PixlBit

I agree that less developers need to be making the same type of game. There is a reason that niche developers are able to stay afloat. They have cornered their segment of the market. Atlus games don't sell a lot but they make money on them because their titles appeal to their unique fanbase.

My bigger issue is that developers create such massive games at this point in time. I'm not against huge games, don't get me wrong, but if they're not financially viable, don't do them. RPGs don't have to take 40+ hours to beat.

Fable III was the game in question I was speaking about, and it seems like it's about 20 hours or so long for a first playthrough. I think the game would have wider appeal, if rather than initially releasing the game for $60 all at once, Lionhead went to release a seven-hour Episode 1 of Fable 3 for $20. Funny thing, this partially contradicts the idea I mention in the podcast, that there's just too many of the same types of games out there, as with this idea, more games would be receiving sequels in a sense.

Too many big games have a high barrier of entry, and too many people face a high risk/reward ratio, and it's unsafe for the industry. Cutting down on the initial risk, especially for higher-quality, but unknown franchises could potentially increase the gaming consumer's will to experiment with new games.

Anyway Nate, I wouldn't have an issue with so many similar games if there weren't complaints about a minority of games earning all the profits. That idea was inspired when I read a Brink developer was upset about profit margins. I'm not saying Brink is just another shooter. I honestly don't know much about Brink. The point is, so many games are so very similar that it would be ridiculous to expect any game but the best few of a genre to rake in all the cash. Why waste time with an inferior FPS that no one else is playing online? Few people do.