That would be terrible. Design by a grand democratic committee not work. It'd produce an mess of incompatible ideas. Like having infants attempt engineering. It would collapse on itself.
The average audience member has no idea what it takes to make a game. Or how to make a feature actually work. They just get excited about features that sound cool.
Anyone else find it awkward that when the CoD fanbase is discussed, they are described as "tards" and "ADD kiddies" when, given the size of the base, CoD fans are probably actually the more normal group.
As opposed to, well, us. Food for thought.
No, they both know what their goal was. Their goal was to put off another console cycle. Because that way they could maximize their profits.
Selling Kinect or Move with a new cycle isn't going to do that. It'll just be an extra expenditure that doesn't bring them anything new.
More like "we spent a **** ton of money on this and now we want to maximize those profits by whoring it out as long as possible without spending a **** ton more money."
You talked about maximizing profits earlier, yourself. Constantly building new things is not maximizing profits. It's the opposite.
This was their excuse to delay spending money on a console development cycle.