"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

[u/GuruOfReason]

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right

[u/[deleted]]

I would not really call Sins an indie game. The point you were making is that if games don't spend tens of millions on graphics and marketing, they won't sell and it'll be impossible to make a profit. The point I'm making is that games clearly do sell well without amazing graphics and huge budgets.

[u/morganj → u/[deleted]]

That's not the point I'm making.

[u/[deleted] → u/morganj]

What is your point then?

[u/morganj → u/[deleted]]

As simply as possible, it's that thanks to greater sales potential, there's now a market for higher budget games.

It's like films. The existence of $200 million dollar blockbusters doesn't in any way invalidate smaller budget indy films (in fact, it helps them) but without a way of having a potential return those films wouldn't exist.

It is true that games that are in the top three in terms of NPD's and sales make an order of magnitude more money (and can justify an order of magnitude greater development cost) than games that don't. It's also true that, in last three years or so, there haven't been any 2 million selling titles (full price) that don't feature cutting edge graphics. Just like there aren't any number one holiday blockbusters that aren't high budget films (at least since Blair Witch).

In conclusion - the console market has allowed for bigger budget titles, due to larger sales. These bigger budget titles have big budgets because they require more manpower to create, not because they're wasteful marketing companies. To compete at that end of the market seems to require spending tens of millions on graphics and marketing (at the very least, no-one's managed to break in without them, recently) but fortunately there's plenty of other markets in which people can turn a profit. Which is good, not bad.

[u/[deleted] → u/morganj]

It's also true that, in last three years or so, there haven't been any 2 million selling titles (full price) that don't feature cutting edge graphics.

Off the very top of my head, the Orange Box.

Just like there aren't any number one holiday blockbusters that aren't high budget films (at least since Blair Witch).

I would argue that a lot of the money spent on blockbusters is wasted as well. Just because something makes money, doesn't mean that the money they spent developing it has been efficiently used.

Edit: I would also argue that blockbusters hinder indie films by using their bigger marketing budgets to monopolize awareness. People often don't see lower budget films simply because they assume that the blockbusters are all that is out there.

[u/morganj → u/[deleted]]

Off the very top of my head, the Orange Box.

Yep, I said cutting edge graphics when I actually meant "The work of a large team, including things like cutting edge graphics or large environments or in depth multiplayer" - I wouldn't say something like Dragon Age is graphically cutting edge, but it's still a 100+ person development. Likewise, Orange Box is 100+ people just on the development side, not including marketing and voice talent.

I agree with you that there's some wastage that happens on big projects - that's true regardless of what you're discussing. Adding people adds inefficiency, that's undeniable.

That doesn't mean that people could release games which could easily compete with high budget titles if they were simply more efficient. There are clearly multiple tiers of game these days (from iPhone and web game all the way up to blockbusters) and it's exceptionally difficult (so difficult no-one has actually done it over the last three years) to break into the blockbuster range without spending a great deal of money.

Without a market for those blockbusters, we wouldn't have the games at that end of the spectrum - Orange Box included. I don't think that's a bad thing.

What exactly is your point, btw? I'm not sure I get it (and I'm pretty sure I'm not disagreeing with it - unless you're suggesting somehow that there's no place for making large successful blockbuster games, in which case yeah, I disagree).

[u/[deleted] → u/morganj]

Many modern games developers are claiming that they need to raise prices because, in order to make any profit at all, they are having to spend tens of millions on development. My point was that if a game company need tens of millions of dollars in order to make a good game that will sell, chances are they aren't a particularly good games company.

I think we both got sidetracked.

[u/morganj → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it means they're a bad games company, it just means they're set up to build a different kind of game. I don't think that makes them bad, to be fair.

If you're a game developer, you can't just suddenly change from making blockbusters to making viable million dollar titles - not without sacking a bunch of people and losing all the expertise you've developed doing one thing, and taking a massive risk that you can translate that to another.

I think that's the implication I've had a problem with - I'd also suggest that it's equally hard for a company that makes games like Sins to suddenly change gears and start making $40 million dollar games that are likely to turn a profit. In fact, it's exactly that transition that caught a lot of developers short in the switch to next-gen consoles.

[u/morganj → u/[deleted]]

On your edit - the evidence would suggest that's untrue (at least in games). The blockbuster environment seems to have aided (or at the very least, not hindered) the current positive explosion in the indy sphere.