This guy looks at the numbers and see that console gaming accounts for far more than a couple of billion dollars, and he predicts it's downfall? I now have less faith in cloud gaming.
@Nixtd You seem to be working under the impression that only massive selling games generate a profit. You'd be very wrong if you thought that. Low budget games are making a killing this gen, from arcade games to console games (ala Deadly Premonition and Demon's Souls). And most all big budget games break even or generate a profit. Companies are taking hits is because they are investing in projects that eat away millions and go nowhere, not because their games don't sell. It's terrible business practices and they're passing those losses on to the customer w/ the rhetoric of a political spin-stress.
I've been saying this for about a year now, game companies are pissing in the pond that they're fishing in. They charge disproportionately large amounts of money for DLC--DLC that can be purchased multiple times per disk due to the turnover used sales cause--and they get a steady following that keep their loyals alive online because people that don't play anymore effectively give their games to people that will. They get this and they try to double dip by charging for those online passes. It's disgusting and dishonest.
@Conkerton "try actually compeleting it for once and you understand." - This is the worst insult anyone has ever given me. You didn't even spell completing correctly. Onward to the topic. People do not spend four years in high school to "learn about the world correctly." Sure you learn about the world, but in simple, basic manner. The nature of what they teach often leaves you with the wrong impression of something, or at the least, the wrong impression of why something is so. At the end of the day high school doesn't teach you nearly enough to understand the world, or the worlds cultures, thus you do not have a correct understanding of it. Now, I mentioned this only because I didn't say "understand the world," and I find it odd that you would respond in such. No, I noted that high school is intended to teach you how to understand what good writing is. ...
... This is why you read classics, usually, teachers make you write papers about nuances and styles, and the reason why one might do that and why teachers attempt to raise the reading level (god, I'd love to hear what you think reading level means). You know, to develop an understanding of something. Okay, next. "There are parts of a story that are needed for quality." Um, yes? This is a backwards statement, and I'm having a hard time getting at what you mean. Your essentially saying that quality is attainable as if it had a complete physical, or phantasmal form. This is completely wrong. The only thing needed for a story to be a story, is movement. Take for example: For sale, babies shoes, never worn. That's a story. It has no middle, beginning or end and all the movement occurs in the reader. How is it judged as quality? By the techniques that are used and the effectiveness in which these techniques work. One's reading skill, and knowledge of techniques allow us to determine said quality. You wouldn't be one who could judge it though, it takes skill and training, which is why people have jobs where the determine quality, awards are given, classes are taught, writers are made and lost based on these very understandable and determinable skills. That you would suggest otherwise is not only disrespectful to these people but also ignorant.
Alright, this is long. The subjectivity of art is the interpretive meaning, this has nothing to do with quality. Hell, as I said before, there are original meanings with which we can judge something. Those are the meanings that are intended to be understood by the writer. This, and the skill at which it is conveyed, is one thing that is judged when we determine quality, not subjective meaning. There are 200 post speculating about the quality of stories, this is true. What is not true is the validity of their statements. They are not experts, they do not know a thing about these things. It's pure blind speculation, in all it's ignorance.
Next, "[...]may share some storytelling elements but our individual judgement on those qualities will change both overall story quality and interpretation." No. Just no. As I mentioned before. Only meaning changes from person to person. But the original meaning can be used to judged, its skill. This is what is done. I'm sure you don't know, because frankly you don't have the sound of someone who's ever read a quality review or analysis of writing. Or the sound of someone who even knows what writing techniques even exist. Furthermore, our interpretations don't change the story, at all. It doesn't change technique. Our interpretations change the meaning, end. I do find it funny that you called me ignorant though. You don't even know that you don't know what your talking about.
@conkerton No, it's not. Quality is judged/based on various elements and the skill with which these elements are produced. These elements never change and they encompass what we refer to as the story. The only reason people view stories quality differently are: reading level and ability to understand something that is said within/beyond one's scope--much like the problem with SAT questions. The only thing that actually changes between individuals is interpretation of meaning. That is not something we usually consider when judging the quality of a story, because we can usually know what the intended meaning is. It's kind of disturbing that people are actually saying quality of story is subjective, to be honest. Don't people spend four years in high school learning how to judge these things?
mellow09's comments