Jonathan Hornsby said:
"The big game developers should continue only catering to the demographic I am a part of in spite of the fact that we're now a minority and incapable of providing a profit on games solely targeted at us.
80 out of 100 is a majority.
(add plenty of women and some men due to gaming gradually mainstreaming)
100 out of 200 is not a majority.
(divide men into age brackets because reasons)
50 out of 200 - definitely not a majority... but what exactly is this approach worth?
But wait, here's more. The
actual number of customers big game developers have the easiest access to didn't shrink - it
grew. However, as we already know, those numbers didn't transform their demographic into anything close to 50:50. So yeah,
IF they intend to capitalize on genres that gave them their current position, they really should continue. At least for now - and, given the source, at least on PC.
Jonathan Hornsby said:
And in spite of the fact that this is because of the ballooning development costs from the constantly improving graphics we demand and our constant bitching about any game that doesn't flawlessly live up to our unrealistic expectations and entirely fan-generated hype.
Since budgeting and reeling in ad expenses are from some lalaland for certain studios, DLCs and other crap to the rescue! There's a number of good and shitty practices that can increase their profit, all carrying various risks. The biggest difference between them and diluting genres and content to fit random demands (or in some misguided "it's for everybody!" delusion) is that the former can exist without affecting the game proper (and if they try, like with some DLC models, fans express their annoyance... a lot). The latter is literally *that*. Even when it isn't, a perception of hand-wrangling taking place is already enough - especially when major outlets are capable of hiveminding when ideologically convenient.
Jonathan Hornsby said:
If they want to actually earn a profit, then they have to produce entirely separate products for the profitable demographics while still providing us our own in spite of the inevitable financial losses." = Unreasonable.
Sorry, but if those "inevitable financial losses" became connected to the "core" demographic, I must've missed a total AAA crash that happened years ago, when casual market became so strong. Again, "traditional" demographic didn't shrink, it's on the same level of spending with other groups (at least talking about PC) and definitely outspending them per capita. As for production costs skyrocketing - we are not exactly privy to profit charts from the past, so "inevitable financial losses" claim is hardly sourced - especially when it's far from "smaller profit that before".
Let's not even start with costs associated with switching to "profitable demographics" (again, source?) - given how they seem to focus on significantly different content and genres.
But, in the end, one *can* justify bean bean counters trying everything to have more beans, so studios are, at least partially, off the hook. What is much harder to justify is any attempt to "make established franchises and studios better" from the outside.
If one demographic could spend years and piles of money helping big developers become, you know,
big from a level comparable (if not lower) to current indies, then every other demographic should be expected to do the same. Unless, if it's suddenly "too expensive", that demographic is not that profitable as advertised.
I wouldn't mind *more* games from established studios either, but with, as you said, costs skyrocketing, it's hard to expect significant increase. "Better games" sound even more reasonable - but let's say there's a lot of "better" out there, just as there's a lot of "experts" on that. I think prioritizing opinions of those with actual achievements in the industry is reasonable.