Diminishing returns: lol or real?

Started by Legend, Aug 05, 2014, 11:52 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Legend

http://c0de517e.blogspot.it/2013/12/shame-people-say-graphics-have-peaked.html

Just go to the link. It's long and stuff.

Or just post your opinion. I'll post mine once I finish reading the blogpost.

the-pi-guy

There's stuff to read?  Awww man.  :P
I'd say it depends.  But I'll probably read this and change my mind.  Maybe....

Legend

My personal view on this is that diminishing returns within numbers and the like are real, but they don't apply to graphics and visuals as a whole.

darkknightkryta


My personal view on this is that diminishing returns within numbers and the like are real, but they don't apply to graphics and visuals as a whole.

There's a larger problem at hand.  Games just aren't profitable for anyone.  Margins on games are razor thin.  Game consoles are sold at cost.  Businessmen got their hands on the industry turned it into a bloated mess.  There's something wrong when you have 1000 people working on a title (Assassin's Creed).  I mean, I know they work a lot of overtime at Naughty Dog, but if they can keep their budgets in check there's no excuse for other devs.

Legend


There's a larger problem at hand.  Games just aren't profitable for anyone.  Margins on games are razor thin.  Game consoles are sold at cost.  Businessmen got their hands on the industry turned it into a bloated mess.  There's something wrong when you have 1000 people working on a title (Assassin's Creed).  I mean, I know they work a lot of overtime at Naughty Dog, but if they can keep their budgets in check there's no excuse for other devs.

Never compare first party games with third party ones in this regard.

Ubisoft has to pay Sony/Microsoft a considerable part of the game's profit. First party devs don't have to do this, or at least are affected less by it.

darkknightkryta


Never compare first party games with third party ones in this regard.

Ubisoft has to pay Sony/Microsoft a considerable part of the game's profit. First party devs don't have to do this, or at least are affected less by it.

Considerable?  8 dollars per game.  That's not considerable when you take into account that 4 dollars of a game goes to retail.  That's 48 dollars per game in the publisher's pockets.  That also doesn't affect the game's budget.  If anything, it should be more incentive for Ubisoft to start managing better. 

Legend


Considerable?  8 dollars per game.  That's not considerable when you take into account that 4 dollars of a game goes to retail.  That's 48 dollars per game in the publisher's pockets.  That also doesn't affect the game's budget.  If anything, it should be more incentive for Ubisoft to start managing better. 

Just going off this link http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-10-where-does-my-money-go-article

20% goes to the platform holder and 30% goes to the publisher. So for a $60 game that's $12 for Sony/Microsoft and $18 for the pub. It's a fair amount IMO, but it's also a very large amount that can't be ignored. So using this source Activision makes $18 for every COD sold, while Microsoft makes $30 for every Halo sold.

Legend


darkknightkryta


Just going off this link http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-10-where-does-my-money-go-article

20% goes to the platform holder and 30% goes to the publisher. So for a $60 game that's $12 for Sony/Microsoft and $18 for the pub. It's a fair amount IMO, but it's also a very large amount that can't be ignored. So using this source Activision makes $18 for every COD sold, while Microsoft makes $30 for every Halo sold.

I don't know how it is in the U.S. but it's 4 dollars a game here in Canada.  That I guarantee.  But regardless, final price of game has nothing to do with mishandling budgets which has been going on with all large publishers.  Like I said, getting less money should be more incentive to get budgets down.  Instead they've been getting higher.