Could the gaming industry ever crash again?

The reason why I ask is because although gaming seems to be as popular from a consumer standpoint as ever, developers seem to be losing big as technology increases. For example:

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible. But how many more "Heavenly Swords" and "Lairs" are going to be made before developers start closing down or being more cautious about what they put out. Especially in the coming generations as Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo release "hi-powered" machines with a bunch of bells and whistles. Some games are going beyond current standards like too much content for DVD-9's, but wasted space on Blu-Ray discs.

There are some huge successes like Halo 3, Bioshock, Resitance: Fall of Man, Gears of War, and presumably Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Grand Theft Auto 4. But thats about 5% of consoles library that haven't bust or at least broke even.

Was Nintendo so wrong in keeping developer costs low? Is this potentially the reason why so many developers have jumped on the Wii bandwagon? Shovelware or not, there are less and less big budget games being made.

what do you guys think?

I believe that the cause of a video game 'crash' these dayswould be the same one that caused the crash in the 80's; over-saturation.

See I figured it was due to low support. I just thought no one was buying games (or not enough people).

I have made a NUMBER of posts in the past arguing why I believe the industry is heading towards another crash. MS's business model is forcing the whole industry towards unsustainability and it aims not to win fairly but to force everybody else into bankruptcy. The one saving grace this gen was Nintendo with the Wii. An affordable console that innovates and allow EVERYONE to make money.

The industry is way too big and diverse to have an industry wide crash, but specific segments of the industry could definitely suffer a crash. Nowadays with MMO's, the established PC gaming market, Cell phone game market, online games, Traditional console Core gamer market (360, PS3, PSP), game rental services like gametap, and the new non-games market being led by Nintendo (i.e. Brain Age, Wii Fit, etc.), the industry is just way too big to have an entire collapse.

The videogame market is kinda like the car industry. Specific segments of the car industry can bomb like the SUV market or Sports Car market, but there is no way the entire automobile industry would crash because it's just too diverse.

Makes sense. Maybe the question should be about CONSOLE GAMING.

I see where you're comming from. It's a factor that could cause it but it'll have to be one hell of a depression in turnover.

I think it has to do more with demand than anything. Verge is right about over-saturation but even now the industry has a vast amount of genres and play types that can last for a 'bit'.

The industry right now is too money focused, as evidenced by Nintendo's focus on cashing in on casual gaming. I think that it's going to be unhealthy for the industry as a whole since this previously creative entertainment medium will be done away with in favor of a less creative but money-making format of games.

Here an article about the video game crash. http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html

yes it could . it would be the fault of ms and sony . all they care about is toping eatch other . witch gives us very expensive consoles that cost as much as a mid ranged pc . plus very expensive games! i play 69.99 plus 14% in canada for my games. games today are very short to .i am a nintendo fan cus there doing gaming good but making it for everyone and making it cheap . if someone wants to get into gaming and they walk into the store and see a 400$ price tag for the system and 70$ per game price tag do you think they will want to game then? no they wont its way to expensive most people dont want to spend 1000s on gaming. thats why non gamers look at us like we are nerd .deadmeat59

Nintendo is actually saving gaming... not destroying it. Too bad most people are too blind to see this.

The reason why I ask is because although gaming seems to be as popular from a consumer standpoint as ever, developers seem to be losing big as technology increases. For example:

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible. But how many more "Heavenly Swords" and "Lairs" are going to be made before developers start closing down or being more cautious about what they put out. Especially in the coming generations as Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo release "hi-powered" machines with a bunch of bells and whistles. Some games are going beyond current standards like too much content for DVD-9's, but wasted space on Blu-Ray discs.

There are some huge successes like Halo 3, Bioshock, Resitance: Fall of Man, Gears of War, and presumably Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Grand Theft Auto 4. But thats about 5% of consoles library that haven't bust or at least broke even.

Was Nintendo so wrong in keeping developer costs low? Is this potentially the reason why so many developers have jumped on the Wii bandwagon? Shovelware or not, there are less and less big budget games being made.

what do you guys think?

bizzybone613

most of the development costs fall on the graphics department.

Iwouldn't have suspected it would be Nintendo's CURRENT business model to lead to a decline. Currently, all developers have to do is make a decent game for a decent amount and recieve a decent return (in regards to the Wii and DS).

The reason why I ask is because although gaming seems to be as popular from a consumer standpoint as ever, developers seem to be losing big as technology increases. For example:

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible. But how many more "Heavenly Swords" and "Lairs" are going to be made before developers start closing down or being more cautious about what they put out. Especially in the coming generations as Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo release "hi-powered" machines with a bunch of bells and whistles. Some games are going beyond current standards like too much content for DVD-9's, but wasted space on Blu-Ray discs.

There are some huge successes like Halo 3, Bioshock, Resitance: Fall of Man, Gears of War, and presumably Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Grand Theft Auto 4. But thats about 5% of consoles library that haven't bust or at least broke even.

Was Nintendo so wrong in keeping developer costs low? Is this potentially the reason why so many developers have jumped on the Wii bandwagon? Shovelware or not, there are less and less big budget games being made.

what do you guys think?

bizzybone613

I think this gen will be a harsh learning experience for the industry. Nintendo saw this coming and reacted accordingly. Now they're rolling in cash. The losers are the consumers, who buy more expensive consoles, and have less AAA to choose from.

I have made a NUMBER of posts in the past arguing why I believe the industry is heading towards another crash. MS's business model is forcing the whole industry towards unsustainability and it aims not to win fairly but to force everybody else into bankruptcy. The one saving grace this gen was Nintendo with the Wii. An affordable console that innovates and allow EVERYONE to make money.

ZIMdoom

I don't think the console market will crash again, quite simply because Nintendo has already taken a different direction. I do agree that the PS3 is showing simlerarities with the ATARI.

of course it could. however its unlikely at the mo. more money than ever is flowing through the industry. in terms of finances, its outpacing the movie industry and catching up to music quite fast. i heard some years ago that by 2010 the Games industry will have more moolah going through it than music.

what the industry needs to focus on though is expansion, getting more ppl into gaming while at the same time keep those that are playing interested. with costs going up, more ppl do need to be buying more games to support it. the only alternative to that is the price of everything going up and, i dont know about u, but i never want to see 100 euro games..ever. im not just talking about getting more ppl to buy consoles or PCs either. the industry should be looking at other ways for ppl to play games aswel (eg simple games that can be played on the telly using the remote control). expansion is key here...the industry should be aiming for as many ppl who play games as watch TV and movies.

[QUOTE="bizzybone613"]

The reason why I ask is because although gaming seems to be as popular from a consumer standpoint as ever, developers seem to be losing big as technology increases. For example:

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible. But how many more "Heavenly Swords" and "Lairs" are going to be made before developers start closing down or being more cautious about what they put out. Especially in the coming generations as Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo release "hi-powered" machines with a bunch of bells and whistles. Some games are going beyond current standards like too much content for DVD-9's, but wasted space on Blu-Ray discs.

There are some huge successes like Halo 3, Bioshock, Resitance: Fall of Man, Gears of War, and presumably Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Grand Theft Auto 4. But thats about 5% of consoles library that haven't bust or at least broke even.

Was Nintendo so wrong in keeping developer costs low? Is this potentially the reason why so many developers have jumped on the Wii bandwagon? Shovelware or not, there are less and less big budget games being made.

what do you guys think?

rowzzr

most of the development costs fall on the graphics department.

Right, and most would agree that those cost will only rise as technology evolves. Obviously, if the next generation were to have current gen specs (PS3, XBOX360), then the technology will be cheaper and developer cost would fall sharply. Unfortunately, as i'm sure you already know, current graphics will not be able to hold a candle to what will be available at the end of this console cycle. So does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft go for the gusto and have a machine capable of movie studio graphics with movie studio budgets and time, or hit a wall where developer cost equal out?

I hate to turn this into an econimcs class but, we all do realize that the USD is losing value. As an American consumer, when will the cost of games be too much? $70.00USD, $80.00USD? Why do you think box office sales are low? High studio cost coupled with lack of attendance creates inflation. So hence my original question, can this cause a crash?

of course it could. however its unlikely at the mo. more money than ever is flowing through the industry. in terms of finances, its outpacing the movie industry and catching up to music quite fast. i heard some years ago that by 2010 the Games industry will have more moolah going through it than music.

what the industry needs to focus on though is expansion, getting more ppl into gaming while at the same time keep those that are playing interested. with costs going up, more ppl do need to be buying more games to support it. the only alternative to that is the price of everything going up and, i dont know about u, but i never want to see 100 euro games..ever. im not just talking about getting more ppl to buy consoles or PCs either. the industry should be looking at other ways for ppl to play games aswel (eg simple games that can be played on the telly using the remote control). expansion is key here...the industry should be aiming for as many ppl who play games as watch TV and movies.

osan0

WOW, you beat me to it. The cost of the games comes back on us and hits our pockets. Either way pay the price and adapt or studios go bankrupt.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

I have made a NUMBER of posts in the past arguing why I believe the industry is heading towards another crash. MS's business model is forcing the whole industry towards unsustainability and it aims not to win fairly but to force everybody else into bankruptcy. The one saving grace this gen was Nintendo with the Wii. An affordable console that innovates and allow EVERYONE to make money.

martin_f

It's not an evil scheme...it's the way they do business.

However, I DID credit Nintendo for breaking the cycle. The only thing is, nobody thought the Wii was going to save Nintendo from completely going under for consoles.

The industry right now is too money focused, as evidenced by Nintendo's focus on cashing in on casual gaming. I think that it's going to be unhealthy for the industry as a whole since this previously creative entertainment medium will be done away with in favor of a less creative but money-making format of games.

Here an article about the video game crash. http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html

[/QUOTE}

Would the elimination of Nintendo this console cyle make development costs any less? Would the Cell chipset and Blu-Ray discs be any cheaper? Would Xbox360's have better hardware relaiblity? I still don't see why some people say "Nintendo is causing the market to suffer". The PS3 would have still been $600.00USD when it debuted. You should be happy there are alternatives. This leads me to wonder what the furture holds. I think Nintendo will compete next generation powerhouse wise, and i think Microsoft and Sony, (especially Sony) will think twice before they jam-pack their next machines with a bunch of stuff.

[QUOTE="rowzzr"][QUOTE="bizzybone613"]

The reason why I ask is because although gaming seems to be as popular from a consumer standpoint as ever, developers seem to be losing big as technology increases. For example:

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible. But how many more "Heavenly Swords" and "Lairs" are going to be made before developers start closing down or being more cautious about what they put out. Especially in the coming generations as Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo release "hi-powered" machines with a bunch of bells and whistles. Some games are going beyond current standards like too much content for DVD-9's, but wasted space on Blu-Ray discs.

There are some huge successes like Halo 3, Bioshock, Resitance: Fall of Man, Gears of War, and presumably Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Grand Theft Auto 4. But thats about 5% of consoles library that haven't bust or at least broke even.

Was Nintendo so wrong in keeping developer costs low? Is this potentially the reason why so many developers have jumped on the Wii bandwagon? Shovelware or not, there are less and less big budget games being made.

what do you guys think?

bizzybone613

most of the development costs fall on the graphics department.

Right, and most would agree that those cost will only rise as technology evolves. Obviously, if the next generation were to have current gen specs (PS3, XBOX360), then the technology will be cheaper and developer cost would fall sharply. Unfortunately, as i'm sure you already know, current graphics will not be able to hold a candle to what will be available at the end of this console cycle. So does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft go for the gusto and have a machine capable of movie studio graphics with movie studio budgets and time, or hit a wall where developer cost equal out?

I hate to turn this into an econimcs class but, we all do realize that the USD is losing value. As an American consumer, when will the cost of games be too much? $70.00USD, $80.00USD? Why do you think box office sales are low? High studio cost coupled with lack of attendance creates inflation. So hence my original question, can this cause a crash?

Part of what happened was that, around 1995, Sony made a commitment that every game to come out for its PlayStation console would cost no more than $50. They could do this because CDs weren't as expensive as ROM chips to produce. But ten years of the $50 cap may have jaded the casuals.

As for Nintendo saving the industry, don't be so sure. Part of the reason for the videogame crash of 1983 (which I should qualify only seemed to apply to console videogames--arcades took their own hits) was an influx of cheap, low-quality games. Hate to say it, but Nintendo's development model is going to lead--inevitably--to an influx of cheap, low-quality games (this very issue was brought up in a recent EGM). Hate to say "Déjà Vu", but it's a possibility.

Another problem is the barrier of entry. Developing good games and a good machine is getting to be problematic now. I'd hate to look into SCE's or MSGS's R&D budgets. Part of it is the looming PC, which can't fully keep consoles at bay yet because of the geek factor (a lack of simplicity in the right places).

The cheaper the bigger the userbase. And maybe the other way around too. I think gaming deserves to get mainstream like Music and be alot cheaper and more accesible to everyone. Nintendo is doing a great job at that.ng1234

yeah, people i know used to play games the nes era. but now ps3 and 360 have to many buttons for casuals to play. you should see my dad try to play GTA.

Would the elimination of Nintendo this console cyle make development costs any less? Would the Cell chipset and Blu-Ray discs be any cheaper? Would Xbox360's have better hardware relaiblity? I still don't see why some people say "Nintendo is causing the market to suffer". The PS3 would have still been $600.00USD when it debuted. You should be happy there are alternatives. This leads me to wonder what the furture holds. I think Nintendo will compete next generation powerhouse wise, and i think Microsoft and Sony, (especially Sony) will think twice before they jam-pack their next machines with a bunch of stuff.

bizzybone613

Wheter both positive or negative impact... Nintendo has made an influence on the gaming market. I actually do apreciate what Nintendo is doing. Gaming would be pretty boring if everything just kept the same forever with better graphics.

Some people say Nintendo isn't competing with PS3 or 360... wich iscomplete nonsense. When I go to my local gaming store I see 3 systems and the Wii is included there. If its not competing then its competing in a ''indirect'' way.

What I'm trying to say is Nintendo is crushing the competition... and rightfully so. They are the marketing geniuses... wich I can't really say about Sony and their expensive PS3.

But still... if Wii-fit will sell better then any other ''game''. Then they will realise that the casual market is more profitable. This is something I among many others currently fear.

[QUOTE="bizzybone613"][QUOTE="rowzzr"][QUOTE="bizzybone613"]

The reason why I ask is because although gaming seems to be as popular from a consumer standpoint as ever, developers seem to be losing big as technology increases. For example:

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible. But how many more "Heavenly Swords" and "Lairs" are going to be made before developers start closing down or being more cautious about what they put out. Especially in the coming generations as Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo release "hi-powered" machines with a bunch of bells and whistles. Some games are going beyond current standards like too much content for DVD-9's, but wasted space on Blu-Ray discs.

There are some huge successes like Halo 3, Bioshock, Resitance: Fall of Man, Gears of War, and presumably Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and Grand Theft Auto 4. But thats about 5% of consoles library that haven't bust or at least broke even.

Was Nintendo so wrong in keeping developer costs low? Is this potentially the reason why so many developers have jumped on the Wii bandwagon? Shovelware or not, there are less and less big budget games being made.

what do you guys think?

HuusAsking

most of the development costs fall on the graphics department.

Right, and most would agree that those cost will only rise as technology evolves. Obviously, if the next generation were to have current gen specs (PS3, XBOX360), then the technology will be cheaper and developer cost would fall sharply. Unfortunately, as i'm sure you already know, current graphics will not be able to hold a candle to what will be available at the end of this console cycle. So does Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft go for the gusto and have a machine capable of movie studio graphics with movie studio budgets and time, or hit a wall where developer cost equal out?

I hate to turn this into an econimcs class but, we all do realize that the USD is losing value. As an American consumer, when will the cost of games be too much? $70.00USD, $80.00USD? Why do you think box office sales are low? High studio cost coupled with lack of attendance creates inflation. So hence my original question, can this cause a crash?

Part of what happened was that, around 1995, Sony made a commitment that every game to come out for its PlayStation console would cost no more than $50. They could do this because CDs weren't as expensive as ROM chips to produce. But ten years of the $50 cap may have jaded the casuals.

As for Nintendo saving the industry, don't be so sure. Part of the reason for the videogame crash of 1983 (which I should qualify only seemed to apply to console videogames--arcades took their own hits) was an influx of cheap, low-quality games. Hate to say it, but Nintendo's development model is going to lead--inevitably--to an influx of cheap, low-quality games (this very issue was brought up in a recent EGM). Hate to say "Déjà Vu", but it's a possibility.

Another problem is the barrier of entry. Developing good games and a good machine is getting to be problematic now. I'd hate to look into SCE's or MSGS's R&D budgets. Part of it is the looming PC, which can't fully keep consoles at bay yet because of the geek factor (a lack of simplicity in the right places).

You bring up several great points

1. Yes i remember the N64 cartridges being $70.00 - $80.00USD, I was ateenager then so it's still pretty fresh in my mind. I dont know if my parents were the normal consumer, but I only really got N64 games on Christmas and birthdays, mostly. Now that I'm and adult, I purchase games on release.

2. Absolutely yes about people being used to games costing $50.00USD, I almost feel buyers remorse over paying $60.00 for an Xbox360 game.

3. I read that EGM article also while it had its merits it was also flawed from the time it was published. The PS2 was full of shovelware, but had enough quality AAA and AAAE games to justify it. No one is giving the Wii the same chance. We aren't even a year into its lifecycle and its getting bashed because of its library. Granted, Nintendo's approval policy can be stricter, but at the end of the day, its up to the consumers to send a message to developers by not purchasing low quality games. Nintendo got burned big time by lack of third-party support with the Gamecube. They wont allow that to happen again. We're seeing more rockstar games this year for the Wii then the entire life span of the Gamecube.

[QUOTE="bizzybone613"]

Would the elimination of Nintendo this console cyle make development costs any less? Would the Cell chipset and Blu-Ray discs be any cheaper? Would Xbox360's have better hardware relaiblity? I still don't see why some people say "Nintendo is causing the market to suffer". The PS3 would have still been $600.00USD when it debuted. You should be happy there are alternatives. This leads me to wonder what the furture holds. I think Nintendo will compete next generation powerhouse wise, and i think Microsoft and Sony, (especially Sony) will think twice before they jam-pack their next machines with a bunch of stuff.

PullTheTricker

Wheter both positive or negative impact... Nintendo has made an influence on the gaming market. I actually do apreciate what Nintendo is doing. Gaming would be pretty boring if everything just kept the same forever with better graphics.

Some people say Nintendo isn't competing with PS3 or 360... wich iscomplete nonsense. When I go to my local gaming store I see 3 systems and the Wii is included there. If its not competing then its competing in a ''indirect'' way.

What I'm trying to say is Nintendo is crushing the competition... and rightfully so. They are the marketing geniuses... wich I can't really say about Sony and their expensive PS3.

But still... if Wii-fit will sell better then any other ''game''. Then they will realise that the casual market is more profitable. This is something I among many others currently fear.

I got what you're saying. Like, the more games like WiiFit take off, the less hardcore games will be developed. Go for where the money is at.

[QUOTE="PullTheTricker"][QUOTE="bizzybone613"]

Would the elimination of Nintendo this console cyle make development costs any less? Would the Cell chipset and Blu-Ray discs be any cheaper? Would Xbox360's have better hardware relaiblity? I still don't see why some people say "Nintendo is causing the market to suffer". The PS3 would have still been $600.00USD when it debuted. You should be happy there are alternatives. This leads me to wonder what the furture holds. I think Nintendo will compete next generation powerhouse wise, and i think Microsoft and Sony, (especially Sony) will think twice before they jam-pack their next machines with a bunch of stuff.

bizzybone613

Wheter both positive or negative impact... Nintendo has made an influence on the gaming market. I actually do apreciate what Nintendo is doing. Gaming would be pretty boring if everything just kept the same forever with better graphics.

Some people say Nintendo isn't competing with PS3 or 360... wich iscomplete nonsense. When I go to my local gaming store I see 3 systems and the Wii is included there. If its not competing then its competing in a ''indirect'' way.

What I'm trying to say is Nintendo is crushing the competition... and rightfully so. They are the marketing geniuses... wich I can't really say about Sony and their expensive PS3.

But still... if Wii-fit will sell better then any other ''game''. Then they will realise that the casual market is more profitable. This is something I among many others currently fear.

I got what you're saying. Like, the more games like WiiFit take off, the less hardcore games will be developed. Go for where the money is at.

Well, when a genre is dead, it's dead. :P

Seriously, though, how many of you really believe that Nintendo will "kill" hardcore gaming?

[QUOTE="bizzybone613"][QUOTE="PullTheTricker"][QUOTE="bizzybone613"]

Would the elimination of Nintendo this console cyle make development costs any less? Would the Cell chipset and Blu-Ray discs be any cheaper? Would Xbox360's have better hardware relaiblity? I still don't see why some people say "Nintendo is causing the market to suffer". The PS3 would have still been $600.00USD when it debuted. You should be happy there are alternatives. This leads me to wonder what the furture holds. I think Nintendo will compete next generation powerhouse wise, and i think Microsoft and Sony, (especially Sony) will think twice before they jam-pack their next machines with a bunch of stuff.

mjarantilla

Wheter both positive or negative impact... Nintendo has made an influence on the gaming market. I actually do apreciate what Nintendo is doing. Gaming would be pretty boring if everything just kept the same forever with better graphics.

Some people say Nintendo isn't competing with PS3 or 360... wich iscomplete nonsense. When I go to my local gaming store I see 3 systems and the Wii is included there. If its not competing then its competing in a ''indirect'' way.

What I'm trying to say is Nintendo is crushing the competition... and rightfully so. They are the marketing geniuses... wich I can't really say about Sony and their expensive PS3.

But still... if Wii-fit will sell better then any other ''game''. Then they will realise that the casual market is more profitable. This is something I among many others currently fear.

I got what you're saying. Like, the more games like WiiFit take off, the less hardcore games will be developed. Go for where the money is at.

Seriously, though, how many of you really believe that Nintendo will "kill" hardcore gaming?

It will have a influence... the word ''kill'' is exeggeration.

Here in GS, there is a thread that states "Heavenly Sword" did 125k so far. With a budget of 20mil, the company has actually lost 12.5mil as of right now. Kilzone 2 has a budget of 40mil right? It would need to do about 650k to break even, which is entirely possible.

bizzybone613

See the thing about this is that the budgets will drop as time goes on as the developers will already have high-res textures, high polygon models etc from their first game that they can use when making a new game. A few smaller companies will die off as they overextend themselves transitioning to higher resolution graphics but most will be okay. Other companies will transition to Arcade/PSN/WiiWare.

The main problem, I think, will be the increase in advertising budgets. Capcom spent as much on advertising Lost World as they did making the game, $30 million for each. My guess is that Microsoft spent twice the money advertising Halo3 as they did making the game (although this one is a wild guess, and they probably recouped a lot of money with product tie ins). The success of the Lost Planet advertising blitz is going to push game advertising costs through the roof, easily doubling the budget of any game.

3. I read that EGM article also while it had its merits it was also flawed from the time it was published. The PS2 was full of shovelware, but had enough quality AAA and AAAE games to justify it. No one is giving the Wii the same chance. We aren't even a year into its lifecycle and its getting bashed because of its library. Granted, Nintendo's approval policy can be stricter, but at the end of the day, its up to the consumers to send a message to developers by not purchasing low quality games. Nintendo got burned big time by lack of third-party support with the Gamecube. They wont allow that to happen again. We're seeing more rockstar games this year for the Wii then the entire life span of the Gamecube.

bizzybone613

I got what you're saying. Like, the more games like WiiFit take off, the less hardcore games will be developed. Go for where the money is at.bizzybone613

It doesn't work that way. Even though a game like WiiFit or Wii Sports may sell ten times as much as a big budget game like Heavenly Sword, these games target completely different audiences.

Someone that would have bought Heavenly Sword if Wii Sports wasn't around isn't going to buy Wii Sports instead of HS. The developers know that they can't start producing "casual" games in mass, because they would saturate the market, and eventually go back to producing "hardcore" titles.

Since gaming is making more money than the film industry, I'd say no.
rheretrix

Errr, no it's not.

[QUOTE="heretrix"]Since gaming is making more money than the film industry, I'd say no.
rmjarantilla

Errr, no it's not.

I have made a NUMBER of posts in the past arguing why I believe the industry is heading towards another crash. MS's business model is forcing the whole industry towards unsustainability and it aims not to win fairly but to force everybody else into bankruptcy. The one saving grace this gen was Nintendo with the Wii. An affordable console that innovates and allow EVERYONE to make money.

ZIMdoom

thats there strat for everything, absorb, bankrupt and reign, truly a force of redtape and deep pockets, god i love that company!!! they should have the same slogen that there parody has in rocko= WE OWN YOU

Simply NO.

Or atleast in the next 50 years. 9 million people play WoW. Halo 3 made 20 million more than Spiderman 3, which was the biggest entertainment blockbuster in history. Already GTA might surpass that record. Experts predict 4.5 million are addicted to video games in the U.S. alone. Thats 1.5% of the general population. The average gamer is 29 years old. (Note: since numbers are taken from Wikipedia, don't bash me on accuacy:D)

So unless something really drastic happens (like a plague wiping out 90% of the world's population), its really unlikely that it will crash in the near future.

Simply NO.

Or atleast in the next 50 years. 9 million people play WoW. Halo 3 made 20 million more than Spiderman 3, which was the biggest entertainment blockbuster in history. Already GTA might surpass that record. Experts predict 4.5 million are addicted to video games in the U.S. alone. Thats 1.5% of the general population. The average gamer is 29 years old. (Note: since numbers are taken from Wikipedia, don't bash me on accuacy:D)

So unless something really drastic happens (like a plague wiping out 90% of the world's population), its really unlikely that it will crash in the near future.

Dtnoip92

hmmmmmm maybe i can create a special WOW plague to wipe out the awful stereotype that they are pulling....HAHAHAHAH to the laboritory!!!!!