Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

'We are the problem' - Moviebob

1235

Comments

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by threefeet
     

    i dont understand why you guys take the opinions of some schlub you dont even know so seriously. ive never even heard of this bob guy, wtf makes his opinion on ANYTHING relevant. especially an opinion abt video games from someone calling themselves 'moviebob.'

    So this the 'Attack the person not the post as I can't argue rationally' post.

    Gratz!

     

    If my 4 year old nephew tells me that the 'sky is blue', should I dismiss him because he is only a child? Logic is logic, regardless of who is saying it.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    But is aiming for the lowest common denominator actually worth a great deal, beyond some funders/ shareholders making money?  Does it actually enrich us in anyway?  

    Like I said earlier, I enjoy action movies, but I enjoy quality action movies with some thought and talent behind them beside a purely commercial and mercenary exercise to get bums on seats and cash in registers.  The same with books.  To me Dan Brown is toilet paper.  Michael Bay is a waste of time and money.    

    I am not against entertainment for the sake of entertainment; I am against being treated like a mug by someone trying to make a fast buck.  

    You are against a product and that's fine.

    The issue that moviebob has (which I agree with) is to attack that product.

    Don't attack the product as the product can't do anything. It is a 'thing'.

    And if you are attacking the product, be a man and admit what you are truly doing; attacking the customers of that product.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member CommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by TangentPoint
     

    Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.

    Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet,  the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they go on the attack.

    An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.

    Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?

    I don't get it.

    I'd first have to see examples of anyone saying the old-school can't have a game or shouldn't..

    I'd look at the hostility as more a reaction to redundancy than anything else. This same question in whatever form, comes up numerous times a week around here, and it's always the same answer in the end. Hence threads like this, where the other side decides to strike first blood.

    The market (the everyman gamer) sets the trend, and corps follow it until they suck it dry. That's all anyone is ever really saying in these threads, and it comes from more than some anti-old school front (which I still question it's existence). I'm certainly more inclined to the old school ways of MMO gaming. Even I at times facepalm when I see this question brought up time and time again.

     

     

     

    I don't believe it exists either. I think you're right that the hostility is directed towards the poster and the shear volume of times you see it. That and the gamer snob attitude they carry around with them. The words old school never seem to stray to far from the implication that they are basically a higher class of gamer and the peasants are ruining the exclusive club feeling they think it should have.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404

     

    But that doesn't matter.  It makes money.  That's all that counts.  Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you.  James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic.  I hate that movie.  It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.

    Games are the same way.  There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in.  They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing.  They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not.  It's up to you.  Take it or leave it.  Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

    I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.

    AAA titles cost more than indy titles so you're probably right, in the short term at least, indy titles make more ROI than AAA titles do, but they give less than AAA titles do.  But when people start calling for games that appeal to them, they typically call for AAA games that have incredible graphics, huge worlds, superior AI, etc.  You're not likely to get any of that from an indy title.

    I can assure you that this conversation is happening in the board room of many AAA firms

    'if indies are making a higher ROI then we are perhaps we can do what they are doing but on a larger scale.'

    'lets look into it'

    If I was a CEO of a gaming company I would make that reserach project number 1

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer Member Posts: 317
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    But is aiming for the lowest common denominator actually worth a great deal, beyond some funders/ shareholders making money?  Does it actually enrich us in anyway?  

    Like I said earlier, I enjoy action movies, but I enjoy quality action movies with some thought and talent behind them beside a purely commercial and mercenary exercise to get bums on seats and cash in registers.  The same with books.  To me Dan Brown is toilet paper.  Michael Bay is a waste of time and money.    

    I am not against entertainment for the sake of entertainment; I am against being treated like a mug by someone trying to make a fast buck.  

    You are against a product and that's fine.

    The issue that moviebob has (which I agree with) is to attack that product.

    Don't attack the product as the product can't do anything. It is a 'thing'.

    And if you are attacking the product, be a man and admit what you are truly doing; attacking the customers of that product.

    What an odd comment.  I assumed it would be taken as read that in attacking a product I am attacking the producers and purchasers of said product.  

    Semantics.  

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    What an odd comment.  I assumed it would be taken as read that in attacking a product I am attacking the producers and purchasers of said product.  

    Semantics.  

    Not really.

    And here we truly see why 'hating a product' (semantics and all) makes even less sense.

    Re-read what you wrote; you are attacking a customer for buying a product.

    I just bought the latest copy of WoW. And some guy on the interwebs is now attacking me for buying it.

    I just bought an orange or the DVD for Transformers 2 (which I thought was a good popcorn action movie). And some guy on the interwebs is now attacking me for buying it.

    See how little logical sense this makes?

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer Member Posts: 317
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    What an odd comment.  I assumed it would be taken as read that in attacking a product I am attacking the producers and purchasers of said product.  

    Semantics.  

    Not really.

    And here we truly see why 'hating a product' (semantics and all) makes even less sense.

    Re-read what you wrote; you are attacking a customer for buying a product.

    I just bought the latest copy of WoW. And some guy on the interwebs is now attacking me for buying it.

    I just bought an orange or the DVD for Transformers 2 (which I thought was a good popcorn action movie). And some guy on the interwebs is now attacking me for buying it.

    See how little logical sense this makes?

    No, now you are making circular arguments.  If you like that sort of thing, go ahead.  I don't like it and I dislike the fact that people purchasing what are imo inferior products prevent quality products getting produced. 

    What you are missing in all of this is that opinions are subjective; they are like arseholes, we all have one.  You are welcome to yours and I welcome to mine.    

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    No, now you are making circular arguments.  If you like that sort of thing, go ahead.  I don't like it and I dislike the fact that people purchasing what are imo inferior products prevent quality products getting produced. 

    What you are missing in all of this is that opinions are subjective; they are like arseholes, we all have one.  You are welcome to yours and I welcome to mine.    

    This post makes even less sense.

    So 'attacking someone for buying a product' is an 'opinion'? lolwut?

    Also, you dislike someone buying something that you don't like? Wow..... Guess to be in your good graces, I should have the same power company as you, same telephone company as you, the same mobile phone as you.. etc etc..

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • HarikenHariken Member RarePosts: 2,441
    Originally posted by MurlockDance
    Originally posted by jpnz

    In the latest Bob's feature on the escapistmagazine.com (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/9491-Leave-Michael-Bay-Alone), MovieBob has a quote that rings true. 

    'The audience is the problem but you aren't suppose to say that'.

    The 6:30mins video is a look at the movie critics who come out and write 'articles' (lets be honest and say what it actually is; an attack piece to get clicks) on how evil Michael Bay is and how his latest blockbuster is a crime against humanity.

    Movie Bob makes a statement to his fellow critics; we both know the attack articles on Michael Bay isn't about Michael Bay but its audience, the 'Joe Public'. But you aren't allowed to say that. A critic should never place the blame on why a movie succeeds and fails to where it belongs; the movie goers. And I know you know this because I am a movie critic as well so lets drop the lie.

     

    You know what? Just substitute Michael Bay with Blizzard / NCSoft / EA etc and 'latest blockbuster' with 'Latest AAA MMO' and BAM! You have 90% of the thread here ranting about how WoW / themepark killed MMOs.

    I personally don't think there is a 'problem' as I believe in such things as 'free market / capitalism' but it was uncanny on how close the comparison between the message of this video and most 'back in my day threads on this site' were.

    Right! Who's to say who pays what for their entertainment. If people want to go see a Michael Bay movie, that is their business. There seems to be a really bad current happening nowadays that is starting to worry me with nannystateism and rich people or other elistist groups thinking they know better and must control the" idiot masses".

    If someone wants to go see Transformers and leave their brain at home for a bit so that they can unwind from a hard day at work, who is anyone to say they shouldn't? Light entertainment is great if you want to escape for just a little bit. Thank goodness we all lead lifestyles where we have time to engage in entertainment in the first place.

    Same with MMOs. I like some MMOs and some people on here have told me, and others who like the same games as me, that we are idiots for enjoying them. They call people like me "WoW kiddies" and tell people like me that because we have only known WoW we don't know how great all of the oldschool MMOs were and that we don't understand anything about the genre.

    Except that I started out in text-based MUDs prior to there being graphical interfaces for the internet and when you had to use UNIX. I played almost all of the "great" oldschool MMOs and I am sure that I am not the only player who enjoys WoW and the more recent games who started out in the first generation of MMOs.

    To me this boils down to a certain group of people who consider themselves elite and therefore have lost touch with reality. To uphold their beliefs they have to try to control those who obviously prove them wrong. Everything has to be black or white.

     

    Not everyone is going to feel like you when it comes to mmo's and it doesn't make you right either. Its all about taste with anything. I really don't believe i'm elitist for liking older games over new ones. I have never once put anyone down for liking any game. In fact i'm happy they found something they like.

  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer Member Posts: 317
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    No, now you are making circular arguments.  If you like that sort of thing, go ahead.  I don't like it and I dislike the fact that people purchasing what are imo inferior products prevent quality products getting produced. 

    What you are missing in all of this is that opinions are subjective; they are like arseholes, we all have one.  You are welcome to yours and I welcome to mine.    

    This post makes even less sense.

    So 'attacking someone for buying a product' is an 'opinion'? lolwut?

    Also, you dislike someone buying something that you don't like? Wow..... Guess to be in your good graces, I should have the same power company as you, same telephone company as you, the same mobile phone as you.. etc etc..

    You really want to score a point here don't you?  You can have it.  

  • StonesDKStonesDK Member UncommonPosts: 1,805
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    So to sum it up in a few words. Demand determines supply. How is this news?

    It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.

    demand determining supply has always been a myth.

    more so now

    It's only a myth for people who fall into the minority.

    wrong.

     

    stop of a second an think how the process works. really in ANY product. step through the process and you will find that companies only know what people like based on what they (the companies) offer them. on items not offered they have no clue

    I don't think you fully understood what was being said.

     

    If you have product A,B and C where C sells ALOT more than the other two, then they will make a lot more of product C (maybe with a few tweaks here and there). It's that simple. Nothing was said about inventing anything new

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    So to sum it up in a few words. Demand determines supply. How is this news?

    It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.

    demand determining supply has always been a myth.

    more so now

    It's only a myth for people who fall into the minority.

    wrong.

     

    stop of a second an think how the process works. really in ANY product. step through the process and you will find that companies only know what people like based on what they (the companies) offer them. on items not offered they have no clue

    I don't think you fully understood what was being said.

     

    If you have product A,B and C where C sells ALOT more than the other two, then they will make a lot more of product C (maybe with a few tweaks here and there). It's that simple. Nothing was said about inventing anything new

    the myth that demand spurs supply is because the vast majority of options are not supplied to the market place so it creates the illusion that there is not a demand. I know if the market shows porduct A.B.C that if C is most popular of the three then there will be more C. the reason why its a myth is because it doesnt consider the rest of the alphabet.

    The reality of it is that they both feed off each other. Demand is dictated ONLY by what is supplied, and what is supplied the most is dictated by that demand ONLY within those narrow set of parameters

     

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
     

    the myth that demand spurs supply is because the vast majority of options are not supplied to the market place so it creates the illusion that there is not a demand. I know if the market shows porduct A.B.C that if C is most popular of the three then there will be more C. the reason why its a myth is because it doesnt consider the rest of the alphabet.

    The reality of it is that they both feed off each other. Demand is dictated ONLY by what is supplied, and what is supplied the most is dictated by that demand ONLY within those narrow set of parameters

     

    Just because the 'demand' isn't obvious doesn't mean it isn't there.

    The demand for a 'mobile internet device' was there and was always there. It just took an 'Iphone' to make everyone realize it.

    Coming back to this thread, I think it served its purpose in that 'if you want to attack a product, at least be honest to everyone and actually attack the customers.'

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer Member Posts: 317
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
     

    the myth that demand spurs supply is because the vast majority of options are not supplied to the market place so it creates the illusion that there is not a demand. I know if the market shows porduct A.B.C that if C is most popular of the three then there will be more C. the reason why its a myth is because it doesnt consider the rest of the alphabet.

    The reality of it is that they both feed off each other. Demand is dictated ONLY by what is supplied, and what is supplied the most is dictated by that demand ONLY within those narrow set of parameters

     

    Just because the 'demand' isn't obvious doesn't mean it isn't there.

    The demand for a 'mobile internet device' was there and was always there. It just took an 'Iphone' to make everyone realize it.

    Coming back to this thread, I think it served its purpose in that 'if you want to attack a product, at least be honest to everyone and actually attack the customers.'

    But I am not sure it achieved what you think it has.  I can attack a product whilst understanding that with limited options (for example in an oligopoly) people cannot be picky.  

    Plus this idea that we should attack the customers whilst attacking a product is a misunderstanding of criticism.  I can criticise something as a poor product without ripping into the people who enjoy it.  I have said this before and I will say it again, opinions are subjective, we all have them, and thank fuck they are all different or life would be dull.  

    You seem to occupy a white or black spectrum without any understanding of shades of grey.  

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    But I am not sure it achieved what you think it has.  I can attack a product whilst understanding that with limited options (for example in an oligopoly) people cannot be picky.  

    Plus this idea that we should attack the customers whilst attacking a product is a misunderstanding of criticism.  I can criticise something as a poor product without ripping into the people who enjoy it.  I have said this before and I will say it again, opinions are subjective, we all have them, and thank fuck they are all different or life would be dull.  

    You seem to occupy a white or black spectrum without any understanding of shades of grey.  

    How is 'themeparks / WoW-clones' a poor product?

    You 'not liking something' does not equal 'something is a poor product'.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
     

    the myth that demand spurs supply is because the vast majority of options are not supplied to the market place so it creates the illusion that there is not a demand. I know if the market shows porduct A.B.C that if C is most popular of the three then there will be more C. the reason why its a myth is because it doesnt consider the rest of the alphabet.

    The reality of it is that they both feed off each other. Demand is dictated ONLY by what is supplied, and what is supplied the most is dictated by that demand ONLY within those narrow set of parameters

     

    Just because the 'demand' isn't obvious doesn't mean it isn't there.

    The demand for a 'mobile internet device' was there and was always there. It just took an 'Iphone' to make everyone realize it.

    Coming back to this thread, I think it served its purpose in that 'if you want to attack a product, at least be honest to everyone and actually attack the customers.'

    But I am not sure it achieved what you think it has.  I can attack a product whilst understanding that with limited options (for example in an oligopoly) people cannot be picky.  

    Plus this idea that we should attack the customers whilst attacking a product is a misunderstanding of criticism.  I can criticise something as a poor product without ripping into the people who enjoy it.  I have said this before and I will say it again, opinions are subjective, we all have them, and thank fuck they are all different or life would be dull.  

    You seem to occupy a white or black spectrum without any understanding of shades of grey.  

    my only point here is that 'demand creates supply' is an economic myth.

    nothing more

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer Member Posts: 317
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by TheQuietGamer
     

    But I am not sure it achieved what you think it has.  I can attack a product whilst understanding that with limited options (for example in an oligopoly) people cannot be picky.  

    Plus this idea that we should attack the customers whilst attacking a product is a misunderstanding of criticism.  I can criticise something as a poor product without ripping into the people who enjoy it.  I have said this before and I will say it again, opinions are subjective, we all have them, and thank fuck they are all different or life would be dull.  

    You seem to occupy a white or black spectrum without any understanding of shades of grey.  

    How is 'themeparks / WoW-clones' a poor product?

    You 'not liking something' does not equal 'something is a poor product'.

    as I said, subjective. 

  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,619

    The phrase "A watched pot never boils", comes to mind in these types of debates. An mmo launching with questing, crafting, dungeons, raids, guild systems, mounts, multiple PvP venues and we call it a wow clone. Which is funny because not only did wow not have most of those features, neither did most of our favorite old school sandboxes and more open ended mmos. Think about how long it took for swg to get mounts, let alone player cities and our classes even half working. But we waited it out and eventually after almost a year we got some of that stuff. Some stuff we never got. But now people shoot down mmos in beta that have more working features than swg ever did.

    Am I the only one seeing this? Lol

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by TangentPoint
     

    Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.

    Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet,  the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they go on the attack.

    An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.

    Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?

    I don't get it.

    I'd first have to see examples of anyone saying the old-school can't have a game or shouldn't..

    I'd look at the hostility as more a reaction to redundancy than anything else. This same question in whatever form, comes up numerous times a week around here, and it's always the same answer in the end. Hence threads like this, where the other side decides to strike first blood.

    The market (the everyman gamer) sets the trend, and corps follow it until they suck it dry. That's all anyone is ever really saying in these threads, and it comes from more than some anti-old school front (which I still question it's existence). I'm certainly more inclined to the old school ways of MMO gaming. Even I at times facepalm when I see this question brought up time and time again.

     

     

     

    I don't believe it exists either. I think you're right that the hostility is directed towards the poster and the shear volume of times you see it. That and the gamer snob attitude they carry around with them. The words old school never seem to stray to far from the implication that they are basically a higher class of gamer and the peasants are ruining the exclusive club feeling they think it should have.

    Agreed, and I think that's what it mostly boils down to, the whole keep it underground and exclusive attitude, I grew up around that in a certain music scene, and see a lot of similarities between those inclined to those beliefs there,  in the gaming world here.

    It's in the title of the genre in this case though... Massive... It's a genre made for mass consumption, it was never an invite only party.

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • TibernicuspaTibernicuspa Member UncommonPosts: 1,199
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    An mmo launching with questing, crafting, dungeons, raids, guild systems, mounts, multiple PvP venues and we call it a wow clone.  Er, no, we call MMOs that have the same questing, crafting, dungeon/raiding system and PvP system as WoW, a WoW clone. Do you know how many different ways pre WoW MMOs did those systems? Dozens. No one called them clones because they were nothing alike. It's very obvious what a WoW clone is, because you can FEEL the publisher sticking their nose in the product to make it more like WoW. Which is funny because not only did wow not have most of those features, neither did most of our favorite old school sandboxes and more open ended mmos. Just about every pre WoW MMO I played had those things, actually.

    You also have to keep in mind the modern MMO budgets are about 50x larger than the MMOs of the past, yet most of them have even fewer features.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    An mmo launching with questing, crafting, dungeons, raids, guild systems, mounts, multiple PvP venues and we call it a wow clone.  Er, no, we call MMOs that have the same questing, crafting, dungeon/raiding system and PvP system as WoW, a WoW clone. Do you know how many different ways pre WoW MMOs did those systems? Dozens. No one called them clones because they were nothing alike. It's very obvious what a WoW clone is, because you can FEEL the publisher sticking their nose in the product to make it more like WoW. Which is funny because not only did wow not have most of those features, neither did most of our favorite old school sandboxes and more open ended mmos. Just about every pre WoW MMO I played had those things, actually.

    You also have to keep in mind the modern MMO budgets are about 50x larger than the MMOs of the past, yet most of them have even fewer features.

    EXACTLY!

    and nobody seems to have a good answer as to why...I know I dont

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404

     

    But that doesn't matter.  It makes money.  That's all that counts.  Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you.  James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic.  I hate that movie.  It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.

    Games are the same way.  There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in.  They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing.  They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not.  It's up to you.  Take it or leave it.  Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

    I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.

    AAA titles cost more than indy titles so you're probably right, in the short term at least, indy titles make more ROI than AAA titles do, but they give less than AAA titles do.  But when people start calling for games that appeal to them, they typically call for AAA games that have incredible graphics, huge worlds, superior AI, etc.  You're not likely to get any of that from an indy title.

    I can assure you that this conversation is happening in the board room of many AAA firms

    'if indies are making a higher ROI then we are perhaps we can do what they are doing but on a larger scale.'

    'lets look into it'

    If I was a CEO of a gaming company I would make that reserach project number 1

    And I trust you will produce demonstrable evidence how you know any of that.  Oh wait, you're just making it up!  We get it now!

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,619


    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa
    Originally posted by Foomerang An mmo launching with questing, crafting, dungeons, raids, guild systems, mounts, multiple PvP venues and we call it a wow clone.  Er, no, we call MMOs that have the same questing, crafting, dungeon/raiding system and PvP system as WoW, a WoW clone. Do you know how many different ways pre WoW MMOs did those systems? Dozens. No one called them clones because they were nothing alike. It's very obvious what a WoW clone is, because you can FEEL the publisher sticking their nose in the product to make it more like WoW. Which is funny because not only did wow not have most of those features, neither did most of our favorite old school sandboxes and more open ended mmos. Just about every pre WoW MMO I played had those things, actually.
    You also have to keep in mind the modern MMO budgets are about 50x larger than the MMOs of the past, yet most of them have even fewer features.

    Bleh I'm done with this type of thread. Blame away, be my guest. Maybe next week ill pick up the gauntlet when another clone of this topic pops up.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404

     

    But that doesn't matter.  It makes money.  That's all that counts.  Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you.  James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic.  I hate that movie.  It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.

    Games are the same way.  There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in.  They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing.  They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not.  It's up to you.  Take it or leave it.  Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

    I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.

    AAA titles cost more than indy titles so you're probably right, in the short term at least, indy titles make more ROI than AAA titles do, but they give less than AAA titles do.  But when people start calling for games that appeal to them, they typically call for AAA games that have incredible graphics, huge worlds, superior AI, etc.  You're not likely to get any of that from an indy title.

    I can assure you that this conversation is happening in the board room of many AAA firms

    'if indies are making a higher ROI then we are perhaps we can do what they are doing but on a larger scale.'

    'lets look into it'

    If I was a CEO of a gaming company I would make that reserach project number 1

    And I trust you will produce demonstrable evidence how you know any of that.  Oh wait, you're just making it up!  We get it now!

    of course not. please dont be stupid (I mean less inteligent then you are so that I dont get mod slapped)

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Cephus404

     

    But that doesn't matter.  It makes money.  That's all that counts.  Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you.  James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic.  I hate that movie.  It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.

    Games are the same way.  There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in.  They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing.  They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not.  It's up to you.  Take it or leave it.  Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

    I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.

    AAA titles cost more than indy titles so you're probably right, in the short term at least, indy titles make more ROI than AAA titles do, but they give less than AAA titles do.  But when people start calling for games that appeal to them, they typically call for AAA games that have incredible graphics, huge worlds, superior AI, etc.  You're not likely to get any of that from an indy title.

    I can assure you that this conversation is happening in the board room of many AAA firms

    'if indies are making a higher ROI then we are perhaps we can do what they are doing but on a larger scale.'

    'lets look into it'

    If I was a CEO of a gaming company I would make that reserach project number 1

    And I trust you will produce demonstrable evidence how you know any of that.  Oh wait, you're just making it up!  We get it now!

    of course not. please dont be stupid (I mean less inteligent then you are so that I dont get mod slapped)

    Then try raising the quality of your discussion so we don't have to go to the lowest common denominator.  You make claims that you cannot support, that you do not defend, and expect people to take you seriously.

    Nobody is.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

Sign In or Register to comment.