Right, and this is my point. The gradually increasing bit. That's what breaks this model to me, this is why I don't believe the same thing can be repeated without a considerable improvement of the effectiveness of marketing within the industry.
Let's say right now two million is par, below that is unacceptable, that won't always be true of course, and sometimes four million is unacceptable, but for the sake of debate, let's use two million as par for right now.
Right, long term there has to be a breaking point. I'm not suggesting this process can continue forever unabated, I'm just suggesting that it regardless of how this strategem eventually plays out, it is clearly the strategy that is currently being employed, and it is having very significant impacts on "mid tier" development.
This plan absolutely could backfire on the publishers, just as any plan has the possibility to backfire. For example, a company like Valve operates much closer to that "free market" approach we were discussing earlier; the barriers to entry for a digital storefront on the PC are low, and theoretically anyone with a good idea could make one and compete. Some publishers are actually trying, but then you also have other successful models like Good ol Games.
If Valve has stayed on top, it is not because Steam represents an insurmountably expensive challenge for any of the entrepreneurs out there; it is because they make a really, really good product that continues to best the competition.
This plan could backfire, however. What if Ubisoft, as an example, eventually
does make a legitimately better product than Valve does? Well, they don't really have a method to maintain their leadership position. Their leadership relies very heavily on their ability to constantly stay ahead, and if they don't do that, they'll fall behind. By contrast, EA (as an example) could make the world's worst NFL game and it wouldn't matter, they'd still by definition have a monopoly on that market.
What you are highlighting are the weaknesses in the strategy of the big four publishers. I agree, there are weaknesses, and I agree, there are long term problems, and I agree, it could fail. But that could be said of any strategy; I'm not discussing the long term prospects of this strategy, I'm just explaining what the strategy is, what the upsides are, and why these major publishers are employing it.
In other words, my series of posts have not been intended to suggest what publishers should do, or what I think they
will do, or to suggest what is a good idea or what isn't. I'm simply explaining what is happening and why. That is all.