Jimquisition: Launch Splooge

[JarinArenos]

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]

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]

[HEADING=1]Stragegos[/HEADING]

According to Jim,
I shouldn't even know about this game, since it ain't happenin' for a while.
A game that certainly hyped me up for SONY future. Nonsensical.

[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]

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]

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]

[HEADING=1]Stragegos[/HEADING]

According to Jim,
I shouldn't even know about this game, since it ain't happenin' for a while.
A game that certainly hyped me up for SONY future. Nonsensical.

[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]

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.

 

[daxterx2005]

you should have used Andy Samberg for the thumbnail, just saying.

 

[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.

 

[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.