Which seems like exactly the same as Jim said in the video. Absurd spending on stuff that will not gain more sales -> an enormous bloated mess of a budget -> the need for absurd sales figures to break even.Razhem said:Have to disagree with you Jim, having absurd expectations because the project costs an absurd amount of money is very coherent as I see it. It's another thing it indeed is a shitty business model and a part of me hopes that this all devolves in the triple A industry market crashing. The problem here isn't unreal sales expectations, that's just a symptom, the real problem is the tech arms race and the need to get Angelina Jolie and photorealistic tears even though nobody will actually give a fuck except for the graphics nuts, and frankly, they can go burn in hell for all I care. Thing is the industry has to get it's head out of it's ass and notice that you don't need to put everything into the oven to make an atractive project. It's better for a project to cost you 20.000.000$ to make and sell 2.000.000 copies than having it cost 50.000.000 only to sell 3.000.000 copies.
If I had to guess I would say in part this nonsense can be traced back to the "bit-wars" 8 vs 16 vs 32 vs 64 vs 128. When *that* nonsense died the death it so richly deserved graphics became the new yardstick and when that envelop couldn't be realistically pushed any further the 'let's be like movies' insanity began.Ishal said:Great video, but here is my question(s).
Where did the craze of making hugely "unique" games with Hollywood actors and totally new game engines come from?
Why is the gap so large now that there are practically no middle games anymore? Why does everything need to be a smash hit?
Where did this all start? And finally, who other than regular gamers (such as ones like us, who join a forum to talk about our hobby) buys these games?
I'd say Dark Souls was pretty beautiful graphically. Then again I'm not the type of PC gamer who spends wads of cash to get all the new trinkets to put in my machine. I don't see why graphics matter so damn much. I'm also becoming disinterested with this whole "we need to be more like hollywood" kick. Some of the publishers are forcing it, but a lot of the people are wanting it because they desperately want the medium to be recognized by people who's opinions apparently matter so much.
Video games are in a sort of teenager phase. Just mature enough to not be children anymore, yet still trying desperately to be taken seriously as an adult.
I was only joking. As a female and a massive fan of Tomb Raider, I'm well aware and continue to hope for its success. I was only snidely saying how some people are still under the impression that female protagonists don't sell well and should therefore be avoided at all costs, and that this will somehow be an example despite it actually being a success in sales and critical acclaim. Maybe I'm just not very good at making jokes.goliath6711 said:Really?Voulan said:Next thing you know, Squeenix will say that Tomb Raider failed sales expectations because it features a female protagonist.
Just wait and see.
Then why did the successes/failures of the 12 previous Tomb Raider games not seem to radically affect them over a 12-year period until Underworld? (13 games in a 14-year period if you count the downloadable Guardian of Light) Why is this game considered an underachiever already?
It couldn't be due to lack of advertising. I couldn't avoid any advertisements for this game, and I actively tried to. (compared to Sleeping Dogs where I don't remember if there even WAS a TV commercial made for it) That combined with every reviewer/gamer who played it elbow-checking each other to get to a computer fast enough to tell the entire world what a "shining beacon of light" this is in the "dank cellar of overpriced mediocrity" that is the video game industry that was supposed to bring in both new and existing Tomb Raider fans should have assured the game would meet that minimum 5-6 million first month sales quota easily. There's obviously something about the game that made them think that after sinking that much money into it that this is how much they needed to get back just to break even. And overinflated expectations or not, if this was one of their goals for the game and they failed significantly to reach it, then there must be some deeper things that are wrong with it that they need to address than just brushing it of as "it features a woman".
Although, interestingly enough, Mass Effect 3 (aka: The Bane Of Everyone Else's Existence) sold over $200 million (that's just under 3.5 million copies) in its first two months of release and the "soulless, money-sucking bastards" at EA considered that a pleasing success. This despite (or perhaps because of) the controversy surrounding it at the time. Maybe name recognition would have helped...oh wait. That's ANOTHER advantage this Tomb Raider game has. Go figure...
Is there a different Empire Strikes Back that I'm not familiar with?Aggieknight said:The Empire Strikes Back was a commercial failure and never turned a profit...kinda like Tomb Raider and Deadspace 3. Hmmm....
He surely can't be talking about the fifth episode of Star Wars which was made for $18m and had a return of over $209m... $538m if international sales are considered.Lovely Mixture said:Is there a different Empire Strikes Back that I'm not familiar with?Aggieknight said:The Empire Strikes Back was a commercial failure and never turned a profit...kinda like Tomb Raider and Deadspace 3. Hmmm....
I am actually. Keep in mind there is a significant difference between revenue (money coming in) and profit (money left over after all expenses are paid). What you provided was the cost to make the movie, only one portion of the total expenses.Jabbawocky said:He surely can't be talking about the fifth episode of Star Wars which was made for $18m and had a return of over $209m... $538m if international sales are considered.Lovely Mixture said:Is there a different Empire Strikes Back that I'm not familiar with?Aggieknight said:The Empire Strikes Back was a commercial failure and never turned a profit...kinda like Tomb Raider and Deadspace 3. Hmmm....
Did you ever actually WATCH the video where he talks about it?bunji said:Fuck you Jim for saying it should have had an easy mode. If it had it wouldn't have pulled in the niche crowd it needed and it would have gone down the drain as a sub-par action title with a hardmode thats bullshit.
Thats the point. Many many many games have harder "hard" modes than dark souls only mode is. But people dont praise them for their excellently balanced gameplay. I applaud the team behind DarkSouls for basically going "No, we won't include a difficulty setting because we know how we want our game to be balanced". Theres a huge difference between how those games you listed and DarkSouls engaged players, Infamous and ME does it through player actualization, while dark souls does it through incredibly fine-tuned gameplay. Dark Souls isn't even that hard, if you scavenge around and look for secrets, something that would have been completely rendered moot by an easy mode where what weapon your using isn't as important.BrainBlow said:Did you ever actually WATCH the video where he talks about it?bunji said:Fuck you Jim for saying it should have had an easy mode. If it had it wouldn't have pulled in the niche crowd it needed and it would have gone down the drain as a sub-par action title with a hardmode thats bullshit.
An easy mode would be OPTIONAL. If you're so "hardcore" then DON'T USE IT.
It's that freaking simple.
The niche would be "turned off" by something that's completely and utterly optional? What utter nonsense!
it's like saying that people that want to play as characters being douchebags would not buy Infamous or Mass Effect because of the "paragon" options, or visa-versa. It's your CHOICE to do so!