endnuen said:
Anton P. Nym said:
Exactly how many middle-of-the-road, generic, broadest-possible-appeal, no-risks-taken games are you willing to buy to support this business model?
None. Which is why I am against the steep prices. Had the majority of the games been gems it would be justifiable. But they aren't, so it isn't.
I'll grant that you are entirely within your rights to have that opinion. I should, however, point out the consequences.
Games cost money to make, and big games cost a
lot of money in the days of HD/60fps graphics with 7.1-channel sound. Developers are either going to aim for a small market and charge a high enough price to make back the costs on a few sales, or are going to aim for a big market and hope to make back the costs over a lot of sales... they're not going to aim for a niche and charge low, unless they go the indie route and use minimal graphics and as little code as possible.
That's why you see so many games with huge graphics targeting the broadest market possible, and so many developers repeating the same, proven formulas over and over again. And that's why you see so few developers taking chances on leading-edge stuff, because failure is so expensive one can kill an entire studio.
Developers won't look at your post and say, "My goodness, we really have to work to gain the support of this gamer demographic! Let's get cracking!" Instead, they'll look at it and say, "My goodness, there's no way we can gain the support this gamer demographic and afford 3 meals a day! We'll just have to write 'em off." The result? Even fewer titles you're looking for.
So, yes, you are within your rights to demand more... but I think you might want to consider the consequences of doing so.
-- Steve