Revolution games bad for us cheapasses?

jkam

jkam

CAGiversary!
Feedback
262 (100%)
I'm sure like myself most of you own more than 1 console this generation. I just had a cheap ass nightmare....multi-platform games as we know them will change with the Revolution and may cause me to buy more games.

What I mean is this...say the new Sonic (PS3) game comes out and I buy it.... However Sega wants to take advantage of the Revolution's unique control scheme and they create a completely different game for it. That means 2 games where as before it could have been 1.

It seems hard enough to buy and play all the games I want to now....and that's with me already being selective. Ugh...
 
Well, I'd say about 99.9% of the time most developers will not be porting multi-platform (PS3, and Xbox360) games to the Revolution period. Unless Nintendo comes out with a controller shell that's more streamlined with the next-gen's regular controllers, I think Nintendo will be seeing a big dip in third party support when it comes to multi-platform games.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Well, I'd say about 99.9% of the time most developers will not be porting multi-platform (PS3, and Xbox360) games to the Revolution period. Unless Nintendo comes out with a controller shell that's more streamlined with the next-gen's regular controllers, I think Nintendo will be seeing a big dip in third party support when it comes to multi-platform games.[/QUOTE]


I believe they are already planning that, plus it would be cool if you could choose which config u could use.
 
PS3 will be so hard to develop for that there probably won't be many multi platform games period, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.
 
[quote name='xzafixz']PS3 will be so hard to develop for that there probably won't be many multi platform games period, so I don't what all the fuss is about.[/QUOTE]

I actually think most multi-platform games will be developed for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PS3 because the 360 is apparently much easier to develop for. The Revolution will probably see some 3rd party ports at the beginning, but they will most likely taper off based on the history of 3rd party ports on both the N64 and Gamecube. The games that fully take advantage of the Revo's controller will sell well for the Revolution, but the traditional third party games will sell better on the X360 and the PS3. The Revo is apparently not going to be as technologically advanced either, so a lot of ports may not be possible due to both graphical and processing issues.

I don't think there will be many multi-platform games that take advantage of the Revo's remote control controller.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Well, I'd say about 99.9% of the time most developers will not be porting multi-platform (PS3, and Xbox360) games to the Revolution period. Unless Nintendo comes out with a controller shell that's more streamlined with the next-gen's regular controllers, I think Nintendo will be seeing a big dip in third party support when it comes to multi-platform games.[/QUOTE]


Well, Nintendo has confirmed that they are going to ALSO be making a more traditional looking controller in line with the other systems regular controller. The remote fishing rod thing will just fit into it somehow to add that option to game design. So traditional porting should be NO problem.

Also, everyone keeps on forgetting that there are still going to be 4 Gamecube controller ports on the machine.
 
[quote name='Machikunas']

Also, everyone keeps on forgetting that there are still going to be 4 Gamecube controller ports on the machine.[/QUOTE]


Yes, but no one wants to have next-gen controllers wired, that's cheesy. Also, I know Nintendo announced a controller shell, that's why I original stated it. I don't believe in anything until I see it though, so until then for all I know their controller shell could suck as bad as their remote will when it comes to third party support.
 
I seriously don't think the controllers are going to be the main problem with multi-platform games. It's going to be the power of the graphics and cpu processors along with RAM. Both the X360 and PS3 are some serious hardware, while Nintendo has been consistenly downplaying the hardware specs. Pretty much everyone agrees that the Revo is going to be the cheapest of the systems and I just don't think it is going to be powerful enough to handle a lot of games that are going to be on X360 and PS3. And even if the games do get ported, the Revo versions are going to be inferior (not only on the graphics front either).
 
The games will be normal like on other platforms, and played the same. Think of it like the DS and PSP, most 3rd party games that are on both systems, are just a half ass attempt at using the touch screen and would have no factor into which version you choose.
 
Sorry I didn't mean to start a controller war or a system war....I was just getting at the fact that their could be different games of the same name across next-gen systems. Much like a gameboy game and a PS2 game come out with the name Spider-Man 2 but are completely different. If you are a fan of a paticular franchise it could be costly.
 
[quote name='jkam']Sorry I didn't mean to start a controller war or a system war....I was just getting at the fact that their could be different games of the same name across next-gen systems. Much like a gameboy game and a PS2 game come out with the name Spider-Man 2 but are completely different. If you are a fan of a paticular franchise it could be costly.[/QUOTE]

Well, that could certainly be true. There is the chance that companies could put out completely different licensed games for the Revo. Similar to Spider-Man 2 on the PSP and Spider-Man 2 on the DS.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Yes, but no one wants to have next-gen controllers wired, that's cheesy.[/QUOTE]


cough..cough...wavebird, first good wireless controller....cough..cough
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Yes, but no one wants to have next-gen controllers wired, that's cheesy. Also, I know Nintendo announced a controller shell, that's why I original stated it. I don't believe in anything until I see it though, so until then for all I know their controller shell could suck as bad as their remote will when it comes to third party support.[/QUOTE]

Arn't you forgetting the Wavebird?
 
[quote name='Mr.Answer']Lets not forget about the time tested video game machine--the PC.[/QUOTE]

Well, PC games are apparently still going to be easy to port over to the 360, so much like this generation, Microsoft's machine should see a lot of multiplatform games shared with the PC.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']Well, PC games are apparently still going to be easy to port over to the 360, so much like this generation, Microsoft's machine should see a lot of multiplatform games shared with the PC.[/QUOTE]

An interesting trade off - Pay less for a 360 when compared to a capable PC, but for Live. Or, pay more for the PC but have no online-fees.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']cough..cough...wavebird, first good wireless controller....cough..cough[/QUOTE]
Well the original Logitech PS2 Wireless controller was pretty decent, though the 2nd incarnation trumped the original version hands down.
 
[quote name='jkam']I'm sure like myself most of you own more than 1 console this generation. I just had a cheap ass nightmare....multi-platform games as we know them will change with the Revolution and may cause me to buy more games.

What I mean is this...say the new Sonic (PS3) game comes out and I buy it.... However Sega wants to take advantage of the Revolution's unique control scheme and they create a completely different game for it. That means 2 games where as before it could have been 1.

It seems hard enough to buy and play all the games I want to now....and that's with me already being selective. Ugh...[/QUOTE]

Do you really think that ANY third party company is going to make a "special" version of every game they make just for Nintendo? Do you realize how much money they would lose?

Unless Nintendo gives the Revolution the same controller functionality as the other consoles right out of the box most Third party games will support NOT it. Multiplatform games WON'T change because of the revolution. Nintendo either gets with the program and makes the revolution third party friendly OUT OF THE BOX or they get left in the dust.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Do you really think that ANY third party company is going to make a "special" version of every game they make just for Nintendo? Do you realize how much money they would lose?

Unless Nintendo gives the Revolution the same controller functionality as the other consoles right out of the box most Third party games will support NOT it. Multiplatform games WON'T change because of the revolution. Nintendo either gets with the program and makes the revolution third party friendly OUT OF THE BOX or they get left in the dust.[/QUOTE]

See: spider-man, PoP, & Splinter Cell. All three were major releases and all 3 have console specific content.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Nintendo either gets with the program and makes the revolution third party friendly OUT OF THE BOX or they get left in the dust.[/QUOTE]
Which worked wonders for them with the Gamecube.
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']See: spider-man, PoP, & Splinter Cell. All three were major releases and all 3 have console specific content.[/QUOTE]

Console specific content and completley reworking a game to be playable with a radically different input device are two completely different things.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Console specific content and completley reworking a game to be playable with a radically different input device are two completely different things.[/QUOTE]


You read my mind.
 
I don't see this being much of an issue.

And if they do make an entirely different game to take advantage of the unique controller, just think of them as two different games and/or buy the superior version. No big deal.

Ultimately I'd guess that most games will require the use of the more standard Rev controller and there will only be a handful of 3rd party games that really use it in any meaningful way. But it would be nice to be wrong on that one.
 
[quote name='wubb']Ultimately I'd guess that most games will require the use of the more standard Rev controller and there will only be a handful of 3rd party games that really use it in any meaningful way. But it would be nice to be wrong on that one.[/QUOTE]
I see it happening like it did with the DS. At first there will be a lot of "regular" games with "revolution-style" minigames as extras. As developers get more comfortable, they'll start to use it more often and in more interesting ways.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I actually think most multi-platform games will be developed for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PS3 because the 360 is apparently much easier to develop for. The Revolution will probably see some 3rd party ports at the beginning, but they will most likely taper off based on the history of 3rd party ports on both the N64 and Gamecube. The games that fully take advantage of the Revo's controller will sell well for the Revolution, but the traditional third party games will sell better on the X360 and the PS3. The Revo is apparently not going to be as technologically advanced either, so a lot of ports may not be possible due to both graphical and processing issues.

I don't think there will be many multi-platform games that take advantage of the Revo's remote control controller.[/QUOTE]

But the porting over to the PS3 would be just as difficult as making a new game.

I think we have seen the last of multi-platform games. Or at least they will be very diminished in number.
 
While I'm too fucking cheap to buy any other system other than the Revolution anyway, I do see your point., It would pose an issue, and I wouldn't be able to resist both. :\
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Yes, but no one wants to have next-gen controllers wired, that's cheesy. Also, I know Nintendo announced a controller shell, that's why I original stated it. I don't believe in anything until I see it though, so until then for all I know their controller shell could suck as bad as their remote will when it comes to third party support.[/QUOTE]

nintendo has already shown their controller that is "normal" so it shouldnt be a problem at all, and its wireless
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Well, I'd say about 99.9% of the time most developers will not be porting multi-platform (PS3, and Xbox360) games to the Revolution period. Unless Nintendo comes out with a controller shell that's more streamlined with the next-gen's regular controllers, I think Nintendo will be seeing a big dip in third party support when it comes to multi-platform games.[/QUOTE]


old news they already have one in the works ign has some concept art of what it basically will be
 
[quote name='Tromack']But the porting over to the PS3 would be just as difficult as making a new game.

I think we have seen the last of multi-platform games. Or at least they will be very diminished in number.[/QUOTE]
Compare to Dreamcast or XBox, PS2 starts off as a difficult system to develope. However over time devlopers are able to get the hang of it.
 
Seeing as I about to buy a damn good game engine that is used to easily make games for the Xbox 360, I see the chain initially starting like this:

360 -> PS3 -> Rev

(rev is last since nintendo usually gets ports way later then everyone else)

oh, and if you want to dig your hands into the nice and affordable game engine that works wonders on the 360, go to www.garagegames.com and buy the damn Torque Shader Engine.
 
Seeing as I about to buy a damn good game engine that is used to easily make games for the Xbox 360, I see the chain initially starting like this:

360 -> PS3 -> Rev

(rev is last since nintendo usually gets ports way later then everyone else)

oh, and if you want to dig your hands into the nice and affordable game engine that works wonders on the 360, go to www.garagegames.com and buy the damn Torque Shader Engine.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Yes, but no one wants to have next-gen controllers wired, that's cheesy. Also, I know Nintendo announced a controller shell, that's why I original stated it. I don't believe in anything until I see it though, so until then for all I know their controller shell could suck as bad as their remote will when it comes to third party support.[/QUOTE]


So you're saying that you're working under the assumption that Nintendo's controller shell that, to quote ign, "makes it possible to play Revolution games in a more traditional manner......designed to look and function like accepted "regular" controllers, such as the Wave Bird" is going to, now to quote you, "suck as bad as their remote when it comes to third party support."

Honestly, that seems pretty ridiculous.
 
I think they'd be bad for us in the same way that the DS is bad for us. Which is to say its not bad for us. You certainly dont have to buy it anyway. You can stick with your familiar gaming experience, with extreme prettiness.

I think this difference is now a BETTER reason to port something on the Revolution. When porting something, you have to gauge whether or not people would buy it. But why would people buy the Revolution version if it had a dual shock layout clone and was the weakest out of the 3 systems.
 
Third party support may be severely diminished for an entirely overlooked reason. Gamecube games sell like crap, period. The Gamecube has had a grand total of 2 (RE4 and madden) in the top 20 of sales this year. That's it. It may very well be whether it's economically even worth it to bother. The answer may very likely be no. The revolution will have lessened specs, so they would have to spend extra development time to make a WORSE version that won't sell as many as the other two. I just don't see many devs bothering. Nintendo has divided the playing field. There is now the evolution of traditional gaming (PS3/360) and the revolution which is, um, different. They may cave, put out a normal controller, and just try to get along with a weaker system (remember, the ps2 is the most popular and weakest current gen system). If they stick to their guns though, I would say that the vast majority of Revolution games will be created by them or specifically for them. I could totally be wrong. I guess we'll see... Pesonally, I see the Revolution doing well in Japan and about gamecube level of popularity here (i.e. not very). The japanese market tends to go ga ga over trinky crap, and the US market tends to see it for what it is. Then again, the ds has sold well here, so who knows...
 
Since apparently you can read minds but somehow not read my post, I'll clarify. I believe they could make specific console content, not redo an entire game. Extra levels, mini-games, and characters are all possiblities to test the water for the revolution's controller.
 
When I read the thread title, I thought it was going to be about that part of Iwata's address where he talked about steady software sales weeks after a game's release. It is definitely interesting that games like brain training have had consistent and even higher sales weeks after release but being such a cheapass, I was also wondering if that would mean longer to wait for game price drops.

 
Look with Nintendo I've heard rumors or something about a graphical compression technique and this may be for the Revo and it could level the playing field in terms of graphics. Never underestimate how much Nintendo can compress shit, case in point Mario 64 for the N64.
Also really people do you REALLY want Nintendo to give up? This is their first step on the way to Nintendo ON, they're trying to disconnect you from the controller and get you to the point of fullest interactivity with VR that can be achieved right now which is left and right as well as up and down with your head as well as aiming. Unfortunately back and forth is not practical for OBVIOUS reasons. The next step past VR would be a holo room or some type of mock dream state with your brain.
 
Actually, I think the previous generation of consoles ended up in a situation similar to what the OP described. Early on the PS1 and n64 got a lot of similar games. But later on (around when Pokemon got huge) the n64 kind of went in its own direction. It was almost like the consoles weren't directly competing anymore (even though they were).

And look what happened - popular franchises started putting out completely different games for the different consoles. PS1 had CastleVania: SotN while n64 got those crappy 3D games. PS1 got Smackdown wrestling games while n64 got No Mercy and Wrestlemania 2000.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Yes, but no one wants to have next-gen controllers wired, that's cheesy. Also, I know Nintendo announced a controller shell, that's why I original stated it. I don't believe in anything until I see it though, so until then for all I know their controller shell could suck as bad as their remote will when it comes to third party support.[/QUOTE]


How the hell yopu could overlook the wavebird is beyound me.

Bsyound that, it's obvious the Revolutuion is going to have a bunch of controller shells. Just think about it, they'll have the entire Nintendo library up for grabs, Nintendo would be silly not to release a "classic" Shell for each system.
 
Now here is the problem with Nintendo. Somewhere along the line they got the idea that being randomly different is better. Seriously, why the **** would you use a channel changer remote for your controller... Seriously... its just plain stupid. I read a lot about the controller and seen plenty of pictures and it just looks really uncomfortable and like it would be a pain in the @** to use... A controller should mold into your hands to the point where you forget your even holding onto a controller as you play and I dont see how this is possible with a blocky channel changer. I think it could be a very long time before we see Nintendo on the top again when they come out with morronic ideas like these. The Revolution will be last again as was the N64, and the Gamecube.
 
On the subject of Nintendo and third party development, lets not forget the real reason that the N64 & the GC were less supported by third party software companies - Nintendo's incredibly high cost of licencing. I've read that the cost of licensing for games on the Gamecube is as high as three times that of the PS2. Nintendo also has higher demands of third part manufacturers. Take the DS for example. All games MUST use the stylus. The new castlvania, for example, has a new "feature" requiring the player to scribble a specific rune on top of any boss, after it has been traditional fought, to beat it. Did Konami want that? Probably not. Does the gamer, no. In a game were it is put to good use, great, I'm more than happy. But don't force it.
 
[quote name='momadaboo']The Revolution will be last again as was the N64, and the Gamecube.[/QUOTE]

And like both of those, it will do something that Microsoft gaming division hasnt ever done and isnt forecasted to do anytime soon. Make Money.
 
I don't know if I'm going to get them all next generation, at least not for a good 3 years or so. That said, I hardly buy multiplatform as it is - I think I have maybe a dozen multiplatform games out of the 70 or so current generation games that I own.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']And like both of those, it will do something that Microsoft gaming division hasnt ever done and isnt forecasted to do anytime soon. Make Money.[/QUOTE]

First of all incase you hadn't noticed Microsoft is worth a little more then Nintendo (sarcasm). Money isn't really an issue for Microsoft. Sells don't just equal cash they equal more games and better games. Nintendo is a perfect example, their system made more money but they sold less consoles/games. Developers will generally prefer working on a system that sells well so THEY can make more money which is why the PS2 got more games then the Xbox or GC. When it comes to getting the most games and often times the quality games for your system it isn't a matter of which company is making the most money. It is a matter of which company is SELLING the most consoles and games. Microsoft didn't join the videogame industry to get rich...
 
[quote name='momadaboo']First of all incase you hadn't noticed Microsoft is worth a little more then Nintendo (sarcasm). Money isn't really an issue for Microsoft. Sells don't just equal cash they equal more games and better games. Nintendo is a perfect example, their system made more money but they sold less consoles/games. Developers will generally prefer working on a system that sells well so THEY can make more money which is why the PS2 got more games then the Xbox or GC. When it comes to getting the most games and often times the quality games for your system it isn't a matter of which company is making the most money. It is a matter of which company is SELLING the most consoles and games. Microsoft didn't join the videogame industry to get rich...[/QUOTE]

uh... what?

Anyways

I'm not really concerned either way. I'm excited for a new gaming experience, and I only own one current gen console (gamecube). The Revolution is not just meant for the gamers, have you seen the Revolution Controller commercial?

This new system is going to get to everyone. My mom doesn't give a shit about metal gear solid, but holy shit, as soon as she sees a virtua tennis style game using the revolution controller, I think she'll be interested.
 
[quote name='peteloaf']On the subject of Nintendo and third party development, lets not forget the real reason that the N64 & the GC were less supported by third party software companies - Nintendo's incredibly high cost of licencing. I've read that the cost of licensing for games on the Gamecube is as high as three times that of the PS2. Nintendo also has higher demands of third part manufacturers. Take the DS for example. All games MUST use the stylus. The new castlvania, for example, has a new "feature" requiring the player to scribble a specific rune on top of any boss, after it has been traditional fought, to beat it. Did Konami want that? Probably not. Does the gamer, no. In a game were it is put to good use, great, I'm more than happy. But don't force it.[/QUOTE]


Um, why the hell would a publisher make a ds game that doesn't use the stylus when they can still make gba games? I'm confused. Clearly Konami wanted to use the stylus or they'd make a gba game. Seriously, you make no sense.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']Well, I'd say about 99.9% of the time most developers will not be porting multi-platform (PS3, and Xbox360) games to the Revolution period. Unless Nintendo comes out with a controller shell that's more streamlined with the next-gen's regular controllers, I think Nintendo will be seeing a big dip in third party support when it comes to multi-platform games.[/QUOTE]

I am glad you can vouche for all of them.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']
I'm not really concerned either way. I'm excited for a new gaming experience, and I only own one current gen console (gamecube). The Revolution is not just meant for the gamers, have you seen the Revolution Controller commercial?

This new system is going to get to everyone. My mom doesn't give a shit about metal gear solid, but holy shit, as soon as she sees a virtua tennis style game using the revolution controller, I think she'll be interested.[/QUOTE]


I agree. Nintendo has said for a while they want to make games to pull in non-gamers which I they've done here and there. My sisters and girlfriend will play Donkey Konga but that's about it... maybe a little Mario Party here and there.

But the thing is, Nintendo hasn't yet pulled in non-gamers to buy a system. But I think they might have here. I explained the controller to my mom and girlfriend seperately and both of them said right away they wanted to play it and were even excited by the idea. They didn't get into gaming when they were 5 and there were very few buttons like I did. Now there are craploads of buttons and far too large of a learning curve. This new controller seemed to make sense to them and they wanted to play. If it works as described, Nintendo's goal of pulling in all these non-gamers might actually be reached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top