Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I will concede that God of War + two Move controllers = epicness of god-like proportions. Imagine near 1:1 swinging of the blades...

That said, it would need to be optional. EVERYTHING involving the Move should be optional within other games that normally use the traditional controller scheme.

Originally Posted by Enuf specifically which games? Sony has pulled the shipped vs sold before but by confirming with GH sales req., total monthly sales date from NPD you can see the approx sales pattern. VGchartz tends to undertrack sometimes but then adjust when Sony makes their quarterly announcements. Using just by checking the franchises total sales amounts giving by sony vs the vgchartz to you get a clear view of what's really selling. GOW example http://playstationlifestyle.net/2010...n-day-1-sales/

Move units, not any specific games though I'm fairly sure Sony always uses shipped numbers during the PR releases.

Originally Posted by FriskyTanuki Yeah, there are good cash grabs, but none of the ideas that you presented are good ones. Look at Infamous: Festival of Blood or Dead Rising 2: Case Zero to see good cash grabs that retain the core gameplay that you'd want in a spin-off. Changing that completely will turn off most fans. I'm not saying completely abandon the franchise core they way RE changed with RE4 I'm saying offer both. Even though these franchise sold well there's a large majority of consoles owners who didn't buy otherwise there would be 50+ million games sold. The infamous2 was a DL @ $10 but offering it $40 with a longer story may not have proved as successful but it shows that implemation of the idea is as key as the idea itself. Fight Night's in a shaky place right now as EA had to resort to gimmicks to justify the latest game, so we may not even see another for a while. There will be no Heavy Rain 2, so that's just wishful thinking. House of the Dead and Time Crisis were good cash grabs due to the cheap costs of porting them over to the PS3/Move, but I don't see Namco or Sega getting interested in follow-ups. You'd more likely see more Wii games get ported over like the recent Resident Evil Chronicles HD announcement. Fight night is the only boxing game avail. & even though MMA is king now I doubt EA will abandon the franchise for more than 1 cycle if at all. The sales weren't as robust as in the past but that DLC money has to be factored in + this also didn't help with sales either. Your correct about Heavy Rain 2 but I always say "follow the $" so there will be a heavy rain type game in the future just b/c demand has been created. As for House of the dead/Time Crisis, you'll see this genre of title continue not specifcally sequels though. I agree per BOLDED. The chances of Rockstar bothering to go back to RDR to add Move support is slim at best. It would work fine, but this should be a discussion about the reality of the situation and not a "it would be cool if..." discussion. I meant RDR is the type of title that can seamlessly be implemented with Move w/o taking anything away from the gameplay itself. Obviously, it would need to be optionable since this is multi-plat but a $40 exclusive base on a highly successful franchise could definitely succeed. But I think this is were Sony needs to "Pony" up some cash. First, bringing up VG Chartz kills most of your point here. You gotta use muliple sources of info to get a complete sales picture. I see them get a bad rap but these are just estimates. I generally check their info vs NPD data vs company quarterly vs developer news vs total franchise sales & make a judgement based on all the info. MAG was released in January 2010, about eight months before Move launched, so the Move installbase was definitely considerably smaller at 0 units. It received a patch for Move support either late September or in October to add it in, which a great thing. Don't know why I thought MAG was a move launch game edit:it was on the into Move promo $hit Nobody cares about Highlander but a niche audience that is nowhere near 1.5 million people, so that games would not be greenlit in the first place. It is a niche audience but I've learned to be careful about underestimating the "few" as Wii success proved. And when you look at some of the pure showelware that has been release can you REALLY say this has no chance? At a $40 price point more people will be willing to "take a chance" but ONLY if the gameplay is solid that's where hidden gems come from. Ex. Niche audience, collector's, good word of mouth(game needs to be good of course), solid promos get interest from pop culture market, the "I need something different than another COD" crowd, sword play fans, the "mature" decapitation lovers, CAG crowd that'll buy the $10-$20 game. There's a reason that there's been so many bad/horrible/horrific highlander movies that aren't worth the flem I spit compared to the 1st one. But none of this matters if the game is $hitty it has to be a solid game for it to work. You're also assuming that there are 10 million individual Move owners like everybody only bought one controller when Sony doesn't explain how their figures translates to the number of real world users, which I'd suspect is maybe a bit more than half of that figure. I stand corrected here but I still would only be expecting relatively small audience at 1%-2% & with AAA franchises there ability to move units needs to be taking into account. Ex. If Heavy Rain was a move bundle instead of tiger woods at the time when it became a $30 GH moves sales would have seen a boost. God of War is all about the combat and epic scale of the fights that wouldn't translate that well to an open-world RPG with slower-paced combat. There's no reason that Move couldn't work with that core gameplay if Sony Santa Monica knows what they're doing. The Goldeneye thing is a Wii port that doesn't require a ton of money to make and they've made a deal with Sony for marketing purposes with the Sharpshooter bundle. You acknowlege that RE4/RE5 with motion controls works but instead suggested an on-rails shooter with other stuff from the other spin-offs that don't sell nearly as well as the main games, which is why RE6 should be the big Resident Evil Move game and not another spin-off that won't bring in the big bucks for them. I think there's room for both-continued Move support along with move only games using the license. The problem with the Final Fantasy thing is that they're usually turn-based and menu-based, which doesn't make for a good Move game. It would have to be an action-RPG to work well with Move and not feel tacked on as a means to get rid of button presses. Sorcery hasn't been shown in such a long time that it's not a good example of anything until its existence/quality is proven. It's merely an interesting idea at this point in time. You presented these ideas like you knew how to solve this "problem" and are trying to sell us on them with your presentation in the OP. The "problem" is partially in your head since the Move library is big at this point and the ecosystem is one that works best for everybody by not requiring a ton of investment from pubs/devs while offering flexibility to the users in how they want to play these games.

nothing is so cut and dry as there's much room for improvement but overall having AAA franchises backing move can be a bad thing, it's all about how they do it not if they do it.

Originally Posted by Vinny Move units, not any specific games though I'm fairly sure Sony always uses shipped numbers during the PR releases.

there was an article that tracked it somewhat better by focusing on hardware sells/accessories & they narrowed it down much better than I

Originally Posted by Enuf I'm not saying completely abandon the franchise core they way RE changed with RE4 I'm saying offer both. Even though these franchise sold well there's a large majority of consoles owners who didn't buy otherwise there would be 50+ million games sold. The infamous2 was a DL @ $10 but offering it $40 with a longer story may not have proved as successful but it shows that implemation of the idea is as key as the idea itself.

Except that your ideas were about abandoning the core gameplay that fans expect from those games. You're never going to sell anywhere close to 100% of a console's userbase because there are lots of systems that inflate that number above how large the active userbase is that purchases games for their system. That doesn't make any of these games/franchises failures for not reaching a 100% penetration by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by Enuf Fight night is the only boxing game avail. & even though MMA is king now I doubt EA will abandon the franchise for more than 1 cycle if at all. The sales weren't as robust as in the past but that DLC money has to be factored in + this also didn't help with sales either. Your correct about Heavy Rain 2 but I always say "follow the $" so there will be a heavy rain type game in the future just b/c demand has been created. As for House of the dead/Time Crisis, you'll see this genre of title continue not specifcally sequels though. I agree per BOLDED.

Boxing is a sport that's on its way out as a major seller for anything, so you probably won't see another game until they have a good idea that deserves a new title.

Quantic Dream is working on a new game, though whether they have Move support in at launch is up in the air like almost everything else about that game (publisher, platform, etc). The only thing that's guaranteed is that it'll be a further iteration of the gameplay ideas that they've been developing since Indigo Prophecy.

Originally Posted by Enuf I meant RDR is the type of title that can seamlessly be implemented with Move w/o taking anything away from the gameplay itself. Obviously, it would need to be optionable since this is multi-plat but a $40 exclusive base on a highly successful franchise could definitely succeed. But I think this is were Sony needs to "Pony" up some cash.

Move support should be something that's added to a game free of charge, not segregated to a separate release like RE5, as there shouldn't be a Move tax for games to get that option. Rockstar however has shown that they're pretty much done with any further RDR development with the release of the Game of the Year edition, so I don't see them going back to that game to add Move support. If they cared, they would've done it by now.

Sony's done a decent job of trying to get more prolific developers (like Ken Levine, Randy Pitchford) onto the Move bandwagon, but there will be plenty that don't care about messing with that stuff for a smaller audience.

[QUOTE=Enuf;9126558]You gotta use muliple sources of info to get a complete sales picture. I see them get a bad rap but these are just estimates. I generally check their info vs NPD data vs company quarterly vs developer news vs total franchise sales & make a judgement based on all the info./quote]
The problem is when you're trying to make factual arguments without the facts to back it up. Estimates is a fancy word for educated guesses.

Originally Posted by Enuf It is a niche audience but I've learned to be careful about underestimating the "few" as Wii success proved. And when you look at some of the pure showelware that has been release can you REALLY say this has no chance? At a $40 price point more people will be willing to "take a chance" but ONLY if the gameplay is solid that's where hidden gems come from. Ex. Niche audience, collector's, good word of mouth(game needs to be good of course), solid promos get interest from pop culture market, the "I need something different than another COD" crowd, sword play fans, the "mature" decapitation lovers, CAG crowd that'll buy the $10-$20 game. There's a reason that there's been so many bad/horrible/horrific highlander movies that aren't worth the flem I spit compared to the 1st one. But none of this matters if the game is $hitty it has to be a solid game for it to work.

How was the Wii's success about niche audiences when it was the fact that they tapped into a huge casual audience that nobody else could do before then? The problem there is that it's not a stable audience to bank on for long as other casual platforms have proven. There was a Highlander game in the works at Eidos, but it was cancelled a few years after it was announced probably due to the amount of money being spent on something that wasn't a quality product.

Originally Posted by Enuf I stand corrected here but I still would only be expecting relatively small audience at 1%-2% & with AAA franchises there ability to move units needs to be taking into account. Ex. If Heavy Rain was a move bundle instead of tiger woods at the time when it became a $30 GH moves sales would have seen a boost.

It would've seen much of a boost anyway because that bundle came out a little big before the time that Sony had extensive 50% off sales for Move hardware and $10 sales for many of the older games at most retailers to bring in the people that had been on the fence about getting into Move. Heavy Rain's been out for long enough that a bundle would not have been a big boost at all considering most that were interested had already gotten the game beforehand.

Originally Posted by Enuf I think there's room for both-continued Move support along with move only games using the license. nothing is so cut and dry as there's much room for improvement but overall having AAA franchises backing move can be a bad thing, it's all about how they do it not if they do it.

There is, but you have to be smart about how you handle the other game because you risk alienating the core audience with a game that feels like the IP is just slapped onto a completely different game.