- BerserkerBarage
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.
Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.
I'm glad to see that this thread has stayed pleasant, I'll admit the other place I've been talking about this has not followed the same track. I guess one of the biggest things that I've been thinking about is the definition of success. It's a rather enigmatic thing to nail down exactly what "success" entails. I mean some people feel that Bungie was more successful with HaloCE than with Halo2, while others feel quite the opposite, and there are some freaks (like TGP) who feel they were far more successful with Myth!! FREAK!!
I've said that Bungie might have felt more successful in their early days with Marathon or Myth because they had this niche that allowed them to have a complete community, albeit a smaller community. Or maybe they feel more successful because they Hulk-smashed video game selling records with the release of Halo 2. I guess it would really depend on who you ask, and I'm sure it probably differs from person to person. Maybe I feel Oni was their biggest success because I loved the hell out of that game? It's very subjective. However, I feel that saying that a company's success is based squarely on the amount of revenue or games they sell is misguided. I'll give you an example, one that comes to my mind almost immediantly. There was this game called Beyond Good and Evil. It's a game by Ubisoft, and it didn't set any sales records and wasn't even played by the majority of people in the video game community. However, for those people who did play it, I would guess that many found it to be a very good game, and say that it was a complete success. Just because a lot of people buy a game, does not make it a success, at least in my mind. The quality of the product makes it a success or failure in my mind, not the amount of people who buy it.
And that is why I believe that Bungie is pretty much solely responsible for their own destiny and success. Their product is what drives demand, not the other way around. I feel that even if there was no interaction or reliance upon consumers, that Bungie would still be the same successful company that they are today. Take this hypothetical for example:
Say in the days of Seropian, I'm a rich-ass bastid, and I really like the way that Bungie does business. And I have faith in their ability to produce some kick-ass games in the future. So I decide that I'm going to start a Foundation for them and call it, "I'm a rich-ass bastid who loves Bungie" Foundation. I'm going to setup an initial principle that pays enough interest to pay off salaries for employees and the production costs endured by Bungie when making and producing a game. Since this system is autoreplenishing, Bungie will never have to want for money, and I can just let them handle things like they wanna. So Bungie goes on to make the same games they have before, but this time they don't have to sell the games, they can make the games available to everyone for free. That right there takes the consumer aspect out of the equation. Now my question to you all is: Does this make Bungie less "successful"? I would argue it doesn't. They make the exact same games, quality ones for free I might add, without the slightest reliance on consumers.
Excuse my ramblings, but these are just the thoughts that have run through my head the past couple days. Hopefully you can understand what I'm getting at.
~B.B.