Jimquisition: Launch Splooge

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Launch Splooge

As we head toward the launch of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, we're going to soon be hearing about their launch libraries, and how awesome they are. Ignore these boasts.

Watch Video
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
4:12 Jim look out! there's a Ninja behind you!

Ask not what your Launch Line-up can do for you,
but what can you can do for your console's longterm viability.
 

Reeve

New member
Feb 8, 2013
292
0
0
Oh yes, we get to see Jim's beautiful locks of hair in this episode! <3 ^_^
 

Jman1236

New member
Jul 29, 2008
528
0
0
I think a large launch lineup is more to do with business sense than common sense. They want the hardware to sell out on day one so if they say there is only going to be 5 games at launch people will hold out for the game they are waiting for and in the meantime people will call the system a failure, investors will start pulling out of the company, third party companies will start pulling support thinking the console is dead on arrival, etc.
 

Wilco86

New member
Oct 5, 2011
99
0
0
There's no way in hell any future console ever will be a dead ringer for the consistent strength of PS2's library (as the generation cycle probably gets shorter and shorter, and people start to look for the next gen earlier), but one can always hope.

Oh, and we do praise you, Jim.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Hard to argue with your point this week, but I'm going to try.

I don't mind a strong launch library, and I don't think it's the launch library that's the core problem. Every console suffers from a great number of "meh" or outright shitty games across its long lifespan. A majority of a console's game will never be played by the average consumer, ever, nor should they probably exist at all. That isn't just limited to the launch in particular. So only releasing a few games at a time doesn't fix the problem so much as spread it out across several months, and that won't solve the problem of having "no games" either.

What really needs to be done is for people's standards to increase, more than anything else. If we demand better games and stop buying bad ones, they'll have to start making better games. It's our tolerance for bullshit that's the problem. If we accept that every console's going to have a lot of shitty games and only a few good ones, and don't actively try to push the industry to do better, then they'll just keep on doing what they're doing and we'll be barraged with shitty games and only a handful of solid ones.

In this respect I give Nintendo props. They're taking their time on making sure their newest games are really good ones, rather than crapping out mediocre or bad ones at a rapid pace. Of course, by the time the good stuff comes out, it might have already been too little, too late. Time will tell.

Captcha: can I love?

Thanks to the defeat of DOMA, you can. Thank Jim for DOMA's defeat!
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
I really think that if a system wants to avoid "got no games", just have as much backwards compatibility as possible. If, somehow, they could bring the SAVES forward as well, then that'd be a strong argument for getting the console.

The WiiU has better backwards compatibility than the Xbox 360 and (current) PS3, and the next gen won't have any backwards compatibility at all. Having it there PLUS a few months of strong titles (timed exclusive, because full exclusive is hurting the industry) ensures that the console will be stronger.

But hey, that would actually be good for the consumer so no way we're going to see that.
 

Guffe

New member
Jul 12, 2009
5,106
0
0
This was a very good episode!
This is what I've been saying in a few threads when people bash me for buying a WiiU, I've had it for 6 months and played 6 WiiU games on it and a few (3 or 4) Wii games. So for me it was a strong start and now it's slowing down a bit, which is nice in itself. But I also know a few games I'll be getting in the future which is nice, and while I play those games I bet there will be new announcments that I then can look forward to!
Of course I guess I need to point out that I have not had PS3/Xbox360 so half of the WiiU games are older ports, but that's what I got for only owing a Wii last gen :D
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
lucky for me that i only ever buy a new system when its been out for a year.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
I think I would be more comfortable to just wait a year and see how the game libraries evolve, then make a decision on the purchase. Current consoles still have a lot of life in them and should hold interest until the "next generation" consoles have had a chance to flesh-out their libraries more.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,676
623
118
Not a bad idea.

Excepting, of course, that it wouldn't actually work.

"Oh, we don't have many games yet, but we'll get some more later, and they'll be really good"...is anyone going to believe this? Should anyone believe this?

Not, sure, if it actually happened, it'd be a good thing, but that's asking for quite a bit of trust from gamers, more than I think they are willing to offer.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
I won't argue the premise, but I think a lot of that problem stems from "got no games" really means "got no big wowing, AAA titles that are nothing but pure awesome" to a lot of people. I'll admit, I've not found a system seller on the vita for most people, but it's games aren't exactly all shovelware either. We just live in a market that has to be wowed to give up the money, and just decent doesn't cut it anymore.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
I have to agree, and that's why I'm (kind of) pleased by Sony and Microsoft's statements in the picture below



It's not necessarily saying "OH LOOK AT WHAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO BUY STRAIGHT AWAY!!" but more, "Yes, there are a few games worth checking out on launch day, and there'll be more throughout the year"

Now, of course, the quality of some of these titles may end up not living up to expectations, but at least they aren't all splooged out in one quick overload.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
I want for a strong launch-lineup these days is due to the fact that backwards compatibility is falling by the wayside. With the PS3 and 360 releasing, you still had all your PS2 games and (some) of your Xbox games you could play. With the PS4 and Xbone, it's just PS4 and Xbone games. And why should I buy a console when I'll only be able to play 4 games on it? And after a year, that'll be, what, 10 games? But as you said, a big library at launch means you'll have jack shit for a few months.

It's a crappy situation all 'round, really. No real right answer.

Of course this is only a problem with early adapters. I buy new consoles after a year or two of release. That way there's a price cut or two and a nice selection of games for me to play.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
It's, uh, good to see that Jim's really celebrating the repeal of DOMA in this video. Especially in some of the....images.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
One of my favourite things about The Jimquisition is how often it surprises me. When I read the description of the video I was expecting myself to disagree with the idea, but once I watched it I cannot help but agree.

What I would say though is that while throwing out as many games as possible is a bad idea they should have at least a couple of large titles. Well known series that will move consoles and get people convincing their friends to get one as well. It looks like they have that covered with this generation though, seeing as COD, Destiny and GTA will all be on both generations. I suspect many will hold back and get them for the new consoles.

Personally I am still stuck with what to do, I will soon be without any platforms other than my PC (trading in my others next week most likely) so am not sure whether to get a PS4 or upgrade my PC. Decisions, decisions.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
All it takes is one good game for me to buy a console. Perhaps if companies focused on one quality title for each genre at release, they'd have more success.

But I remember with the PS3 how there was just nothing available at launch that interested me. And later, when titles did become available, they still didn't interest me enough to justify buying a console.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,766
0
0
I'd go one step further than Jim. Who cares what the system is doing 6+ months from release? If I'm forking over $400 bucks and paying monthly subscriptions I want to know what its doing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 YEARS down the road. Granted its unrealistic to ask what games will be made half a decade from now, but a console is an investment. I played my PS2 well into the next generation and I imagine I'll be playing my 360 well into the upcoming one. I want a console that developers are excited about for longer than a year. I want Sony to say 'don't worry, we have a dozen amazing games slated for release over the next few years." that's more reassuring to me than buying it out of pocket and hoping they stick with it long enough for a good game. Consoles aren't like PCs where the instant you buy one its out of date. The PS4/Xbone will be around for YEARS, not months or weeks. They need to show of they're thinking long term and short term. Good launch titles and even better games down the road. That's called an investment. Bring us in with a few launch titles, sure, but offer us something for sticking with the console and shelling out so much money for it in the first place.
Have a new COD on launch day, I don't care. I won't play it, but I'll get the system if you show Mass Effect 4 or a Battletech game. Hell, make a sequel to Space Marine and I'll probably get the console.
Buying a console for the launch titles is like buying a new tv for the free DVDs that come in the box.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
A console has to start somewhere. Whatever can be mustered. But if you want to have the console on launch, or even in the first year, don't be surprised if the library is small. You are an early adopter.

The problem is three years in and there are still no half decent games, or just one or two. I can't even figure out what is going on in half of these game trailers. Only the "Deep Down" one looks like a recognizable game to me. So you could have 50 launch games, but maybe 1 looks like anything anyone would ever have half a mind to play.

There hasn't been an obvious classic, probably since Shadow of the Colossus. I don't know who these games are made for anymore.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
I don't understand why it matters how much they shoot their load originally. Yes of course they shouldn't give games a stupid launch dead line if the game's not fucking ready but I normally buy games that are months to years old anyway so they're cheaper. If they were the same game I'd prefer all the games out at once, that way I can play the games I really want now and the games I want but not enough to pay $60 for will be available for a price I'm willing to play when I want them.

Of course cook the games to perfection, but they're not food, they don't rot over time. If people are too dumb to not buy a game for $30 because it was released months ago, when they'd pay $60 if it was released now, I blame them. People are too obsessed with new-ness. Like besides a few titles (bioshock, dishonored, any new tales game) I mostly play triple A games on a 6-18 month lag.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I completely disagree with you Jim. All your examples of claims of large launch libraries including mostly ports and a select few original "meh" titles follow by a few meh titles. Size isn't the issue. Its purely about quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_console_launch_games

If you look at the launch titles for PS3 and Wii U it really is almost all uninteresting crap. Even the dreamcast had 5 + launch titles that were good quality original games.

Ps3, Vita and pap literally had nothing I was interested in playing when they launched in the US. Wii U had the zombie game and mario. Its just not enough to justify a $300 purchase.

I think the starting gate goal would be 5 quality original titles. If its a sequel make sure not the yearly one like Call of Duty.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
But like you just said Jim, It's a catch 22.

If Nintendo released a WiiU launchup that consisted of Pikmin3, Zombie U, Wonderful 101, and Super Mario U, and that's all people heard the console is going to have at start, people will whine that it has no games.

Similarly, if they went and had a "huge" lineup of games and it turns out that most either ditched or were just ports...then...yeah we would say the WiiU has no games.

While Nintendo E3 did show a host of released games, I was excited and upset at those titles.
Excited because many of those games are coming to the 3DS or are cross platforms.
Upset because many of those games are for the 3DS and cross platforms.
WiiU NEEDS EXCLUSIVES. It needs them so bad right now. Because if one has to choose between a 3DS version of the game and the WiiU version of the game- one look at the software lineup and they will go for the 3DS one. Make the ports much later. Your 3DS is now one fat happy pig with their game lineups you can relax on that front a bit.

For the Vita- game launch titles are the smallest of the problems the Vita hasn't conquered yet. Sorry Sony, but your going to have to take the painful bullet Nintendo did, and drop the price of your hardware and memory cards. Especially the memory cards. You were still losing to the 3DS when the Nintendo hardware was at it's worse. No your just some forgotten ghost on your single shelf display at Gamestop while the 3DS section gets bigger by the minute.

The 3DS stigma of having no games has all but gone with the wind. As I said earlier they really fattened up that bank this year. Along with the price cut, it's a pretty rad deal.
The WiiU can do the same, but they are going to really have to step it up next year.
At the moment they are literally fighting themselves. They want more people to buy WiiU's, but they keep displaying the 3DS as the better deal.
It's literally a win-lose situation with themselves, and...it's quite a bit embarrassing to watch.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
0
Wilco86 said:
There's no way in hell any future console ever will be a dead ringer for the consistent strength of PS2's library (as the generation cycle probably gets shorter and shorter, and people start to look for the next gen earlier), but one can always hope.

Oh, and we do praise you, Jim.
We can only hope that the cycle gets shorter, but that's unlikely. The cycle was a consistent 5 year cycle up until this cycle. We're starting to hit an upper bound of the hardware curve so you shouldn't expect exponential growth anymore. The moment the systems went to multicore it was a death sentence for the short cycles. Expect a long nearly unending cycles sometime in the future.
 

Merklyn236

New member
Jun 21, 2013
52
0
0
Haven't they pushed themselves into this corner though? Sony with the PS3 abandoned backward compatibility (well, not ENTIRELY, but close enough) meaning that with the exception of launch titles, you had no games to play if you went out and purchased the console on launch day. MS did a little better with the Xbox 360, but still only had backward compatibility for the more popular titles (and even then with problems from what I understand).

But with both the Sony and MS refusing to allow you to keep your existing library (assuming that you trade-in your current system in favor of the newest one, which considering the economy will likely be at least, what, 50% of all launch time purchases?), there would be a twisted logic in thinking that the only way to do that would be to give you a huge launch day library to ease the pain for you - as opposed to making you remember that you traded in the 20-30 titles you had for your old system for your new console and one or two games.

Of course they could have done the better idea and included backward compatibility...but then users might have not splurged on a ton of titles in the first year of having their new shiny console, and where's the profit in that?

Bitter? You bet I am.
 

Xisin

New member
Sep 1, 2009
189
0
0
WaitWHAT said:
It's, uh, good to see that Jim's really celebrating the repeal of DOMA in this video. Especially in some of the....images.
Lmao I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice. I was just waiting for the next time Jim said an equivalent word to release...

I couldn't agree more. I think the consoles should launch with a handful of great titles and have a steady release schedule. It's not like most people can buy the new console and all twenty games.
 

tardcore

New member
Jan 15, 2011
103
0
0
Well Jim I agree that a company shooting its whole load at launch and then leaving the rest of the year empty is a bad idea. BUT I think the true heart of the issue you speak of what gamers truly want and what the gaming industry really needs is LESS SHIT GAMES. Now I know you addressed this saying that companies trying to launch a console with tons of games available leads to shoddy games, and I do think there is a nugget of truth to that, however I think the real issue of gaming libraries being mostly crap is more down to publisher apathy than publisher ability, or their publishing schedule.

The line from the song Not Now John comes to mind "Who cares what its about as long as the kids go". It seems these days that any publisher be it either PC, Console, Handheld, whatever has a small core of cherished IPs and then a huge stable of filler crap games. Publishers seem to be banking on their main titles to pull the weight of the sales and then let all the little crap titles fill in any missing spots. So I feel that until these companies start paying more attention to quality control and stop green lighting games that they know are pointless mindwank (well and spending the brunt of their budgets on a handful of titles) we the gamers are damned to a library of games that are mostly shit regardless of what release schedule we get.
 

Catfood220

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,896
121
68
And that is why I am not buying a PS4 until at least a year and a half after launch, by that time it should have enough games that I want to play. The only console I've brought at launch was the Gamecube and it was torturous having to wait for games to play on it.
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
So in other words, Jim is advising that instead of a Friday night with a large number of ladies of negotiable affection, we should instead inquire as to whether or not several of those ladies of negotiable affection would be able to provide a more enjoyable (and perhaps even higher quality) service if they were given a day or two of rest? Hmmm...

I suppose if we were to gently nudge the market in that manner, they would perhaps provide their services for slightly longer periods of time and may not have trouble with day one performance nor may not decide to retire early after attempting to perform the deeds sometimes described in a telling of (in)famous "The Aristocrats" joke in order to differentiate herself from the rest of the ladies. (While Ms. Spore's services may not have been the most popular, I do imagine that there are many who are quite miffed that her services are no longer available. Particularly those who continue to pay for her services even though her employer is well aware of her retirement.)

I fear, however, that the lower quarterly returns may cause their employers to forsake such a plan and continue on with business as usual. Alas, long term growth and survival is not often found in their cunning plans.
 

piclemaniscool

New member
Dec 19, 2008
79
0
0
The problem, which Jim touches upon as well, is that launch games are usually shit. The reason companies now want to shovel out as many launch games as possible is because it will give them a higher chance of hitting a mark above mediocrity. Would you rather have 20 launch titles with 2 good games and then nothing for a couple of months, or no good games for the same span of time? Jim's plan only works if you assume every game is GOOD. I'd say that's even more delusional than the companies' mindsets.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
And yet I can't help but think that shooting backwards compatibility in the foot continues to be a fucking retarded practice that could greatly help alleviate launch issues. Don't like launch games? No problem, just play an older game without having to constantly switch between consoles!
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
Well said, Jim. I'd be more happy if the titles for a new system were spread out to give both the players and the developers more breathing space. It's time for the industry to focus more on quality and less on quantity.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Oh yeah, definitely...
It's a bit silly what they try to do but I can't help but understand their efforts for showing: Hey we have someone for everyone in DAY 1! As to attract as many possible buyers. It is a stupid thing, but I think its hard to deny how many of us crave the new even when it might not be the best.. I lash myself for that.. but it still happens..

Also.. as someone else noted, I noticed a rather odd fixation with David Boreanaz and some ...suspiciously gay porn imagery... hey no problem with that but it caught me a bit off-guard.

Merklyn236 said:
Haven't they pushed themselves into this corner though? Sony with the PS3 abandoned backward compatibility (well, not ENTIRELY, but close enough) meaning that with the exception of launch titles, you had no games to play if you went out and purchased the console on launch day....
I don't understand what you mean by that, the first ps3 models had HARDWARE backwards compatibility... It was one of the reasons I bought a 60gb model day one... It still works great up to date.

anyhow!
thank dog for Jim.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Well said Jim. Don't always agree with you dude, but this one was spot on.

I love my Vita, but I'll admit that with 30+ games available to me soon after launch, I felt overwhelmed by the games available, and in the next coming months, besides Gravity Rush, there was nothing being released for the system for about 2-3 months.

Now, the Vita is getting at least one good game released every other week (usually download only, sadly), and that's good enough for me.

Kudos for adding Shinobido 2 footage also, a game which I LOVE on the Vita. However, I worry you've added footage of that game in there as an example of a shoddy title (?)
 

chiefohara

New member
Sep 4, 2009
985
0
0
This is why id wait 6 months to buy a console, more games and the launch titles are cheaper. You also have the benefit of reviews and public feedback so you can cherry pick your initial library
 

Mahoshonen

New member
Jul 28, 2008
358
0
0
Another important point, a consistent release schedule allows less-than-sterling games to get exposure. I was an N64 owner, and had a lot of fun with games like Turok and Shadows of the Empire. Had these been launched right along side GoldenEye, I probably would have either ignored them or been resentful for wasting my money on them.
 

Malisteen

New member
Mar 1, 2010
86
0
0
I'll thank you for killing DOMA Jim, when you fix your blunder with the Voting Rights Act.
 

deckai

New member
Oct 26, 2009
280
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
4:12 Jim look out! there's a Ninja behind you!

Ask not what your Launch Line-up can do for you,
but what can you can do for your console's longterm viability.
Dammit, and here I thought I was the first one to notice "Asian"-Jim... and it's the first comment .....

Back on Topic:

Whenever I heard someone say, there are no games for the console I always thought they meant there are no games "worth playing" for the console.

I always considered the "worth playing" to be implied...

But yeah, for a strong line-up, quality is always more important than quantity.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
It happens a lot. Games are moved from "launch title" to "launch window" and no one bats an eye. Most of the examples I have are from Nintendo consoles (I don't think they are the only ones, just the ones I can remember).

Besides, Jim, attention span is the name of the game. How are you going to convince a kid in the holidays that they should focus on enjoying the games they have, because its good for the quality, instead on demanding far too many games for the little time they have to play them?

Also, launch time is the best time to accommodate your new games, if you are a publisher with access to it. Look at Lair, Red Steel or Dark Kingdom... none of those game would have sold a fraction of what they did if the market wasn't an uninhabited wasteland.
 

CyberMachinist

New member
Oct 8, 2012
83
0
0
I'll agree that it does sound like an ideal situation, if the quality games can at least last us most of a month until the next, but it won't work like that in RL, like someone said before me it's companies and shareholders that dictate how this works by their logic, and their logic is numbers justify the means, which is why we're in this situation to begin with.

That and it's pretty hard to make a good game with tech specs that people are still getting used to, maybe they could release them a bit earlier if they can, so Dev's have more time to make a good game(or atleast a decent one) but i don't think that will happen with the way things are going.

At times like this we could use a time machine so they can send us good games from the future.

or maybe they can try making smaller but addicting games so we have something to kill the time until they can get something going by next month, they could use some of last gen tech to help with that.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
Launch means nothing. PS2 launch was TERRIBLE. Only SSX and maybe Dynasty Warriors 2, which were half game and half tech demos, saved it. It didn't get its "good" games until a year after launch (GTA3, Metal Gear Solid 2, FFX, ICO, etc).

And historically most of the best games are released at the end of a system cycle, not the beginning.
 

Hellfireboy

New member
Mar 11, 2013
48
0
0
The thing is that when gamers say, "(system x) has no games," they don't really mean that literally but figuratively. What they really mean is that there are no games worth playing. Unfortunately marketing people aren't the cleverest of folk and take the words at face value bragging about the quantity of games at launch. No gamer just wants something to play when they first grab their new system, they want something that they will enjoy playing. Having twenty games at launch is meaningless if you just put out twenty games that no one wants to play. If that's the case then, "you have no games."
 

Vicioussama

New member
Jun 5, 2008
100
0
0
You know what fixes this problem? BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY!! True Backwards Compatibility. I can see why Sony might have a problem with backwards compatibility for PS3 games, but why not PS2 and PS1? Those can easily be software emulated (hell, they already have them on PC and PS4 is basically a PC). But that's no excuse for MS which shouldn't have any real hardware problem running 360 or XBox games on the XBone. Backwards Compatibility would have made me buy a Vita asap. Some add on that could be connected to use UMDs? A REAL program to plug in your UMD and get a free digital download (without a stupid fee or having to "just buy it again on PSN" bs like the wanted).

Ya... I'm sorry, but the corporations create this problem without true backwards compatibility AS WELL as not having real good games on release. Sure they might have that one good game on release, but as Jim said, most games are ports or rushed (or both) and that causes a lot of problems. And ya, staggering releases so they are consistent good games coming up (say first week is one good game, second is another, etc). But they'd have to make sure that on release at least ONE good game for each major genre is covered. After all, not everyone likes the same genre of game.

I wonder if any console has opted to hold off releases until the developers of the games say they are done with the games... hmmm

rembrandtqeinstein said:
Launch means nothing. PS2 launch was TERRIBLE. Only SSX and maybe Dynasty Warriors 2, which were half game and half tech demos, saved it. It didn't get its "good" games until a year after launch (GTA3, Metal Gear Solid 2, FFX, ICO, etc).

And historically most of the best games are released at the end of a system cycle, not the beginning.
BLASPHEMY!! PS2 launch had:

Armored Core 2 (Agetec, Action)
DOA2: Hardcore (Tecmo, Fighting)
Dynasty Warriors 2 (Koei, Action)
ESPN International Track and Field (Konami, Sports)
ESPN X-Games Snowboarding (Konami, Sports)
Eternal Ring (Agetec, RPG)
Evergrace (Agetec, RPG)
FantaVision (SCEI, Puzzle)
Gun Griffon Blaze (Working Designs, Action)
Kessen (EA, Adventure)
Madden NFL 2001 (EA, Sports)
Midnight Club (Rockstar, Racing)
Moto GP (Namco, Racing)
NHL 2001 (EA, Sports)
Orphen (Activision, RPG)
Q-Ball Billiards Master (Take-Two Interactive, Simulation)
Ready 2 Rumble Boxing: Round 2 (Midway, Sports)
Ridge Racer V (Namco, Racing)
Silent Scope (Konami, Shooter)
Smuggler's Run (Rockstar, Racing-Adventure)
SSX (EA, Sports)
Street Fighter EX3 (Capcom, Fighting)
Summoner (THQ, RPG)
Swing Away (Paradise Golf in Japan) (EA, Sports)
Tekken Tag Tournament (Namco, fighting)
TimeSplitters (Eidos, First-Person Shooter)
Unreal Tournament (Infogrames, First-Person Shooter)
Wild Wild Racing (Interplay, Racing)
X-Squad (EA, Action)

Of those, at least AC2 and Tekken Tag were decent as was Dynasty Warriors 2 (all of these decent for the time mind you). Since you could choose 3 games with your PS3 of the release titles it was a pretty amazing deal. And let's not forget Dark Cloud came out shortly after the release. Dark Cloud was so great :)

I don't think PS2 had a "horrible launch" lol
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
You've always had a good case per Jimquisition, but I guess this week there was no good topic?
It'd be nice to spread it out, but consumers will splurge at the start.
A few months later the average gamer's wallet is STILL reeling from the 600+ dollar hit it took.

Kids get the console at Christmas with 1, max 2 games. They will not buy new ones for a long time, unless it's second hand...

So please, get the best line-up you can on day one, so everyone has choice.
Too bad 90% is shit... and 1-2 months of more dev time will not help, as they where just made to exploit the fact that there is zero reference and no real competition at launchday. These are mom and pop games, that the kid will hate, but the parents don't know that.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
"Too Late for Nintendo"? What's that supposed to mean? ...Well, I guess nobody I know, or people I talk to even know there's another Nintendo console, let alone that it's been released.
 

el_kabong

Shark Rodeo Champion
Mar 18, 2010
540
0
0
This is one of the only videos wherein I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Sterling, if only because the opinion was presented in a very binary fashion. Having a strong launch line-up and having a continuous stream of good games are not exclusive. As consumers, we can demand to have both things. Demand is not a finite resource for consumers because we are the source of demand.
 

Maxtro

New member
Feb 13, 2011
940
0
0
WaitWHAT said:
It's, uh, good to see that Jim's really celebrating the repeal of DOMA in this video. Especially in some of the....images.
Yeah that was a bit excessive and I stopped watching halfway because of them.

*Insert ironic joke about how women must feel.*

Now excuse me while I stare at my avatar for a minute.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Jim there's a place outside of America called the rest of the world. So when you say you support or oppose things that no one has heard of outside of America people won't know whether you're doing something noble or being homophobic.
 

ConanThe3rd

New member
Jul 3, 2012
72
0
0
First off; You're looking a hell of a lot healthier these days, Jim. Maybe it's the haircut.

Second; at this point I've accepted that a year in is the proper launch window, when we end up geting the Super Mario 64's of the new console's life. For Example; I got the 3DS some time after Luigi's Mansion 2 came out (oh and a little game known as Animal Crossing: New Leaf otherwise known as "Oh Shit! Tom Nook has my eternal soul and won't let go and yet I'm ok with it because I'm Moé for Isabelle") I'm sure one day soon the Wii U will have it's Mario 64 as will the Xbone and PS4 (though I'm not betting hard on the Xbone because I'm sure it's going to be a PC Mario 64 too).
 

Deadagent

New member
Sep 14, 2011
62
0
0
Altough no one outright says it, when people say "X has No Games" they usually mean no games worth playing.
So you're basically adressing a non-issue.
 

Arawn

New member
Dec 18, 2003
515
0
0
There is another aspect of the launching titles one must consider aside from quantity and that is quality. Not just the way a game looks, but how much fun/enjoyment the purchaser will have. We can all admit games of late are usually conquered within hours of playing. How often has you purchased a game on release day, and when you get home there is already a FAQ posted? And even a casual game will tear through a single player campaign within a week if not less. I guess it's not much of a problem for the console as it means the person will need to buy another game that much sooner. Having alot of games isn't as bad as having games that don't occupy our time that long despite how pretty they may be rendered. That's why with most system launches I look for RPGs, but that genre has fallen off of late. Now there are action games with RPG elements. None the less the system exclusives may look less than promising, but there are some decent games that share both consoles. Watch_Dogs for one is something I'm looking forward to playing. While I understand why they've dumped backwards compatibility I don't really like it. Both systems seem like an upgrade rather than a new unit. The parts under the hood are similar enough to handle the old workload. But MS and Sony want to focus all of that on newer items. Again; I understand it, but just don't like it. Thankfully they're not completely abandoning the old systems, yet.
 

AWAR

New member
Nov 15, 2009
1,911
0
0
Please Jim, make a video that's not about the new consoles please.. pretty please
 

omgeveryone9

New member
Jan 25, 2013
91
0
0
So far, most of the games that I want to play on PS4 and Xbox 1 (or Xbone 1) can be played on PC. Assasins Creed, Watch Dogs, most of the F2P games, Elder Scrolls Online, Mad Max, Witcher 3, and lets not mention Battlefield and COD. The only one that is only available for consoles is the new Tom Clancy game, and even that for me is meh at best considering my hate of everything Tom Clancy except the first book he wrote.

Wait, Zoo Tycoon is coming to Xbox 1 but not on PC?! Well, looking at the logo it looks like another Simcity 2013 (aka it is gonna be so bad)
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
This is a problem with no real solution.

Console launches have been shit for a long long time now.
Why? For one thing, Developers need to become acclimated to the new platform; each new step brings new tech and even having the devkit for a solid year in advance, there's no way a company is going to know its ins and outs by launch. (Their skill levels will definitely not compare well to the previous console generation. Which is why we were still seeing good PS2 games all the way through 2008.)

Second, no developer publisher is going to support a system that's selling poorly in the long run (hello WiiU) so they probably aren't going to stagger their releases for the first year.
Assuming a company is going to support a system at all, it's easier to put their first game onto the system at launch and then watch the response, see what people liked on launch, what they didn't and ready round 2 based on how well the system held up. Or to just put their first game into the Round 2 lineup.

Staggering releases seems logical to the consumer, but this flies in the face of everything a blockbuster-centric publisher does (and right now, that's all the big players).

Summarily, the worse the company performs, the more conservative they become.
It's why AAA games are becoming increasingly homogenized and "safe" as they try as hard as they can to polish and market their games or establish new schemes that integrates "online" as some magical catch-all enhancer that ultimately does fuck-all for the experience...y'know, instead of making better gameplay.

(As for staggered releases in general, even in the best of times, big game launches mostly occur in bursts.
I can't be the only one who notices this.

Most launches are centered on the Christmas Rush in Sept-December, then a much smaller rush in March-Late May with a lot of nothing in between. Maybe 1 or 2 big games over the summer and in late winter. MAYBE.)

Of course, there was a feature called "Backwards compatibility" that alleviated some of those growing pains but including that is too expensive for the console manufacturers to provide now (as Sony learned) unless it's planned for or on hilariously obsolete (cheaper) hardware (like the Wii and WiiU).
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Reeve said:
Oh yes, we get to see Jim's beautiful locks of hair in this episode! <3 ^_^
I forgot what i was gonna say, I hope your happy. But yeah it looks better.

Jim, did you really have to go H. Erotic on this? That being said damn nice hair (LOL).
I think Jim makes a valid point, only 3 games on launch isn't going to get many of us to buy the God damn thing on Launch.

23 might though. Your point makes perfect sense. It totally does (as it generally does),
but we're gamers and we're spoiled. are we gonna buy a new system for 3 good games right off the bat?
Hell we might not even do it for 3 great games.

My point? I'm not so sure honesty will get the kind of results game companies want.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
MB202 said:
"Too Late for Nintendo"? What's that supposed to mean? ...Well, I guess nobody I know, or people I talk to even know there's another Nintendo console, let alone that it's been released.
That confused me too.
Last time I checked, the 3DS had not one, but two years of no games, and now nobody is saying the 3DS has no games.
If a handheld can last that long with the titles and still pick up speed, so can the WiiU.
 

GamemasterAnthony

New member
Dec 5, 2010
1,009
0
0
Huh...I never thought about that, but you're right, Jim. It would make a lot more sense if games were released over time after making sure they weren't absolute crap. I've actually seen a few NON-launch titles that were rushed out of the gate and suffered because of it.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Hmm, this is basically telling people to be more educated consumers who resist time tested/proven marketing strategies. While that's absolutely correct, a world with people in it who are capable of doing so would be the best kind of world.

However, consoles live and die by how many consumers buy their consoles at the start. I don't know if they are capable to resist dropping everything they can in one giant pile of what they consider goodness.

I'll also add that the WiiU suffers for entirely different reasons, not the least of which is that people still think the WiiU is just a peripheral tablet and not Wii2 and that their "large game library" consisted mostly of newer games that had already been out for months and not new titles and especially not new IPs.

As for the psVita, they did put out a legitimate game library with new titles and several innovative features. Why they're doing poorly may not be too far removed from the tablet market vs. the kid friendly handhold market that Nintendo owns outright. Perhaps the Dreamcast would be a more time honored reference?

Speaking of references, Song of Ice and Fire, nice.
 

Grach

New member
Aug 31, 2012
339
0
0
Delcast said:
Also.. as someone else noted, I noticed a rather odd fixation with David Boreanaz and some ...suspiciously gay porn imagery... hey no problem with that but it caught me a bit off-guard.
Yeah... Last week's rhymedown also had a David Boreanaz thumbnail. I was going to ask why, because I find it hard to concentrate on the video with such a sexy man on display.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
"Let Jimquisition bring light into your life, explaining how the demand for a strong launch lineup is misplaced, and how consoles may screw themselves by spurting out a big wad at once."

It's called the Wii U and it sucks having a ton of games at launch and then not having anything but LEGO City and Monster Hunter if you like that kind of game for half a year. Please don't do that, Sony.

(I don't give a fuck what MS does to be honest because I'm not getting an Xbone at launch and won't get one until a price drop and some games arrive. Right now they have Dead Rising of Duty and nothing else of interest. For $500, no thanks)

Oh, and thank you for getting rid of the defense of marriage act, Jim!

Rabbids Land is the game about Willem Dafeo, right? :p
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
Backwards compatibility creates a strong launch lineup but I guess that's just really backwards nowadays.
 

TiberiusEsuriens

New member
Jun 24, 2010
834
0
0
I'm surprised. For the first Jimquisition I can personally think of there wasn't anything controversial discussed (unless you count the gay jokes). This was a straight up solid point that hasn't ever really been worded well before.
 

Mr_Terrific

New member
Oct 29, 2011
163
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
cyvaris said:
Mummer's Farce? Has Jim been reading Song of Ice and Fire?
All the damn time!
Would you mind explaining what is up with you and David Boreanaz? And has he responded to you yet? I'm a bit lost but have to admit, I find this whole Angel kick you're on to be amusing...
 

CoronaryThrombosis

New member
Apr 15, 2009
55
0
0
Nintendo especially had no reason for promising a huge launch lineup, because they have the only system with backward compatibility. Microsoft and Sony have to come out of the gates with something huge or it becomes extremely hard for the masses to justify purchasing a new game machine.

And Jim, if you get credit for defeating DOMA, you also get the blame for Russia's criminalization of gay propaganda. It's unfair, but thems are the breaks, Jim.

Also, Patriot Act -- get to work.
 

Catrixa

New member
May 21, 2011
209
0
0
I feel like launch titles (of questionable quality) are kind of the compromise for a new console. The situation (I feel) goes:
1. There are no games whatsoever. Console comes out, nothing to play with it. No one buys it, it's declared a failure, investors walk off, publishers declare with won't make games for it, company loses money and cred. No one wins.
2. There are 1 or 2 good games. Console comes out, only wealthy consumers are willing to buy a $300+ device for 1-2 games. Console is declared failure, investors walk off, publishers declare with won't make games for it, company loses money and cred. Wealthier consumers win if the games were really good (and the device offers other neat features), console maker loses.
3. There are 1 or 2 good games and a bucket (8-9) crap games and/or ancient ports. Console comes out, wealthy consumers get console for 1-2 good games, ignorant consumers get console for all games. Console is declared failure, but makes (some) money off new games. Investors wary, publishers wary, but if they see something good in the market for the system: publishers promise new games, these are advertised, console maker gets cred, investors are happy, games come out for system, everyone wins.

I feel like the shovelware is designed to keep the system chugging through the "Will games come out for this thing?!" phase. They aren't really designed for hardcore gamers, they're designed for early adopters who want to do something (anything!) with their new system. I don't think there are many ways around this (not unless you've got a bunch of studios who can design two separate games for your old system and your new system--you don't want to lose face not making games for your old system because you're making games for the new system), unless you have enough cred that you can ride on the promise of games when the system comes out, without any actual games. I can think of no console maker with that kind of cred.

Unrelated note: If not being an NFL fan makes me a robot, Captcha, then beep-fucking-boop.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
TiberiusEsuriens said:
I'm surprised. For the first Jimquisition I can personally think of there wasn't anything controversial discussed (unless you count the gay jokes). This was a straight up solid point that hasn't ever really been worded well before.
I hardly call any man being attracted to Angel a gay joke. That's only natural...
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
I think the reason nobody thanks Jim for the repeal of DOMA is because not everyone supported DOMA being repealed. Some of us are probably even hoping the law comes back in a few years after another court case.
 

Stalydan

New member
Mar 18, 2011
510
0
0
Andy Shandy said:
I have to agree, and that's why I'm (kind of) pleased by Sony and Microsoft's statements in the picture below



It's not necessarily saying "OH LOOK AT WHAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO BUY STRAIGHT AWAY!!" but more, "Yes, there are a few games worth checking out on launch day, and there'll be more throughout the year"

Now, of course, the quality of some of these titles may end up not living up to expectations, but at least they aren't all splooged out in one quick overload.
Of course what that list leaves out is the multiplatform games coming out during the launch period like Watch Dogs and CoD: Ghosts.

I think a good launch line up should be around 7 to 10 games. Not limiting the choice of content people can get (Not everybody is going to want Knack or DriveClub) but still holding back on enough games that a strong library can be built in the months after release.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
What gets me is why they can't just learn from what made previous consoles successful. Like why did the PS2 sell so well? Maybe we should find out and do more of that?
Anyway, I'd much rather have a lineup of good games spread out along a consoles run rather than a whole bunch of shit games spooged out all at once.
 

sixthcircle

New member
Apr 11, 2008
10
0
0
wow - i read a good way down in the comments and there wasn't a single church basement dwelling hate-monger to be found. this IS the internet right? i'm in the right place aren't i? anyway i suppose that speaks volumes to the caliber of fan you have garnered my good man.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Sep 3, 2020
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
Merklyn236 said:
Haven't they pushed themselves into this corner though? Sony with the PS3 abandoned backward compatibility (well, not ENTIRELY, but close enough) meaning that with the exception of launch titles, you had no games to play if you went out and purchased the console on launch day. MS did a little better with the Xbox 360, but still only had backward compatibility for the more popular titles (and even then with problems from what I understand).

But with both the Sony and MS refusing to allow you to keep your existing library (assuming that you trade-in your current system in favor of the newest one, which considering the economy will likely be at least, what, 50% of all launch time purchases?), there would be a twisted logic in thinking that the only way to do that would be to give you a huge launch day library to ease the pain for you - as opposed to making you remember that you traded in the 20-30 titles you had for your old system for your new console and one or two games.

Of course they could have done the better idea and included backward compatibility...but then users might have not splurged on a ton of titles in the first year of having their new shiny console, and where's the profit in that?

Bitter? You bet I am.
Pretty much this. It's not like these new consoles are from companies new to making consoles or that video games are a brand new thing in the first place. They spent the last five years or so building a fan base while that base built a library. Abandoning backwards compatibility no only means alienation previous customers but reducing the value to existing customers. At this point, only the most strapped for cash will consider the new, discounted PS3 or 360 when there's a new console generation upon us. Those who don't already have a game from the previous generation will look to see what games they'd missed. This has been what nintendo has don with their handhelds since the original Gameboy. make it backwards compatible with the previous generation and that will beef up your launch line-up until the third party support shows up.
 

masticina

New member
Jan 19, 2011
763
0
0
Oh you mean spreading out the games. Well yes that would be lovely. Lets be fair so many games want to be around precise the same time of year. That is without console launches. If a console launches oh my.. then such is even worse!

And no I don't have money to buy every darn game in november.

Hey we can wait right?
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
[HEADING=1]Stragegos[/HEADING]


[HEADING=3]List of 2013 Launch Titles?[/HEADING]
There are like 3 launch exclusives set for SONY, and about the same for Microsoft, which Jim knows, so this argument doesn't even make sense! Three (SONY Exclusives) + four (3rd Party Titles) for Nov - Dec? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

And Wii U had the opposite problem, so what is Jim blabbering about?

[HEADING=3]E3[/HEADING]

E3 is the largest event in the industry for press, online-viewership, etc... It would be incredibly foolish for any console, publisher or developer to withhold content about a game in development. They need the public's support: some viewers will subscribe to developer twitter feeds for games that they liked, others will bookmark title-sites -- this Industry needs a consistent following of fans, who will maintain interest over the next year.

[HEADING=3]Jim is spouting off on a crisis that doesn't even exist.[/HEADING]
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Adon Cabre said:
[HEADING=1]Stragegos[/HEADING]


[HEADING=3]List of 2013 Launch Titles?[/HEADING]
There are like 3 launch exclusives set for SONY, and about the same for Microsoft, which Jim knows, so this argument doesn't even make sense! Three (SONY Exclusives) + four (3rd Party Titles) for Nov - Dec? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

And Wii U had the opposite problem, so what is Jim blabbering about?

[HEADING=3]E3[/HEADING]

E3 is the largest event in the industry for press, online-viewership, etc... It would be incredibly foolish for any console, publisher or developer to withhold content about a game in development. They need the public's support: some viewers will subscribe to developer twitter feeds for games that they liked, others will bookmark title-sites -- this Industry needs a consistent following of fans, who will maintain interest over the next year.

[HEADING=3]Jim is spouting off on a crisis that doesn't even exist.[/HEADING]
Wow, two strawmen at once, impressive. About E3 first because that was the dumber of the strawmen: Jim never fucking said anything about you knowing information. Everything he said was about RELEASE SCHEDULE, not E3 disclosure. What you said isn't even fucking relevant to what he said.

As for the first strawman :Where did he say that there was a large launch lineup for PS4 and XBone? He said it was a problem for the vita and the wiiU and that it is not good that we demand it.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Exactly. Jim pointedly said he hoped the XBone and the PS4 learned from those other consoles failures, implying that they had yet to make the same mistake. This was not about attacking [insert your fanboy console here], it was about a warning to the industry... before it's too late.

Thank God for Jim, indeed.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
I thought that was obvious. The reason so many people loved the classic Nintendo consoles up to the Gamecube is because there were so many great games on them, not just games but great games, that I'm sure most of you have heard of and even played.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
mike1921 said:
Adon Cabre said:
[HEADING=1]Stragegos[/HEADING]


[HEADING=3]List of 2013 Launch Titles?[/HEADING]
There are like 3 launch exclusives set for SONY, and about the same for Microsoft, which Jim knows, so this argument doesn't even make sense! Three (SONY Exclusives) + four (3rd Party Titles) for Nov - Dec? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

And Wii U had the opposite problem, so what is Jim blabbering about?

[HEADING=3]E3[/HEADING]

E3 is the largest event in the industry for press, online-viewership, etc... It would be incredibly foolish for any console, publisher or developer to withhold content about a game in development. They need the public's support: some viewers will subscribe to developer twitter feeds for games that they liked, others will bookmark title-sites -- this Industry needs a consistent following of fans, who will maintain interest over the next year.

[HEADING=3]Jim is spouting off on a crisis that doesn't even exist.[/HEADING]
Wow, two strawmen at once, impressive. About E3 first because that was the dumber of the strawmen: Jim never fucking said anything about you knowing information. Everything he said was about RELEASE SCHEDULE, not E3 disclosure. What you said isn't even fucking relevant to what he said.

As for the first strawman :Where did he say that there was a large launch lineup for PS4 and XBone? He said it was a problem for the vita and the wiiU and that it is not good that we demand it.
[HEADING=3]Here is Jim's erroneous argument[/HEADING]

"We don't want a strong launch library (quantity), we really shouldn't want that. We should want a strong library (quality)."

[li]Fewer launch games = Quality Games/Awesome Library[/li]

The essence of his argument is an existential crisis, one that is far removed from the realities of this industry/economy.

Telling costumers to refuse more product for the sake of quality? It's the splurge on various titles that creates the niche genres, that creates a variety. Jim is accusing SONY and Microsoft of pushing out so many games at once, that many of these will be crap; but it's assumed that most of those exclusives and third party titles, won't even be released until late summer and fall of '14.

[HEADING=3]PS Vita & Wii U[/HEADING]
The Wii U isn't failing because of games, it's failing because no one even knows that it's a new console -- Wii U. Games can't fix something that no one knows exists. And no one knows that the Wii U exists because of its name and bad marketing.

The Wii was so successful because it was new and innovative, and marketed well. It sold 100 Million units to old people and young people, who bought a game or two, and then stored it in their closets indefinitely. (Why do think they rushed out the U? Software wasn't selling.) Nintendo took them all for granted, believing that they would just hop on the next console train, when in reality, very few of their consumers were actually casual gamers. Now the Wii U won't even see 30 Million units.

The PS Vita is also failing because of pricing and SONY's proprietary peripherals. The fact that a 32 GB SONY Prop memory card, their largest card, and the only card worth storing titles on, costs $89; thereby making the PS Vita nearly $400 outside the PS+ Account and, you know, games. Even more important, the hand-held market is extremely small outside of the DS.

It isn't hard for a consumer to add up their mobile devices; $200 Contract phone (mobile games) + $400 PS Vita (Better Mobile Games) = $600+ in their pockets. That's just not feasible for many.

[HEADING=3]Jim, being the media, is sensationalizing a crisis that doesn't exist; and you fell for it.[/HEADING]

What I'm saying is that there aren't even a lot of games en route to launch, and I haven't heard of anyone asking for more since E3; and that was 3 weeks ago.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
JarinArenos said:
Exactly. Jim pointedly said he hoped the XBone and the PS4 learned from those other consoles failures, implying that they had yet to make the same mistake. This was not about attacking [insert your fanboy console here], it was about a warning to the industry... before it's too late.

Thank God for Jim, indeed.
This would have been a great argument a year ago, but it makes no sense now that SONY and Microsoft have showed their hands in the game.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Adon Cabre said:
This would have been a great argument a year ago, but it makes no sense now that SONY and Microsoft have showed their hands in the game.
Okay, I like Jim, but even I don't think he can see 8 months into the future to predict details about consoles that haven't been announced yet.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Adon Cabre said:
mike1921 said:
Adon Cabre said:
[HEADING=1]Stragegos[/HEADING]


[HEADING=3]List of 2013 Launch Titles?[/HEADING]
There are like 3 launch exclusives set for SONY, and about the same for Microsoft, which Jim knows, so this argument doesn't even make sense! Three (SONY Exclusives) + four (3rd Party Titles) for Nov - Dec? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

And Wii U had the opposite problem, so what is Jim blabbering about?

[HEADING=3]E3[/HEADING]

E3 is the largest event in the industry for press, online-viewership, etc... It would be incredibly foolish for any console, publisher or developer to withhold content about a game in development. They need the public's support: some viewers will subscribe to developer twitter feeds for games that they liked, others will bookmark title-sites -- this Industry needs a consistent following of fans, who will maintain interest over the next year.

[HEADING=3]Jim is spouting off on a crisis that doesn't even exist.[/HEADING]
Wow, two strawmen at once, impressive. About E3 first because that was the dumber of the strawmen: Jim never fucking said anything about you knowing information. Everything he said was about RELEASE SCHEDULE, not E3 disclosure. What you said isn't even fucking relevant to what he said.

As for the first strawman :Where did he say that there was a large launch lineup for PS4 and XBone? He said it was a problem for the vita and the wiiU and that it is not good that we demand it.
[HEADING=3]Here is Jim's erroneous argument[/HEADING]

"We don't want a strong launch library (quantity), we really shouldn't want that. We should want a strong library (quality)."

[li]Fewer launch games = Quality Games/Awesome Library[/li]

The essence of his argument is an existential crisis, one that is far removed from the realities of this industry/economy.

Telling costumers to refuse more product for the sake of quality? It's the splurge on various titles that creates the niche genres, that creates a variety. Jim is accusing SONY and Microsoft of pushing out so many games at once, that many of these will be crap;
What the fuck are you talking about? He didn't even mention Microsoft once. He didn't mention the PS4 once. And the vast majority of footage was of the vita and the wiiU.
[HEADING=3]PS Vita & Wii U[/HEADING]
The Wii U isn't failing because of games, it's failing because no one even knows that it's a new console -- Wii U. Games can't fix something that no one knows exists. And no one knows that the Wii U exists because of its name and bad marketing.

The Wii was so successful because it was new and innovative, and marketed well. It sold 100 Million units to old people and young people, who bought a game or two, and then stored it in their closets indefinitely. (Why do think they rushed out the U? Software wasn't selling.) Nintendo took them all for granted, believing that they would just hop on the next console train, when in reality, very few of their consumers were actually casual gamers. Now the Wii U won't even see 30 Million units.
Wii's attachment rate was fine, they probably rushed out the console because having a year lead on competition hypothetically should've gotten consoles in doors. and if they had a good library they'd be doing fine on the backs of less-casual gamers. Normal gamers know the wiiU exists, but why would we buy it? I honestly don't think wii lightning was going to strike twice no matter how well they market it.
The PS Vita is also failing because of pricing and SONY's proprietary peripherals. The fact that a 32 GB SONY Prop memory card, their largest card, and the only card worth storing titles on, costs $89; thereby making the PS Vita nearly $400 outside the PS+ Account and, you know, games. Even more important, the hand-held market is extremely small outside of the DS.
I doubt many people even look into the storage before buying a handheld, although that is a shitty practice. $250 for a handheld sounds perfectly reasonable to me if it didn't feel like I'd be buying it for 2 games. also, $90 plus $250+$90 is fairly short of $400 don't you think? You don't get to round up when you're not even halfway there.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
For me it's kind of an odd situation. I normally don't day 1 buy a console. Infact I don't think I ever have. I've always waited for a stronger lineup. Especially these days I'm even more picky about what I play.

On one hand, no one wants to buy a console where they have nothing they want to play in it's library.

Truth be told, I think a lot of the burden could have been alleviated with reverse compatibility. It allows a buffer for the transition from one console to another, and creates an artificial launch library, sorta since it's not like the PS3 and 360's libraries stopped growing the instant new consoles are released. I'm pretty sure a lot of consoles had releases well into their descendent's time. PS2 did, IIRC.

Sure later in the life span of a generation, reverse compatibility becomes less of an issue for some.
I'm not one of that some, though. I still have my ps2 hooked up, and play it some while I have a ps3. Sometimes I play ps1 games on my ps3.

I do agree that rushed games are bad, and it gets bad towards the holidays, and with console releases, though.

Meh, enough rambling. :p
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
For me it's kind of an odd situation. I normally don't day 1 buy a console. Infact I don't think I ever have. I've always waited for a stronger lineup. Especially these days I'm even more picky about what I play.

On one hand, no one wants to buy a console where they have nothing they want to play in it's library.

Truth be told, I think a lot of the burden could have been alleviated with reverse compatibility. It allows a buffer for the transition from one console to another, and creates an artificial launch library, sorta since it's not like the PS3 and 360's libraries stopped growing the instant new consoles are released. I'm pretty sure a lot of consoles had releases well into their descendent's time. PS2 did, IIRC.

Sure later in the life span of a generation, reverse compatibility becomes less of an issue for some.
I'm not one of that some, though. I still have my ps2 hooked up, and play it some while I have a ps3. Sometimes I play ps1 games on my ps3.

I do agree that rushed games are bad, and it gets bad towards the holidays, and with console releases, though.

Meh, enough rambling. :p
Yeah, but the WiiU having Backwards Compatibility didn't save it from people complaining about the lack of games in the coming months.
Nor did it help the 3DS.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Rebel_Raven said:
For me it's kind of an odd situation. I normally don't day 1 buy a console. Infact I don't think I ever have. I've always waited for a stronger lineup. Especially these days I'm even more picky about what I play.

On one hand, no one wants to buy a console where they have nothing they want to play in it's library.

Truth be told, I think a lot of the burden could have been alleviated with reverse compatibility. It allows a buffer for the transition from one console to another, and creates an artificial launch library, sorta since it's not like the PS3 and 360's libraries stopped growing the instant new consoles are released. I'm pretty sure a lot of consoles had releases well into their descendent's time. PS2 did, IIRC.

Sure later in the life span of a generation, reverse compatibility becomes less of an issue for some.
I'm not one of that some, though. I still have my ps2 hooked up, and play it some while I have a ps3. Sometimes I play ps1 games on my ps3.

I do agree that rushed games are bad, and it gets bad towards the holidays, and with console releases, though.

Meh, enough rambling. :p
Yeah, but the WiiU having Backwards Compatibility didn't save it from people complaining about the lack of games in the coming months.
Nor did it help the 3DS.
That is a very good point. I'm no expert, though, but I'm not sure the Wii a stellar library either.
3ds is a stronger example, IMO. It's safe to say the DS library was pretty potent.

I suppose, thinking about it, each console release is going to be diffirent. There will be no solid strategy for success. At least I can't think of one. What's true last time isn't really true this time.

3ds came out in the era of mobile gaming for competition. Cheaper games, a more practical platform, and simpler games that are easy to pick up and put down made it harder on the 3ds.

It took some time to sink in. It's obvious a console needs a steady stream of releases. Or at least fairly regular releases to take off, and the games have to be good.
Rushed games don't need to be released. They can be refined, and prepared while the ready games go first. A huge lineup needs not be necessary.
Maybe there's a formula in the released games to be addressed? Make games people think are worth the jump to the next console?
I think the 3ds fell flat there.
The Wii U might have, too.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
Dragonbums said:
Rebel_Raven said:
For me it's kind of an odd situation. I normally don't day 1 buy a console. Infact I don't think I ever have. I've always waited for a stronger lineup. Especially these days I'm even more picky about what I play.

On one hand, no one wants to buy a console where they have nothing they want to play in it's library.

Truth be told, I think a lot of the burden could have been alleviated with reverse compatibility. It allows a buffer for the transition from one console to another, and creates an artificial launch library, sorta since it's not like the PS3 and 360's libraries stopped growing the instant new consoles are released. I'm pretty sure a lot of consoles had releases well into their descendent's time. PS2 did, IIRC.

Sure later in the life span of a generation, reverse compatibility becomes less of an issue for some.
I'm not one of that some, though. I still have my ps2 hooked up, and play it some while I have a ps3. Sometimes I play ps1 games on my ps3.

I do agree that rushed games are bad, and it gets bad towards the holidays, and with console releases, though.

Meh, enough rambling. :p
Yeah, but the WiiU having Backwards Compatibility didn't save it from people complaining about the lack of games in the coming months.
Nor did it help the 3DS.
That is a very good point. I'm no expert, though, but I'm not sure the Wii a stellar library either.
3ds is a stronger example, IMO. It's safe to say the DS library was pretty potent.

I suppose, thinking about it, each console release is going to be diffirent. There will be no solid strategy for success. At least I can't think of one. What's true last time isn't really true this time.

3ds came out in the era of mobile gaming for competition. Cheaper games, a more practical platform, and simpler games that are easy to pick up and put down made it harder on the 3ds.

It took some time to sink in. It's obvious a console needs a steady stream of releases. Or at least fairly regular releases to take off, and the games have to be good.
Rushed games don't need to be released. They can be refined, and prepared while the ready games go first. A huge lineup needs not be necessary.
Maybe there's a formula in the released games to be addressed? Make games people think are worth the jump to the next console?
I think the 3ds fell flat there.
The Wii U might have, too.
There is no strategy. People will complain in either scenario.
Don't boast a huge game library of 23 games, noone will be an early adopter because it doesn't have a good lineup of game. Release 23 games, then people will complain that the only ones worth playing are 6 games.
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
It's a shame about the Wii U. The console is one of the most brilliant things I have ever seen. If Nintendo could just of gotten their message together, then the only barrier they'd face is the vast unwashed hordes of developers who couldn't figure out that their mother isn't another FPS.
 

LazyAza

New member
May 28, 2008
716
0
0
Yep I'd much rather have 3 or 4 amazing games I spend many hours with over a period of several months post launch than some big pilo o sheet. One of the key reasons I never buy a system at launch actually. That and the insane price that gets dropped within a year.
 

subtlefuge

Lord Cromulent
May 21, 2010
1,107
0
0
The Vita just can't compete because it makes an inferior value proposition. Going into the holiday season, if I want to buy a handheld for my hypothetical kid, I can spend $250 and get a fully functional 3DS and 2 out of a couple dozen games that are unique experiences that can not be matched elsewhere. Or I can spend the same $250 for a way more powerful, but semi-functional brick and pay additional to choose from 3 or 4 good to excellent games that are much like their console equivalents, only on a smaller screen.

Pokemon X&Y will effectively bury the Vita. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't bow out of the handheld market at some point soon. They can laugh at all the dumb choices they made when they're counting all their PS4 money.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
One of the things people seem to forget, and one of the things that makes me wary of the Xbone, is Microsoft's tendency to display a strong showing of exclusives in early years and then more or less tapering off fast. One of the major reasons launches are important is they show support, which is not necessarily actually going to translate to long-term support. Sony, on the other hand, never seems to let up. There's always third party games, but they tend to be available everywhere (sans Wii U now).

Now. That's sort of tangential, but I think it goes along with what Jim's saying.

However:

Correlation does not equal causation. The Vita and WiiU have issues other than launch titles. Part of it is simply that a lot of the launch titles suck, but they don't have to. Even in a large environment. I want a lineup at launch where I can select from a series of genres, though 20 games is probably more than is necessary. I digress, however. Both the Wii U and Vita have issues in terms of being hardware people don't necessarily want and an answer to a question no-one asked. Vita was also an expensive console, especially compared to the more popular Nintendo franchise entry. All of these are bigger reasons these systems have problems.

If Nintendo had launched their platform with a couple of big titles amidst the rest, they could have both sold more consoles and more of the other titles. In fact, Nintendo sort of demosntrates the problem; they've long used the "we'll give you good games eventually" deal, which is why I stopped buying near launch entirely. A year of Meteos and Super Mario 64 DS? Noooooo. I bought my 3DS after the revision and price reduction and have a cheaper handheld with a handful of games. But by then, they were already in "languishing sales" areas.

Unfortunately, this is an arms race and no company wants to take a "wait and see" approach. With neither MS or Sony's entries having BC, the need for a large launch lineup is important, and probably equally as important as a strong one (Though the two are in no way mutually exclusive).

To recap the major point, though: I DO want a strong launch library. I don't think that's incompatible with a stronger long-term library. And Nintendo could sell themselves better by launching with a Mario title or Zelda title or whatever. It's not like they couldn't make it quality; they're the ones behind the hardware after all. They know it's coming out first.
 

Sotanaht

New member
Mar 6, 2008
70
0
0
Consoles need to have the strongest launch possible in order to have the strongest library possible. You can't really have one without the other. If you don't sell umpteen millions of consoles on launch day publishers aren't going to be making exclusive games for your console months or years down the line because it doesn't have the stupidly large install base they need to be profitable.

It's the sad truth of the parasitic console industry that thrives only off of holding content hostage. The only way to sell a console is on exclusives, you need a LOT of exclusives to sell the console and you need a LOT of console sales to get the exclusives. Console need to die.

Also it's rare that even 1 in 100 games are actually any good enough for me, but then I've never been one to buy launch consoles.
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
But isn't that the issue? It's not that we want TONS of games on a console at launch. I don't know anyone who says that (some people might, but they're stupid) It's that we want games that are actually worth playing! I mean I counted one launch game for the WiiU that was actually a new game that didn't look like complete ass, and it was ZombiU for crying out loud. The Vita had, what, AC 3 L?

The issue to this proposed solution is it still doesn't give me incentive to buy the new console, whether it has 20 games at launch or slowly releases a total of twenty games over a period of time through the year. They're still not gonna be games worth buying a whole new console for, so it doesn't fix the issue of the console having no games. I mean the supposed logic here is that if they ration the "launch" titles over a period of months that means they'll all be good, but no, it just means it'll be the same shitty games but for the first month we'll have two or three that would count as shuffle ware had they been released all at once, and so on and so forth for all the other slow releases until they finally release the one game that's worth a crap in the middle or near the end. Why assume just adopting this strategy will magically make the games being released worth buying the console for? Either way they'll still be going with the "there'll be something worth playing on it eventually" approach, and that's not gonna move merchandise. Why should I buy a brand new console just because the company promises it'll totally be worth a shit and have one or two games worth playing on it within the months of its release?

I mean for crying out loud, I was gonna ask why Jim didn't bring up the 3DS in this video, but then of course I remembered why: they did exactly this proposed plan when they launch the 3DS. And that shit bombed out the gate too. Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
MB202 said:
"Too Late for Nintendo"? What's that supposed to mean? ...Well, I guess nobody I know, or people I talk to even know there's another Nintendo console, let alone that it's been released.
they already released thier console and did the launch wrong (according to JIM). therefore it is too late for WiiU to have a good launch shedule - it already didnt have one.

Mr_Terrific said:
Would you mind explaining what is up with you and David Boreanaz? And has he responded to you yet? I'm a bit lost but have to admit, I find this whole Angel kick you're on to be amusing...
Maybe hes rewatching the series. Angel was great and i can totally understand him loving it. or maybe its some sort of bet he made with somone.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Launch Splooge

As we head toward the launch of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, we're going to soon be hearing about their launch libraries, and how awesome they are. Ignore these boasts.

Watch Video
It has been awhile, but this is actually one thing I agree with you on.

Any time somebody trots out that old and dead horse of "I'm waiting to get the system because the system has "no games", I just want reach through the Internet lines and slap them upside the head.

And, you definitely are right that gamers need to think more on the long term. Many seem to have no patience to wait for games to come out like they normally do, well that is until new platforms become old, then they are quick to say, no this console has this this this and this. But, then again, when a new generation comes around the crowd again starts crying "no games" fowl.

Most of the time, when a new generation comes around, I don't have the money to get into it yet, and I suspect a good bit of the "no games" group are people that are trying to hide the fact that they don't have the money for any of the new systems yet.

The sad thing I see for Nintendo is that there are way too many impatient gamers out their that it will hurt them in the new generation. They launched Wii U a year early compared to the other two, and even though that shouldn't hurt them, it is. I've seen way too many comments about the new line up schedule, that you praised, where people are saying that it is a little too late for Nintendo, and they had their chance to release their games. There have been people commenting on how they've already sold their Wii U's because there "weren't enough games". What I find appalling about that is that the system still hasn't been out even a year.

The only thing I'll admit to, is that I tend to forget and ignore that there are gamers out there that only play one, maybe two different genres of games. Where I on the other hand play pretty much all styles at some point in a generation, as a person, that a little over a couple decades ago, grew up with gaming as a core of my being, because I lived out in the woodland boonies, with my consoles and old PCs as my friends, because my parents would tell me that my friends from school lived too far away, or it wasn't appropriate to go out or stay at a friend's house during a school night, while they filled the weekends with stay at home family times. It's a sad and tortured story, but that's really not what I should be talking about.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Roman Monaghan said:
But isn't that the issue? It's not that we want TONS of games on a console at launch. I don't know anyone who says that (some people might, but they're stupid) It's that we want games that are actually worth playing! I mean I counted one launch game for the WiiU that was actually a new game that didn't look like complete ass, and it was ZombiU for crying out loud. The Vita had, what, AC 3 L?
That is the problem I see though. People will wait to buy a console, even if they have the money, because it only has one or two games they are interested in.

Really, one game should be enough. You get a console, play that one game to death for a few months, move onto another hobby for a few months or go back and play old games on other systems you have, and then when a new game you want to play comes out, you will be more than ready to get and play it.

I'm of the belief that many people wait way too long for a library of games they like to appear before they get a console. I think these people tend to be the ones that wait till that ass end of a console generation to make a choice of console, then end up complaining that the generation wasn't long enough when a year or two later a new generation is starting. "But I just got my console, and these five or so games(though dated)! They need to wait and release more games(ignoring and not taking the time to truly look at the library of thousands of games that they let wiz past them as they waited for their preferred library of games for the system to be 'worth it')."

Really the optimum time to get a console is between launch and just before the half-way point of the generation. That is the perfect window that then gives people time to properly look at the system they have and broaden their minds to what will be a good game to play out of the games coming out and games that have already been released in the past.

My advice to people is, if you have the money now to get the console you want, even mildly want, and it has at least one game you want to play on it, just get it now. The console generations have been getting longer and longer, and if you don't think you will get a good list of games in a 6 to 8 year span(even 3 to 4 years if bought at the midway point), I don't even know why you would even bother with gaming, because at that point, you are just too picky about what you want to play. Again broaden your gaming horizon, over time, buy a few games in some genres you aren't interested in, maybe something will stick in the mean time while you wait for the actual game you want to come out.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
I mean for crying out loud, I was gonna ask why Jim didn't bring up the 3DS in this video, but then of course I remembered why: they did exactly this proposed plan when they launch the 3DS. And that shit bombed out the gate too. Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.
Perhaps, unless they change their game lineup:

One has to talk about the current success of the 3DS as well. It should be a whole nother topic discussed by Jimquisition.
Because it seems that the biggest complaint about Nintendo here on the Escapist is that Nintendo has little third party support.
And yet that same third party support ditched them just before WiiU launched causing and even more lacking library, and they did fuck all with making worth it games for the 3DS for the first two years.
It seems that while we complain about Nintendo "milking" Mario and Zelda, it is literally those very titles that have finally brought the 3DS into the profit zone. The same people that complain about this, tend to be the same people who say they aren't buying the console until it has those very titles.
Animal Crossing: New Leaf quadrupled sales in Japan in literally the first week.
The same could be said here in North America.
I would even go far as to say that Mario has long since lost the crown of being a system mover on the handhelds. Because for the past few years it's been their other cash cow Pokemon that drove sales through the roof software and hardware wise, and considering the amount of attention Pokemon X and Y is getting now- the Vita has a time bomb between this summer and October 12 to get it's shit together. Because once that game gets released, it's done.

Pokemon along with Animal Crossing tend to be games that players can indulge themselves into for months without getting tired of them.
Perhaps they should start out their handheld launch libraries with those two franchises first. They are guaranteed to move a lot of units, which in turn will attract third party support.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
subtlefuge said:
Pokemon X&Y will effectively bury the Vita. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't bow out of the handheld market at some point soon. They can laugh at all the dumb choices they made when they're counting all their PS4 money.
They're unlikely to bow out of the handheld market based on poor performance. Look at the PSP.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
A lot of the Vita's problems were predicated upon the whole digital distribution/cash grab BS. It had little to do with the launch line up and everything to do with corporate greed, and the fact that no one really needs a singular gaming device any more...
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
subtlefuge said:
Pokemon X&Y will effectively bury the Vita. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't bow out of the handheld market at some point soon. They can laugh at all the dumb choices they made when they're counting all their PS4 money.
They're unlikely to bow out of the handheld market based on poor performance. Look at the PSP.
I don't think the PSP did that bad.
I mean, when I was a kid it was all too common that kids would buy a Nintendo DS along with a PSP to satiate their gaming needs.
It was a symbiotic combo.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
One of the things people seem to forget, and one of the things that makes me wary of the Xbone, is Microsoft's tendency to display a strong showing of exclusives in early years and then more or less tapering off fast. One of the major reasons launches are important is they show support, which is not necessarily actually going to translate to long-term support. Sony, on the other hand, never seems to let up. There's always third party games, but they tend to be available everywhere (sans Wii U now).

Now. That's sort of tangential, but I think it goes along with what Jim's saying.

However:

Correlation does not equal causation. The Vita and WiiU have issues other than launch titles. Part of it is simply that a lot of the launch titles suck, but they don't have to. Even in a large environment. I want a lineup at launch where I can select from a series of genres, though 20 games is probably more than is necessary. I digress, however. Both the Wii U and Vita have issues in terms of being hardware people don't necessarily want and an answer to a question no-one asked. Vita was also an expensive console, especially compared to the more popular Nintendo franchise entry. All of these are bigger reasons these systems have problems.
I agree. I'd argue that Jim only meant to say they contributed to the problem these consoles have, but this point needs to be addressed.

I surmise that one of the reasons the PS3 did so well despite having an awkward line up is because it had a Blu-Ray player, ie. it had a long term investment (well before the advent of streaming technology started competing with it). Heck that's the reason Blu-Ray WON the format war, people were getting a new console AND a Blu-Ray player when they bought the PS3.

This is the problem with the PS4 and the Xbone, there's no incentive to "upgrade" now.

Dragonbums said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
subtlefuge said:
Pokemon X&Y will effectively bury the Vita. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't bow out of the handheld market at some point soon. They can laugh at all the dumb choices they made when they're counting all their PS4 money.
They're unlikely to bow out of the handheld market based on poor performance. Look at the PSP.
I don't think the PSP did that bad.
I mean, when I was a kid it was all too common that kids would buy a Nintendo DS along with a PSP to satiate their gaming needs.
It was a symbiotic combo.
IIRC it didn't do well at first and then improved.

The DS's audience was a lot more focused while the PSP's wasn't. The PSP had the ambition of a portable media player but lacked power. It had to rely on its exclusives and video capability.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
Roman Monaghan said:
But isn't that the issue? It's not that we want TONS of games on a console at launch. I don't know anyone who says that (some people might, but they're stupid) It's that we want games that are actually worth playing! I mean I counted one launch game for the WiiU that was actually a new game that didn't look like complete ass, and it was ZombiU for crying out loud. The Vita had, what, AC 3 L?
That is the problem I see though. People will wait to buy a console, even if they have the money, because it only has one or two games they are interested in.

Really, one game should be enough. You get a console, play that one game to death for a few months, move onto another hobby for a few months or go back and play old games on other systems you have, and then when a new game you want to play comes out, you will be more than ready to get and play it.
Who the hell wants to play one game for months? What do you even mean by that? Replaying it over and over again? going for 100% completion which won't even take months? No If I'm going to pay launch price for a console right now, there better be more than one reason for me to play it, because one reason is not going to last me months. Time is money, paying later is generally considered an advantage and paying less is an advantage. Move on to another hobby? What if I want to play games? Who the hell wants to replay games like that?
I'm of the belief that many people wait way too long for a library of games they like to appear before they get a console. I think these people tend to be the ones that wait till that ass end of a console generation to make a choice of console, then end up complaining that the generation wasn't long enough when a year or two later a new generation is starting. "But I just got my console, and these five or so games(though dated)! They need to wait and release more games(ignoring and not taking the time to truly look at the library of thousands of games that they let wiz past them as they waited for their preferred library of games for the system to be 'worth it')."
..Who exactly waited until a year or two to get a console for a reason other than "they're cheap now because a new gen is starting"? Also: why not dig through that library of games for shit that looks interesting during those last two years? Games don't "wiz by", they're released and stay there and get CHEAPER.
Really the optimum time to get a console is between launch and just before the half-way point of the generation. That is the perfect window that then gives people time to properly look at the system they have and broaden their minds to what will be a good game to play out of the games coming out and games that have already been released in the past.
No, really the optimum time would be 10 years later when the console is cheapest, the library is full, and you can dig through that library instead of waiting. Broaden their mind? Why does a new console mean mind-broadening? It's just better hardware. I know what games look interesting to me. I have never went into a new game that didn't interest me and come out surprised, because I know what I want.
My advice to people is, if you have the money now to get the console you want, even mildly want, and it has at least one game you want to play on it, just get it now. The console generations have been getting longer and longer, and if you don't think you will get a good list of games in a 6 to 8 year span(even 3 to 4 years if bought at the midway point), I don't even know why you would even bother with gaming, because at that point, you are just too picky about what you want to play. Again broaden your gaming horizon, over time, buy a few games in some genres you aren't interested in, maybe something will stick in the mean time while you wait for the actual game you want to come out.
Why should I spend hundreds of dollars for one game and wait time? What if the next game that comes out that I really want comes out when the console is cheaper? Don't forget, PC gaming exists, a lot of those games are multiplatform titles that will be just as good if not better on PC.

My advice to people is: If you just mildly want a console: Wait until a game makes you really want it or just buy it in 10 years. If 360 didn't get Tales of Vesperia the 360 still wouldn't be worth it to me, I would regret having bought the console so many years ago if it weren't for the fluke ToV (which is my all time favorite game), I looked through it's entire list of exclusives. there's like 4-5 games there that look worth playing.
 

ellieallegro

New member
Mar 8, 2013
69
0
0
Yeah, good luck with that. Consistency would require long-term critical thinking and delayed gratification. Two things which are wholly un-american.
 

Vylox

New member
May 3, 2013
79
0
0
Its like going to a nice restaurant for an expensive dinner.. you get a starter, then an appetizer then the main course, maybe a soup or small salad after and then desert.

With a large launch library, the companies are selling the console (starter or appetizer) and then putting the main course and desert on the table at the same time.. and I'm it sure about you, but I don't want my ice-cream on the table while I try to enjoy the bread sticks and steak.


A strong overall release line-up is a much better investment, because it will ensure (hopefully) some kind of continued loyalty and support, and all but guarantee future sales as those who aren't interested in the initial offerings come late to the party by examining the menu.

And its not like they don't know what they are pushing out next year or so, considering that those games are likely in development right now, hell even some games that might be as far as 3 years away from launch are likely in development right now (especially if its a square-enix title) so they (MS and or Sony) could easily dangle those titles in front of folx in order to generate future sales and residual and recurring income. And I'm not talking about showing off the next Halo or Madden or CoD or even Final Fantasy... but the real forthcoming games for these consoles.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
I agree. I'd argue that Jim only meant to say they contributed to the problem these consoles have, but this point needs to be addressed.
Very possibly.

I surmise that one of the reasons the PS3 did so well despite having an awkward line up is because it had a Blu-Ray player, ie. it had a long term investment (well before the advent of streaming technology started competing with it). Heck that's the reason Blu-Ray WON the format war, people were getting a new console AND a Blu-Ray player when they bought the PS3.

This is the problem with the PS4 and the Xbone, there's no incentive to "upgrade" now.
And even the PS3's sales were considered kind of sluggish early on.

However, this is a strategy that was more or less acknowledged by Tretton and company on multiple occasions. They commented that there were people buying it even if they were buying no games, and investor material discussed the format war HEAVILY. I think they were prepared to gamble away the future of the PS line to install BD as the standard format for HD discs.

Dragonbums said:
I don't think the PSP did that bad.
In short:

Lovely Mixture said:
IIRC it didn't do well at first and then improved.
The longer version is that the PSP was originally considered disappointing and relied on multiple revisions and pricings in order to become what one MIGHT consider a success. It's initial result wasn't much different compared to the Vita. As it relates to the guy I was quoting, its status as a success is somewhat debatable by the standards of the company that is supposedly going to bow out of the market when Pokémon "buries" them.
 

ShadowHamster

New member
Mar 17, 2008
64
0
0
CriticKitten said:
Hard to argue with your point this week, but I'm going to try.

I don't mind a strong launch library, and I don't think it's the launch library that's the core problem. Every console suffers from a great number of "meh" or outright shitty games across its long lifespan. A majority of a console's game will never be played by the average consumer, ever, nor should they probably exist at all. That isn't just limited to the launch in particular. So only releasing a few games at a time doesn't fix the problem so much as spread it out across several months, and that won't solve the problem of having "no games" either.

What really needs to be done is for people's standards to increase, more than anything else. If we demand better games and stop buying bad ones, they'll have to start making better games. It's our tolerance for bullshit that's the problem. If we accept that every console's going to have a lot of shitty games and only a few good ones, and don't actively try to push the industry to do better, then they'll just keep on doing what they're doing and we'll be barraged with shitty games and only a handful of solid ones.

In this respect I give Nintendo props. They're taking their time on making sure their newest games are really good ones, rather than crapping out mediocre or bad ones at a rapid pace. Of course, by the time the good stuff comes out, it might have already been too little, too late. Time will tell.

Captcha: can I love?

Thanks to the defeat of DOMA, you can. Thank Jim for DOMA's defeat!
My roommate owns a wii u and it's the most played system in the house. I own a PS3 and am not ready to jump that particular bandwagon, and have enough games to still keep me busy for another year or so. I think your right, but I think Jim is getting to that point. His point is that these companies are PRESSURING the producers, which in turn causes untested glitches and shoddy design all around, whereas giving people time to get their vision across would lead to honestly good games, even though there would be fewer of them.

Your both preaching quality over quantity, witch is something the whole damn world needs to relearn.
 

Adventurer2626

New member
Jan 21, 2010
713
0
0
Mord says:

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/r0bw.png/]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us [http://imageshack.us]

Also:
Thank Jim! Thank Jim!
 

KiKiweaky

New member
Aug 29, 2008
972
0
0
Irridium said:
Oh those look like some nice games, when people say ip's relating to computer games do they mean intellectual property or are they trying to say something else?

Some of the game clips you used in this video Jim look outstanding D:
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
KiKiweaky said:
Irridium said:
Oh those look like some nice games, when people say ip's relating to computer games do they mean intellectual property or are they trying to say something else?

Some of the game clips you used in this video Jim look outstanding D:
Generally people mean a game that isn't a sequel or based on an existing property when they say new IP.
 

KiKiweaky

New member
Aug 29, 2008
972
0
0
Irridium said:
KiKiweaky said:
Irridium said:
snip
Generally people mean a game that isn't a sequel or based on an existing property when they say new IP.
Thanks for clearing that up, the captcha I have to type says 'you rock' haha :D

Saw it all over the place and didn't have a clue what it meant.
 

finalizer

New member
Aug 13, 2010
17
0
0
loa said:
Backwards compatibility creates a strong launch lineup but I guess that's just really backwards nowadays.
Backwards compatibility just isn't feasible. The only ways to do it are either

1. Adding the old hardware to the new console ala the initial run of PS3s. Unless you want to add an extra $100+ to the cost of the unit (and this is just an assumption - it could be a lot more), and force a larger, hotter unit into the equation, it's just not gonna work. Sony kind of shot themselves in the foot by using this method for the PS2's BC with PS1 software - it only worked then because the PS1's hardware was so simplistic by comparison. As the future generations got hardware that was more complicated and expensive, this avenue of backward compatibility just wasn't sustainable in the long-run.

2. Software emulation. Like it's been mentioned in threads past, this is also not feasible in the immediate future. PS1 emulation is fine, but PS2 emulation is flaky - it already takes i7s to get a PS2 emulator running on desktop PCs without fiddling around with a bunch of speedhacks and work-arounds. (And even then it's not foolproof - there's still some games outright incompatible with the emulators) To say nothing of the monumental requirements it would take to emulate something like the PS3; that's just completely out of the question. PS4 hardware might be up to snuff for PS2 emulation considering that it's a closed hardware platform, but that's still a lot of work to guarantee every game would run well with it, bearing in mind that the concessions given to a fan-driven emulation project will never be afforded to a corporation like Sony.

So yeah, don't expect to see backward compatibility on consoles going forward. At this point, I'm just curious to see how Sony handles the whole Gaikai thing, to see if that'll help solve the BC dilemma.
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
Roman Monaghan said:
But isn't that the issue? It's not that we want TONS of games on a console at launch. I don't know anyone who says that (some people might, but they're stupid) It's that we want games that are actually worth playing! I mean I counted one launch game for the WiiU that was actually a new game that didn't look like complete ass, and it was ZombiU for crying out loud. The Vita had, what, AC 3 L?
That is the problem I see though. People will wait to buy a console, even if they have the money, because it only has one or two games they are interested in.

Really, one game should be enough. You get a console, play that one game to death for a few months, move onto another hobby for a few months or go back and play old games on other systems you have, and then when a new game you want to play comes out, you will be more than ready to get and play it.

I'm of the belief that many people wait way too long for a library of games they like to appear before they get a console. I think these people tend to be the ones that wait till that ass end of a console generation to make a choice of console, then end up complaining that the generation wasn't long enough when a year or two later a new generation is starting. "But I just got my console, and these five or so games(though dated)! They need to wait and release more games(ignoring and not taking the time to truly look at the library of thousands of games that they let wiz past them as they waited for their preferred library of games for the system to be 'worth it')."

Really the optimum time to get a console is between launch and just before the half-way point of the generation. That is the perfect window that then gives people time to properly look at the system they have and broaden their minds to what will be a good game to play out of the games coming out and games that have already been released in the past.

My advice to people is, if you have the money now to get the console you want, even mildly want, and it has at least one game you want to play on it, just get it now. The console generations have been getting longer and longer, and if you don't think you will get a good list of games in a 6 to 8 year span(even 3 to 4 years if bought at the midway point), I don't even know why you would even bother with gaming, because at that point, you are just too picky about what you want to play. Again broaden your gaming horizon, over time, buy a few games in some genres you aren't interested in, maybe something will stick in the mean time while you wait for the actual game you want to come out.
Are we doing this before or after buying a fifth Lamborghini, because in your retarded fantasy suggestion everyone is rich and can just drop 3-5 hundred dollars willy nilly for a console they're barely going to touch for longer then a month and can afford a totally pointless and useless purchase like it's just a drop in the bucket.

People like you are the ones running these companies and it's also the same reason the AAA industry is going to fucking crash pretty soon, and with a fucked up mindset like this, I can't say I'm not looking forward to it.
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
I'm not sure that I entirely agree.

While a steady flow of games after launch is important, too few games at launch restricts that most vital of things, choice. The reason the flow works and consoles continue to sell is because of choice, so limiting that artificially at launch isn't wise.

Mostly delaying games from launch just spreads the shit ones out. Most of the good games that used the console better that come out post launch are ones that even the most craven publisher wouldn't have released around launch, and were rushed to make the windows they did make it into. Often they were made by teams who had made at least one game for launch and possibly several after. That cycle should hopefully be shorter as the PS4 and XBox One are essentially locked down PCs so the time to get togrips with their power should be shorter.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Roman Monaghan said:
Sonic Doctor said:
Are we doing this before or after buying a fifth Lamborghini, because in your retarded fantasy suggestion everyone is rich and can just drop 3-5 hundred dollars willy nilly for a console they're barely going to touch for longer then a month and can afford a totally pointless and useless purchase like it's just a drop in the bucket.

People like you are the ones running these companies and it's also the same reason the AAA industry is going to fucking crash pretty soon, and with a fucked up mindset like this, I can't say I'm not looking forward to it.
Ha, no. Where did I even suggest that anybody was rich? Oh, nowhere, thought so.

Though, considering how many millions of people buy consoles at launch or a mere couple months after, I'm guessing there are a lot of rich people, lol, no, because 300 to 500 dollars isn't rich. It is basically "scrounge money" collected over a few years. Money that is from things like birthdays Christmas random relatives that visit and don't tend to live close by so they give some money to you because they think it counts as a loving and caring act, and money gathered from doing odd jobs for the parents and neighbors(chore money).

But that is beside the point, I wasn't talking about people that didn't have the money yet. I was taking about people that have the money, they say they have the money, and that it is discretionary income. It is money that can be easily spared because all the needs are paid for. But after they makes such points known, they say they are going to wait because a console only has one or two games that they like, and that is somehow not enough.

You see I'm coming from this as a person that seeing as the generations are so long, ends up buying two consoles(not back to back of course) and buys maybe 3 to 4 major titles at full price(if I'm lucky). I am by no means rich.

People that say, "well that's damn boring, only having one game to play for a couple or three months. I need to have more to do." That is what irks me. That is the comment of the possibly rich people that so like to bash, and that you think I am.

These people if they have the money to get the console now, why don't they get it? They comment that they are going to wait till it has games on it, while simultaneously saying that it has one or two games they want to play. But really, when a person gets a console, how many games does one usually get for it when they drop that money down for the console?

Yes that is right, one or two, usually even when they wait, because they are waiting for there to be more games. The thing is, with how long generations are, there will always be plenty of interesting games that will come along, well accept for the people that have a interest in types of games that is as broad as an edge of a piece of paper. This means that there is really no point in getting it right when you have the money, and you have those one or two games you are interested in.

When I bought my 360, I got two games with it, Halo 3, and Fable 2. They were the only games I had for the thing for six months. I played them to death, especially Halo 3 with friends and online. It was enough to bide my time till I had the money and there was an interesting game I wanted, because of course, I have other interests other than gaming, (movies, tv, reading, writing, hanging out with friends, and browsing the internet for random videos and articles), and other things that took up the time as well, like college.

Also it's probably how they go about playing games or it is there game choices. Games like the Mass Effect trilogy and Dragon Age 2, each of those games I played pretty much exclusively for two to three months each, around 55 hours or more time on each, usually only one play through on each. Of course, reading up on such games, I see people complaining about how they aren't enough, how it takes the less than half the time to beat them as it took me. It isn't a case of me not being skilled or whatnot, it is a case of said people rushing through their games. With each of those games, on the first play through, I did every single quest I found, was given, or stumbled upon. To which the other people say, "well I didn't bother with side quests, there should be no such thing as side quests, har har, derp," not getting the point of side quests.

What I was getting at is that kids or older gamers these days, act like one game is like a drop in the bucket and lasts only a day or two. Such people either have ADD or something or don't have perspective, or just not gamers.

Just the same as when I was a kid, I only got a few new and big games each year over the years for my, NES, SNES, N64, etc etc, I played my new games for weeks, usually months, then of course I did what any normal kid or gamer does, I went back and played games I had already played before. It just puzzles me how many people these days don't seem to have the ability to go back an play games they've played before and find some entertainment. But of course we are living in this new world of used sales stores, where people constantly sell off their last played games, to get new ones.

That's because people don't have patience these days to wait till they have the money saved to buy their games, few and few people these days have actual game collections. I guess I am of the rare gamer kind that has never sold a game, because I always see a possibility of going back to play it, if I don't have a new game to play. I'm the type of person that finds the thought of selling off my possessions to get new ones to be sickening, that I keep what I have because there might be a time when there is a long stretch where all I have is what I have and I can't get anything new.

The fact that you lump me in with all those "rich" people running and ruining(which they aren't) the industry, is quite humorous, because I am really not like them. But I'm not blind, and I can see that the people that buy consoles day one or not long after, and buy full priced games, are the people that are keeping the industry afloat, if it is floundering at all, because people that wait and buy, price dropped games and used games and price dropped consoles and used consoles, aren't. The people that only buy used games and consoles, certainly don't contribute anything to the industry, well only to GameStop, and I really don't find them good for the industry.

Well, done with my paper...ha, this is what happens when people improperly insult me, taking things way out of context and labeling me improperly.
 

Howling Din

New member
Mar 10, 2011
69
0
0
Another problem with a huge launch library is that even if there are good games among them, they will be like trees in a very dense forest.
 

Roxor

New member
Nov 4, 2010
747
0
0
Maybe the best approach would be 10 games on launch day, and one game per week for the next year after that.