The Good Old Days

I can still remember a time when most games didn't give you a difficulty setting and the game would get progressively harder, and in some cases, so hard, that it would take you ages to pass it or you couldn't do it at all. One Christmas I got a Nintendo 64 with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Back then, I couldn't even get out of the starting area, 10 years on, I've progressed pretty far, but the game still gets more difficult as I move along and I still haven't finished it.

What I'm getting at here, is that games these days are so damn easy and don't really provide much challange at all. This could be a contributing factor to the short lengths of most games. Also, all developers what their games to be big and mainstream, so they make them more "accessible". I am finding it increasingly difficult to find a fun and challenging game due to these things and it just makes me wish that all games can be like they were 10 years ago. I'm not asking for games to be extremely stupid (I'm looking at you World at War on veteran), but just so that I can get stuck on a game and not finish it in a 4-10 hour playthrough.

Feel free to share your thoughts as I am interested to see what the Gamespot community thinks on this topic. :D

Nah I prefer my games easy. Why would I want challenge in a video game? I want to be entertained here. I've already got my studies and getting my degree for a "challenge" of sorts.

I didn't think Ocarina of Time was a "difficult" game though... sure I disliked the water temple like many other people, but the only difficult part was getting that kokiri sword :P . Ah playing that game in 2007 at the chalet... good times, good times.

Well lets face it, gamers back in the day were gamers. Now we have everyone playing them. And now big game devs make games for money and not because they want to make a game. That is why I like indie devs so much. They make a game not to try and get a chunk of COD's money, or try to take in "new fans". They do it because they want to make a game. And that is what old day devs were like.

I read a homefront interview and the guy said that once they started to puch the 10 hour mark on a sp portion of a game they would start to lose the ability to balance both sp and mp. He made it seem like it is MANDATORY for all shooters to have mp. He said that if thye just focused on sp it would be 20 hours, but they don't want that. Why? Because if they need to make money. Games to devs aren't things that you actually make because you want to, you are just doing it for the cash. Authors write books on what they want to wright about, but game devs do it for the money. don't get me wrong, you need money, but when that becoms your only objective and not making a good game that you care about, well my friends, that is where you end.

Bioshock Infinite rcently had an interview and the guy said something like "We aren't going to add a multiplayer mode unless we have something completely unique that would add to the game and be something enjoyable, but the singleplayer mode is our first and foremost priority" And that is where game devs need to be. Not making multiplayer for the sake of having it.

Why don't COD clones work? Because we already have a COD. It's like why would you go out and buy the bad bread at the supermarket when you already have the quality loaf sitting at your house. Now I like COD (not the mp) and the only reason I am using it as an example is because it is probably the best example of a game that appeals to the masses. It's simple and easy to get into. And now we see games trying to simplify themselves to try to rake in more players, but then they alienate the fans.

Look at the new Hitman. They are trying to make it more accesable to the masses. Do you really think the masses are going to look at a hitman game? No. The only people that are going to look at it are the fans of the previous games. But they aren't going to get it when they see that it is something different.

It's like a store that only sells health foods wants to attract more people because they see that McDonalds makes so much money so they start to sell fries. Well, the people that only eats McDonalds isn't going to look at the damn healthy place. The only people that are going to look at the health place are the people that go there, and when they see the fries they aren't going to get them and then the fries fail and they blame it on bad advertising. So then they make a sequel, burgers and fries. But the same thing happens again. And they don't seem to get it, cater to your audience and you will be successful, try to cater to people who don't care about you and you don't only not get those people, you don't get the people that liked you in the first place either.

Well lets face it, gamers back in the day were gamers. Now we have everyone playing them. And now big game devs make games for money and not because they want to make a game. That is why I like indie devs so much. They make a game not to try and get a chunk of COD's money, or try to take in "new fans". They do it because they want to make a game. And that is what old day devs were like.

I read a homefront interview and the guy said that once they started to puch the 10 hour mark on a sp portion of a game they would start to lose the ability to balance both sp and mp. He made it seem like it is MANDATORY for all shooters to have mp. He said that if thye just focused on sp it would be 20 hours, but they don't want that. Why? Because if they need to make money. Games to devs aren't things that you actually make because you want to, you are just doing it for the cash. Authors write books on what they want to wright about, but game devs do it for the money. don't get me wrong, you need money, but when that becoms your only objective and not making a good game that you care about, well my friends, that is where you end.

Bioshock Infinite rcently had an interview and the guy said something like "We aren't going to add a multiplayer mode unless we have something completely unique that would add to the game and be something enjoyable, but the singleplayer mode is our first and foremost priority" And that is where game devs need to be. Not making multiplayer for the sake of having it.

Why don't COD clones work? Because we already have a COD. It's like why would you go out and buy the bad bread at the supermarket when you already have the quality loaf sitting at your house. Now I like COD (not the mp) and the only reason I am using it as an example is because it is probably the best example of a game that appeals to the masses. It's simple and easy to get into. And now we see games trying to simplify themselves to try to rake in more players, but then they alienate the fans.

Look at the new Hitman. They are trying to make it more accesable to the masses. Do you really think the masses are going to look at a hitman game? No. The only people that are going to look at it are the fans of the previous games. But they aren't going to get it when they see that it is something different.

It's like a store that only sells health foods wants to attract more people because they see that McDonalds makes so much money so they start to sell fries. Well, the people that only eats McDonalds isn't going to look at the damn healthy place. The only people that are going to look at the health place are the people that go there, and when they see the fries they aren't going to get them and then the fries fail and they blame it on bad advertising. So then they make a sequel, burgers and fries. But the same thing happens again. And they don't seem to get it, cater to your audience and you will be successful, try to cater to people who don't care about you and you don't only not get those people, you don't get the people that liked you in the first place either.

Hatiko

You must be my twin or something, because all of your opinions are the same as mine, especially the COD thing, because it's true, COD is the game that is most apealing game to the masses.

Here's the problem: gaming has become way too over-exposed.

When I started gaming back in the 90's, the market was 10% the size it was today.

So, console developers would make games for the sake of making games rather than for money.

Now, with the massive successes of Activision and Nintendo, companies tailor their games for the mass audience in hopes of capturing the most profit.

Back when gaming was niche, studios like Rare, LucasArts, etc. developed passionate games that really spoke from the heart rather than the corporate machine.

They didn't care about the money...they made what they thought was fun.

You guys are absolutely right: indie developers are the new era of video games.

At this point I've all but abandoned traditional big-budget titles.

There are so many rehashes...sequels...and clones... that one of these days, the market is going to collapse under its own weight.

I forsee another crash. The industry needs a reboot every 25 years or so.

Hopefully then gaming can reclaim its niche status.

ocarina of time is a hard game. But am I understanding you correctly that you stopped playing it for ten years? wow man you should finish it, great game. dkdk999

Haha, I have played it on and off for those 10 years and have only now started to play it properly, it's one of the best, if the THE best game I've ever played so far!

Nah I prefer my games easy. Why would I want challenge in a video game? I want to be entertained here. I've already got my studies and getting my degree for a "challenge" of sorts.

I didn't think Ocarina of Time was a "difficult" game though... sure I disliked the water temple like many other people, but the only difficult part was getting that kokiri sword :P . Ah playing that game in 2007 at the chalet... good times, good times.

thattotally

I definately respect your opinion, but to be honest, a game that is easy the whole way through isn't very entertaining in my opinion. But hey, that's me, different people have different preferences. :)

Here's the problem: gaming has become way too over-exposed.

When I started gaming back in the 90's, the market was 10% the size it was today.

So, console developers would make games for the sake of making games rather than for money.

Now, with the massive successes of Activision and Nintendo, companies tailor their games for the mass audience in hopes of capturing the most profit.

Back when gaming was niche, studios like Rare, LucasArts, etc. developed passionate games that really spoke from the heart rather than the corporate machine.

They didn't care about the money...they made what they thought was fun.

You guys are absolutely right: indie developers are the new era of video games.

At this point I've all but abandoned traditional big-budget titles.

There are so many rehashes...sequels...and clones... that one of these days, the market is going to collapse under its own weight.

I forsee another crash. The industry needs a reboot every 25 years or so.

Hopefully then gaming can reclaim its niche status.

peterw007

Exactly, money is the biggest problem in the Video Game and any other entertainment industry. Hatiko and yourself both mentioned indie developers and to be honest, indie games are the only ones that I am having a lot of fun with at the moment.

Here's the problem: gaming has become way too over-exposed.

When I started gaming back in the 90's, the market was 10% the size it was today.

So, console developers would make games for the sake of making games rather than for money.

Now, with the massive successes of Activision and Nintendo, companies tailor their games for the mass audience in hopes of capturing the most profit.

Back when gaming was niche, studios like Rare, LucasArts, etc. developed passionate games that really spoke from the heart rather than the corporate machine.

They didn't care about the money...they made what they thought was fun.

You guys are absolutely right: indie developers are the new era of video games.

At this point I've all but abandoned traditional big-budget titles.

There are so many rehashes...sequels...and clones... that one of these days, the market is going to collapse under its own weight.

I forsee another crash. The industry needs a reboot every 25 years or so.

Hopefully then gaming can reclaim its niche status.

peterw007

Remember back in the day when gamers were "nerds" and "geeks". Now it doesn't matter. Because now games are "cool" as long as they have big explosions, craziness, and "that is teh awsome" moments. And don't get me wrong, I like a GAME (notice the singular) like that. But when every game wants to do the same (they want the same money)the industry starts to die. And all of these games that were known for being deep and complex are no longer due to the fact that it doesn't make the same money as the "KABOOM!" games.

Remember back in the day when gamers were "nerds" and "geeks". Now it doesn't matter. Because now games are "cool" as long as they have big explosions, craziness, and "that is teh awsome" moments. And don't get me wrong, I like a GAME (notice the singular) like that. But when every game wants to do the same (they want the same money)the industry starts to die. And all of these games that were known for being deep and complex are no longer due to the fact that it doesn't make the same money as the "KABOOM!" games.

Now everyone that plays COD and only COD thinks they are gamers, and the real gamers are thrown into the mainstream and the developers completely ignore them and follow the "popular" trends in video games.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]Remember back in the day when gamers were "nerds" and "geeks". Now it doesn't matter. Because now games are "cool" as long as they have big explosions, craziness, and "that is teh awsome" moments. And don't get me wrong, I like a GAME (notice the singular) like that. But when every game wants to do the same (they want the same money)the industry starts to die. And all of these games that were known for being deep and complex are no longer due to the fact that it doesn't make the same money as the "KABOOM!" gameslemmeplay96

Now everyone that plays COD and only COD thinks they are gamers, and the real gamers are thrown into the mainstream and the developers completely ignore them and follow the "popular" trends in video games.

Developers: "Anyone who plays games like's COD! That is the game everyone plays" "Everyone"- that is the key word. The numbers that play it have become so huge that it seems that every gamer ever out there plays that. So if you copy it you will get the same numbers due to the fact that "everybody" plays it.

After a day of work I will sometimes kick back and relax by replaying a few COD missions. And I'm not afraid to admit that when MW3 comes out I willplay the campaign because I enjoy they campaigns and I want to find out what will happen to the characters and the story. After that I will replay certain missions when Ifeel like it, no mp, that's it.Butthat doesn't mean that since I play COD that I want all of my games to be like that.When I'm not tired and want to have some fun for right now I'm playing both Demon's Souls and Lost Odyssey. Two games that are nothing like COD. But since I play COD that means that all of the games I play need to be like it, right? No, absolutely wrong. Variety is what kept the gaming industry alive. Havng something for everyone. Now it is being narrowed down and it will die until devs realize thatwhen everything is the same color it gets boring.

Sorry for the multiple edits: Was trying to fix the quoting

Developers: "Anyone who plays games like's COD! That is the game everyone plays" "Everyone"- that is the key word. The numbers that play it have become so huge that it seems that every gamer ever out there plays that. So if you copy it you will get the same numbers due to the fact that "everybody" plays it.

After a day of work I will sometimes kick back and relax by replaying a few COD missions. And I'm not afraid to admit that when MW3 comes out I willplay the campaign because I enjoy they campaigns and I want to find out what will happen to the characters and the story. After that I will replay certain missions when Ifeel like it, no mp, that's it.Butthat doesn't mean that since I play COD that I want all of my games to be like that.When I'm not tired and want to have some fun for right now I'm playing both Demon's Souls and Lost Odyssey. Two games that are nothing like COD. But since I play COD that means that all of the games I play need to be like it, right? No, absolutely wrong. Variety is what kept the gaming industry alive. Havng something for everyone. Now it is being narrowed down and it will die until devs realize thatwhen everything is the same color it gets boring.

Couldn't have said it any better myself!

OOT wasn't hard. At all.

The thing is that gamers in general don't like hard games. They like their games streamlined and easy. That's why "deathmatch" first person shooters died in favor of "vehicle spam" ones. That's why the shoot 'em up genre has completely disappeared from the mainstream, despite still getting very high quality entries on a somewhat regular basis. That's why the PSone and N64, that had libraries of easy games, completely crushed the hardcore Saturn.

Well lets face it, gamers back in the day were gamers. Now we have everyone playing them. And now big game devs make games for money and not because they want to make a game. That is why I like indie devs so much. They make a game not to try and get a chunk of COD's money, or try to take in "new fans". They do it because they want to make a game. And that is what old day devs were like.

I read a homefront interview and the guy said that once they started to puch the 10 hour mark on a sp portion of a game they would start to lose the ability to balance both sp and mp. He made it seem like it is MANDATORY for all shooters to have mp. He said that if thye just focused on sp it would be 20 hours, but they don't want that. Why? Because if they need to make money. Games to devs aren't things that you actually make because you want to, you are just doing it for the cash. Authors write books on what they want to wright about, but game devs do it for the money. don't get me wrong, you need money, but when that becoms your only objective and not making a good game that you care about, well my friends, that is where you end.

Bioshock Infinite rcently had an interview and the guy said something like "We aren't going to add a multiplayer mode unless we have something completely unique that would add to the game and be something enjoyable, but the singleplayer mode is our first and foremost priority" And that is where game devs need to be. Not making multiplayer for the sake of having it.

Why don't COD clones work? Because we already have a COD. It's like why would you go out and buy the bad bread at the supermarket when you already have the quality loaf sitting at your house. Now I like COD (not the mp) and the only reason I am using it as an example is because it is probably the best example of a game that appeals to the masses. It's simple and easy to get into. And now we see games trying to simplify themselves to try to rake in more players, but then they alienate the fans.

Look at the new Hitman. They are trying to make it more accesable to the masses. Do you really think the masses are going to look at a hitman game? No. The only people that are going to look at it are the fans of the previous games. But they aren't going to get it when they see that it is something different.

It's like a store that only sells health foods wants to attract more people because they see that McDonalds makes so much money so they start to sell fries. Well, the people that only eats McDonalds isn't going to look at the damn healthy place. The only people that are going to look at the health place are the people that go there, and when they see the fries they aren't going to get them and then the fries fail and they blame it on bad advertising. So then they make a sequel, burgers and fries. But the same thing happens again. And they don't seem to get it, cater to your audience and you will be successful, try to cater to people who don't care about you and you don't only not get those people, you don't get the people that liked you in the first place either.

Hatiko

Well lets face it, gamers back in the day were gamers. Now we have everyone playing them. And now big game devs make games for money and not because they want to make a game. That is why I like indie devs so much. They make a game not to try and get a chunk of COD's money, or try to take in "new fans". They do it because they want to make a game. And that is what old day devs were like.

I read a homefront interview and the guy said that once they started to puch the 10 hour mark on a sp portion of a game they would start to lose the ability to balance both sp and mp. He made it seem like it is MANDATORY for all shooters to have mp. He said that if thye just focused on sp it would be 20 hours, but they don't want that. Why? Because if they need to make money. Games to devs aren't things that you actually make because you want to, you are just doing it for the cash. Authors write books on what they want to wright about, but game devs do it for the money. don't get me wrong, you need money, but when that becoms your only objective and not making a good game that you care about, well my friends, that is where you end.

Bioshock Infinite rcently had an interview and the guy said something like "We aren't going to add a multiplayer mode unless we have something completely unique that would add to the game and be something enjoyable, but the singleplayer mode is our first and foremost priority" And that is where game devs need to be. Not making multiplayer for the sake of having it.

Why don't COD clones work? Because we already have a COD. It's like why would you go out and buy the bad bread at the supermarket when you already have the quality loaf sitting at your house. Now I like COD (not the mp) and the only reason I am using it as an example is because it is probably the best example of a game that appeals to the masses. It's simple and easy to get into. And now we see games trying to simplify themselves to try to rake in more players, but then they alienate the fans.

Look at the new Hitman. They are trying to make it more accesable to the masses. Do you really think the masses are going to look at a hitman game? No. The only people that are going to look at it are the fans of the previous games. But they aren't going to get it when they see that it is something different.

It's like a store that only sells health foods wants to attract more people because they see that McDonalds makes so much money so they start to sell fries. Well, the people that only eats McDonalds isn't going to look at the damn healthy place. The only people that are going to look at the health place are the people that go there, and when they see the fries they aren't going to get them and then the fries fail and they blame it on bad advertising. So then they make a sequel, burgers and fries. But the same thing happens again. And they don't seem to get it, cater to your audience and you will be successful, try to cater to people who don't care about you and you don't only not get those people, you don't get the people that liked you in the first place either.

Hatiko

Have to say mate, that you have a very good point there! rly understand what your trying to say, and yea dude, play Zelda and complet the game, you wont be disapointed!

I can still remember a time when most games didn't give you a difficulty setting and the game would get progressively harder, and in some cases, so hard, that it would take you ages to pass it or you couldn't do it at all.

lemmeplay96

[QUOTE="lemmeplay96"]

I can still remember a time when most games didn't give you a difficulty setting and the game would get progressively harder, and in some cases, so hard, that it would take you ages to pass it or you couldn't do it at all.

ImBananas

The problem is though, that if a game has a difficulty increase, it's not anything different than enimies getting harder to kill. In Dead Space 2, you also found less ammo and health packs and it was good.

OOT wasn't hard. At all.

The thing is that gamers in general don't like hard games. They like their games streamlined and easy. That's why "deathmatch" first person shooters died in favor of "vehicle spam" ones. That's why the shoot 'em up genre has completely disappeared from the mainstream, despite still getting very high quality entries on a somewhat regular basis. That's why the PSone and N64, that had libraries of easy games, completely crushed the hardcore Saturn.

ReddestSkies

Hey, that's your opinion. When I was younger, I honestly though that flying a fighter jet would be easier! :)

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

OOT wasn't hard. At all.

The thing is that gamers in general don't like hard games. They like their games streamlined and easy. That's why "deathmatch" first person shooters died in favor of "vehicle spam" ones. That's why the shoot 'em up genre has completely disappeared from the mainstream, despite still getting very high quality entries on a somewhat regular basis. That's why the PSone and N64, that had libraries of easy games, completely crushed the hardcore Saturn.

lemmeplay96

Hey, that's your opinion. When I was younger, I honestly though that flying a fighter jet would be easier! :)

A Link to The Past was much, much, much harder ;) (And the Zelda games that came before it were much harder than ALTTP ;))

If you think games are too easy today, you should try shoot em' up games like Ikaruga and Gradius V. Also RPGs like Resonance of Fate and Demon Souls will tests yoru skils for sure. I'm with you though, most games today offer little of a challenge which is disappointing.

Realistically, games in the old days were just as long, and in most cases shorter than today's games. They artifically enlongated the game by making them more difficult. Although I do agree with you that games nowadays are more for a fun ride rather than a challenge. I mean hell, the fun of playing the game on the hardest difficulty is gone now; most people only do it to get achievements or trophies, not for the fun, challenge or satisfaction of acquiring the skill to beat a game on ultra hard.

To be honest, I am not sure what the "Good Old Days" are. I don't think video games today are any easier than video games released from the SNES until now. NES games were definitely more difficult than games today, but that was often due to poor level and game design more than anything else.

If you think games are too easy today, you should try shoot em' up games like Ikaruga and Gradius V. Also RPGs like Resonance of Fate and Demon Souls will tests yoru skils for sure. I'm with you though, most games today offer little of a challenge which is disappointing.

Shenmue_Jehuty

Resonance of Fate is one of my favorite games this gen. The combat system was new and I enjoyed it. Playing Demon Souls right now. Some bossess are hard as death, but when you beat them you get a sense of overwhelming joy. And when you get their health really low and your pulse goes up and you get all excited because you almost won but you might die any second. Those times have been lost in most games today.

To be honest, I am not sure what the "Good Old Days" are. I don't think video games today are any easier than video games released from the SNES until now. NES games were definitely more difficult than games today, but that was often due to poor level and game design more than anything else.

metswonin69

That's a bit of a bold statement, because in today's games you are literally held by the hand for the most part and find yourself at the end of a campaign with no real feeling of accomplishment other than you saw the ending.

While I agree with you about poor level and game design for most NES games, there were some cases where difficulty came from really good level and game design, along with mechanics to create the perfect formula for a tight experience. A good example would be the original Castlevania.

I don't like my games to be too difficult. If I come across a game which I find really hard, by which I mean I cannot do it after tons of attempts I will leave it and go onto another game. I play games to relax and enjoy myself not to get frustrated and stressed.

I prefer fun to challenging myself, but if ur really into abusing urself :) go play demon souls, a compettive multiplayer FPS or games like MAss Effect on their Super-Ultra-HArd difficulties

also, I've been gaming since the Sega-Gensis and every generation gets better and better overall:) in my opinion anyway

I'm not asking for games to be extremely stupid (I'm looking at you World at War on veteran)

lemmeplay96

Good old days where user made mods ruled the gaming world, those were awsome :)

Nowadays we have desigers creating games that sell awsomely well, in the past we had gamers creating games. It not that odd that games were so much better in the past. People always think that selling = quality, which is so far from the truth.

If you think games are too easy today, you should try shoot em' up games like Ikaruga and Gradius V. Also RPGs like Resonance of Fate and Demon Souls will tests yoru skils for sure. I'm with you though, most games today offer little of a challenge which is disappointing.

Shenmue_Jehuty

I am actually considering picking Demon's Souls up, I've heard a lot of great things about it! :D

A Link to The Past was much, much, much harder ;) (And the Zelda games that came before it were much harder than ALTTP ;))

ReddestSkies

I don't doubt you, haha. The hardest thing about Ocarina of Time was trying to figure out the puzzles and such. And that damn whale... xD

Realistically, games in the old days were just as long, and in most cases shorter than today's games. They artifically enlongated the game by making them more difficult. Although I do agree with you that games nowadays are more for a fun ride rather than a challenge. I mean hell, the fun of playing the game on the hardest difficulty is gone now; most people only do it to get achievements or trophies, not for the fun, challenge or satisfaction of acquiring the skill to beat a game on ultra hard.

MadVybz

I see how the games being harder would have made them longer, but I would always play through a game more than once back then, but now, out of the probably 40-60 games I have from this generation, I have only replayed (for fun, not achievements or trophies) Halo 3 (Starting Reach again as well), Gears of War 1 & 2, Borderlands, Fallout 3, Oblivion and Resident Evil 5.

Games to devs aren't things that you actually make because you want to, you are just doing it for the cash. Authors write books on what they want to wright about, but game devs do it for the money. don't get me wrong, you need money, but when that becoms your only objective and not making a good game that you care about, well my friends, that is where you end.Hatiko

There's a huge difference between developers and publishers. I guarantee that the people who actually create content in games are pretty passionate about what they do, or they wouldn't have chosen a life with insane hours and crazy deadlines. And you can easily see that passion in most games, even the Call of Duties of the industry.

But developers need the backing of publishers to get anything done since development costs have skyrocketed. And publishers won't back a game that doesn't pay for itself, for obvious reasons, so of course they're going to want the most widely appealing product, which is what peterw007 is saying:

When I started gaming back in the 90's, the market was 10% the size it was today.

So, console developers would make games for the sake of making games rather than for money.

Now, with the massive successes of Activision and Nintendo, companies tailor their games for the mass audience in hopes of capturing the most profit.peterw007

But mixed in there is that developers are only in it for the money and don't care about the games themselves, which doesn't really make sense to me. Games are a product to be consumed, so the producers want to get that product into as many hands as possible. Whether it's for the money or for the passion of seeing people enjoy their creation, it doesn't matter. You don't make a crap game in hopes of making money off of it, because it just won't sell as much as a quality product.

Exactly, money is the biggest problem in the Video Game and any other entertainment industry.lemmeplay96

Money is what allows the industry to exist. You give money to the industry every time you buy a game. As a niche market, gaming wouldn't be able to exist today. Development costs are simply too high. Unless you want the industry to return to the 8-bit days where a handful of developers could form a team to make games on the side for supplemental income, the only option is for games to be widely appealing.

Indie developers wouldn't exist without giant ones, at least not on consoles. No one would invest in hardware for such a small market. The current size of the market creates the environment in which indie developers can do their thing and still get pretty good recognition.