[quote name='chrisswiss83']I guess that's more important than manufacturing a console that people wanted to buy in the first place.
You can manufacture the best thing on Earth, what matters is whether people buy it or not for the price it's set at.
Tell that to Valve. Or any third-party struggling with the transition to the HD era. Hell, the Rock Band Network and XBL Indie Games only exist because Microsoft put effort into standardizing the development process. Now I realize these aren't "slam dunks" but developers do appreciate the extra effort put forth by the console manufacturer to aid in the process. And I didn't mean that the 360 gets more support because it's easier to program for. It's just that the PS3 gets less support because it's more difficult to program for (there's a slight difference). If it were easier, I'm sure the PS3 would get every game the 360 gets. I forget what developer said "lead on the PS3, because if you can get it to run on PS3 it will run on the 360" but I have heard it. And I know I've never programmed a game for either console, but I'll take his word for it. And no, I don't think he was from Epic or any other second party developer. Pretty sure it was someone from DICE.
On the whole it would not get as many games made for it simply because it's easier to program for. Installed Base > Easy to program for. Look at PS2, that was harder to program for but because of installed base it got a shitload of games. If you didn't mean it I don't know why you wrote it. I am well aware that PS3 gets less in some cases because it's harder to develop for.
Oh man, don't lose your shit because I interpret "I worry about consoles dying off" as "I am worried they are not selling well enough" and not "I am worried that the public perception of idiots who can't think beyond 'yo what does every one else got cuz I want that' will have an adverse effect on game sales". I am not trying to manipulate you here, I just can't read your
ing mind. I get it, you don't feel this way at all. It'd be cool if you could look at it and be all "oh ok, I understand that someone could actually misinterpret that shit" instead of "gyauighaohgh I DIDN"T LITERALLY SAY THAT THEREFORE YOU ARE A
ING CON LIAR MAN! CAPS!?"!"?!
I ain't losing my shit, you were trying to make claims about me that are false and being a dick about it. It was the 2nd time in a row I had to tell you I did not mention PS3.
But I wasn't talking about you because you weren't talking about the PS3. It was the other guy. I just combined both of you into one big "this thread sucks" post. It's about 90% him. Moral of the story: if it didn't sound like I was addressing you, I wasn't. I'm sorry if it sounded like that, but if you realized what I said had no bearing on anything you said then you wouldn't be in this mess, now would you?
Anyone would assume you're talking to them when you put it in the same paragraph right after something else addressed to them and then addressing something right after in a separate paragraph that applies to the same person again. So you addressed me, stopped addressing me in the same paragraph, then started a new paragraph right after in which you address me again, and I'm at fault for thinking what was in between those too (in the paragraph primarily addressed to me) did not apply to me. And I wasn't talking about PS3 regarding that situation at any time, but you claimed I did. Next time quote the people you're responding to.
It's not the same until these lower-budget games in the same genre sell well enough to become high-budget games because they have more money and experience. And then the publishers jump back on the bandwagon and the cycle can continue (this is why I was talking about the whole "these
ers are trend-followers"). And if that never happens, fine. I'd rather play Castle Crashers than whatever beat-em-up Capcom or Konami brings to the table. I'd rather these games be lovingly crafted by developers who understood what made the genre great rather than whatever a big company puts out after several rounds of focus-testing and corporate meetings. You're free to lament high-budget versions of these types of games hitting the stores, but I'm actually happier with the lower-budget love letters to the genre for some strange reason.
Well ya, if low budget games in dead genres do well enough we might see them start to make large budget games in dead genres. But those genres are still dead in terms of seeing any large budget games made in them. I enjoy low budget games in dead genres, but I'd also love to see a developer crank out at least 1 large budget game in a dying genre that kicks ass each generation.
I suppose I completely disagree. I understand your problem with lowest common denominator entertainment, but I think some iPod games are great for what they are (distractions when you're on the can or in line, or whatever, many of which are legitimately good) and I'm glad such a platform exists for small teams with good ideas. Wii shovel-ware just seems like it's selling to people who weren't buying games in the first place (at least half of Wii owners) and consumers do seem to be wising up since genuinely good Wii games tend to outsell shitty ones. You're free to quote statistics on shovel-ware, and I'll believe you, but the only examples I know are Wii Play and Carnival Games. You're probably right, there probably are more crap games than are worth playing. But there are plenty of great games for me to play year-round (I wasn't able to say that 5 years ago). When Mass Effect 2 can sell a crap load, and Demon's Souls can put up decent numbers with little marketing, then that gives me hope for the future. I guess I'm an optimist.
Once again we're talking on the whole, not just games you personally enjoy on those platforms. I also think some Ipod games are great and some Wii games are great. However, on the whole these platforms are filled with shovelware and casual crap. Taste does not triumph, especially when stuff gets made for lcd. This doesn't mean I don't think the platforms shouldn't exist. I'd like the highest quality stuff to do best though and the highest quality platforms to do best. I don't want the masses taking over my hobby and turning it into games targeted at casuals, people not into the hobby that much, lcd, etc. I'm okay with them getting games made for them, but I don't want them taking over most of the publishing dollars. If you want to pull out the optimist card, I can say I am an optimist in believing I can be one of many to help avoid this by helping educate consumers about consoles and games. It's pretentious but I'm only typing it in the context of this argument.
They do pump out a lot of games when you add up all of the platforms (and I am counting remakes and iPhone). I suppose UbiSoft, EA, and Activision have them beat, but if you're going by sheer game play hours I'd say they're one of the most productive companies. Either way, they're infinitely more productive than they were 10 years ago. I imagine die-hard SE fans get very little breaks in between games. I realize this isn't technically the same thing, but I think it's the most important figure as far as the argument of "I am worried there aren't enough games in this genre". If there are enough games in a genre to please fans until the next one, then there are enough.
I don't really agree with you, I've seen more games from other publishers - like the ones you mentioned. Furthermore, this generation they've pumped out a lot of crap, and I don't put much count in their quick cash portable or digital efforts just like I don't in those from EA or anyone else. When I look at productivity, I look at the quality of the games as well. To me being productive is releasing quality titles without taking 4-5 years to make them. Lately, Square-Enix is taking 4-5 years just to release slightly above average games. 10 years ago Square-Enix was Square and Enix. They're a lot larger so of course they're going to be able to make more titles. Most of those new titles are worse than what they made before the merger though.
I guess I'm some weirdo who doesn't care whether or not a console is selling well before buying it. I just want whatever game made me walk into the store to buy the machine in the first place. I have to admit, I do like my new Jasper Xbox 360 or whatever it's called. Also, being defensive about a console just sounds whiny to me for some reason (I might be the only one, but I doubt it). I'm just saying, it might be counter-productive. I mean, I already hate my PS3 a little more now.
Defensive within reason. I haven't made any outlandish claims or defenses. And I don't mind typing so much, this is not outside of reason to me, it is merely sharing a dialogue which can be enjoyable to me on occasion.
Why should I not be defensive if someone is spreading misinformation about a console? It goes against giving someone shit he deserves to know, goes against my conscience if I don't share the info, and goes against respecting what a console i.e a company offers. I'm not going to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a console if it's already dying out or losing support. If there's a game on it I really want, I can wait till the console loses support then pick it up for hundreds less. I've felt the burn with GC and DC. I guess I don't throw my money around as much you do, at least not without research. Yes, I'd like to give the company money before their console dies out, but I have to take into account my own situation. Sometimes I give them a little more money by buying something at a higher price than I usually do to show support. And the console doesn't have to be selling well, I'll still buy it at any stage if I find it worth the price. I've bought consoles at launch. But if it's hundreds of dollars I'm not buying it if it's doing shitty.
What is just as whiny is someone on the other side of the fence who will go off on someone for talking about a console. Or go off on someone if they say the littlest thing in making a legitimate defense about a console. I merely pointed out that 360 is not destroying PS3, now all of a sudden that makes me into this huge PS3 fanboy who is so irritating to you.
So you hate your PS3 more now, this is another sentence in which you're using passive aggressiveness. You like to say all these things to me but veil them in a way that makes you look like you're being kind. It's just as irritating as you saying the real thing, you hate me, or at least hate what I have to say. I'd rather you just say it then pretend not to when you really are.
It's a shame Sega ruined their image with poor support for the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn, before releasing their best system since the Genesis. I loved the Genesis, and it would've been great if the DreamCast lived up to its full potential, but I guess I can't say that I love Sega any less now than before. I'm not into online play and the VMU didn't seem interesting at the time. I listen to a lot of podcasts and I hear about a great, Sega published game every now and again. Active Time Babble was just talking about Yakuza 3, for instance.[/QUOTE]
I have the same feelings toward Sega now, I just wish they were making games on a consistent basis as good as they did before they had to go 3rd party. I wasn't into online play back then and I didn't get a ton of usage out of the VMU. What matters to me about those and a modem with every console though is that the industry took a step backwards when that product died out and was replaced with products with inferior features. We would have evolved into even greater things had the product with the best features succeeded.
I apologize for coming off the way I did or acting like a jerk towards you. I just find strong disagreement in some of the things you say and the way you say them. This is all I care to talk about this though due to time constraints. So you're welcome to have the last say if you want as long as you don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying you will, I just can't stop myself from responding when people do in general.
