HOO BOY! Here we go again. Tons of comments talking about how it's the QUALITY of the games that keeps them from becoming profitable and causes us to hold onto them. How many of you held onto those "amazing" games you played years ago when the next console came out and you had to trade in the system you played it on to get the new one? My own friend--who swore he'd never sell Skies of Arcadia--suddenly didn't mind so much when he found out how much he could get for trading in all his Dreamcast games. And as I've said before and will say again until people are willing to acknowledge it as a possibility, WE are the ones who are unsatisfied, not the developers. As such, is it "lack of quality" or "absurdly high standards" that causes these games to be so "bad"? I refuse to believe that developers just don't care about pleasing us anymore, especially since many of them were WITH the industry during the supposed "golden years" of the 16-bit and 32-bit eras. A DARE: go back and play all those "classics" you guys who yearn for the old days cherish so much. Come back with a ratio of how many actually DO stand the test of time versus how many don't. I'm guessing your ratio will be below 50%. (TBC)

(continued) Maybe if we as gamers learned to be satisfied with graphics and gameplay not experiencing huge leaps and bounds every couple years, it'd be possible for more games to get made. Instead, we just keep blaming developers and publishers for everything and act like we can have it all ways at once. EVERYTHING has a cost. That's what this recession is showing us. Why can't we grow up a little? I'm not saying I'm not guilty of this stuff. I buy the majority of my games used or for under $25. I do this with the full understanding, however, that I'm not really supporting the industry, and we as gamers are paying the cost for that now. You want more games? More quality games? Then spend your money on them when it's possible for the developers to turn a profit. Otherwise, look forward to a LONG drought in years to come.

I respect your view Mr. Magrino. However, unless you've actually worked for one of these companies before, I don't know that you're qualified to say whether they CAN create a new--and better--business model to work with.? I don't mean to insult all gamers, especially if they don't exhibit these characteristics, but I find it interesting how many of them seem determined to shift blame for everything wrong in the industry onto some other source. The games getting released are too samey? Lazy developers, not our decision to BUY those samey games. Fewer quality titles? The developers just don't care anymore; it's NOT because we don't buy the good games like Okami or Beyond Good and Evil; and it's CERTAINLY not because our standards keep rising at an astronomical rate. Fewer games released in general? Publishers are so focused on profit they won't take any extra risks! When are we as gamers going to stand up and take some of the blame--as we should--for the state "our" industry is in? Call of Duty continues to get made--and avoids changing its ways--because everyone still BUYS it. Unique games like BG&E and Okami don't get made because WE DON'T BUY THEM. And our constantly rising standards in graphics and gameplay demand oogles more money and time than most of us are willing to pay! (TBC)

@SauhlGood I already explained why I think many of your claims as to the alleged lack of quality in our industry don't make sense. I maintain what I said, though I want to add one thing that I didn't even mention on my blog: if the majority of stuff was actually of quality, we wouldn't be able to appreciate it because we wouldn't even know or understand what a BAD game looked like. So in a way, having crap in the industry does as much to HELP our industry as to HURT it. If you don't believe me, here's a basic example from another source: a rich person who spends a week homeless on the streets because s/he is sick of living in a boring mansion will likely end that week understanding just how lucky s/he is to have the option at all, and s/he will probably view that mansion in a much brighter fashion than s/he did before. If the rich person hadn't gone onto the street, s/he wouldn't understand why being homeless is so much less appealing than living in a mansion. Does that make sense? I hope it does. I enjoy debating stuff. That's why I argue the facets of what you're saying. :)

@SauhlGood And why are there many games--like Beyond Good and Evil and Okami--that are regarded as incredible and sell so poorly? My answer is--to borrow something you said in one of your earliest posts--that game making is an ART, not a SCIENCE. If it WERE a science, I'm guessing most of the games WOULD be of quality because making them would be straightforward. But there are so many other factors IMO--like OUR responsibilities as gamers, our psychological states, our constantly rising standards, changes in the industry, and plenty of other stuff--that you can't just say, "DEVELOPERS AND PUBLISHERS ARE SCREWING US, PERIOD" and that's the end of the story. Though to be fair, apparently that's not what you meant; it was apparently just your "general point." I've actually covered a lot of these factors that I think come into play on a blog I posted called "The Blame Game." Read it if you like, though as always, I'd appreciate it if you read it all before commenting on it. (NOTE: Please don't think my post is trying to say this debate is nearly as big a deal as 9/11. I only referenced the death of 3,000 people to make a basic point about presenting other viewpoints.) Yes, I play tons of games. I own more than 500. I can even list the order I bought most of them in. And I don't sell games unless I think they aren't any fun. So no, I don't just go to forums and post economic stuff. I guess I can see why you might think that though. LOL :) (TBC)

@SauhlGood Okay thank you for making clear that you recognize your opinion is not a fact. I apologize for framing the argument the way I did. For me--and this is because of a psychological condition believe it or not--it's almost impossible to tell when someone is stating something as an opinion and when they're claiming something is an undisputed fact unless they expressly say so, and for me that means including qualifying words like "in my opinion." Therefore, when you said, "The majority of games ARE crap" instead of "I THINK the majority of games are crap," it confused me. Not blaming you for anything; just explaining. And yes, I know I'm guilty of not qualifying my statements either, so touche. I believe that your viewpoint--as you said a very relatable one--is a legitimate way to look at this stuff. However, I also believe it's very typical and simple. NOT that it's wrong; only that it's something I've heard a hundred times. My view of the world is that it's very complex, so when I feel something is getting shown in a one-sided fashion, I jump in and try to give it some color. IMO, blaming greed and corporations ENTIRELY for the woes of the industry is easy; it's harder to consider that WE might be to blame also. You say for example that the majority of games are crap and point to bad sales as evidence of that. There might be some truth to that, but then why do many best sellers get such sever criticism from critics? (TBC)

@bub166 No need to apologize for explaining yourself. Frankly, I think the commentators on here that don't bother to read everything someone writes are just afraid they might be forced to rethink their position. It's sad that too many of us don't seem to want to think about these things. Your assessment is a good one, and I think your ideas of providing tutorials for developers and working more closely with 3rd parties to make the hardware developer-friendly are excellent. I DO think it might discourage some from going OUTSIDE of the tutorial to try different things--which is kind of the point of making something different in the first place--but that certainly doesn't mean you should just hand them the tools and say, "Go make me something!" LOL :)

@SauhlGood Cause you're bound to disappoint some of them, including me. Far as I'm concerned, the majority of stuff is worth trying and about half is worth playing. You are not in any way, shape, or form better equipped to decide what I should eat or what anyone else should eat. Finally, I'd happily jump if I was allowed to take a parachute with me. I'm guessing most of those jumpers would have one to. (The point being that circumstances are complicated, not simple.) Sorry I droned on again. It's just not easy to explain it all in a single comment. As before, I hope you read it all. :)

@SauhlGoodI'm not trying to suggest you are stealing bread off anyone's table or even that you're entirely wrong here. What I'm taking issue with is how straightforward you're making this out to be. It's not. Companies are supposed to be profitable, but that isn't always a bad thing. CEOs are in charge of keeping it profitable, but they are also in charge of making their customers happy, making their employees happy, and looking to the future at the same time. As for the majority of games being "crap," that is just your opinion, and opinions don't really count for much when it comes to running a market, and they SHOULDN'T. I personally own a lot of allegedly "crappy" games that I enjoy immensely, and if the market is providing us with crap we don't want and we stop buying it, it will eventually adapt and give us quality instead. When I hear people trying to say our market is "saturated with crap," the arrogance gets under my skin a little. YOU sir don't get to decide what is "crap" and what isn't. That is what markets are for. If you really believe you should be allowed to filter out the stuff that isn't good, I hope you like listening to a bunch of angry customers complaining about you not satisfying their needs. (TBC)

@SauhlGood As for the Activision comment, are you suggesting that EA has not changed? Count the number of big name franchises they had during the PS2/Xbox/GCN era that got sequelized every year. Then count the number of new IPs they've helped create since this generation started (Dead Space, Dante's Inferno, Boom Blox, Rock Band, Brutal Legend...) and count how many of their OLD franchises are still going strong (Need for Speed, Madden, Tiger Woods...). Then ask yourself how many of those franchises--both new and old--get sequels every single year. Do they STILL sound like money-grubbing jerks to you? And if Activision is really the way all publishers behave, then why does Activision get so much more press for being greedy than the other publishers? Don't you think we'd KNOW if the others were behaving the same way? Don't you think someone would come out and say, "Hey! You know what, they treat us the same way over here too!"? Yet from what I understand they haven't. Maybe that's because Activision is the only one crossing the line. And I believe you're wrong. It's the majority of RELEASED games that don't turn a profit. Here's a study from 2008 that shows it: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/202401/news/4-report-is-false-says-forbes-interviewee/ To be fair, that IS 3 years ago and the original report (which said only 4% turn a profit) had to be corrected, but even the corrected statistics showed that only 20% of games make a profit (TBC)