Jimquisition: Launch Splooge

Recommended Videos

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,756
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
970
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
14,628
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
970
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
592
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
3,041
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.