S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 - by clearing
Sulphur on 31/8/2010 at 08:26
in a civilised world, man wouldn't need money
Briareos H on 31/8/2010 at 08:52
Fallacious argument. It is our role as gamers to ensure the living standard of developers of games we love. Ideally, should they go out of business it's either because they become greedy and therefore don't deserve to continue, or because we fail providing enough revenue and they die(1). Such is the logic of art(2).
Selling your soul as a way to survive is still selling your soul. In a civilised world man would stop buying games when they start sucking or being made for money.
Of course, my opinion is based on the fact that I won't believe development costs in Eastern Europe have progressed so much in so little time. What they could do three years ago, they can still do today. I'll accept being wrong on that account upon proof.
(1) and economically dying once or twice in your life is scarcely a bad thing
(2) would you go "a man needs money" on a graphic artist who used to produce vibrant and original paintings, and later diluted his own specificity with more popular techniques and formats so he could reach more people? I sure would not.
I'll write an essay on how being demanding and having high standards is the only way to call oneself a man another day, but that's the crux of the problem.
Sulphur on 31/8/2010 at 09:05
Quote Posted by Briareos H
(and economically dying once or twice in your life is scarcely a bad thing).
Why don't you try economically dying once or twice in Ukraine and see how fun that turns out to be?
Quote:
Selling your soul as a way to survive is still selling your soul. In a civilised world man would stop buying games when they start sucking or being made for money.
Of course, my opinion is based on the fact that I won't believe development costs in Eastern Europe have progressed so much in so little time. What they could do three years ago, they can still do today. I'll accept being wrong on that account upon proof.
If you want them to churn out something on the same level of Stalker: SoC or Clear Sky or CoP, sure. If they're simply redoing SoC for the consoles and rebadging that as Stalker 2, I'll accept the 'sold their soul' argument.
As it stands, just because a PC developer moves towards developing for consoles, it doesn't automatically equate to them 'selling their souls'. There are currently nearly 80 million current-gen consoles out there, discounting the Wii. It's basic common sense.
Let's not go with the 'games are art' analogy again. Right now, games and movies are products, regardless of whether they're art. And they have to be sold. Your second footnote's working off a fallacy on its own.
Briareos H on 31/8/2010 at 09:16
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Let's not go with the 'games are art' analogy again. Right now, games and movies are products, regardless of whether they're art. And they have to be sold. Your second footnote's working off a fallacy on its own.
I've never seen games that way and hope I never will. I can't believe you would say that on these very forums.
(no need for the usual "like it or not games are products" reply, with that logic everything is a product)
Koki on 31/8/2010 at 09:39
It all comes down to question of how well STALKERs sold and how well GSC is doing financially. If the games sold reasonably well(reasonably = enough to cover the expenses and to make next game, not Call of Duty style 50 million preorders), they're selling out. If they sold badly(SoC might have been successful but after CS not many people were interested in CoP) they don't really have a choice.
Since I don't know how GSC is doing I won't comment on whether they're selling out or not.
All I know is that STALKER 2 will suck :cool:
Sulphur on 31/8/2010 at 15:36
Quote Posted by Briareos H
I've never seen games that way and hope I never will. I can't believe you would say that on these very forums.
Of course I would. You seem to be forgetting why LGS folded. You also seem to forget what happens when companies fold - entire teams of people get displaced or let go. This isn't just one person creating 'art' and remaining under-appreciated until someone discovers his paintings of sunflowers years after his bones turn to dust, this is an entire business going under.
So I'm sorry to strip away the romantic veneer from your ideals, but LGS's approach of making great games that sell poorly isn't a self-sustaining model, and it'd be pretty damn selfish to wish this upon anyone else.
Anyway, Koki's right in his logic about whether GSC is 'selling out' or not. Unfortunately, since we don't have the data, we can't call it.
Koki on 31/8/2010 at 16:08
Quote Posted by Sulphur
LGS's approach of making great games that sell poorly isn't a self-sustaining model, and it'd be pretty damn selfish to wish this upon anyone else.
That's about only way of doing it though. I mean think of all the great games and how many of them weren't successful financially.
Do and Die, that's the business model to follow!
Zygoptera on 31/8/2010 at 23:04
...
...
I realise it might be a tad difficult to find the sales figures for the series, seeing as they're cunningly hidden and obfuscated with great guile in the press release linked to in the first post of the topic, so I shall be understanding, kind and will go out of my way not to mock.
Really though, if you're selling 4 million+ copies over three years you really ought to be doing pretty well.
Sulphur on 1/9/2010 at 07:06
4 million at full retail sales price? Oh my.
We don't know what the split between all the titles in the series is. If the majority of that 4 million went towards SoC - which is quite possible given the level of hype it had - then it doesn't really bode too well, does it?
Briareos H on 1/9/2010 at 13:04
@Sulphur
I see we're perfectly in agreement on the principles then. However I am, as you say, pretty damn selfish when it comes to my feelings and entertainment. Reading that interview of Paul Neurath (posted (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133149) here) brought me to the conclusion -besides agreeing with Paul's view of the industry- that I was happy with the Looking Glass story ending in 2000.