to love (or at least enjoy watching others play, like Thief).

I'm starving for motherfuckers to come up with cool and fun things, and for development costs to get under control so cool and fun stuff can be experimented with. I mean, in this climate, can we every expect some shit like Kagero: The Deception to be made again? And that's not even a game I like, but there's nothing like it and it's unlikely to happen again because there's too much cash and restriction in the process.

I didn't bought a onsole this one, I won't buy any on the next one. I want good games that are not covered in pre-launch DLC nor have an idiotic DRM system, and also decent PC ports, That's the one I'm most annoyed about.

I don't feel starved. Actually, i feel rather confused. Next generation will have "share" buttons, always online connectivity and some more social media and copy protection stuff i don't need, want or care about. Brought upon us by oblivious "everything is always online nowadays" executives with their Heads so far up the clouds they might be sniffing Farts of the ISS Crew.

And i'm supposed to be excited for that?

I feel reminded of the cellphone market. I have one of the ye olde android smartphone with an 800mhz cpu and it's barely working. Actually, i had a smoother experience with my Amiga 500 with an 8 mhz cpu.
"Get a new Phone!" my Friends say. Sure, get a new flimsy overpriced device with impressive specs with apps that wont use the power very efficiently and drain the battery in a day.

Shut up Ubisoft

Whytewulf:
Funny, I don't think a lot of people responding are the target audience. There are a lot of hardcore gamers on here. But the casual gamer that isn't constrained by cash, does like the latest toys. They don't drive 8 year old cars, don't watch 8 year old tvs, PCs get upgraded every 4 years or so. There is a market, and I dare say a big market for the new consule. The current teens buying an xbox are probably fine, but the market is somewhat saturated, where as you could grab millions of new hardware clients pretty quickly. Thing mobile phones, does the newest Android or IPhone do much more than LAST YEARS?

In short, people with full-time jobs and expendable cash.

Perhaps this is one why I'm so eager for a new system. I've had my PS3 for around half a decade now and I'm ready for an upgrade. $400-$600 wouldn't make me flinch considering the amount of use I've gotten out of my ps3 and other consoles/pc. Now just to see what Microsoft has to offer to decide if I want their stuff too. The WiiU may be the first Nintendo system I pass up. Sad.

Either way, I saw Skyrim scraping the bottom of PS3's capabilities (limited by the silly design of their processors and how they process asset categories) and know that developers are capable of more. I don't think we need games left and right that look a lot better than what we currently see getting put out on the current gen systems. Hell, games from 2005 are actually still playable (Bioshock, Oblivion). That hadn't been as possible in the previous decades. But I certainly want to stop tying developers hands if they want to innovate graphically.

Frankly, each of these statements made by *snrk* "industry leaders" means that down the line I have to listen to somebody go on about how we're being held back by our current tech.

This might have been the situation back when we were playing with blocks, but even then they STILL made some pretty sweet games, even with the limitations. Hell, you could argue that some of them were actually made stronger BECAUSE instead of focusing on dumb shit that didn't have anything to do with the game's overall design plan, they were forced to compress every moment of the game into a focused effort to deliver entertainment.

if anything, the experience with THIS current gen should have meant that the games would be INCREASING in quality

it's not like opposite world where experience is immediately gained from having new tech that you need to relearn

but developers instead choose to sit on their hands or not actually invest any kind of thought into games because they have to spend both time and money on the new systems which we're not exactly STARVING for as much as actual content, that doesn't come from writing larger numbers on the graphics cards that in a few years will be deemed equally inadequate for making games that people actually think are fun and blame the same hardware for the sins of the previous generation

most of the lack of gameness (yes that is a word that I am using now) stems from butt decisions from butts that are in charge of the game from start to finish

and because of those butts, you're gonna have to shell out hundreds of dollars for what basically amounts to a minor upgrade, the largest difference to actual gameplay being made is the RAM upgrade, which is the LEAST expensive modification you can make to today's hardware

and more RAM does NOT guarantee that people will suddenly get better at writing, or designing games that make goddamn sense

i mean, look at this Ubisoft guy's speech, it's just filled with utter nonsense. people who want to DECIDE what their entertainment options are would build their own computer. people who listen to a man drivel about meaningless stuff that doesn't even relate to playing video games anymore buy a premade plastic box with everything done the way the company says so, and has the games the company decides to carry

are these the people who you want deciding what you can like and not like?

I'm not.

weirdguy:

Make no mistake, we are being graphically constrained by tech. It is happening and developers are having to work to fit more in a smaller box with current gen tech. They're pretty good at it too. The PS3, for example, forces developers to break up assets into specific categories in ways that makes development particularly difficult for the system as assets get ever larger (and some assets are meant to persist and sometimes bloat). If any asset category gets too big then the ps3 will actually crash and we saw this happening for the first 5 months after the launch of the ps3 version of Skyrim until the right patches came through. The 360 was also put to task by such a large game but handled it a lot better without that asset constraint. But any kind of sequel would have to be limited to almost exactly the same overall size to fit on the current gen. It's companies like Bethesda that I certainly don't want to tie the hands of. They make huge and vibrant worlds to be explored and more power only suits them.

But at the same time, you're absolutely right that being constrained graphically has NOTHING to do with storytelling. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with making a more vibrant, intuitive and realistic world to tell those stories in. If a story is going to be crappy, it might as well be in a pretty setting. If a story is going to be great, it does no harm to make the environment beautiful as well. It may serve to immerse and impress all the more.

As I said in my first post in this thread. I look forward to a time when making a beautiful game is easy. When new game engines that are rolled out and put in the hands of even smaller developers make this stuff common place, then games will live or die on stories and plots and the enjoyment of the gaming mechanisms. When beauty becomes the norm, graphics start to get out of the way. Everyone benefits from that.

An easy example is this, many of us love/loved final fantasy VII. I can still imagine the musical scores in my mind (I'd better be able to, all those hours I spent grinding levels and materia). Wouldn't that game have been a bit cooler, a bit flashier, a bit more immersive if the environment was created with today's technology? I think so and part of it's excitement was just how innovative and new the title felt. How graphically advanced it was at the time went a long way to stun audiences. That opening scene that they remade recently? That looked just as cool to us then as the remake looked to us when it came out. If you can clearly remember some of the low polygon-esque scenes, you may agree with me here. The game still had a great story with great story elements and graphics can't take that away. But they can certainly augment the storytelling.

Another thought, consider that this next generation will likely involve a virtual reality element with products like the Oculus Rift coming out. That would open up an entirely new world of gaming where the entire game really is about exploring a new and alien world.

As a gamer who does not even play on consoles, yes I am in fact extremely eager for the next console generation. I still believe it is long overdue and should have come about at least three years ago. I am tired of limited, simplified, lacklustre console ports on my PC and am looking forward to larger game worlds, better AI, higher quality textures and shading, and the general all-round improvement in areas that have been held back by console limitations for years. I sincerely hope that Sony and Microsoft already have people starting to plan for the generation to follow as well, I don't want gaming to get stuck at PS4/Xbox-whatever level for most of the next decade. The PS5 and its brethren ought to be ready for release in five years or fewer to keep games advancing at a reasonable clip.

Gamers say Ubisoft is Starving for Next-Gen
There. Fixed.
There's no need to pin this on the market.
I know you are damn scared of backlash (and piracy) from PC gamers, and that your current business model isn't sustainable without consoles. But it's OK, there's nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about it rather than trying to speak for everyone.

Wouldn't so much say I'm hungry but I am curious as to what it will bring. I remember the leap from the original xbox to seeing the graphical and gameplay capabilities of the 360 and PS3 and I was awestruck. Even current games I get struck with awe upon viewing but it does seem clear that they've pushed this hardware to its limits. The hardware in these consoles are about six to seven, they can only do so much.

I feel these limitations are holding back progression. Seems a lot here don't agree with that, content with staying with how things are. Myself, I'm not, guess I'm just one of those people that likes to see things evolve and progress. Its been, what? seven years? and we've seen what the current gen hardware can do when pushed to it's limits. Now we get to see an upgraded console that could possibly have games that pushed the current gens limits as just the starting line up, the launch titles ect... Then we've got maybe another six years to see how far we can push this next set of consoles.

Me'h maybe it's just me, but I find it all rather interesting. Would I say starved? not really, I can wait a little longer, however that doesn't change the fact that I am, indeed, excited about all this and can't wait to see what these next consoles hold for the future of gaming.

Lightknight:
snop

Okay, yes, our graphics aren't top of the board.

but when you look at today's games, is the main ISSUE that we see that the game looks like crap purely based on the graphical power, or is it because of glaring design issues that should have really never seen the light of day?

to focus on the graphical limitations and throw all your money behind that, instead of say, fostering actual development of the medium, is the hugest mistake I see approaching us

frankly, I'd rather have the game be piss ugly if they can make it exciting AS A GAME. what we are doing here is choosing to sacrifice an honest review of the game industry for flashiness

and i can't endorse that

you know what i remember?

i don't remember ff7 even for what it did, and how much i enjoyed it

i remember ff6, and how much more it was capable of without having it be a graphics showcase

weirdguy:

but when you look at today's games, is the main ISSUE that we see that the game looks like crap purely based on the graphical power, or is it because of glaring design issues that should have really never seen the light of day?

But of course it's design issues - hardware design issues. Even if you don't see the need of upgrade, I can assure you that significant part of production costs, bugs and other problems is based on PS3/Xbox360/PC compatibility issues. Next gen is probably all x64 based, so this problem is like "puff" - gone.

I'm not hungry for the next generation in consoles. I'm hungry for great games not being held back by shitty console standards, however.

Uhhh, no. No I'm not Mr Guillemot. The only thing I am starving for is heavy metal and more games like Shadow of The Colossus and Just Cause 2. Unless the next gen can provide this for me, then we are in business. If not, talk to the hand. I'll stick the previous generations thank you very much.

Add to list of what's good about PC gaming that the next generation is whenever you decide to buy new hardware.

Oh they "say" that do they?

And I say that Ubisoft knows as much about the wants of gamers as a great white shark knows about the desires of the infant that just fell into it's tank.

if you want growth and customization you buy a PC. if you want staability and cheap unrealiable hardware you buy consoles. the whole reason consoles exist is because its a united platform and thus way easier to program for and use than technologically superior but more complex PCs.

I hate when game companies tell gamers what they want...9 times out of 10 it's some completely moronic statement. While I'm certain there are plenty that are awaiting this next gen, the majority of people that I've spoken with on the subect are in the same position I am: do we even really NEED a new generation? That question combined with all the shitty details that have come out about the next generation and it's really hard to justify wanting to pick one up.

It's like Sony and Microsoft spent a couple years soaking up information about all the things gamers hate about videogames and decided to try and stuff'em all into one package.

"Always online? No physical games? Not backwards-compatible? Sounds good to me!"

I don't believe that many gamers are actually starving for Next-Gen consoles/games. They just want good games and games that everyone has been waiting for/anticipating for years and years.

If developers are literally waiting to give us these titles for the Next-Gen consoles/engines, then so be it. I don't believe everyone will appreciate the fact that they will need to purchase a whole new console to play Kingdom Hearts 3 or the next Halo installment, but some might merit it as a reasonable excuse to grab the console.

weirdguy:
Okay, yes, our graphics aren't top of the board.

but when you look at today's games, is the main ISSUE that we see that the game looks like crap purely based on the graphical power, or is it because of glaring design issues that should have really never seen the light of day?

to focus on the graphical limitations and throw all your money behind that, instead of say, fostering actual development of the medium, is the hugest mistake I see approaching us

I consider modern games to be remarkably pretty. That's besides the point. They can be better and it only serves our purpose to make them capable of being better. I think you're mistaking developers for story writers here. The plot of the game doesn't change based on graphics, but the ability or platform to tell the story more efficiently can.

Again, I point to the Occulus Rift as a new potential method of gaming that will require additional processing. Every graphical element of gaming will be improved here. Companies will figure out better methods of generating water, proper lighting, movement, and all other kinds of things that current gen technology is pretty but not perfect in. These new designs will come together to form new game engines that smaller companies will then purchase a license to use as the platform to tell their stories on and the bar gets raised even higher.

Do you honestly have no appreciation for graphical beauty? I consider it an augment of the story.

frankly, I'd rather have the game be piss ugly if they can make it exciting AS A GAME. what we are doing here is choosing to sacrifice an honest review of the game industry for flashiness

and i can't endorse that

you know what i remember?

i don't remember ff7 even for what it did, and how much i enjoyed it

i remember ff6, and how much more it was capable of without having it be a graphics showcase

It does no one any harm for the graphics to be capable of doing more. It DOES harm us when companies like Bethesda can't fit the world they've created in our consoles without significant modifications. The day I figured out what the problem was with Skyrim (within a week, actually, I've done extensive work as a software tester where bloating was an issue), I immediately began buying components for a more poweful machine and within two months was enjoying all Skyrim had to offer while the ps3 users suffered.

You don't know this unless you're a developer. But companies are beginning to have to put significant effort into scaling their work appropriately. A more powerful machine would alleviate significant resources and with the ps3 in particular ports will now be a LOT easier with the proprietary hardware crap done away with.

We're looking at greater efficiencies here. Companies aren't going to be forced to create the most cutting age game here. They've got to figure out how much they can afford to spend given a reasonable forecast of profit and then stick to it. What comes out doesn't have to be what Crysis once was to computers.

I generally disagree with your lament that modern games have bad stories. I see the Bioshocks, inFamous, Fable, Oblivion and Skyrim, the Fallouts, the Portals, the Mass Effects and so many other great games and know that they pushed the limits in their time and still delivered the story. Graphics do not cost plot. So please don't think one necessarily impacts the other.

We're always starving for new games. Just make sure your library makes the purchase of a new console favorable. Learn from the mistakes of the vita.

okay

the point i'm trying to make here is that

by putting the focus on graphical and hardware capability

the big name developers are using this to DODGE THE ISSUE as far as culpability goes for the mistakes we've been seeing recently, which don't have anything to do with visuals or hardware

neither of those things are going to fix the problems we see with current trends

sure, they're going to LOOK better

but it's still going to be a polished turd because they're going to point at the graphics and say that this is why their game is better, while they're still putting the same, tired old shit out

they're just going to spend their whole budget on making it look fancy while not doing anything at all towards the important design decisions that really determine how fun or engaging the game is

like they did with this generation

i don't have anything against better visuals

but this is just a copout and they're not addressing any of the real issues. this won't actually solve the problems we see now. people didn't vote EA worst company of the year because their games were ugly!...

this new generation isn't the magic pill, and it's not going to solve anything

JokerboyJordan:

But then the glorious PC gaming master race are like "No! The filthy consoles are holding us back!", and therefore they want shinier graphics and everything to be more expensive, just so they can justify their OTT gaming rigs

thanks for the sweeping generalisation. Some pc gamers love pc gaming because we can keep all our games on one system no matter how old (within reason)

Although I'll admit my Nzxt Phantom case is OTT

EDIT oh yes n mods. Awesome awesome mods

weirdguy:

You should consider that a lot of modern glitches or graphical errors are related to multiple issues including which the difficulties of fitting a modern quality game into a 6 or 7 year old console. It is a feat to make a game as beautiful as some of these new games work. A lot of programming goes in to figuring it out and cutting the fat. For Skyrim, it was really obvious that this was the cause and nearly all of their patches were designed to clean up clutter and stop asset bloating. Heck, dungeons didn't even reset in the first month and nirnroot blooms stacked every time you collected more. But it's also true for other games. I'd say the ability to patch issues post launch has done more to harm game reliability than anything else.

Systems that are more powerful will be more capable at handling certain types of coding or processing errors and accounting for bloated assets. It should only make things better unless someone overshoots their goals/budgets. If used appropriately, the significant reduction in porting assets to get games playable on the playstation like they had to have for the ps3 will free up developers, time and money that much more.

But I absolutely agree that some issues won't get waived away by better graphics. I just think that enough issues will be alleviated or even mostly resolved to make this upgrade worth your while. If it makes games look better and helps remove the problem some glitches can cause then again, I have to ask, what are we losing by this transition and what makes it worth fighting against? The next generation is mostly standard hardware from what we've seen and the 720 shouldn't randomly deviate from that model. Developers will be using the same kind of code they've been using for normal machines and so there won't be a huge learning curve like the ps3 presented.

Man, I want a future where I put on something like the Oculus Rift and can explore beautiful and detailed landscapes. I want to be astounded and I really want technologies like virtual reality or more dynamic environments to become the norm. But, I'm also a tech nerd with a strong software background. So perhaps it's just more exciting to me than it is to others when I think about the possibilities of the normal system being capable of so much more.

Well, I suppose only time will tell. I just think we should keep a steady grip on things and not look at this as the solution to the most pressing problems, one of which has to do with escalating budget costs for these games...I'll be onboard for tech possibilities when we've resolved sustainability and quality control.

weirdguy:
Well, I suppose only time will tell. I just think we should keep a steady grip on things and not look at this as the solution to the most pressing problems, one of which has to do with escalating budget costs for these games...I'll be onboard for tech possibilities when we've resolved sustainability and quality control.

You're making valid points. They do need to do better quality control and budgeting. I'm just pointing out that they're not two mutually exclusive things and more power under the hood can aid them in those endeavors. It's just that limited hardware is a bigger problem than you may think. It is practically becoming an art form in itself to fit ever more beautiful graphics and dynamic scripts in the same box without overburdoning it. Devs not having to focus on scalability while trying to make things more impressive will accomplish more than you may think.

All the while, it will make games all the more pretty, realistic and detailed. The thing we should be afraid of is any kind of possibility of artistic games disappearing just because realism becomes so possible. Our ultra realistic CODs and MWs are nice and all, but I still love sitting down to things like Limbo and Borderlands that go the way of stylistic art rather than raw realism. But as long as the demand remains, so will the games(*crosses fingers*).

I've seen nothing that impresses me so far. It's Microsoft's game to lose, it really is. They and possibly Valve are the last hope to impress me.

I was prepared to be interested in the iNvidia Shield, until I heard it doesn't have Steam and has to "Stream" PC games, but only after you get a high-end video card for your PC. So what does it even do? Play Android games? Wow! My cell phone does that and it was free with a contract, not $350. Why did they make this thing?

The timing is pretty bad for large corporations to talk about how hungry we are to spend more money for things, when we have less of it than ever. It makes them look oblivious. Meanwhile, publishers are failing to meet their fanciful projections based on wishful thinking. Could it be a coincidence?

Yeah, I know I'm a grump, but a new console seems more like a gamble than a sure thing right now.

cdemares:
I've seen nothing that impresses me so far. It's Microsoft's game to lose, it really is. They and possibly Valve are the last hope to impress me.

I was prepared to be interested in the iNvidia Shield, until I heard it doesn't have Steam and has to "Stream" PC games, but only after you get a high-end video card for your PC. So what does it even do? Play Android games? Wow! My cell phone does that and it was free with a contract, not $350. Why did they make this thing?

The timing is pretty bad for large corporations to talk about how hungry we are to spend more money for things, when we have less of it than ever. It makes them look oblivious. Meanwhile, publishers are failing to meet their fanciful projections based on wishful thinking. Could it be a coincidence?

Yeah, I know I'm a grump, but a new console seems more like a gamble than a sure thing right now.

Just remember that console specs are not equivalent to pc specs. They're optimized entirely differently with consoles being a lot more efficient.

To beat a dead horse, Skyrim/Bioshock Infinite/Mass Effect 3, all very pretty games and all playable on the ps3 which basically has 512MBs of RAM split into two 246MB components and a 6-year old processor that unnecessarily splits assets into seperate categories in which any category being too bloated will crash the system. These are also playable on the 360, a non-partitioned 512MB RAM system with a 7 year old standard processor. The same is not true on the PC version with these kinds of specs.

So an 8GB RAM console with a much newer processor that is also standard (no silly asset categories) is a skip leap and a jump ahead. This console should be multiple times more capable than its predecessor and the 720 will be no different. I wouldn't call them 16 times more capable than the ps3 just because it's 16 times more RAM that also isn't partitioned. Because a lot more than the RAM matters and I haven't entirely quantified or seen quantified how the CPU/GPU compares to the original, it does look impressive comparatively. But based on what I've seen the specs indicate multiple times more processing. If you're not impressed by that, and you may not be, my pc is much more powerful (32gb, new i7 processor with bridged videocards), then that's probably because we haven't had games made to harvest that kind of power yet.

You may not know this, but developer's hands are bound by the consoles. If they're going to make a AAA title then it needs to be playable on the two powerful consoles and pcs. That means the game isn't going to be made beyond the console's capabilities. As such, we've had games that have been able to scale up to utilize more power but we haven't really seen games made at a much higher level yet.

If Watch Dogs wasn't looking so good, I would hate Ubisoft. Far Cry 3 was good also. It's weird, it's like the company has a split personality... But OT, no, I'm not starving for Next Gen. At all. PC holds up fine. This article did make me hungry though... Brb warming up Hungry-man.

Lightknight:

cdemares:
I've seen nothing that impresses me so far. It's Microsoft's game to lose, it really is. They and possibly Valve are the last hope to impress me.

I was prepared to be interested in the iNvidia Shield, until I heard it doesn't have Steam and has to "Stream" PC games, but only after you get a high-end video card for your PC. So what does it even do? Play Android games? Wow! My cell phone does that and it was free with a contract, not $350. Why did they make this thing?

The timing is pretty bad for large corporations to talk about how hungry we are to spend more money for things, when we have less of it than ever. It makes them look oblivious. Meanwhile, publishers are failing to meet their fanciful projections based on wishful thinking. Could it be a coincidence?

Yeah, I know I'm a grump, but a new console seems more like a gamble than a sure thing right now.

Just remember that console specs are not equivalent to pc specs. They're optimized entirely differently with consoles being a lot more efficient.

To beat a dead horse, Skyrim/Bioshock Infinite/Mass Effect 3, all very pretty games and all playable on the ps3 which basically has 512MBs of RAM split into two 246MB components and a 6-year old processor that unnecessarily splits assets into seperate categories in which any category being too bloated will crash the system. These are also playable on the 360, a non-partitioned 512MB RAM system with a 7 year old standard processor. The same is not true on the PC version with these kinds of specs.

So an 8GB RAM console with a much newer processor that is also standard (no silly asset categories) is a skip leap and a jump ahead. This console should be multiple times more capable than its predecessor and the 720 will be no different. I wouldn't call them 16 times more capable than the ps3 just because it's 16 times more RAM that also isn't partitioned. Because a lot more than the RAM matters and I haven't entirely quantified or seen quantified how the CPU/GPU compares to the original, it does look impressive comparatively. But based on what I've seen the specs indicate multiple times more processing. If you're not impressed by that, and you may not be, my pc is much more powerful (32gb, new i7 processor with bridged videocards), then that's probably because we haven't had games made to harvest that kind of power yet.

You may not know this, but developer's hands are bound by the consoles. If they're going to make a AAA title then it needs to be playable on the two powerful consoles and pcs. That means the game isn't going to be made beyond the console's capabilities. As such, we've had games that have been able to scale up to utilize more power but we haven't really seen games made at a much higher level yet.

Now that is pretty impressive for the consoles, given what they can do now. I'm not paying enough attention to know any of that stuff. Even so, the games have to rise to the occasion and that takes imagination, which just needs time and talent. I still think it's a gamble and I suspect that one of the first parties will spend themselves to death. They need imagination. Ironically, Nintendo actually gets it. They just didn't push far enough ahead technologically to differentiate themselves from the other current consoles.

cdemares:
Now that is pretty impressive for the consoles, given what they can do now. I'm not paying enough attention to know any of that stuff. Even so, the games have to rise to the occasion and that takes imagination, which just needs time and talent. I still think it's a gamble and I suspect that one of the first parties will spend themselves to death. They need imagination. Ironically, Nintendo actually gets it. They just didn't push far enough ahead technologically to differentiate themselves from the other current consoles.

You hit the nail on the head. The introduction of greater technology likewise introduces a much greater threat of developers and publishers over-spending. Not because it'll cost more money to make games, it should be the same since the hardware has been standardized, but because the big players have expressed some kind of difficulty understanding how to forecast their sales and then budget accordingly. Lately, it seems as if they thought that HUGE amounts of money for developing and huge amounts for marketing would make customers appear out of thin air. It's like they don't understand that they can make a ton of money if they play their cards right but instead they try to pretend that every game they make is going to make COD money and so they budget for that instead.

But make no mistake, that threat is already there and it is already hurting publishers right now. Nothing will fix poor management except for themselves.

Ideally, we'll see several years of incremental technological improvements in which they can build off one another.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here