randomthefox said:
What evidence are you basing this claim off?
Basic business sense. If a console is not available to consumers, then why would you waste your developer resources developing games for a system that isn't available yet?
The way Rayman Legends was finished being developed and then withheld by the publisher from being released until there were other platforms to release it on? Hell, they didn't even let it get released on the WiiU and then released the multiplatform versions later, they held back the whole kit-and-kaboodle.
And Rayman Legends is obviously a very typical case, and one of the best-selling AAA games released, right? Oh no, that's wrong.
How many developers do you expect will be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars developing a game, and then just withhold it from sale, until the console manufacturer takes its own sweet time releasing the console? The publishers are not charities, their goal is to make the most profits as soon as possible. Good luck asking them to just wait around for a while before releasing a title they have invested so much money and time into.
It can, and has, been done. Give a time line for when they're allowed to work on the game, cut em off when they run out, and then just don't release the game until the console comes out.
Yeah, because developers and publishers will love working to the console makers' time schedule.
Do you think there might be a reason that major titles like GTA V and Bioshock Infinite were released for the "last" generation consoles rather than the new ones? It's because they know which side their toast is buttered on, and they will sell a lot more by making games for the consoles with the huge install bases and tested development procedures, rather than an unknown quantity, where the manufacturers can't even keep up with the demand for consoles.
Morons who don't understand the first thing about the game industry seem to be under this delusion that every moment a game isn't on the store shelves is time it is being worked on by the developers.
I'm not sure who you are talking about here, or its relevance.
You think, when they say a game comes out on Oct 12th for example, that means it's still in development all the way up until Oct. 11th and when the clock strikes midnight they ship it out, which is clinically untrue.
No, I don't think that. What evidence do you have that would make you think that I think that? You seem to be attacking straw men.
you're apparently also applying this (stupid) line of thought to the consoles themselves, thinking that because they aren't on store shelves means they're still being made and thus not available to the developers to work on and develop games for, which.... I don't even have a rational dismissal for since it is so blatantly incorrect an assumption
No, I'm not.
And speaking of blatantly incorrect assumptions, once again you're just making stuff up about how I supposedly think - once again, a straw man.
that my mind just automatically leaps to bashing my head against the wall for even attempting to converse with someone so devoid of common sense.
And the ad-hominems continue...
So, "common sense" to you is that developers should devote their resources to develop new games for a console that hasn't been released, that has no customers, while the existing consoles already have millions of devoted customers. Okaaaaay.
And if it's such common sense, then why have none of the console manufacturers, game publishers or developers followed this wisdom? They have rather large businesses as stake. If it were so obvious and easy, then why didn't they follow your sage advice?
The competition element is also irrelevant because in my hypothetical fantasy scenario of the game industry actually making intelligent decisions, we also have a single universal console that can play every game ever released ever from the Atari on to any future releases moving forward, because when you're enjoying some pie in the sky semantics you might as well put some nice whipped cream on top too.
How would the "universal game console" be an intelligent business decision? Who makes this universal console? And why would a company want competing companies' games to run on the system? A huge portion of the profits in the console business come from licensing fees to develop games for a particular console, or exclusivity for first-party titles. A "universal console" would put an end to that revenue stream.
Note that I' not saying that this is bad from a gamer's perspective, but I'm talking about the reality of running a business with massive budgets, that could easily be bankrupted due to volatility in the market.