144 réponses à ce sujet

[devSin]

Ninja Stan wrote...

And this is, of course, not even exploring the notion that maybe, just maybe, you won't like a certain game, regardless of who makes it, what its story is, or how it looks. A game might simply be not to your tastes, and that's fine, too! But let's try and keep the strawmen out of this discussion. Companies make decisions and changes for reasons other than "greed" and "failing at business."

That wasn't a straw man. You may have felt it rude, and I apologize if so, but it was an honest question—I think you may have missed the implication as to why they wouldn't have supplemental products (just as you note Coca-Cola has a ton of supplemental products to try to bring in new business).

If Dragon Age and Mass Effect are successful, why would they have to change overnight to bring in new business? And the best conclusion I could come up with is that they don't bring in enough business as they currently are (either to be profitable as required or as desired). BioWare either needs more or they want more, no?

In any event, I should clarify that the discussion is academic. Although I acknowledge the effects of EA on DA2 and ME3 (both of which were shamefully rushed), my primary concern with ME3 is entirely creative (and as I first posted, I just can't blame business realities for that).

Ninja Stan wrote...

No, they wouldn't. They would care if millions of faceless pieces of their market stopped buying Coke, or if their market research indicated (based on representations of their target market) their customers just wanted Coke. They still wouldn't care a whit if "devSin" or "Ninja Stan" or the real people associated with those handles called them up to say what they wanted.

You misinterpreted the statement.

"You and I" are not the individuals; they're part of the larger market that frequents Coca-Cola to buy Coke. When they stop making Coke and they suddenly lose a huge portion of their customer base, they very much will care what "you and I" think, because our thoughts are going to be representative of the majority.

You would know better than I what represents the majority in this case, but like I said, it sometimes seems that BioWare is dwindling. DA2 was panned and never broke 2 million copies. TOR never broke 2 million subscribers and will probably shed the majority of them continuously over the next year. ME3 may not have done well enough to justify the excessive marketing (I'm not sure if 3.5 million was their target or if they were aiming even higher), regardless of whatever impact there is from the controversy (I'm not sure what you guys calculated, but it must have been something for you to do the extended cut).

Maybe it'll all work out. Maybe it won't. But I know I sometimes believe I would appreciate had BioWare stayed more consistent, supplementing their business with new products while honoring their existing customers by giving them what they had come to expect (and bringing them forward over time, rather than simply dropping them and expecting them to follow).

[Ninja Stan]

We shall have to agree to disagree, devSin, but I appreciate the discussion and your viewpoints. We are looking at it from different angles. Not everyone has my rampant optimism, and not everyone can see things from where I sat for 11 years, but that's never stopped me from trying to get others to see things a little differently.

Cheers!

[Naughty Bear]

Ninja Stan wrote...

We shall have to agree to disagree, devSin, but I appreciate the discussion and your viewpoints. We are looking at it from different angles. Not everyone has my rampant optimism, and not everyone can see things from where I sat for 11 years, but that's never stopped me from trying to get others to see things a little differently.

Cheers!

Is that a good thing?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Big game publishers obeviously want to publish games that will sell. But that means they want to publish games that they can sell. And that means they need a marketing angle.

I think a concern among BioWare's fans is that traditional roleplaying games aren't something the marketing people really understand. They don't get the appeal, so they can't sell that appeal.

I've recently started playing Warlock, Master of the Arcane. It is a very good turn-based strategy game, and I have no idea how I could convince a marketing person that it was fun.

Note that BioWare has never found a publisher for a traditional roleplaying game that didn't have the D&D label on it. I suspect one of the reasons BioWare sought a buyer in EA is that it had just spent years making a terrific game that no one was willing to release. The death of Sir-Tech is a terrific example of how a studio can make a terrific game (Wizardry 8) but not be able to convince a publisher that it's a great game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 juin 2012 - 10:01 .

[devSin]

Ninja Stan wrote...

We shall have to agree to disagree, devSin, but I appreciate the discussion and your viewpoints. We are looking at it from different angles. Not everyone has my rampant optimism, and not everyone can see things from where I sat for 11 years, but that's never stopped me from trying to get others to see things a little differently.

Likewise.

I admit that it's not an easy situation, and I'm not sure it is something that even has a perfect solution. And like you noted, it's not something that's directly comparable—although, in my defense, I wasn't the one who brought up Coca-Cola. :-)

The only thing I can say is that BioWare used to engender certain feelings from me, but after the last few years, that's no longer the case. Maybe it's entirely on my end, and not anything they've done, but I don't feel the same way I used to. (Or maybe I only ever really loved the DA team, and it's just that those people used to be mostly the whole company.)

But I want to say this is not about products I don't like (you've brought this up several times in the past when making similar arguments). I acknowledge flaws and differences, but I liked ME2. I liked DA2. I don't currently like ME3, but I still wish I did, and I hope that someday I may be able to. BioWare can make products I don't like. They made KotOR. They made Sonic. They made TOR. I don't judge them for the things I don't care about or don't enjoy. But I will judge them if they no longer make anything that I enjoy, at least not the way that I used to. It's not a question about liking every game, and I don't think that was a fair representation of my position.

Regardless, thanks for sticking around.

[TurboQuarian]

Honestly, EA is crap. I wish they'd disappear. They've sucked since they were an office on the corner of a street and they suck now. They have absolutely no idea what they're doing with video games; they buy successful companies and then ruin their franchises. Every company they've bought has lower quality games then they used to. They're not deliberately ruining these games but they just have no idea what they're doing.

I also hate the fact that compared to other companies, they charge for every bloody thing. I'm disappointed in Bioware for allowing EA to buy them. Bethesda basically told EA to screw off when they tried to buy them and for good reason.

[Catastrophy]

Let's face it. A big publisher buying a successful studio is interested in selling new games to a large market.
Just because the publisher is "big" it has already penetrated the market and can therefore sell lots of units.
However, even the big publisher has only limited means to produce new games (developers, time, funds, seasonality etc.) and this means BigCo. is gonna address a broad audience. And broad means usually average.

This has already been discussed here, so I'll throw in another point:
The industry is changing.
Whether you look at TV, Movies, Newspapers or generally "content-producing" business there are a lot of things happening as to HOW to deliver your content and get bucks for it. classic channels for sales are disappearing -new ones have emerged. Just try to go into a shop and buy a boxed game. I'm seeing shrinking shelves for games all over the place. I am sure that this development also has a big impact on how games are developed and marketed.

And that counts even more for a company like EA that's probably like a big whale trying to adapt to the change.
Just look at the beloved Origin platform. They need to establish a firm foothold in this sales channel. And they need to improve it fast before people just go into another online store. Steam has a big headstart and is already a widely accepted brand for handling purchases and services. EA is late, as are a lot of others. It just isn't easy to establish a credible store that is trusted.
Hell, I don't even know how many accounts I opened across the different platforms to just play a game and then forget about it. Not so with Steam, where I regularly return to.

A last point that puzzled me with this particular merchandise of EA/BW:
I bought the game because I played the previous two. I didn't give the tiniest thing about the PR. All I wanted to know was: When can I buy it? I expected a grand finale with lots of glory and a couple of tears. Well, I won't elaborate on this, here.
What still makes me wonder: What is the point of this MP part? I mean, looking back, I've spent a lot more time in MP than in SP - a LOT. I'd say the decision to attach MP must've been a strategic decision at one point. But was it BW's decision or was it a target set by EA?

Let's go back to the previous point: A company wants to address a large customer base. But it also wants to bind customers, they should come back and buy more stuff. Ideally, with little effort in convincing them to do so.
MP looks like a thing to do so. WoW must have been absurdly successful in shoveling in cash. Just how does the ME3 MP fit into a larger scheme? It may be earning for some longer time but I don't see it will be a long-time earner.
It's a fresh and very apppealing gameplay, it's very action-oriented which may also fit in the broader taste of the audience but as it stands it lacks in long-term motivation. Is it a study on how well it is received? Whether BigCo. can build another game on it?

Well, I wouldn't object as long it isn't another piece of fantasy crap. I'm fine with Sci-Fi.

[AlanC9]

devSin wrote...
But the process has been gradual enough that in any given decade you'll simply have Coke. (I would argue as to people preferring the taste of Coke, though—I'm sure if you gave people the two side-by-side, they'd more often prefer the original.)

You mean they'd prefer, say, 1970 Coke to 2012 Coke? Then Coke has changed the formula for no reason whatsoever? Or am I misreading you there?

Edit: oh, wait.... the "people" above means just "Coke" fans, not all potential Coke drinkers, right? Still, I dunno. A 2012 Coke fan would like 1970 Coke better because it's Coke-ier? I've seen food trends move that way, but it's not universal.

The formula is not the same, no, but they haven't rushed headlong into change in the hopes of snaring a bunch of new customers and/or increasing profits (and when they did try that, they were rebuked).

Umm... I guess so. But this is just an argument about whether upsetting conservative customers makes business sense. It's not a way to address the substance of the changes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 juin 2012 - 10:45 .

[Tazzmission]

slyguy200 wrote...

EA is to blame, everything they touch seems to break.

not true explain to me how a game like dead space 2 was broken


ea finances viceral

[Bluko]

Westwood was already going down the drain before EA acquired them. After the original games Westwood clearly started opting less for authenticity and more for goofy units with especially corny plots. There really is as much difference between Tiberian Sun as there is Red Alert 2 as the originals. And I'm pretty sure Tiberian Sun was made before the "Evil EA" took over. So IMO Westwood's downfall was their own doing. Westwood was slipping before EA came along. Also that's probably why they were bought by EA in the first place. I'm quite sure they were struggling back then for various reasons. As great as the old C&C was at the time the market was also smaller and far less profitable then it is today.

Then there's also Pandemic. Mercenaries 2 is just garbage compared to it's predecessor. Now it's easy to blame EA for this... as I'm sure when they acquired Pandemic some people left in the transition. But truth Pandemic has always rather been hit or miss in terms of game quality. I mean yes Battlefront was great... but it was just a reskinned Battlefield. And in the same vein Mercenaries was just a reskinned GTA too. I'm pretty sure EA already regrets they aren't the ones publishing Battlefront III now. And if they don't they should be.


Of course EA has acquired many other studios... but this idea they buy them out to reduce competition is pretty far fetched. For starters most of them are pretty obscure and not worth the trouble. I mean if EA was buying these studios just to shut them down they are really stupid. That is a huge waste of money. That said I won't deny that EA seems very intent of monopolizing the game industry. They pretty much have a stranglehold over all sports games. They also seem to be having quite the hissy fit over CoD's success. Though that's probably because they lost 2015 which later became Infinity Ward. So yeah...

Now I will say I do believe EA is not the best at managing their development studios. There's really no denying that EA must have in some way rushed Dragon Age 2's development. The game was released basically a little more then year after the first. Unfortunately this seems to be the case yet again with ME3 to an extent. I really don't think EA understands how important the quality factor is in Bioware's games. A lot of other video games can get away with assembly line rush jobs in 1-2 years because there usually isn't a whole lot involved other then the gameplay. ME3 was suppose to account for literally dozens of decisions and there's quite a bit of story that needs to be worked through. I'm also highly suspcious they got skimpy on ME3's budget too. I'm really not sure why they decided to exclude some of the previous VA talent. Going for a quick cash-in was really dumb with ME3


Anywho point is if the ending is bad it's still pretty much the fault of Bioware. They are the actual creators so ultimately it is up to them how things go. Even if EA is pressuring them to do certain things it's their obligation to resist. The folks af Bioware did what they did and they're the ones that did it. No doubt EA has a bit of poisoning influence especially in regards to pushing for DLC, Multiplayer, and Sequels. And I suspect they may have nudged them to do something with the ending that would allow this  But it is entirely Bioware who thought it was okay to release a game without a proper ending. Really shouldn't be surprsing to anyone when they're already callous enough to make squadmembers paid for DLC. Not to mention one that's fairly integral to the freaking story if you ask me.

[meatsack]

I think it should also be pointed out that those vocal and opposed to the game ( i.e the ending ) are in fact a minority. Yes, everyone points to polls and surveys showing 1 ork 2 hundred K who hate the ending, but against the back drop of 3.5 million units sold . . . minority.

Now I thought the game rocked. I enjoyed the story, how it wrapped up story lines, the game play was smooth and yes, I did enjoy the ending.

Is the game without faults . . . of course not. I agree the ending felt a little rushed, and yes a lot of questions were left unanswered ( which I hope the EC can address ). I also feel that perhaps if more time was spent on this and less on items like Kinect voice control, perhaps there would be fewer of those opposed to the game.

Is EA to blame. Can't say . . . all i can leave with you is that IMHO, ME3, despite its faults, was still a great game and one I plan to play through many times over.

Just my 2 cents.

[deatharmonic]

meatsack wrote...

I think it should also be pointed out that those vocal and opposed to the game ( i.e the ending ) are in fact a minority. Yes, everyone points to polls and surveys showing 1 ork 2 hundred K who hate the ending, but against the back drop of 3.5 million units sold . . . minority.

I'd like to play devils advocate here and put this to you. Out of the millions sold i'm sure no one here knows how many shared the opinions of those who vocally disliked the ending. Just because that majority don't voice their opinion it doesn't mean they disagree with the vocal proportion that dislike the ending. Of course it works both ways, I just think people should stop throwing this minority-majority thing out there as if they have access to the definitive numbers.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 02 juin 2012 - 02:08 .

[Lazengan]

meatsack wrote...

I think it should also be pointed out that those vocal and opposed to the game ( i.e the ending ) are in fact a minority. Yes, everyone points to polls and surveys showing 1 ork 2 hundred K who hate the ending, but against the back drop of 3.5 million units sold . . . minority.

Now I thought the game rocked. I enjoyed the story, how it wrapped up story lines, the game play was smooth and yes, I did enjoy the ending.

Is the game without faults . . . of course not. I agree the ending felt a little rushed, and yes a lot of questions were left unanswered ( which I hope the EC can address ). I also feel that perhaps if more time was spent on this and less on items like Kinect voice control, perhaps there would be fewer of those opposed to the game.

Is EA to blame. Can't say . . . all i can leave with you is that IMHO, ME3, despite its faults, was still a great game and one I plan to play through many times over.

Just my 2 cents.

3.5 million units sold, and only 2k hundred vocally angry about the ending means people enjoyed it right? 

More than half the people that bought this game don't even use forums, and I bet more than half did not even Play mass effect 2 Let alone mass effect 1. They became Thralls of EA and assumed that this was a big release of a call of duty sci fi clone (urgh) and wanted shooter action. These people haven't followed mass effect throughout the entire series and have neutral opinions about the story because they could not follow it (the horrors of console decreptitude and marketing to the masses)

[Emzamination]

slyguy200 wrote...

EA is to blame, everything they touch seems to break.

Gamers destroyed mass effect and are killing dragon age single handedly, not ea, not bioware.

[Tazzmission]

Emzamination wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

EA is to blame, everything they touch seems to break.

Gamers destroyed mass effect and are killing dragon age single handedly, not ea, not bioware.

this i agree with 110%

[I_Jedi]

Tazzmission wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

EA is to blame, everything they touch seems to break.

not true explain to me how a game like dead space 2 was broken


ea finances viceral

I actually enjoyed DS1 and 2.

Messing up DS3 would make no sense at all.

[Tazzmission]

I_Jedi wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

EA is to blame, everything they touch seems to break.

not true explain to me how a game like dead space 2 was broken


ea finances viceral

I actually enjoyed DS1 and 2.

Messing up DS3 would make no sense at all.

trailer for ds3 is monday i dont know if you have been following my e3 thread in offtopic


i say wait till then before assuming the game is bad or good

[D4rth Man7iz]

Well this is a long discussions so I'll just mention a few points that I believe we all should have clear in our heads.

We must see the big picture, Gaming is becoming more and more popular and based on this 95% of game developers/publishers know very well that one of the main goals during development is to make the experience as accessible as possible, in other words dumbing things down has become a priority. For example many people who only play shooters the current popular shooters, found ME3 attractive because they really noticed how the combat had improved and become easier or better, of course in their perspective, so they don't really care about how complex and well-developed hardcore RPG mechanics are as long as the combat and shooting mechanics please them.

The actions of EA are just a reflection of the widespread trend in the Gaming Industry nowadays, if you look closely you can identify examples in practically every game genre, platform, modes, gaming media outlets etc; there are step by step in-tutorials, paid DLC to unlock superior items earlier, pre-order bonuses that unlock superior items, game/series specific services to "help" people play better (CoD Elite, BF Premium, and others), so called gaming critics tend to criticize games which might be difficult or not accessible enough. I could go on and on.

So it's no secret that EA is not the smartest publisher and game-studios owner when it comes to defend the interests of the hardcore fanbase of their owned IPs, as it all comes down to the profit margins and how they can "guide" game studios towards creating more "friendly" and easier games, BioWare is just one of the relatively latest "victims", because as everyone else they're just following the trend. If you see the absurd success of a FPS franchise such as Call of Duty, a game totally empty in the SP department, one thing is clear, stick to the easy game making formula, addictive as it might be for the masses = millions in profits. So when it comes to ME3, EA must be thinking they did a splendid job, as they we capable of influencing a good % of the shooter market consumers in order to get the latest gaming space opera (regardless if it's dumbed down and if they had to force BioWare to rush development hence the incredibly complete ending haha). And of course the sales achieved by ME3 were the highest of all 3 during launch period (make no mistake about that).

Actually I believe they've made a lot more profit than initially expected and that's is one of the main reasons why the EC is going to be free, and be quite sure that they must be really all over BioWare leads telling them that the EC must be universally well-received in order for EA to be able to charge for the upcoming DLC pieces, be it SP or MP, just wait and see....(unless EC turns out to be extremely bad).

So what it's at stake here? That's how profitable can ME3 be in the long run, if EC pulls great things out, then it's almost granted that BioWare will put SP & MP DLC easily up until late 2013.

The sad thing here is that there is only us to blame or well the average game consumer who will buy any game in which you can shoot and it generates pleasant/addictive feeling to them, regardless of story and the rest. Just go and see your friend list and count the exact number of "friends" playing a Shooter game. (I'm no shooter hater at all, it's about how these have influenced every other game genre in the last five years).

In general terms it's a grim outlook for what it's to come for those of us who crave deep and complex plot, game-play mechanics and RPG elements, as unfortunately that kind of games are becoming harder and harder to come by, exceptions like Dark Souls and The Witcher are not guaranteed to keep happening if you know what I mean.

So as long as the majority keeps being satisfied with easy and addictive games, don't expect for game studios to put a lot of effort into creating full-fledged universe, that we have come to love and appreciate, and like it or not BioWare is or for some was very close to get there...only time will tell.

Now please give us EC release date...and Indoctrination Theory or whatever it comes our way, please to your space magic or else pronto...because as someone stated in another thread..."People just stop caring", and I would hate that to be the case of an IP with so much potential such as Mass Effect.

PS: I read many posts in this thread of people complaining a lot about combat in all three games, you criticize game-play like if you were AAA world-famous game-designers. So for you combat was utter crap in all 3 games right?...I guess you should have had go down to Edmonton and share your genius with BioWare.

[AlanC9]

deatharmonic wrote...
I'd like to play devils advocate here and put this to you. Out of the millions sold i'm sure no one here knows how many shared the opinions of those who vocally disliked the ending. Just because that majority don't voice their opinion it doesn't mean they disagree with the vocal proportion that dislike the ending. Of course it works both ways, I just think people should stop throwing this minority-majority thing out there as if they have access to the definitive numbers.

Well said.

It's a pity Bio won't release their tracking data for ME3 anytime soon. They know quite well who's played it, who's replayed it, which endings people chose, etc. That data would settle a lot of arguments here.

[AlanC9]

D4rth Man7iz wrote...
We must see the big picture, Gaming is becoming more and more popular and based on this 95% of game developers/publishers know very well that one of the main goals during development is to make the experience as accessible as possible, in other words dumbing things down has become a priority. For example many people who only play shooters the current popular shooters, found ME3 attractive because they really noticed how the combat had improved and become easier or better, of course in their perspective, so they don't really care about how complex and well-developed hardcore RPG mechanics are as long as the combat and shooting mechanics please them.

Note that gamers' taste for complex systems comes and goes, even among hardcore fans. I remember the first revolts against the baroque and pointless complexity of AD&D and systems like it. That was in the early 80s.

[Krunjar]

I think what EA fundamentally dousn't get is that the audiences for the different kinds of game they produce have different standards. Millions of people still buy the madden games because quite frankly they are idiots who give in to pretty graphics aggressive marketing and peer pressure. And would say feaces tennis is a good game if their mates said it. Therefore they will buy every rushed poorly made iteration of a game and they are welcome to it. And as much as i hate to admit it for a company like EA the profit margin in this kind of area is greater. What EA don't get is that our dollar is dollar that would only be spent on the kinds of games we like and we have standards. Refuse to live up to those standards and our money will go elsewhere. This may make youre profit margin smaller but if EA was concerned about that they shouldn't have baught bioware. I wan't the old bioware back! the bioware where I loved every damn game they ever produced! Artistic Integrity my foot EA is a destroyer of Art!

[crazyrabbits]

Ninja Stan wrote...

What it does care about is what the market prefers in theirr Coke products. Individually, we're too small of a sample size, just as the people who post in this community (including me) are too small of a sample size to determine what the gaming public wants in an RPG, in a Mass Effect game, or in a BioWare game.

What, so 60,000+ fans, including the diehard fans who contribute what essentially amounts to free market research on your forum every day, are too small of a sample size?

Come on, Mr. Woo, I know you've seen the arguments the BSN has had on this before. People with degrees in business/finance have already corroborated the fact that a sample size like that, especially with the way the vote is consistently skewed towards outright hate across every site, forum and news site that's hosted a poll about the game, is significant.

The trend right now, not only through EA but several other developers as well, is to push anything and everything that will increase profit at the cost of customer loyalty and consumer interests. You're going to tell me that fans can't (or are unable to) give feedback on what the general trend of the games they play are, but John Riccitello can charge me real money for ammo clips because it's "what the gaming public wants"? It's treading a slippery slope, just like using day-one DLC to sell games piecemeal.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 02 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[RocketManSR2]

BioWare is clearly a much different company today than the one that gave us KotOR. EA has changed them and not for the better.

[Gatt9]

Ninja Stan wrote...

We shall have to agree to disagree, devSin, but I appreciate the discussion and your viewpoints. We are looking at it from different angles. Not everyone has my rampant optimism, and not everyone can see things from where I sat for 11 years, but that's never stopped me from trying to get others to see things a little differently.

Cheers!

I would say the problem is that some of us have seen things from where you sat for 11 years.  I read the historical accounts of Origins and Westwood,  the news articles and interviews with employees who sued EA,  and I routinely read Fatbabies.com.  Everything I've read over the years paints a very different picture than the one you describe.

Then there's the evidence I've personally experienced.  Purchasing the Dead Space 2 PC Collector's Edition,  and finding out after the fact that a significant portion of the content was locked behind an impossible to open pay-wall,  not to mention that so very little effort was put into the PC version that I couldn't even remap keys.

Or Dragon Age 2,  drastically altered for no apparent reason,  and shoved out the door with inexcusable design decisions not seen since early C64 games,  like reused dungeon maps.

Or Mass Effect 2,  which had pretty much anything resembling the original's RPG content ripped out.

Or Mass Effect 3,  blatantly designed around "Marketing initiatives" like Online Pass and Day 1 DLC.  With an ending that was just a blatant "Buy more DLC!" that almost seemed like a line ripped out of Spaceballs ("Merchandising Merchandising Merchandising!").

The EA you describe is very,  very,  different from the EA I've experienced and read about.  I actually hope the EA you describe does exist,  because EA is now out of time,  and the EA you describe must start releasing games now.  The existing lineup isn't going to keep EA afloat,  from what I've seen,  they don't have a viable product in the pipeline for the next year or two.

As to your last point, the bigger a company gets, the less it can cater to individual tastes. Coca-Cola doesn't care a whit what you or I prefer in our Coke products. What it does care about is what the market prefers in theirr Coke products. Individually, we're too small of a sample size, just as the people who post in this community (including me) are too small of a sample size to determine what the gaming public wants in an RPG, in a Mass Effect game, or in a BioWare game.

Bad analogy. 

Gaming is directly comparable to Hollywood,  in that it presents an experience meant to generate emotions in the viewer.  Hollywood,  unlike gaming,  caters to individual tastes.

Hollywood didn't declare that "Because Pirates of the Carribbean has made billions of dollars,  the only movies worth making are Pirate movies!".  Hollywood makes movies in every genre,  and budgets them according to their historical revenues for the genre,  +/- other factors(Stars,  topic's current popularity,  popularity of the book if it's an adaption,  etc).  Hollywood caters to individual tastes.

Gaming doesn't do that.  Ubisoft,  Capcom,  and EA via a partner,  have all stated "Because COD has made billions of dollars,  the only game worth making is COD" (Syndicate,  X-com FPS,  Resident Evil).  Gaming ignores every genre but whichever one the suits think is popular,  and saturates the heck out of it while ignoring everyone else.  Gaming in an unhealthy,  and ulimtately unsustainable,  buisness model.

Simple because at some point,  you hit the saturation stage,  and customers get sick of the genre being pushed.  Lack of diversity breeds boredom.  Watch reality TV and nothing but reality TV for 6 months,  and I'll guarantee you won't want to watch TV anymore by the end.  That is gaming today.  We're already seeing the end result,  the NPD reports for 2011 and 2012 clearly show gaming is in deep trouble.  

Chasing the "Market" in a entertainment medium has historically shown,  time and again,  it's a dead end road.  Gaming will be hit especially hard,  Hollywood or TVLand can switch direction in 12 months or less.  Gaming needs a minimum of 24 months to switch directions,  and really needs 36 months to do it effectively.  

We're out of time.  Gaming cannot switch direction quickly enough to counter the increasing apathy and frustration that "Chasing the market' has created.