"Adversary" is commonly used to mean "opponent" without any kind of negative connotation. It often comes up among lawyers who, outside of being on opposite sides of a case, may have absolutely no bad blood between them. Same with athletes. When the Giants and Broncos play each other, the Manning brothers are adversaries as far as that football game goes. And of course a "sweet spot" is possible. It happens all the time. I'm sure a supermarket would love to be able to charge $100 for a loaf of bread and a buyer would love to get it for free. They find a sweet spot where the store makes a nice profit and the buyer gets it for a fair price. This is the foundation of pretty much every transaction ever.
And the reason I pointed to all those insiders is twofold. First, to establish that the argument over the industry's health started on their end. They're the ones who complained about money or lack thereof. They started it. So it's not like I just woke up one day and independently decided games cost too much to make. The idea that such is the case was deliberately put in my head by the people on the inside who keep bitching about the struggles they face staying afloat in today's market. Well, if they keep complaining about their difficulties doing business then they should expect people to question if there's something they're doing wrong that's making it so hard for them to do business. I don't recall that ever happening before this past generation where so many people in the industry would air so many grievances regarding the cost factor on their end. It's clearly coming from somewhere. Something is causing them to bring it up so often. If everything really is peachy why are the insiders complaining as much as they are? And if there is something wrong, why are they exempt from being held responsible for their own problems? Why is it on everyone else to change so they can stay afloat? Again, this isn't me pulling anything out of my ass. I'm just responding to what the industry has been telling me.
And second, to demonstrate that even if you assert that the industry is perfectly fine, it's not a slam dunk. The quotes I linked to may not be 100% dispositive but I think it's good evidence that it's at least controversial. Certainly not something that was made up whole cloth by disgruntled consumers and forum posters. You said it yourself. The business knows what it's doing better than us. Well, if that's the case then the only thing people like us really have to go on are statements from the business or representatives of it. So if Cliffy B. comes out and says that games cost too much to make there are only three options. Either he's correct, he's mistaken, or he's lying. So which is it?
Reply With Quote