No, the whole thread is about them claiming that they are not going to push that much on that side... And we have yet to see how that's going to work for them.
Again, quoting from your previous post:
"You won't find anyone willing to publish a sequel on a "next gen console" who isn't going to try the impossible to make it look significantly better than the previous title."
I think I found one. This just means they may realise that graphics aren't the most important thing.
If anything, it just proved that when you are reaching new customers previously unused to gaming, they don't have any standard.
That's a value judgment, and besides being offensive and maybe allowing you to feel superior, it is completely unacceptable as an argument.
I wonder if that will be the case even when these people, now casual gamers, are going to consider the purchase of a second system after the first one.
Many of these customers that still don't care about graphics etc are also the kind of persons that will think "I don't need new videogames, I have already that Nintendo thing under my TV and it still works".
Sorry but this psychologising stuff is just baseless speculation. The reason is it's not really an argument is that it's easy to make these things up both for and against any point you want to make. You need to be able to support such an argument with actual data (polls or whatever) for it to make sense.
Because it's true. The next COD on PS4/Nextbox isn't going to expand maps, improve A.I. and offer longer single player campaigns. It's simply going to look a bit prettier, as much as hardware specification will consent.
And if it only does that, without anything else, it will fade as the "top" franchise and something else will take its place. It's not a bad thing really and it'll "just" become a "mature" major franchise (like maybe Madden or GTA I guess). But again: that someone will make decisions based on the principle of "graphics sells best" does NOT in ANY WAY mean it's true.
That's what most developers are going to do, they are going to minor incremental improvements because it's way more easy to sell the idea of improvement with a prettier trailer than with substantial improvements in design, size, innovation.
Your original claim was that they do it BECAUSE IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING SALES-WISE, not because it's easier or whatever. Should I quote you a third time?
This is becoming boring.
If you know yourself that isn't a direct, mandatory correlation between graphics and budget, that the increase in cost isn't intrinsecally unavoidable, just stop riding the same stupid attempt to advocate for cheaper hardware.
I know that it COULD IN THEORY happen otherwise but it NEVER HAS so far. Possibility vs reality. I know there is the theoretical possibility, it was always there, but it somehow never worked that way. I think the reason for this lies in the structure of the market, not in technology. Which is exactly why I'm saying it'd make more sense for developers to focus on lower production cost games, maybe on the Wii U, than compete in technology on the higher tech consoles.
And for the record, this is what increases development costs more often than not:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=484151
The push for better hardware and its particular use stems from the same roots, I agree. And of course lower tech hardware is not the "ultimate" and best solution. It would limit the amount of money you could spend on games so it may make some sense.
No, it's not irrelevant. It's the main point. It's what makes the whole "we need weaker hardware to save the industry" hilariously stupid.
They are irrelevant because I NEVER CLAIMED that it was *theoretically* impossible to keep development costs down on better hardware for technical reasons. The reason "weaker hardware" could (or could have in the past generation) helped the industry stay more competitive is because it would have imposed limits and would have made competition more fair.
You don't need weaker hardware. Weaker hardware doesn't make development cheaper. It can even make it more challenging and problematic at times.
You need to learn how to waste less of your budget in bad ways.
If it competes, as a secondary port-machine, with stronger hardware. But if it simply limits the ultimate high-end costs, it could in theory make a market more competitive. The reason it will not work is because it's a cooperative strategy: both MS and Sony would need to release relatively lower powered platforms, and MS would imo gain a pretty large advantage in releasing better hardware. Sony may imo be "doomed" mostly for this reason. Whatever they do, MS can respond and gain a better position.
But anyway. I'm done. I'm way too old to argue with kids tbh.
