hardware improvements of the Switch 2 could affect development costs
I’ve never understood this. Yeah, better hardware means you can spend more time making a more complex product, but that doesn’t mean you have to. You can make an OG Switch capable game for the Switch 2 and charge less for it than larger games. If the game is fun, it’ll sell well.
Look at Pico Park, I can count the polygons on one hand and it’s one of my kids’ favorite games. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could port it to a gameboy without losing anything important. I want more games like that, because they get great battery life and are tons of fun at parties. Half the games I play on the Steam Deck also run just fine on my 8yo laptop w/ integrated graphics.
You don’t need to spend years building a game that struggles to hit 30 FPS, spend under a year and make a fun game with no framerate concerns. Spend 1/4 the time and charge half the price and I’ll probably get it.
You have to include the risk of not succeeding. Without high graphical fidelity to differentiate yourself, you’re forced to compete on gameplay alone. Large companies like Nintendo do not know how to make hits reliably. That’s why Nintendo keeps recycling old franchises.
Look at all of the indie games that no one plays. There are thousands and thousands of developers out there making games. The vast majority of them never succeed. It’s just like trying to become a New York Times best selling author. Notice how Disney hasn’t cracked the novel as a medium. That’s why they spend all their money on big budget Star Wars and Marvel movies and TV shows.
Well yeah, most indie games suck. If I pick a random game from Steam, the chance of it sucking is pretty high. Indie games fight an uphill battle of marketing and standing out from the crowd.
Some indie games rock, the problem is finding them. AAA solves this with massive marketing budgets.
Notice how Disney hasn’t cracked the novel as a medium.
It’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy writ large. You can always pick the winners after the games are written. The hard part is picking a winner of a game beforehand.
Those are books published by Disney written by established individual authors. They’re not gang-writing books the way they make movies.
Sure, Disney acts as a publisher, but I think it would be naive to think that they don’t direct the content of those books. Likewise, I imagine they use a lot of Disney outsiders for their movies as well as part of the production process. At the end of the day, it doesn’t exactly matter whether it’s Disney staffers doing the writing or someone on the outside, it’s being published under the Disney brand.
The question is: did Disney commission the Percy Jackson series or did Rick Riordan shop around for publishers like a traditional book author and happen to get picked up by Disney?
I guess the point was that if you have a very low performance ceiling it acts as an equalizer of sorts. An indie developer doesn’t need to be as much concerned with competing with big AAA publisher if the end product will not differ that much in graphics and graphics, for better or worse, sell games.
Hmm, I guess I’m weird then, because graphics don’t excite me very much. If a game is good, I don’t really care how detailed the graphics are, as long as the art style is good.
This is the rational opinion. Which should be enough to let you know that it’s not the majority opinion. Consumers, as a collective, are nearly braindead.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I’ve never understood this. Yeah, better hardware means you can spend more time making a more complex product, but that doesn’t mean you have to. You can make an OG Switch capable game for the Switch 2 and charge less for it than larger games. If the game is fun, it’ll sell well.
Look at Pico Park, I can count the polygons on one hand and it’s one of my kids’ favorite games. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could port it to a gameboy without losing anything important. I want more games like that, because they get great battery life and are tons of fun at parties. Half the games I play on the Steam Deck also run just fine on my 8yo laptop w/ integrated graphics.
You don’t need to spend years building a game that struggles to hit 30 FPS, spend under a year and make a fun game with no framerate concerns. Spend 1/4 the time and charge half the price and I’ll probably get it.
You have to include the risk of not succeeding. Without high graphical fidelity to differentiate yourself, you’re forced to compete on gameplay alone. Large companies like Nintendo do not know how to make hits reliably. That’s why Nintendo keeps recycling old franchises.
Look at all of the indie games that no one plays. There are thousands and thousands of developers out there making games. The vast majority of them never succeed. It’s just like trying to become a New York Times best selling author. Notice how Disney hasn’t cracked the novel as a medium. That’s why they spend all their money on big budget Star Wars and Marvel movies and TV shows.
Well yeah, most indie games suck. If I pick a random game from Steam, the chance of it sucking is pretty high. Indie games fight an uphill battle of marketing and standing out from the crowd.
Some indie games rock, the problem is finding them. AAA solves this with massive marketing budgets.
They have.
It’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy writ large. You can always pick the winners after the games are written. The hard part is picking a winner of a game beforehand.
Those are books published by Disney written by established individual authors. They’re not gang-writing books the way they make movies.
Sure, Disney acts as a publisher, but I think it would be naive to think that they don’t direct the content of those books. Likewise, I imagine they use a lot of Disney outsiders for their movies as well as part of the production process. At the end of the day, it doesn’t exactly matter whether it’s Disney staffers doing the writing or someone on the outside, it’s being published under the Disney brand.
The question is: did Disney commission the Percy Jackson series or did Rick Riordan shop around for publishers like a traditional book author and happen to get picked up by Disney?
Yeah, idk. I’m guessing it’s one of those cases where he started solo, then Disney noticed and paid him to publish w/ them.
I guess the point was that if you have a very low performance ceiling it acts as an equalizer of sorts. An indie developer doesn’t need to be as much concerned with competing with big AAA publisher if the end product will not differ that much in graphics and graphics, for better or worse, sell games.
Hmm, I guess I’m weird then, because graphics don’t excite me very much. If a game is good, I don’t really care how detailed the graphics are, as long as the art style is good.
This is the rational opinion. Which should be enough to let you know that it’s not the majority opinion. Consumers, as a collective, are nearly braindead.