[QUOTE=steer]Game budgets are decreasing Leo - according to EA.
Game consumers such as your self are being asked to pay more and more all the time - that is well documented. Do you deny that?
I am not saying future games will not support HD resolution, but that the HD revolution has been disapointing at best, and a failure at worst.[/QUOTE]
You know none of this. There's nothing in that link that says any of it. He says he thinks budgets may of peaked for now and may go down in the future. That speculation doesn't back up the leap you're making. It could just as easily mean that game developers have mastered HD game production, have established engines developed in-house or available for licensing at reasonable fees unlike a few years ago (Much of the cost of current gen game development is the engine itself, not much different then in past years), have developed their HD assets which has led to reduced development cost, etc.
It's likely, if it ends up being accurate which I highly doubt (If it is, it's the first time since the dawn of gaming that average game budgets have dropped), that it signals nothing more then we're going to be at the level we're at now for a while (which I think is supported by the actions of Microsoft and Sony). Developers and publishers are able to take advantage of the learning curve of their employees with such things as the implimentation of online play and other components of modern game development (such as improved toolsets more up to the task then five years ago and other assets not available at the time). It's the same reason something like GTA Vice City cost less to develop then GTA III.
But once we move on a generation, you'll start seeing development cost go up again as developers and publishers face the challange of mastering a new level of technology, new consoles, new development kits, new tools, etc.
And I'm being asked to pay more? I haven't seen prices rise since the start of this console generation when we saw $10 bumps from Sony and Microsoft in some game releases. Other then with PSN and XBLA releases, I've see no significant rising in price in several years. If anything, it's getting cheaper thanks to the wide support Microsoft, Sony, and their publishers have given to their Platinum Hits and Greatest Hits line of rereleases. To play the software worth playing on the Wii, it largely still cost the same as it did on day 1 ($50 is still the standard MSRP for Twilight Princess for example).
If anything, it's gotten cheaper to be a 360 or PS3 gamer then it is to be a Wii gamer. To play most 1st party Nintendo software that represents the bulk of worthwhile titles on the Wii for traditional gamers, you can expect the MSRP even for the earliest titles to retain the $50 price tag with few exceptions. I can walk out of any store that sells games with 2-3 high quality 360 or PS3 rereleases from a few years ago for the price of something like Excitetruck.
You can trash me all you want and credit me with claims I have not made, I am just looking at the big picture. [/QUOTE]
No, it's more of your typical spin. You half read something, form some vague and misinformed thoughts on why it shows the superiority of the Nintendo Wii over the two consoles you've never played, and then you post it to this board. Your not looking at the big picture. That article said or hinted at none of the leaps you've posted here.
[QUOTE=steer]It is just interesting that MS and Sony are releasing new controllers instead of new consoles. [/QUOTE]
Because there is life left in this console generation. The systems were sold at a loss initially and they need several years of high profits to recoup that initial investment. It's business as usual and we haven't seen the capabilities of either console maxed out to date and gamers are in no rush to replace their 360's or PS3's since they still see games on the current platforms making significant leaps in quality.
These motion control accessories are about as interesting and mean about as much for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 as the Wii Motion Plus attachment did for the Nintendo Wii. They're neat little accessories that are a nice way for these two companies to experiment for the future. But they're not going to be a major factor in 99% of what gamers play on either platform.
[QUOTE=steer]It is also interesting that major publishers such as EA, and Take 2 - who publishes RDR, I believe, are not having a problem selling games - but ARE having a problem making money. [/QUOTE]
If either are true, I highly doubt it's any reflection on their backing of HD consoles. Take 2 was struggling last generation with profitability too in the 480i/p era. If their support of HD consoles while also ignoring the Wii for the most part was so incorrect, I assure you they'd of known it long before you ever did and their shareholders would never have stood for it.
[QUOTE=steer]If you do not want to look into the reasons why and discuss this, fine. Why are you in denial that the game industry is changing? When did I say Nintendo would never support HD resolution? [/QUOTE]
I just looked into it far deeper then you ever did. And when was I ever in denial that the game industry is changing? And you claimed that HD gaming has been unsustainable and that budgets are dropping. Are you going to try to tell me that means you don't think the Wii's successor was going to avoid HD? How do you propose they make the HD leap if it's unsustainable now and budgets are going to be dropping in the future?
I have news for you, people high up in Nintendo have already confirmed they won't be ignoring HD with the Wii's replacement that almost is going to have to be released next year in order for Nintendo to compete. We're just about in the last 300 days or so of major releases with this platform. You'll see software releases being as pitiful on the Wii a year from now, with few exceptions, as the DS was this year. The Wii is underpowered and needs replacing while the competition still has untapped life in it.
[QUOTE=steer]This topic was about game BUDGETS - the era of the HD Blockbusters is declining. [/QUOTE]
Hardly, the people playing the vast majority of releases on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 aren't going to suddenly switch to things like Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Music, Wii Fit, Wii Party, etc. You'll also never see something like Deca Sports or Carnival Games being some of the best performing 3rd party releases for Microsoft and Sony.
[QUOTE=steer]Nintendo has always had a far more diversified software portfolio, and I do not see them abandoning that.[/QUOTE]
What the heck are you going on about? The Wii has a less diversified software library then either the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360. And Nintendo itself with it's first party lineup, if that was what you meant, has never had a very diversified software portfolio.
[QUOTE=steer]It is amazing Sony and MS can do a 180 degree about face, and everyone pretends not to notice. And this after 5 years of 'casual baiting' Nintendo? Lol.[/QUOTE]
Because it's not what you claim it is. They saw money to make in the casual motion supported gaming genre and are going after it since it's a major void that isn't currently filled on their consoles. They also see a opportunity, since the competition is stuck in 2001 in regards to video standards, by supporting the HD sets that are in so many homes today and represent the vast majority of new television sales in 2010.
They aren't doing a 180 and they aren't abandoning their established audiences and business model. They're broadening their portfolio to encompass the motion supporting gaming of the Wii while also maintaining their traditional market (Which represents the biggest slice by far for publishers). They're the ones with the truely diversified game portfolios once these devices get off the ground. They will continue to offer their traditional products while also doing everything the Wii does (while doing it better with HD graphics, more accurate controls, and features not present on the Wii).