A for correcting my dumb ass
D for grammatical effort

ps2 came out before the digital download revolution, was fully backwards compatible w/o any compromises and as we all know was a total commercial failure, right?  

I'm not saying backwards compatibility is toxic, I'm just saying it's fairly useless (as far as making money is concerned).

But you have a point in that backwards compatibility helped the PS2 stand out from its rivals early on, increasing its install base who then in later years were ready to buy PS2 games.

However, because none of the competing consoles have backwards compaptibility this generation, I'd argue it's kind of a non-issue (again, if we're thinking from the moneygrabbing perspective).

Sheer frustration does not burn away banknotes.

Are you saying the sheer frustration will be so great that the resulting Xbox1 boycott will eclipse the cowadoodie crowd who will buy the console in droves?

Because so far cowadoodie hasn't been eclipsed.

Telling them that they have to throw it all away and buy new things because of a ridiculous hardware update is not really going to work for the console manufacturers.

Why not, though? The reason why it does or doesn't matter is the only relevant part of the argument. All you've established is what the matter itself is.

The reason there is no backwards compatibility is, like pretty much every decision a massive company makes, motivated by money.

You don't make much by supporting games the customer has already bought for a system they already own.

You can say it's a "selling point", but in effect nobody buys the new console unless they intended to eventually play the new games on it anyway.

What's more, the manufacturer makes money from the games, not the console. Backwards compatibility actually encourages you to buy the console (perhaps even at a loss to the manufacturer) and then buy a minimal number of games for it, whereas you otherwise would've bought a whole bunch.

What's MORE, it actually encourages you to keep buying EVEN MORE last-generation, used games (which don't have the shitty DRM catastrophe) so that you buy EVEN LESS new games.

WHAT'S MORE, they have no justification for selling the old games back to you for a premium.

I'm an armchair fat cat.

Flashman - George MacDonald Fraser

Let me not google that for you, but write an extremely sarcastic comment instead.

Wish they'd get those forums back online though

Not aware or any more feature length films about making games. No doubt you're aware that both of those films are extremely recent; it's only been since Kickstarter etc that it's been feasible to make them.

If you like "those kind of documentaries" regardless of theme, The King of Kong is a good one about arcade gaming. Reformat the Planet is an ok one about chiptune music.

If you only want game development, search YouTube for interviews and studio tours and history and making of videos. Theres tons of shit.

Cock Tow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Y98fPyvfo

what is subtext I missed it entirely

indie video game developers

kickstarter

indie video game developers on kickstarter

I think the Hotline Miami trailer demonstrates you don't need to try to pack in info about your game. You don't even need to try to explain what the game is about, or why the viewer should play it. You just need to say "look how cool this is".

It could be an awesome short film set to an awesome soundtrack. It could just be a well choreographed gameplay video. It's about catching the viewer's interest. If they want to find out more useful information about the game then they can do so on the game's website/page, not in the video.

It's worth mentioning however that your trailer does need to be relevant and accurate. The Dead Island trailer is an example of something that looked really interesting but had absolutely nothing to do with the game whatsoever and ended up annoying alot of people.

delete