[adnzzzzZ]

>There is very little opportunity today for any team (let alone individual person)

>You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer

>but the people you want to buy them (let alone play them) aren't going [...] to buy and try your weird little games.

>The market is saturated. The market being saturated pushes it to be (even more) hit-oriented.

These are the things you said. I'm simply saying they're all wrong and there's plenty of evidence, in the present, right now, as to why they're wrong, as I mentioned in my previous reply. Consider the last one, "the market is satured and it pushes it to be more hit-oriented". I posted an example of a small indie team consistently releasing games and succeeding without having had any super huge hits. You don't have to reply anymore if you don't want to, it's just that you posted things that are wrong, and I felt the need to correct them.

[thaumasiotes]

> These are the things you said.

...those aren't the things he said. If you published those as quotes, you'd be deservedly fired for intentionally clipping context (the rest of the sentence) that radically changed the meaning of the quote.

You really don't see a difference between "You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer" and "You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer by getting it to run at 60 Hz"?

[adnzzzzZ]

Step by step:

>There is very little opportunity today for any team (let alone individual person) to push the boundaries of the technology in a meaningful way.

This is what he said. The post is about succeeding in the market as an indie developer, so pushing the boundaries of technology is not very relevant, as that's not the only way to succeed with making indie games.

>You cannot make a game as radical and captivating as DOOM was.

OK, maybe true, maybe false, still irrelevant as succeeding in the market today doesn't require DOOM-level success.

>You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer by getting it to run at 60Hz.

Again, irrelevant, because the post is about succeeding in the market, and there are multiple ways to succeed in the market, most of which do not involve technological boundary pushing.

Do you now see my point or not? The issue in contention is that he is fixating on the example of id in the past to make factual statements about reality today ("There is very little opportunity today for any team") without looking at the current market and the evidence that exists in it to the contrary. He makes multiple such wrong statements, which I quoted in the post you replied to.