j0frenzy said:
Treblaine said:
j0frenzy said:
Because what the games industry as a whole needs right now is to increase production costs to hire more voice actors. Yes, the treatment of voice actors could be better, but the industry can't really afford to keep increasing how much is needed to make a game.
Also, unlike movies, voice actors are not the crutch of the game. If acting in a movie sucks, then the movie sucks. If the voice acting in a game sucks, it brings down the experience, but is does not completely ruin the experience. It is the developers who do the majority of the work in a game and who deserve the bulk of the money for their work.
Video games are NOT expensive compared to movies or even TV shows.
And video game rake in HUGE amounts of money from how each unit sells for $60 while Movie tickets cost $10 and DVDs are cheap as hell now.
Video games depend so much on good voice acting as is borne out in how many voice actors are known mainly for their performances in games like David Hayter. If we want our video games to have personality and rise to their true potential and not be "Just toys" then they NEED voice actors and good ones too.
Good voice actors cost money, lots of money, but are worth every penny.
An industry where only 20% of the products released turn a profit is not one that needs to think up ways to make development costs go up, no matter how necessary the thing in question is (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=202401).
Also, a lot more people watch movies than play video games.
BULLSHIT
Name me TEN games, from say 2008, that failed to even break even. And don't go naming some Wii shovel ware I'm talking real games that actually cost money to make. It is easy to name bad games that don't break even.
I already had this LONG and tiring conversation before in the comments section of an article by Christian Ward... I found OVER FORTY titles that just in 2008 broke even, many of them earning over 10 times what they cost to make which should make the publishers much more willing to take a chance.
And Newsflash: Most TV shows and Hollywood movies don't break even either and have been doing so since the 1970's yet movies and TV shows are getting more and more expensive and the industry is not going anywhere... WHY? Because the PRODUCTION COMPANIES like the Game Publishers usually record huge profits overall due to the big winners and wher they spend the MOST money they at least break even.
So you are AGAIN talking out of your arse if you repeat the ludicrous claim that games selling for $60 each should be made for minuscule amounts of money.
You are HIDEOUSLY oversimplifying things to just look at the numbers that turn a profit.
Have you never heard of the phrase "90% of everything is shit".
EDIT: Here it is, Sturgeon's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law
"Ninety percent of everything is crud."
It's true. Millions of books are published every year, 90% of them are not worth the paper they are printed on and they deserve to not turn a profit and that is NOT,
I REPEAT, NOT because they are too expensive to print but
BECAUSE THEY ARE SHITE!!!!
The same thing goes for games, movies, tv shows, small businesses, inventions, the overwhelming majority fail because they are just. not. good.
Every game should not turn a profit just because it is a game. If it if good selling at $60 per game it will easily turn a profit even if development cost is $30 million but if it is bad then it should not turn a profit and if you don't like that I suggest you bugger off to North Korea or some other communist state as this is simple free market economics we are talking about. People vote with their wallets to support the good games and the bad ones die off.
Go on metacritic and look at all the incredibly lowly rated games in 2008... games like "George of the Jungle and the Search for the Secret".
Hell, many online critics have made a LIVING out of making fun of the thousands upon thousands of bad and obscure games, like the Angry Video Game Nerd who mostly focuses on classic 8-bit or 16-bit games.
Do THEY deserve to turn a profit? I don't think they do and most shite games like that don't even end up reviewed on metacritic, they barely get noticed yet prick-head "analysts" will see all these games failing and proclaim the sky is falling and all us gamers should pay $100 per game and settle for N64 graphics and absolutely no creative talent involved at all just to resolve this frivolous figure.
These analyst are a WASTE OF FU*KING TIME!
EDIT: This explains even better why this "only 20% of games turn a profit" is no reason for alarm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Publishers find 80% of your money from only 20% of your games.
Remember kids, if you suck at business and can't make it in the real business world you could always become a market analyst. You'd get more insight asking some random guy in a pub.