Question for the gamers

taeric said:
I think you're a bit off on the PS3. The thing that helped Sony steal the market was not necessarily that they had easier development platforms, but they had cheaper ones. I agree that if they require you to buy a lot of Sony crap they will be making a mistake, but I see no reason to think that they are going to be doing that.

Especially not if you compare it to Nintendo who seem to just love making new gadgets to plug into their systems. I'm not going to say that some aren't cool, but it definitely drives the cost up. And since they are typically only used for a few games... I mean, come one, how many actually took advantage of a gameboy plugged in?

Then there is Microsoft. That whole "we own everything you put on Live" crap was just stupid. It is no wonder that people were leary of making content for it. The only reason they might actually succeed at this has more to do with deep pockets than anything else.

As far as pricing. I'd be surprised if it was not 300 or so a console. Isn't that what each new generation starts at? I seem to recall paying that for the PS1. And game cost has been established at 50 for a while, hasn't it? The only time I remember them being more was when you were buying cartridges.
Click to expand...

The PS2 was a bitch to program for for the longest time. And its graphics are by far the worst of the three systems. Of course they are the oldest, too. I think the only reason you'll see the big name games on the PS3 to begin with is because of the large market share the PS2 has now, market share they have primarily because they were the first to market with the previous generation systems.

Nintendo is going to have to do a lot to change their image in the marketplace. Knowledgeable hardcore gamer respect the system, even if they don't own it, because of the quality of games. But your more casualy gamer for the most part dismisses Nintendo.

I think Microsoft will come out ahead in the next generation. Especially if they release ahead of Sony. It will be interesting to see the two of them fight it out on equal footing.

As to pricing, I think the low end Xbox will be $300, the higher end bundle $400. I'm not sure about the other systems, I'm hoping the revolution will undercut them some.
 
taeric said:
You know.... I hate to say this, but pandering to people that like revolutionary games just isn't that smart. The games that make the most money are big franchise games that have established names. Even those have to be carefull, though.

I mean, what are the games that always sell? Sports games. Behind that would be the latest fads, such as Grand Theft Auto. Hell, they even managed to sell those sequels really well. Did they even update anything other than the setting? Talk about cheap production.

Of course, then there is the whole subscription model. I don't have any numbers, and I don't really care to look them up, but I seem to recall that Sony was making quite a killing off of Everquest.
Click to expand...

I think you assume that revolutionary means having a fancy controller like the konga drums for that Donkey Kong game or something. To me it means creating a game thats so totally immersive that you hardly realize you're playing it. Something along the lines of Metroid Prime, only moreso.
 
taeric said:
You know.... I hate to say this, but pandering to people that like revolutionary games just isn't that smart. The games that make the most money are big franchise games that have established names. Even those have to be carefull, though.

I mean, what are the games that always sell? Sports games. Behind that would be the latest fads, such as Grand Theft Auto. Hell, they even managed to sell those sequels really well. Did they even update anything other than the setting? Talk about cheap production.

Of course, then there is the whole subscription model. I don't have any numbers, and I don't really care to look them up, but I seem to recall that Sony was making quite a killing off of Everquest.
Click to expand...
There's big improvements graphically and feature-wise IMO between GTA3 - Vice City - and San Andreas

And I've never bought a single sports game, in fact I'd say 99% of the people I've known in real life haven't either.
 
as a owner of both playstation 1 and 2, is anyone else concerned about the quality of the PS3 being complete shit? just the thought of them trying to figure out how to run a 4 Ghz cell processor with a MTBF greater than 20 min makes me laugh: I won't be surprised if we're putting 1-800-FIX-MY-DISC-READ-ERROR on the speed dial all over again - if you're already planning on getting a PS3, do yourself a favor and chill a year until Sony works all the kinks out of their machine (if ever)

I'll be buying my new console(s) based on the GAMEPLAY of the software library. Graphics to me are a side dish. Since launch date titles are typically bland at best, I'll usually chill until I start seeing signs of solid library developement.

BTW theac, good write up!
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
There's big improvements graphically and feature-wise IMO between GTA3 - Vice City - and San Andreas

And I've never bought a single sports game, in fact I'd say 99% of the people I've known in real life haven't either.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know much about the GTA games. I had thought the engine was the same in all three, just improved models and textures.

As far as sports games go.... I think you are vastly underestimating how much sway they have. Pretty much the release of any major sporting franchise makes a pretty penny.
 
taeric said:
You know.... I hate to say this, but pandering to people that like revolutionary games just isn't that smart. The games that make the most money are big franchise games that have established names. Even those have to be carefull, though.

I mean, what are the games that always sell? Sports games. Behind that would be the latest fads, such as Grand Theft Auto. Hell, they even managed to sell those sequels really well. Did they even update anything other than the setting? Talk about cheap production.

Of course, then there is the whole subscription model. I don't have any numbers, and I don't really care to look them up, but I seem to recall that Sony was making quite a killing off of Everquest.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that without putting more effort into making games people "must play", the industry is in for tough times. You are going to sequel and spinoff people to death. Its happening right now for Star Trek. It will start to happen for games as well. If its costs too much to develop new and exciting games and people have to rely on rehash and sequels, the industry will collapse.

Sports games sell, but I'm not sure if they make a lot of money because of licensing. I think its more of a slow, steady stream that's reliable than making large amounts of cash in a single game.

I think I heard E2 is bombing. E1 was definately a big money maker though. I don't think the model of subscription per game will work. Charging subscription per console (a la Live) is a much more saavy way to do it. People will pick up a service if they can use it for multiple games. They won't if its only per game. It would be too much of a hastle to start and stop service and drive people off.
 
taeric said:
You know.... I hate to say this, but pandering to people that like revolutionary games just isn't that smart. The games that make the most money are big franchise games that have established names. Even those have to be carefull, though.

I mean, what are the games that always sell? Sports games. Behind that would be the latest fads, such as Grand Theft Auto. Hell, they even managed to sell those sequels really well. Did they even update anything other than the setting? Talk about cheap production.

Of course, then there is the whole subscription model. I don't have any numbers, and I don't really care to look them up, but I seem to recall that Sony was making quite a killing off of Everquest.
Click to expand...
Have you seen sports games sale figures in Japan?
 
taeric said:
I honestly don't know much about the GTA games. I had thought the engine was the same in all three, just improved models and textures.
Click to expand...
You could be right, but they look 'prettier' between versions, and they added lots of gameplay features.

As far as sports games go.... I think you are vastly underestimating how much sway they have. Pretty much the release of any major sporting franchise makes a pretty penny.
Click to expand...
Probably, cuz IMO sports games suck and are more useless than watching paint dry.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
There's big improvements graphically and feature-wise IMO between GTA3 - Vice City - and San Andreas

And I've never bought a single sports game, in fact I'd say 99% of the people I've known in real life haven't either.
Click to expand...

Sports games drive the market, though. If it weren't for Madden, the PS2 would have been an also ran.
 
theacoustician said:
I see what you mean about Nintendo gadgets, but the one thing they had there was you rarely *had* to buy the gadget to play games. I'm just afraid that as the market moves from "game consoles" to "entertainment consoles", Sony will pull ATRAC-like crap with the PS3. Their biggest problem is that its almost a bunch of smaller companies under one name that fight each other for best interests. Sony electronics took how many years to finally put out a true MP3 player? You know why? Sony Music wouldn't let them. I'm really afraid you'll see this as Sony tries for convergence and they'll end up self destructing.


As far as Microsoft, they have a larger entertainment strategy they're developing. They've already gotten WMV approved as a codec used in both Blu-ray and HD-DVD. They're wheeling and dealing with cable companies to provide TV over IP. Don't be surprised if your next set top box from your cable company is an XBox2 or some derivative.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but I don't know where the fear is coming from? What leads you to think Sony is positioning itself to do anything of the sort?

As far as Microsoft. Again, they have a chance to win simply because they are going to leverage their deep pockets in other markets.

And I still don't trust Nintendo. Those bastards abused the hell out of a monopoly and got burned for it. I just don't know if they've learned their lesson, yet. Not to mention the fact that they aren't exactly in a hurry to support the DS. What the hell is up with that?

As far as the PS2 being a bitch to program for. Yes, it is. Especially to normally computer programmers. The console programmers have never really been used to the nice SDKs that other markets have enjoyed. They typically don't have time to wait for them. However, once those SDKs exist, they usually do a decent job. There is a reason today's PS2 games look dramatically better than the launch ones. Has the XBox seen such an improvement? (I honestly don't know.)
 
smileynev said:
The PS2 was a bitch to program for for the longest time. And its graphics are by far the worst of the three systems. Of course they are the oldest, too. I think the only reason you'll see the big name games on the PS3 to begin with is because of the large market share the PS2 has now, market share they have primarily because they were the first to market with the previous generation systems.

Nintendo is going to have to do a lot to change their image in the marketplace. Knowledgeable hardcore gamer respect the system, even if they don't own it, because of the quality of games. But your more casualy gamer for the most part dismisses Nintendo.

I think Microsoft will come out ahead in the next generation. Especially if they release ahead of Sony. It will be interesting to see the two of them fight it out on equal footing.

As to pricing, I think the low end Xbox will be $300, the higher end bundle $400. I'm not sure about the other systems, I'm hoping the revolution will undercut them some.
Click to expand...
You and I both know Nintendo is way too stubborn to ever change their image, and because of that the console war will essentially be the same battle it is now

just new systems
 
elpmis said:
You and I both know Nintendo is way too stubborn to ever change their image, and because of that the console war will essentially be the same battle it is now

just new systems
Click to expand...

True. Nintendo will always march to the beat of a different drummer. As long as they stay in business and keep producing solid first tier games I'll be happy.
 
smileynev said:
True. Nintendo will always march to the beat of a different drummer. As long as they stay in business and keep producing solid first tier games I'll be happy.
Click to expand...


You mean like "Mario goes Shopping!" or "Lynx Touches Himself. Again" ?
 
taeric said:
Not to mention the fact that they aren't exactly in a hurry to support the DS. What the hell is up with that?
Click to expand...
They are, but mainly in Japan where it has a greater market (and I believe out sells the PSP)
 
smileynev said:
True. Nintendo will always march to the beat of a different drummer. As long as they stay in business and keep producing solid first tier games I'll be happy.
Click to expand...
GC0711_box.jpg
 
elpmis said:
They are, but mainly in Japan where it has a greater market (and I believe out sells the PSP)
Click to expand...

Another reason I should consider learning Japanese and moving to Japan.
 
taeric said:
I see what you are saying, but I don't know where the fear is coming from? What leads you to think Sony is positioning itself to do anything of the sort?
Click to expand...
Because in the history of the company, they have never not done it. Don't think that Sony doesn't have alternative plans for the market here. They're basically using their strong entertainment division to help regain lost market share in electronics. Case in point is the use of the a blue laser. The only reason for going to that was to drive the cost of the laser down by distributing it over millions of consoles. Sony threw a lot of money at buying up all GLV patents and can't wait to put them out in the form of displays. They need the blue laser to be cheap in order to make that technology sucessful. So you see, they're already doing it this console. They're allowing the electronics division to push unnessarily expensive technology on the entertainment division so they can hopefully make more money.
 
elpmis said:
You and I both know Nintendo is way too stubborn to ever change their image, and because of that the console war will essentially be the same battle it is now

just new systems
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. The old president stepped down and now finally retired from the board. They've got a new captain at the helm. I'm going to wait and see how (if) that changes things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back