@SauhlGood I don't recall saying the industry was dying at all. I recall saying the profits are not as great as we make them out to be. When we hear someone say $10.2 billion in revenue, many of us automatically think of a big CEO swimming in that money; we don't stop to consider that when you subtract all the costs, the CEO might not have that much left, and I'm guessing neither do most of the other big cheeses, though to be fair this is just my opinion and my statistics to back it up pretty much amount to my classes in economics. I can't say I know how much CEOs typically make, though I'm guessing it's around $1 million a year, which is not even remotely CLOSE to the revenue that gets pulled in. The reason money passes through so many hands is because developers don't want to handle everything themselves. Sure, Valve manages to, but how often do they release games? Isn't this like the 4th year since The Orange Box got released and STILL no Episode 3? Developers let publishers publish their stuff because marketing games requires more money and staff than they can afford themselves. But they won't publish without an incentive, so the money HAS to go through those hands. If they want most of that money for themselves, they need to be willing to work harder for it.(TBC)

@SauhlGood (continued) This is not a gigantic black and white chessboard we live on; it's a gigantic onion. In some ways, WE are responsible for our industry being screwed up; in other ways, it's the fault of developers. But no matter how you slice an onion, there is NO EASY WAY to stop it from smelling. The same applies here. If you're unhappy with what the industry is doing, then vote with your money by not spending it. Otherwise, consider yourself partially to blame for Call of Duty showing up each year. PHEW! I'm done. Here's hoping you actually chose to be patient and read all of this. :)

@SauhlGood (continued) It's ALL about the money? Well I'm curious, did you know that the VAST MAJORITY of games actually don't turn a profit at all? Funny how an industry that is "all about the money" somehow continues to release so many products when most won't even make them money, don't you think? Or perhaps it does make sense...because it's NOT all about the money. Yes, companies need to turn a profit because that's how they manage to continue operating, but it's hardly ALL about the money; it's about trying to make SOME money while providing products and keeping people at work. And if you're going to try and pull figures showing the revenue Activision brings in, let me show you the definition of "revenue": money that is made at the stores. The "PROFIT" is actually that revenue MINUS the costs to make the game. So really, the PROFITS--which are apparently what this is all about in your mind--are not nearly as big as people think they are. And even THEN, most of that money doesn't go into the pockets of the company owners, but right back into the business so it can continue to operate. Yes, there is generally enough profit that the CEO can afford a new boat, but s/he is generally running a gigantic operation anyway, so who's to say they haven't EARNED that money? (TBC)

@SauhlGood (continued) The evidence of how WE (indirectly) control the market is everywhere. Gamers just refuse to acknowledge it because that means taking some of the blame for how "bad" our industry has become. You mentioned Activision overworking its employees. Well, do you remember EA from LAST generation? THEY were just as bad as Activision. Why don't we rag on them anymore though? The short answer is because they changed. Here's the longer one: -EA got money hungry -Developers got overworked as a result -Consumers started to notice a significant drop in quality for EA titles -Developers sued for being overworked -Consumers caught onto EA's business practices and stopped buying their products as readily -EA started to lose ground and money in the market -EA changed its development philosophies and started treating employees better -EA is now responsible for some of the best new franchises this generation and the unique EA Partners setup that allows developers to maintain control of their IPs; hence why ZAMPELLA AND WEST went over to the former money-grubbing company THIS ladies and gentlemen is probably what is around the corner for Activision. You don't just overwork employees--as you seem to think--without suffering consequences at some point and needing to ADAPT. That's how markets work. So pretty much all your complaints only deal with what you see on the surface; they don't seem to be very well thought out. No offense.(TBC)

@SauhlGood (continued)The old 16 bit days had just as much in the way of cookie-cutter sequels and imitators, and you could argue that there might have been more innovation, but is that because the developers were trying harder, or because there was actually more land to explore? People, when you farm your land, it's not like your property doesn't have any borders. Eventually, you're going to run out of land to explore and cultivate. Just look at a lot of the "original" stuff that comes out today. From a technical standpoint, a lot of it is just the same old stuff cooked in a different way. From a purely technical standpoint, I believe the last truly new "crop" we came across was Katamari Damacy, and consumer demand has caused that to become sequelized and stale like everything else. Yes, you read that right: WE caused it to become stale. Markets are designed to give people what they ask for. They might not do so immediately (hence the term "economic lag") but ultimately we get what we ask for. If we're all so irritated with the direction the industry is going, here's a thought: don't support it with money anymore. Do that, and it'll have to adapt to please us. Instead, we complain about how it's all about the money and not about innovating, but WE are the ones that PAID the money! You don't want Call of Duty every year? Stop buying it every time it comes out.(TBC)

@SauhlGood You misread my comment. I wasn't quoting myself; I was quoting what other people generally say to me: they refuse to read MY walls of text instead of being patient and keeping an open mind. I have no problem reading yours. How convenient it is for you not to need to provide proof but instead demand I go find it myself. Maybe that's because you simply don't have any. Here's a little lesson in economics for you: Yes, companies jumped on the wagon when they realized they could make money through games. As a result, we have many more choices than we did in the 16 bit days. You can piss and moan all you like about how profits ruin things, but unless you're someone who's willing to go down to Albertsons and volunteer his time as a courtesy clerk without getting paid for it, you'll probably understand what profits do: they actually give people incentive to DO things. Remove that from the equation, and we'll have significantly less to choose from. We might not get much at all.(TBC)

@SauhlGood I take it you have spoken to enough developers to be able to confirm their true motivations, else you wouldn't come on here and claim to know how they functioned in the 16-bit days versus today, right? Or at least, you HAVE developed a game so you know how the finances worked and that it was totally feasible for a developer to focus entirely on the game and not worry about paying its employees, right? Okay sorry. That was probably a dick thing to say. However, I respectfully believe you aren't demonstrating an understanding of how markets work. But instead of doing what I usually do--which is post 15 comments explaining my position, thereby making myself look like a preacher and encouraging people to just ignore me ("I'm not reading that whole wall o' text!!)--I'm gonna try something different: tell me your evidence. If you're willing, I'll explain why I think you're getting a lot of this wrong, but I'll wait for a reply first. HAVE you developed a game? DO you have evidence?

5) I don't think Nintendo left its consumers wanting in the graphics department because they wanted to. Nintendo doesn't have the resources that Microsoft and Sony does. They were probably left with either upping the technology or taking a real risk. Even if it's not fair to ask gamers to compromise, I don't think Nintendo had a choice. And I think they made the braver decision. I think it's a lot easier to just keep upping the graphics and pretending that makes things okay. It's more dangerous to try and reinvent the wheel. Whether they succeeded or not, I respect them for taking that chance. Okay. Sorry if it sounded like I was preaching. :)

4) I'm tired of listening to gamers complain how they shouldn't have to make sacrifices at all. Seriously people, back in the day we were MORE than willing to work at having our fun. Why did we suddenly become entitled brats? From a fundamental standpoint, saying that there's no reason we can't have both graphics and gameplay without some kind of sacrifice doesn't take everything into consideration. We can certainly have both...if we are willing to WAIT. But even then, I take a look at the games with the best graphics--like Crysis, Call of Duty, and God of War--and I see games that are not doing anything even remotely close to unique or original. Meanwhile the less graphically proficient stuff on Wii is coming across to me as very different and interesting. From a fundamental standpoint, acting like there's no downside to getting amazing graphics disregards how games have to get made. Just ask a typical developer: a lot more time has to be spent getting the graphics right than the gameplay in modern day games trying to "push the envelope," as opposed to the other stuff that focuses more on gameplay.(TBC)

2) We all want to see the Big 3 push forward with new and interesting technology, but what exactly IS new and interesting technology? Is making things look more real than they already do going to get people excited all that much when its already hard to tell the difference between live action movies and video games? I personally doubt it That doesnt necessarily mean gimmicks will get people excited but if graphics wont what do you suggest instead? I know its not our job as consumers to actually have the answers but sometimes I cant help but wonder why we won't come out and suggest any feasible solutions or ideas to problems we complain so readily about 3) If I suggested that graphics didn't matter at all then I apologize because that was not my intention. However the extreme you took it to-albeit for just a moment-is a technique I've seen many people (not just in entertainment but in politics as well) use to try and dodge a fundamental truth Not that thats what you were necessarily doing but suggesting that those of us saying graphics dont matter as much are saying we'd be just as happy playing games with Atari graphics is going a few miles past reasonable IMO I think we know that graphics matter but when a guy feels totally justified complaining that a game with cutting edge graphics somehow loses its luster because he views it on a different TV where its just a LITTLE bit blurrier I think it's safe to say we've gotten too friggin rigid and demanding in our expectations(TBC)