According to this article, the average budget for a PS1 title was between 800.000 and 1.7 Million USD. PS2 titles were made on 5 to 10 Million dollar budgets, PS3/360 titles generally cost 10 Million and upwards.
Regarding the number of titles released on the PS1 vs the PS2: Remember that the videogame market literally exploded in that generation. While the PlayStation managed to establish itself as a household brand in the PS1 days, it was only during the PS2/XBox generation that consoles were found literally everywhere and gained wide acceptance, so the potential market for games was orders of magnitudes larger.
As for development studios getting bought out and then going under: Well, that's business. It's not designed to be fair; and while there are instances of this process going badly, there are also examples of these things going well (See also: Volition, Naughty Dog). It's just a thing that happens; it's not a good idea to get too attached to a particular developer.
I noticed it says the PS2 games were averaged from well over 100 games, while the PS1 games from a single title. I wonder which one, that will make a huge difference. Most of the sample sizes are very small, except the PS2 one. So it's hard to know really what the difference is between PS1 and PS2.
I don't necessarily get attached to the developer, I do, but it's more the games that get shut down due to the takeover. I know it's not supposed to be fair, but it seems stupid to me on the part of the big fish not to make best use of the little one.
Just a question, Lorric: how much have you looked into the digital-only titles delivered via the PlayStation Network (PSN)? You talk about not being satisfied with the big blockbuster PS3 releases you pick up and look at, but keep in mind that those sorts of titles (the term "AAA" really is silly, isn't it?) are just a certain fraction of the games being released on that platform. The sort of games being released on the PSN would be those from smaller and/or independent developers, the same type that frequently get released on Steam (and indeed there's a lot of cross-over of titles between those services). I don't have the numbers to back it up, but based on The E's point about game budgets, I get the impression that a lot of these sorts of titles might have seen a physical release back in the days of the PS1 and even PS2, when development costs weren't so steep. As it stands, disk-based releases are reserved for big-budget titles, which tend to play it a bit safer as a rule in order to recoup their large development costs, while the smaller titles stick with digital releases.
Very little. I kind of had an assumption that there wouldn't be much worth bothering with there. And yes, AAA is kind of silly, I haven't even really heard the term until on here I don't think. We'll all have our own personal definition of "AAA", what makes a game special for us. You've already seen plenty of insight into mine.
I did buy Eufloria. You can make the PS3 game count 15 if you think that counts, but I don't really see it as a PS3 game. I'm sure it would run easily on a PS2. I liked everything about it, except one thing: It's too easy. It would be a great starting point for someone to play their first RTS.
I don't believe he has Mongoose as he hasn't ever heard of Journey
Which would lead to me believe he hasn't heard of flOw or Flower either
I have heard of Flower actually. I saw it in some video about games. Not FlOw.
I looked up Journey, and while I only read I think the wiki, it makes me think "what's the big deal" from what I read. It sounds like you cross a desert, go through a ruined city, climb a mountain... and that's it.
