AND talks about how these things have adversely affected the industry. Because why the fuck not? I guess Askroll Dunbar the vile sodium mage could insert his 10,000 thumbs up our modular anal cavities and wait for MTV Games to belch out the next Dance Central retardo-fest on Microsofts 'gimped-by-design' Box of Industry Death.

Sir, I might so kindly suggest that the REASON these gargantuan gaming budgets exist along with their accompanying restrictions is because we, as the now distraught gaming-community let it happen. Do you remember the fall of 2005? The hype for the Xbox 360 was peaking and every chud sack on the interwebz (except for me of course because I reek of manly awesomeness) praised the moist, putrid birth of paid DLC. I blame the folks who championed the rise of paid DLC. It gave companies reason to spend more and in turn, make more. The day Microsoft announced that the Xbox 360 (before it even launched) would have all sorts of DLC, is the day the excreted the dark, slithering soul of the Xbox One.

That's all I have to say... about that.

I read it earlier today. Great article, it really sums up everything happening in the games industry. Have you read the article? He says that you can achieve good graphics with a low budget, such as Metro Last Light. High budgets do not mean better graphics. I guess it's pretty clear that you're the one sounding like a 12 year old kid. The guy made some valid points, whether you agree with him or not. If you're going to criticize his view, at least provide rational arguments (i sincerely doubt you can come up with it, but at least try). Calling his article a "12 year old rant" doesn't help you prove your point. It's the opposite, it makes you look like an idiot who can't accept people having different opinions than yours.

All the fluff and accusations of rage aside, I am consistently astounded at the profound contempt for the consumer. No no no. It is not the customer's fault. If the market isn't working for you, you must adapt; not chastise the consumer for doing it wrong.

I don't even need to look at the article to guess it's in relation to Cliffy B's statements, and yeah, they were monumentally dumb, admitting that the mismanagement of budgets is a problem and blame the consumer instead of the publishers for it.

If Notch with Minecraft can succeed so wildly, I think that the publishers and CliffyB need to... deal with it rather than moan, bitch and whine (in no particular order) about how the next game won't use their beloved Unreal Engine 3.

It's highly amusing that Cliffy actually says "don't tell me budgets are the problem, that's silly."

If you look at EVERY best selling game ever NONE of them were graphics powerhouses. Grand Theft Auto, WoW, Minecraft, even Call of Duty.

Well, his quote is actually "Those of you telling me "then just lower game budgets" do understand how silly you sound, right?" But, it's no less stupid.

I know Jim Sterling isn't the most pleasant person to read or listen to, but he really is on the money with what he says there. The sad thing is that all the article does is summarise what people have been saying all along - that budgets are excessive, and that it has been proven that success stories and triple-A quality titles are possible on more reasonable budgets time and time again - and yet it's only just dawning on people in general now.

Personally, I couldn't give two shits about CliffyB. He's become such an arrogant, self-obsessed prick in recent years that it's difficult to take anything he says seriously. The guy lives in a dreamworld, assuming that everyone should be connected to the internet in a world where people live in isolated settlements. He has the balls to sit there and talk about "the numbers not working", and yet he completely ignores the fact that the reason many isolated settlements have no broadband internet is because "the numbers do not work" for the telecoms companies.

Always everyone else's fault, always everyone's else's problem, right Cliffy? All those starving developers with games that hardly break even while you're sitting there on your millions. What a cunt.

In many ways, he's the Donald Trump of the gaming world.

People have only certain amount of disposable income. If the publishers' point is that people should use more money on their gaming habit than what they are doing now to support the skyrocketing development costs, then the publishers are just being silly.

Killing the second-hand market may reroute part of the money back to publishers that would otherwise go to e.g. Gamestop, but at the same time many people are less willing to pay $50-70 for a new game, if they know they are pretty much stuck with it. So it is a double-edged sword. We have seen the price erosion on PC side already, but maybe the publishers are still getting more money than before just because more people buy those ultra-cheap deals.