Jimquisition: Launch Splooge
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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).
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).
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.
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)
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)
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, nodeveloper 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).
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
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).
That confused me too.MB202 said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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...Jimothy Sterling said:
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.
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.
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.
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.