But here's the thing: Who is pushing the idea that people want the God of War cow? Are players really asking for that, or is it a fantasy on the part of publishers?
Publishers definitely like the idea of pumping up their games with unnecessarily large budgets, even though it works against them on a risk/reward basis, because, at least in theory, throwing money into a game will lead to a work of higher quality than the competition. And internally, everyone in charge of such projects can fall back on the prestige and instant attention assumed from having such an obviously detailed, polished work.
And yet Nintendo has never felt much need to compete on that level. They give their games plenty of marketing, for sure, but product development stays pretty tight. As far as the public knows, they never let a product explode into a monumental 4-year effort. But their games are still good and still attract a sizable audience, and they've had the most success of the big publishers in substantially expanding the game market.
Comparing the two approaches, I take the opinion that most of the console publishers are overextending themselves with an outdated strategy. It was more compelling to try to push the budget upwards in past eras, where the technology was just barely making new things possible each time, and the market was full of early-adopter types who wanted to see the shiniest thing around. But the differences between the best-looking games of 2011 and the best-looking games of 2006 are pretty subtle to the uninitiated viewer, nothing like the gap between any previous five-year comparison. And the overall trend of gaming has been towards more accessibility and less (overt) complexity. So our notions of quality have to change with it, and that greatly upsets the balance of power in game development.
>Who is pushing the idea that people want the God of War cow?
The people buying games? God of War 3 moved 1.1 million units in a single month[1] at ~$60 retail. Minecraft just topped 1 million units total last week, at $13-20 a piece.
This isn't taking away from Minecraft's success at all -- and what was essentially a one-man show making $15M+ off a single title is absolutely phenomenal success -- but I think it's silly trying to directly compare the two given the differences in scale. Neither is a replacement for the other.
internally, everyone in charge of such projects can fall back on the prestige and instant attention assumed from having such an obviously detailed, polished work.
Reminds me of what I heard happened with American cars. The more space your team's components had under the hood, the more prestige you had in the company. As a result, American cars kept on getting bigger and bigger. American companies kept on ignoring the small car market, which left an inroad for foreign companies.
Who is pushing the idea that people want the God of War cow?
That question is almost entirely irrelevant. Here are some relevant questions:
1. Is the game entertaining? (If so, why?)
2. Do enough people buy the game to cover development costs?
3. Do the people involved in the project feel they are fairly compensated for their work?
4. Do the people involved in the project derive satisfaction from their work?
Publishers definitely like the idea of pumping up their games with unnecessarily large budgets, even though it works against them on a risk/reward basis, because, at least in theory, throwing money into a game will lead to a work of higher quality than the competition.
I don't have much game industry experience but from what I've seen of business in general there are different parties pushing in either direction and a final budget is a product of negotiation and chance. I doubt such a generalization about the game industry is actually true.
Comparing the two approaches, I take the opinion that most of the console publishers are overextending themselves with an outdated strategy.
Fortunately, there are more than two approaches to game development.
Good point. I'm pretty sure most people I know would prefer the harmless, funny, boxy cow. The audience for casual, simple, social games dwarfs the audience for 'xbox' brute-force violence style gaming.
Publishers definitely like the idea of pumping up their games with unnecessarily large budgets, even though it works against them on a risk/reward basis, because, at least in theory, throwing money into a game will lead to a work of higher quality than the competition. And internally, everyone in charge of such projects can fall back on the prestige and instant attention assumed from having such an obviously detailed, polished work.
And yet Nintendo has never felt much need to compete on that level. They give their games plenty of marketing, for sure, but product development stays pretty tight. As far as the public knows, they never let a product explode into a monumental 4-year effort. But their games are still good and still attract a sizable audience, and they've had the most success of the big publishers in substantially expanding the game market.
Comparing the two approaches, I take the opinion that most of the console publishers are overextending themselves with an outdated strategy. It was more compelling to try to push the budget upwards in past eras, where the technology was just barely making new things possible each time, and the market was full of early-adopter types who wanted to see the shiniest thing around. But the differences between the best-looking games of 2011 and the best-looking games of 2006 are pretty subtle to the uninitiated viewer, nothing like the gap between any previous five-year comparison. And the overall trend of gaming has been towards more accessibility and less (overt) complexity. So our notions of quality have to change with it, and that greatly upsets the balance of power in game development.