- Joined
- Sep 19, 2024
So, everyone is aware the PS5 has no games.
That was kind of inevitable: every company wants to sell games at full price, be it $60 on console or $40 on handheld (when those were a thing). What constitutes a game being worth full price for the average costumer is directly related to hardware potential, and hardware potential is related to budget.
That is to say, back in the 360 days, if you were to make a Castlevania game, it would have to be a long 3D game, fairly big in scope, which is what we got with Lords of Shadow, a God of War wannabe. The DS, which was its contemporary, couldn't run a game like that, so it would HAVE to be a relatively cheaper, smaller title, like the ones we got, which expanded on the Symphony of the Night formula and were much better games overall.
The catch is: you could not sell the DS Castlevania games on the 360. Not at full price. Even if they were better games, it would not seem worth it to gamers.
So handhelds served an interesting function of providing a market for cheaper, more experimental games that were not indie.
Harada of Tekken fame recollected on the development of Tekken 5 how the hardware itself (the PS2, at the time) limited development resources. That is to say, even if they wanted to spend a billion on graphics, the hardware cap would come much, much earlier.
Nowadays, the Switch serves a similar function. It CANNOT run 400 million dollar AAAA games, so it doesn't. Compared to PS4/5, games for it come out faster and are made for much cheaper, while maintaining retail value.
The bigger issue, though, is that it's all iterative. When the Switch 2 comes out, it will likely be way weaker then the PS5, but much more powerful than the OG Switch, so the budget floor WILL increase, making it a harder to get in then the Switch 1.
Big point here is: as long as the only games seem as worth being full price are long, bloated and expensive, all games aiming for it will have to take the ever increasing time and money to meet it, which will increase risk, which will result in safer, slop-er games.
As a fan of old-school hour long arcade stuff, ain't no big company going to spend all this time and money on that type of game when they can't sell it for a good profit. It has to be a 300 hour RPG open world action hybrid to get the critic scores and sales.
I am not blaming gamers, though, if that is what you take away. I'm part of the group that wouldn't find it worthwhile too. It's just an unfortunate side effect of technological progress and the expectations they set.
Is there a remedy for it? Fuck if I know, lol
That was kind of inevitable: every company wants to sell games at full price, be it $60 on console or $40 on handheld (when those were a thing). What constitutes a game being worth full price for the average costumer is directly related to hardware potential, and hardware potential is related to budget.
That is to say, back in the 360 days, if you were to make a Castlevania game, it would have to be a long 3D game, fairly big in scope, which is what we got with Lords of Shadow, a God of War wannabe. The DS, which was its contemporary, couldn't run a game like that, so it would HAVE to be a relatively cheaper, smaller title, like the ones we got, which expanded on the Symphony of the Night formula and were much better games overall.
The catch is: you could not sell the DS Castlevania games on the 360. Not at full price. Even if they were better games, it would not seem worth it to gamers.
So handhelds served an interesting function of providing a market for cheaper, more experimental games that were not indie.
Harada of Tekken fame recollected on the development of Tekken 5 how the hardware itself (the PS2, at the time) limited development resources. That is to say, even if they wanted to spend a billion on graphics, the hardware cap would come much, much earlier.
Nowadays, the Switch serves a similar function. It CANNOT run 400 million dollar AAAA games, so it doesn't. Compared to PS4/5, games for it come out faster and are made for much cheaper, while maintaining retail value.
The bigger issue, though, is that it's all iterative. When the Switch 2 comes out, it will likely be way weaker then the PS5, but much more powerful than the OG Switch, so the budget floor WILL increase, making it a harder to get in then the Switch 1.
Big point here is: as long as the only games seem as worth being full price are long, bloated and expensive, all games aiming for it will have to take the ever increasing time and money to meet it, which will increase risk, which will result in safer, slop-er games.
As a fan of old-school hour long arcade stuff, ain't no big company going to spend all this time and money on that type of game when they can't sell it for a good profit. It has to be a 300 hour RPG open world action hybrid to get the critic scores and sales.
I am not blaming gamers, though, if that is what you take away. I'm part of the group that wouldn't find it worthwhile too. It's just an unfortunate side effect of technological progress and the expectations they set.
Is there a remedy for it? Fuck if I know, lol
