So today I was listening to Noah Antwiller's rant about The Bureau: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tubjm4QwIQI

There are lots of games in the history of gaming where the product had to be re-done one or more times due to having to do the graphics over, e.g. Duke Nukem Forever.

Typically this happens when the dev time gets drawn out a long time. And instead of having a game that is really really well developed or well done in some way you get something that is simultaneously late and rushed. It doesn't really get the benefit of a long development time.

It seems like then players are hardly ever satisfied with the product then anyway, so what was the big deal in re-doing the graphics?

I mean, wouldn't you think that people would rather play a really good game with old gen graphics (lower system requirements!) than a POS with clunky high end graphics that is hard to run? What is with this unwavering conventional wisdom that graphics must be re-done repeatedly if they're a little bit old?

There's a bit of somewhat questionable logic to it - screenshots and videos are your prime marketing materials, so if your graphics are out of date than the face your game presents to the world is out-of-date.

There are, of course, other ways to market the game, such as game demos. But marketing "truisms" like this are usually built on some pretty unsound foundations.

And when you see how some games get hated or ignored just for not having "nextgen graphics", I'm not sure that most players would really rather play a good game with old gen graphics than a POS with high end graphics.
Very few commercial successes had outdated graphics.

Err . .
SRO
SRR
Wasteland 2
Minecraft
MANY INDIE GAMES o.O

Remember, the company's goal is not to make a game you play a lot. It's to make a game you buy once. Given they're limited to thirty second video clips and banner ads, that means it has to look good.

There are a few game companies which have spent the time to build a reputation (Firaxis with Civilization, Maxis with Sim City, Interplay with Fallout, etc.), where graphics being a few generations behind doesn't really matter. But that's clearly a long-term plan, which doesn't work out for everyone.

Indie games have much lower overhead and a much smaller marketing budget, so their only choice is to move products through word of mouth and reviews. Hence, cutting graphics just makes sense.

I would be curious how many sales are made/lost based on advertising vs. reviews/word of mouth. I imagine that would be pretty telling.

Hypothetically, this is actually an advantage to be had in the DLC model - can't sell people more co tent if they decided the game sucked.

Which they managed to destroy quite fast with the latest Sim City . .
Which only looks kinda nice and plays very meh at best . .

Stahsteele, you're right. Plus Civ is working on pushing itself out of the market. I still enjoy playing Civ 2 and Civ 4, and have no compulsion to buy Civ 5.

However, I do regularly need to buy a new flight simulator because those new graphics are an improvement, even if there's no other new content.

Civ5 is pretty damn good to me.
still as hellishly addictive as ever.
and i am very much looking forward to beyond earth.