How many companies went bankrupt or were bought by rivals...blah blah false attribution
Contrary to your own strange views on economics...
1. Dozens very successful companies file for bankruptcy protection every year. It's not a negative. It doesn't mean the company goes out of business. It's not the same as individual bankruptcy. You cannot file for bankruptcy protection if you aren't profitable. Keep in mind: both Apple and Microsoft QUALIFY for bankruptcy protection. Are they failing companies?
2. As any economist will tell you, a climate where larger companies are willing to take on questionable smaller companies--their debt and liabilities--is an incredibly good climate. Even at the top economic times in the US, most major companies in a given industry wouldn't touch their smaller competitors. That shows how strong and vibrant the PC software market is.
3. "Poor sales" put publishers out of business. And no major publishers went out of business in 2009. Software companies don't make big money from people buying their games. They make the vast majority of their money from deals with publishers before their games are sold.
[Edited by Dhampy, 1/21/2010 1:29:17 PM]
DAB, you sound VERY embittered by this entire argument.
Dhampy's points are spot on, while yours seem fairly tainted by bitterness and lack of research.
It doesn't matter if you've done what you say you've done, making an entire game from the ground up is different from what you've done by a long shot. Let's see you work with an entire developer's suite to assemble your small part of a gigantic group effort.
What you've said you've done pales in comparison to the actual work and collaboration required to make even a semi-working product.
And another thing, publishers and developers buy each other out for many reasons.
Remember the Activision acquisition/purchase of Blizzard? Why would Blizzard allow itself to be bought when WoW is literally still printing money by the truck full? And why would Activision pay through the nose to get a company that would cost so much to acquire? Because they get to share in a now mutual profit from each other's intellectual properties. For example, Activision now has a big cash influx from WoW, and Blizzard, who was acquired, gets paid exponentially for any new titles they make under Activision, not to mention their regular salary.
Saying a company went under because it was purchased by a bigger company is the epitome of ignorance of the way the market works.
PC gaming is being kept alive by the enthusiasts who continue to purchase the hardware to run the latest and greatest. So long as the Nvidia and ATI war is being waged, there will always be games made to push the limit and continue the war. ATI and Nvidia have a LOT to lose should the PC become a non-issue in gaming. They can't subsist on selling millions of the same exact low-cost part to Sony and Microsoft, their bread and butter is their exclusive PC video cards which at the highest can cost over a grand each. They're bound to give some incentives to companies to make and publish PC-centric titles and above-average Console-to-PC ports.
I once worked for Team 17. True Story. In Dundee.
I fully understand game development and whats involved, do you? So its different from what ive done? Hmmmm...
Like I said DirectX API programming is a must these days, and I knows it.
Not embittered as such, just disappointed in kids these days who dont value anything. If they want quality games to be pumped out continuously they have to help by purchasing.
Ever wonder why Square stopped allowing Final Fantasy's to be released on the PC? Im sure ive mentioned this before. And where did MGS3 and 4 go? And GTA4 nearly never made it to the PC.
Why? Because developers are becoming more wary of releasing onto PC when a huge percentage of a potential market is actually stealing games rather than buying them.
In a few years time its the same kids who will be forced onto consoles, and then they will complain about the lack of PC coverage. And its themselves to blame.
The only company I've seen take care of their released software well is Blizzard Entertainment. As for sales and whatnot, it's depended on consumer reaction. You can put all the work you want into a game and have it flop like a fish out of the water in the market. You can see it well if you expand your view of a game to other parts of the world and watch it succeed in one area of the world and completely fail in another part.
Different consoles and systems require ports which require time and more effort. When a 3rd party does it, it's really a gamble buying it once the port is done. A good example of it being Dead Space which I heard was really good on the console systems but when it was ported to the PC by a 3rd party, the controls suffered significantly (still playable but not as enjoyable on the PS3).
Look at Blizzard and the development of StarCraft II: They are committing to making it compatible both on PC and on a Mac. Since it's being programmed by the same company, I have high expectations of it being a good port (where as the original StarCraft flops around when some maps are played on a Mac and make the application crash. Found this out the hard way trying to play on Python against a person).
PC development has different developer kits than the PS3 or 360 and when functions and programming languages clash hard, it may be a compromise to how well you can port a game over from one system to another. Can it be done? Sure...anything is possible if you're willing to put in a lot of hard work. In practice where you want to stick with one developer kit, usually compromise is impossible to avoid.
Oh yeah...and so DABhand can nit-pick at my experience:
-One course on background of game developing (theory side)
-One course of practical experience on Torque Game Engine (lol primitive)
[Edited by Neo7, 1/21/2010 2:09:39 PM]
I wasnt nitpicking at anyones experience foxxie was.
Agreed PS3 and X360's development tools are indeed different, but they are still compiled on PC's. :P
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics