- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
interesting take on E3 from a stockholder's POV
- Thread starter CaseyRyback
- Start date
I dunno, the movie industry has been riding high on sequels for years. There's no reason the videogame industry can't do the same; at least until the next generation.
He bashes all the companies for doing the 'same 'ol, same 'ol' and claims it will be their downfall, but then admits that the innovative projects are destined to fail miserably. Which is it then?
Then he bashes developers for continually making knock-offs of the popular genre defining games, and criticizes companies like EA for not covering all the (mature)genres. He's confusing the hell out of me.
He bashes all the companies for doing the 'same 'ol, same 'ol' and claims it will be their downfall, but then admits that the innovative projects are destined to fail miserably. Which is it then?
Then he bashes developers for continually making knock-offs of the popular genre defining games, and criticizes companies like EA for not covering all the (mature)genres. He's confusing the hell out of me.
hutno
CAGiversary!
I have to agree that the over abundance of sequels has deffinitely had a negaive effect on the consumer market. I just wished people would buy original games, or the games were so good that people wouldn't have to wait for the games to drop in price theyd just go out and buy it (GTA for example)
[quote name='bmulligan']I dunno, the movie industry has been riding high on sequels for years. There's no reason the videogame industry can't do the same; at least until the next generation. [/quote]
sequals are hit or miss, they had a great example, the matrix 3 v. lotr 3
[quote name='bmulligan']
He bashes all the companies for doing the 'same 'ol, same 'ol' and claims it will be their downfall, but then admits that the innovative projects are destined to fail miserably. Which is it then?[/quote]
which game do you like better, rez or devil may cry 2? which do you think sold better?
[quote name='bmulligan']Then he bashes developers for continually making knock-offs of the popular genre defining games, and criticizes companies like EA for not covering all the (mature)genres. He's confusing the hell out of me.[/quote]
he ment he wants EA to make mature games, knock off games he talked about are games like true crime. its possible to make a mature game, and make it origional...
i thought this was an excellent read
sequals are hit or miss, they had a great example, the matrix 3 v. lotr 3
[quote name='bmulligan']
He bashes all the companies for doing the 'same 'ol, same 'ol' and claims it will be their downfall, but then admits that the innovative projects are destined to fail miserably. Which is it then?[/quote]
which game do you like better, rez or devil may cry 2? which do you think sold better?
[quote name='bmulligan']Then he bashes developers for continually making knock-offs of the popular genre defining games, and criticizes companies like EA for not covering all the (mature)genres. He's confusing the hell out of me.[/quote]
he ment he wants EA to make mature games, knock off games he talked about are games like true crime. its possible to make a mature game, and make it origional...
i thought this was an excellent read
[quote name='hutno']I have to agree that the over abundance of sequels has deffinitely had a negaive effect on the consumer market. I just wished people would buy original games, or the games were so good that people wouldn't have to wait for the games to drop in price theyd just go out and buy it (GTA for example)[/quote]
i think a better example is culdcept...for me anyways...i read 1 review on that game in a magazine at work. 1 single page review, and the concept amazed me, i must have read it 5 or 10 times that day, right after work, i went to gamestop, and paid 40 bucks for it. thats what the industry needs, games people get excited about, be it culdcept or gta
i think a better example is culdcept...for me anyways...i read 1 review on that game in a magazine at work. 1 single page review, and the concept amazed me, i must have read it 5 or 10 times that day, right after work, i went to gamestop, and paid 40 bucks for it. thats what the industry needs, games people get excited about, be it culdcept or gta
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
Personally I do not mind a rehash or a sequel as long as it does something better than what followed it. Some sequels do it and some do not. Max Payne 2 was horrible compared to the original IMO where as GTA:VC was much better than GTAIII.
Also his point about EA is true. They never seem to do anything innovative, and play on the same key concepts over and over again. Eventually that will bite them in the ass.
also love the new sig punq
Also his point about EA is true. They never seem to do anything innovative, and play on the same key concepts over and over again. Eventually that will bite them in the ass.
also love the new sig punq
[quote name='punqsux']he ment he wants EA to make mature games, knock off games he talked about are games like true crime. its possible to make a mature game, and make it origional...
[/quote]
Yeah, I understood what he meant, but he contradicts himself by saying multiple times that originality = failure, but lack of it also equals failure.
There's no guarantee a sequel will do well, similarly, there's no guarantee that adding mature content will also make games popular. Statistically, however, you can make predictions based on the past. Many movies are made during the corse of a year, just like video games. There are gems that get overlooked and overshadowed by the ones that actually sell tickets. The VG industry doen;t have to worry about anything until people stop buying MADDEN 2008 in mass quantities.
To me, he's basically saying nothing. You might as well be interviewing a football coach at halftime and get responses like " we need to score points in the second half to win" Or some other mindless predictable ballpark blather before, during and after such sporting event such as E3.
[/quote]
Yeah, I understood what he meant, but he contradicts himself by saying multiple times that originality = failure, but lack of it also equals failure.
There's no guarantee a sequel will do well, similarly, there's no guarantee that adding mature content will also make games popular. Statistically, however, you can make predictions based on the past. Many movies are made during the corse of a year, just like video games. There are gems that get overlooked and overshadowed by the ones that actually sell tickets. The VG industry doen;t have to worry about anything until people stop buying MADDEN 2008 in mass quantities.
To me, he's basically saying nothing. You might as well be interviewing a football coach at halftime and get responses like " we need to score points in the second half to win" Or some other mindless predictable ballpark blather before, during and after such sporting event such as E3.
[quote name='bmulligan']
Yeah, I understood what he meant, but he contradicts himself by saying multiple times that originality = failure, but lack of it also equals failure. [/quote]
i think he was saying that crazy out in left feild games (that eskimo game) never sell well with the masses(fail) but i think he ment putting a new spin on something thats already popular (nba street v. NBA 200X) will sell better
i realize that street wasnt prolly my best example, but its late =op and thanks casey!
Yeah, I understood what he meant, but he contradicts himself by saying multiple times that originality = failure, but lack of it also equals failure. [/quote]
i think he was saying that crazy out in left feild games (that eskimo game) never sell well with the masses(fail) but i think he ment putting a new spin on something thats already popular (nba street v. NBA 200X) will sell better
i realize that street wasnt prolly my best example, but its late =op and thanks casey!
sandwiches99
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
To the people that are confused: did you read the article?
He applauds original games and innovation, like the Eskimo game, but admits that unfortunately games like that won't sell well.
The problem is that there are too many sequels, almost every publisher is dishing out mostly sequels. Its gotten to the point where its starting to turn consumers off. Sequels can be a mixed bag. Like someone here said, you can get something like GTA:VC or you may end up with DMC2.
He points out these problems and observations but does not present a solution.
He applauds original games and innovation, like the Eskimo game, but admits that unfortunately games like that won't sell well.
The problem is that there are too many sequels, almost every publisher is dishing out mostly sequels. Its gotten to the point where its starting to turn consumers off. Sequels can be a mixed bag. Like someone here said, you can get something like GTA:VC or you may end up with DMC2.
He points out these problems and observations but does not present a solution.
Yeah OK, kinda like NFL street. I actually will probably pick this one up soon to compliment my copy of Madden 2001.
It really only takes one 'hook' or new concept to make or break a game depending upon it's execution. I'm suprised he didn't give Kudos to Sony for the EyeToy. Thre's a lot of potential in this peripheral IMO. I just hope Sony will actually DO something for it instead of letting it disappear into the closet of forgotten peripherals like some others I have lurking in the depths of videogame hell that I affectinately refer to as "the basement."
It really only takes one 'hook' or new concept to make or break a game depending upon it's execution. I'm suprised he didn't give Kudos to Sony for the EyeToy. Thre's a lot of potential in this peripheral IMO. I just hope Sony will actually DO something for it instead of letting it disappear into the closet of forgotten peripherals like some others I have lurking in the depths of videogame hell that I affectinately refer to as "the basement."
i loved his point about sports games. until this past winter, i was playing madden 2002, until a few weeks ago, my main next gen hockey game was nhl2001, i rarley ever pay more than 10$ for a sports game, and not just because they lose value so quickly, but because they dont offer $50 of worth. sure, i could get updated rosters, slightly better graphics, and a couple new moves. but for that same $50 i could buy metal gear solid 3
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
have you seen the trailer? It is 
ing amazing. I am inclined to buy a PS2 just because of MGS3
ing amazing. I am inclined to buy a PS2 just because of MGS3
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='punqsux']i havent seen the trailer, because i dont want to torture myself.
i put in at least 20+ hours on the mgs2 demo, that fact alone gives me enough faith in the series to believe this is gunna be an awesome game[/quote]
I spent probably 3-4 hours so far watching it so far.
for TTS I probably saw that 27 minute trailer more than anyone( I have never owned a SONY console so it was the first time I got to play the game, besides for playing 10 minutes of it at my friends) which is probably why. Me and my friend spent about two weeks glued to it before it was released
i put in at least 20+ hours on the mgs2 demo, that fact alone gives me enough faith in the series to believe this is gunna be an awesome game[/quote]
I spent probably 3-4 hours so far watching it so far.
for TTS I probably saw that 27 minute trailer more than anyone( I have never owned a SONY console so it was the first time I got to play the game, besides for playing 10 minutes of it at my friends) which is probably why. Me and my friend spent about two weeks glued to it before it was released
thingsfallnapart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 72 (100%)
This guy has some good points..and has somewhat idiotitc ones...
his view seems to be that if a game isn't mature it has no use. From his view it seems as if your not banging the heads off chicks in games bond movies and shooting guys heads off and making them all over, then a game cant be succesful money wise.
maybe its different for me, i can enjoy my game without blood and guts.
his view seems to be that if a game isn't mature it has no use. From his view it seems as if your not banging the heads off chicks in games bond movies and shooting guys heads off and making them all over, then a game cant be succesful money wise.
maybe its different for me, i can enjoy my game without blood and guts.
As an on-again off-again investment research guy myself (I was writing for Stockjungle before it went under), I'm really impressed that Mr. Pachter, who is many years my senior, is so confident in his ability to read to mind of the 14-16 year old crowd. I don't think I could have 10 years ago when I was in that category.
I particularly liked his comment that " My gut tells me that 14-year-old boys are all the same". Nothing gives me more confidence in someone's opinion than when they assume their key demographic to be a faceless sea of identical automatons.
He has three serious problems though:
1. He's only talking about Mature games, and yet the audience he is looking to appeal to is too young to buy them. Assuming the US government will not become more of a busybody in the future is always a bad bet.
2. His key demographic, the 14ish crowd, is becoming less and less important in the video game sector. The growth is at the top, in the 20+ year olds who used the abandon video games after college. They have decidedly different tastes, and are nowhere near as picky about all their titles being rated Mature.
3. If he thinks the GBA market is still the 6-12 year olds I sure wouldn't trust him to invest my money. The over-18 crowd is already a quarter of the GBA's market, and that number is growing.
I particularly liked his comment that " My gut tells me that 14-year-old boys are all the same". Nothing gives me more confidence in someone's opinion than when they assume their key demographic to be a faceless sea of identical automatons.
He has three serious problems though:
1. He's only talking about Mature games, and yet the audience he is looking to appeal to is too young to buy them. Assuming the US government will not become more of a busybody in the future is always a bad bet.
2. His key demographic, the 14ish crowd, is becoming less and less important in the video game sector. The growth is at the top, in the 20+ year olds who used the abandon video games after college. They have decidedly different tastes, and are nowhere near as picky about all their titles being rated Mature.
3. If he thinks the GBA market is still the 6-12 year olds I sure wouldn't trust him to invest my money. The over-18 crowd is already a quarter of the GBA's market, and that number is growing.
I would agree with the above post voicing concern over the dangerous attitude of condescension and assumption pervading the interview
but the problem i have with the stock market's take on video games is:
- they are not coming from a gamer perspective, honestly they have no reason to care if x is a better, more enjoyable game than y, they merely want to see which companies will gain them money in the short and medium terms
-because they are focused on those companies which are publicly traded, as the article says, the companies that get monitored are Activision, Acclaim, Electronics Boutique, Electronic Arts, Atari, Hollywood Entertainment, Midway Games, THQ, Take-Two Interactive, and GameStop. These companies are in no way a good sampling of the video game industry. I mean these are the american companies that tradionally release a slew of the crap on the shelves and you cannot have a good perspective of an industry if you have these blinders on. Analysts always want to talk about a madden, mortal kombat or turok, why? because they only see the gaming industry as ms, sony, nin and maybe half a dozen developers/publishers.
then there are comments which are just asinine "punk kids," Sony learning its lesson with Betamax, lining up "200" games at a system launch, "50 hip hop games," "I will neve understand Tony Hawk"
but the problem i have with the stock market's take on video games is:
- they are not coming from a gamer perspective, honestly they have no reason to care if x is a better, more enjoyable game than y, they merely want to see which companies will gain them money in the short and medium terms
-because they are focused on those companies which are publicly traded, as the article says, the companies that get monitored are Activision, Acclaim, Electronics Boutique, Electronic Arts, Atari, Hollywood Entertainment, Midway Games, THQ, Take-Two Interactive, and GameStop. These companies are in no way a good sampling of the video game industry. I mean these are the american companies that tradionally release a slew of the crap on the shelves and you cannot have a good perspective of an industry if you have these blinders on. Analysts always want to talk about a madden, mortal kombat or turok, why? because they only see the gaming industry as ms, sony, nin and maybe half a dozen developers/publishers.
then there are comments which are just asinine "punk kids," Sony learning its lesson with Betamax, lining up "200" games at a system launch, "50 hip hop games," "I will neve understand Tony Hawk"
That's exactly the problem. One of the oldest adages in investing is to "go with what you know". Calling someone an "industry expert" when they clearly do not buy/use the products of this inudstry, and assume those that do have no will of their own in the matter is a serious problem.
You would never see an expert in the auto industry who doesn't test drive many of the new models personally. You would never see a vegetarian who is called an expert in the fast food industry or someone who doesn't own a television who is an expert in broadcast media.
So why are we expected to accept that the foremost expert in the video game is someone who neither plays video games nor makes anything but a broad sweeping generalization about those who do?
Disclaimer: In the interest of not having the SEC on my ass on the random chance they read this site regularly, I should say that nothing I'm saying should be taken as official investment advice or an attempt to solicit offerings thereof, and in the interest of fair disclosure I presently have long positions in three companies in the video game industry: Nintendo, Sega, and Jakks Pacific.
You would never see an expert in the auto industry who doesn't test drive many of the new models personally. You would never see a vegetarian who is called an expert in the fast food industry or someone who doesn't own a television who is an expert in broadcast media.
So why are we expected to accept that the foremost expert in the video game is someone who neither plays video games nor makes anything but a broad sweeping generalization about those who do?
Disclaimer: In the interest of not having the SEC on my ass on the random chance they read this site regularly, I should say that nothing I'm saying should be taken as official investment advice or an attempt to solicit offerings thereof, and in the interest of fair disclosure I presently have long positions in three companies in the video game industry: Nintendo, Sega, and Jakks Pacific.
bread's done