Jimquisition: Launch Splooge

[Rebel_Raven]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[NaughtyBoyMan]

Thank you Jim.

 

[Something Amyss]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Yeah, good luck with that. Consistency would require long-term critical thinking and delayed gratification. Two things which are wholly un-american.

 

[Vylox]

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.