Gearbox Boss Says id, Crytek are "Risking Failure"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The point was that "craving attention" is neither unique to Gearbox, nor something that a company head should eschew. I don't see the platform-war fight-picking of Newell described as "just wanting attention", even when that's pretty much his job description as well as a reasonable conclusion from his words and actions.AceDiamond said:
I also think it's a bit asinine to accuse the subject of an INTERVIEW of seeking attention. The attention seems to have sought out HIM. Either way, it's borderline ad hominem, by asserting that his desire for attention should be considered along with his presented argument. Not fair cricket in my book.
Only problem is that Pitchford has gone from zero to eleven in no time at all once Borderlands was on the verge of release. It's a bit suspect.SaintWaldo said:
Damnit Shamus, you took the words right out of my mouth.Shamus Young said:
Game development is already extraordinarily expensive. People complain about rising prices in games, but the reality of the situation is that the developer makes barely any money with the sale of an individual unit. This means that in order to justify the costs of making games, you have to move a large number of units: and as your game gets costlier, the more you need it to be a hit in order to even recoup your losses, let alone make money out of it.
The push towards more and more advanced graphics is the root of the problem really. With more advanced graphics come more advanced problems: not only must your teams learn more and more complex skills, the hardware needed to run the software increases in quality/power (and therefore price.)
I'm of the opinion that game developers should sit back for a while and focus on optimizing what they already have, rather than trying to make their games look more and more graphically gorgeous. In the end, they should try and focus on other stuff (proper storytelling/characterization and gameplay being the forerunners in my mind.)
Again, to me this is not a "problem", it's a "job description". You're saying it would look _less_ attention whorish to do this when he _doesn't_ have an impending or recent release?AceDiamond said:
I don't understand why gaming media consistently reads so deeply into what one developer says about another company, or why Randy Pitchford's words are constantly being spun out of proportion. His opinions about Valve were reasonable and he has openly declared his support for the company. His comments are mild compared to what is commonly found in blogs, even from developers. It's not like Pitchford is Jack Thompson. It seems like people have the real Pitchford confused with IGN's impersonation.
Some links:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175382
http://news.filefront.com/gabe-newell-playstation-3-a-waste-of-time/
http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=515
Some links:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175382
http://news.filefront.com/gabe-newell-playstation-3-a-waste-of-time/
http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=515
Agreed, the high end trend has to taper off. There should always be a high end, but the low end should be looked after. The best way to do this is to make well oiled and tuned smaller games, like Torchlight, which can run on a netbook and goes for 20 dollars but is effectivly DIGITAL CRACK that you can pick up and play any time, or League of Legends which has low specs and plans to run itself on microtransactions and oh god it's addictive.Shamus Young said:
Good talk, sir.
What's so "next gen plus" about the new Crytek engine? I thought their main focus with this was not just improvement but mainly optimization on all fronts, especially multiplatform optimization that would allow for multiple releases that look and run flawlessly on all current gen pc's and consoles, as opposed to Crysis's "elitism". Isn't that, like, the exact opposite of what this guy is saying?
Well, any gamer or game designer could say that, really. If he's out to pump himself up by complaining the competition, he doesn't have a good head for marketing, but if he's blowing off steam (like people do here), whatevs.
I think he exaggerated the effect that the high-tech development has on sales, but as others have noted, he does have a point. My personal opinion is that if you can make it more accessible to more people without sacrificing significant quality, you should. Sure, you might sell "enough" to a more exclusive, "hard core" audience, but if you know the game will appeal to a larger crowd, making it available to them seems to me a no-brainer.
Though it's an entirely different kind of game, I think of what EA did with the Sims 3--bear in mind that while it's not an action game, it still needs a lot of CPU and graphic power just like other PC games--they have the engine nicely and efficiently designed that I can run the thing smoothly on my nearly 5 year old laptop, but those who have the state-of-the-art rig can get all the more shiny experience. That was a smart thing for them to do, 'cause it ensures that a game with broad appeal can be used by a broad audience, from new-to-PC-gaming crowd to the obsessives who do their own custom 3D modeling and mods for the game.
I think he exaggerated the effect that the high-tech development has on sales, but as others have noted, he does have a point. My personal opinion is that if you can make it more accessible to more people without sacrificing significant quality, you should. Sure, you might sell "enough" to a more exclusive, "hard core" audience, but if you know the game will appeal to a larger crowd, making it available to them seems to me a no-brainer.
Though it's an entirely different kind of game, I think of what EA did with the Sims 3--bear in mind that while it's not an action game, it still needs a lot of CPU and graphic power just like other PC games--they have the engine nicely and efficiently designed that I can run the thing smoothly on my nearly 5 year old laptop, but those who have the state-of-the-art rig can get all the more shiny experience. That was a smart thing for them to do, 'cause it ensures that a game with broad appeal can be used by a broad audience, from new-to-PC-gaming crowd to the obsessives who do their own custom 3D modeling and mods for the game.
Step 1: Fix the bugs in your studio's biggest recent launch.
Step 2: THEN complain about what other studios are doing wrong.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit.
He can say what he wants, but he's getting ahead of himself. Until he fixes Borderlands' many many glitches, I couldn't give two shits what he thinks other companies need to do, because he clearly doesn't even seem to know what his own should be doing.
Step 2: THEN complain about what other studios are doing wrong.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit.
He can say what he wants, but he's getting ahead of himself. Until he fixes Borderlands' many many glitches, I couldn't give two shits what he thinks other companies need to do, because he clearly doesn't even seem to know what his own should be doing.