No, this is not satirical (i.e. like Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal; kudos to those who know what that is)

But rather a small number of proposals regarding the video game industry

1.) Regarding game budgets and development

- It seems very, very few quality games are developed by companies that either have little recognition, or that their publisher is very small. The games that do get good quality can be lumped into three categories: those that have a big publisher (hence the greater amount of money/time the publisher is willing to risk), the respect of the devloper (if the developer is known to create quality games, the amount of risk decreases, which allows the publisher to provide more money/timeknowing the game will sell well), and sequel/prequel to a popular franchise (which is logical considering the previous game(s) sold well, so publishers will look for quality better that the predecessors). But there are times when publishers putbig budgetsinto games simply because the idea looks good on paper, but then winds up being underdeveloped because of lack of experience by the development team.

Thus a solution to this would work for both problems. But both parties most be willing to forgo certain"things" in order for this to be met.In most cases, the publisher has the developer"sell", innon-monetary terms, their idea(s) to the publisher, and if the publisher like these ideas, they will accept. However, the method should be the reverse. A publisher should approach a developer with a set amount of money, then the developer should build an idea that can be worked within the proposed budget. For example,devlopers may come up with the greatest idea for a game or genre (for explanatory purposes, a game for Xbox360), give the idea to a publisher, and the publisher onlygives them a budget fit for an arcade game (in this instance, an Xbox Live Arcade game). In these cases the game either gets cancelled because the devloper just can't meet the budget or the developers are forced to pull alot of the creative ideas out because otherwise they won't meet the budget requirements, meaning a low-quality game will follow.

Not only would this in some form hopefully increase the quality of games, but would also increase competition, and allow developers to still create good games without having to be bought out by a big-name publisher in order to simply survive.

2.) regarding sports games

- As painful as this may seem to companies like EA Sports and 2K Sports, it should be proposed and enacted. For far too long the sports genre has been plagued by annual releases on what has become little more than roster changes and minor tweaks and fixes of gameplay mechanics (recently, though, some games are seeming to deliver a little more than that). In the now "DLC" era of the video game timeline, roster changes, bug fixes, and small gameplay mechanics can all be fixed using this concept. The former way was nothing more than spending anywhere from fifty-seventy dollars just to be promised the bugs from the previous game(s) were fixed and that the rosters would all be updated to the first game of x season. DLC can still solve this problem at a cost that is worthy of the service provided. But people still buy these games every year, which amuses me highly. Would these same people go about buying a new car simply because the brakes in their old vehicle were broken and because it lacked a GPS? This new method proposed would allow more fairness to the consumer while still having the game perform the same way it would take 4 or 5 seperate games to achieve. This would even benefit the developer to allow them more time (rather than a yearly budget) to produce something truly groundbreaking in the genre, rather than adding one bell or whistle at a time.

It is my hopes that the industry hears these simple yet effective proposals and at least gives them some thought. But yet who am I, a mere mortal of a man, to be heared by the game gods? (Ok, yes, that part was satirical).