Yes, they did. But "a crossgen developer" did not. Let me remind you again what you originally claimed: that a single dev could create versions for both generations, and not restrain the ambition of the nextgen version at all. But your suggested posterboy FH2 actually shows the opposite: that the uncompromised nextgen version couldn't be ported down. Instead, a whole other studio was brought in to create an evocative echo, stripped down to make it fit current gen tech.
This is quite the pedantic argument. In this industry you'd be hard pressed to find a single AAA developer that doesn't work with development partners to get games and ports out the door. The discussion is about whether or not cross gen games can serve the old gen without compromising the new gen version. Disqualifying a prime example because a contractor was brought in is nonsense.
Consumers who own a nextgen console, that's who. From their perspective, old platform ports are a waste of resources.
I don't recall Forza Horizon 2 owners on xb1 lamenting how resources were managed. They were too busy enjoying their commercially and critically acclaimed next gen racer. Behind thre scenes development expenses are a non issue to players.
Not at all. I explicitly said other factors might stop that from happening. But the budget could go to new games.
It could also not go to anything. It's not our role to evaluate Microsofts resource allocation, as we have no access to any of that data.
You're trying to have and eat your cake. If Microsoft can always say yes to a project, no matter what they're already doing, then they have limitless resources. If there's not infinite money, sometimes the answer must be no. Potentially even if the new proposal is better than one you're already working on.
No I'm not. I'm just highlighting the fact the we have no perspective what so ever on the cost/ benefit analysis process of choosing to do ports and choosing budgets for approved projects. As such, your hypothetical scenario where crossgen development leads to a new gen project getting reduced funding is an unprovable red herring to distract from the actual argument on whether or not cross gen games can properly target each platform.
To your point, companies reevaluate projects and redistribute funds as they deem neccessary. If they became convinced that a last gen port isnt worthwhile but a new gen proposal is, they'll do what they gotta do. It's not our job to worry about how their monies are allocated.
Again, I assumed nothing. I only made the simple observation that the less you spend on last-gen "ports", the more money you have that could possibly go to nextgen product.
An observation you present without any sort of data or knowledge to suggest nextgen budgets are being negatively impacted by port costs.
That said, I'm unclear where your certainty comes from. If budgeting details are "unknowable", how can you assert so confidently that linkage of project budgets is "deeply flawed"?
because arguments based on unknowable conditions are flawed arguments. And I also know that budget are based on the cost/ benefit analysis of the proposals. Project A isnt going to see a budget increase just because project B was decided against.
I said the effect could be "for good or ill", not that it's always bad. You're fighting against a position I didn't actually take.
What exactly is your position then? That The FH2 approach to cross gen development doesn't count because they outsourced the port (which is a common practice). also the approach is bad because it, hypothetically,
could have robbed a more worthwhile next-gen project (that may or may not even exist) of the funding needed (assuming it was underfunded) and/or make players feel like funds are being misappropriated?
At this point we've deviated so far away from the actual topic at hand- whether or not developers can properly target two generations of hardware with the same title. We should just judge the games and leave the economic value debate to those who are paying the bills.
