There are a few reasons that the market is flooded with fps's : * Less risk than other types of games. The complexity of interaction in a fps's tends to be much less than other types of games, thus it requires less time programming and less risk of missing a goal. The fact that fps's are the only games where engines are routinely used by many different companies would seem to indicate a primary motivation is low risk. * Pathetic designers. Many designers in the industry have very little experience. Some are testers, some used to write for magazines, and some really have no connection other than having walked in from the street. Many people think they have great ideas for games, but they are usually wrong. Synthesis is a much more difficult activity than analysis. Since most haven't adequately analyzed the subject, there is very little chance of developing a good product. * The marketing department. Marketers don't play games. They only know 2 things: TRST market breakdowns and focus group testing. Innovative games rarely get greenlighted because you can't peg a revolutionary game into an existing genre; therefore, you are chasing a segment with 0% market share. Since the marketer cannot evaluate the true merits of the title, it will never pass pcm, get the funding, and get developed. The last two reasons also account for crap games in general, not just fps's.
You disregard the true economics of the situation. Sony (Nintendo, etc.) doesn't make money off the hardware. In the console industry, the hardware is generally a loss leader for the first few years of its life and a break-even proposition thereafter. The real money is in the software. Therefore, Sony in no way wants people to buy hardware but not software. I think the PSX is more popular because it is both cheaper (even if you don't pirate) than the N64 and has a much larger selection of games.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a few reasons that the market is flooded with fps's : * Less risk than other types of games. The complexity of interaction in a fps's tends to be much less than other types of games, thus it requires less time programming and less risk of missing a goal. The fact that fps's are the only games where engines are routinely used by many different companies would seem to indicate a primary motivation is low risk. * Pathetic designers. Many designers in the industry have very little experience. Some are testers, some used to write for magazines, and some really have no connection other than having walked in from the street. Many people think they have great ideas for games, but they are usually wrong. Synthesis is a much more difficult activity than analysis. Since most haven't adequately analyzed the subject, there is very little chance of developing a good product. * The marketing department. Marketers don't play games. They only know 2 things: TRST market breakdowns and focus group testing. Innovative games rarely get greenlighted because you can't peg a revolutionary game into an existing genre; therefore, you are chasing a segment with 0% market share. Since the marketer cannot evaluate the true merits of the title, it will never pass pcm, get the funding, and get developed. The last two reasons also account for crap games in general, not just fps's.
You disregard the true economics of the situation. Sony (Nintendo, etc.) doesn't make money off the hardware. In the console industry, the hardware is generally a loss leader for the first few years of its life and a break-even proposition thereafter. The real money is in the software. Therefore, Sony in no way wants people to buy hardware but not software. I think the PSX is more popular because it is both cheaper (even if you don't pirate) than the N64 and has a much larger selection of games.