Next Gen Panel Discussion

NucNavST3 said:
I think the intention was to show that, the GameCube by itself was the secondary console for most people, much the way the Rev is setting itself up to be; so as a developer, how much manpower do you want to dump into a console that has (using his numbers) 10% of that crowd that ONLY own the GC. Since that larger showing of hands must have owned an Xbox and/or PS2, you would naturally dev for those, because that larger number didn't even include those that own PS2/Xbox exclusively.
Click to expand...

Well, I know what his intention was, but I just think he fell a little short of that goal with the initial question. His implication is that development for the Rev is not a financially viable option - but who knows, with less costly development overall and no need to pay out the $1 million for UE3, it might be viable yet. ;)

I mean I'm getting the console myself, so certainly I'm looking forward somewhat to the 'cheap gimmiks.'
 
xbdestroya said:
I do find some holes in his logic though.

Like when he asks who owns a GameCube, and then refines it to who only owns a GameCube because the initial showing was too strong. Well - he makes the implication that the GameCube installed base is thus 10%, and developers are not going to target that - when in fact the installed base is much greater, and I think we can all agree that nobody bought the GameCube for the cross-console titles; they bought it for the exclusives.
Click to expand...

His entire point is that ONLY 10% bought it for the exclusives. He never says that developers won't support rev, I don't know where you guys get that impression.

Remember this is in context of "will the Rev have enough good games?" His answer, well Nintendo will make some damn good games, but Nintendo's games can only take them so far(i.e. 10% of people only own gamecube.) The rest of them will be mostly "gimmicky" in his opinion.
 
scooby_dooby said:
His entire point is that ONLY 10% bought it for the exclusives. He never says that developers won't support rev, I don't know where you guys get that impression.

Remember this is in context of "will the Rev have enough good games?" His answer, well Nintendo will make some damn good games, but Nintendo's games can only take them so far(i.e. 10% of people only own gamecube.) The rest of them will be mostly "gimmicky" in his opinion.
Click to expand...

I consider that completely wrong. IMO, 10% DIDN'T buy it for the exclusives. The rest who own it, did. If not every single person that owns it.

If *that* was his argument, that only 10% bought it for the exclusives, then his logic is totally messed up.

For example:

I own PS2. Why would I buy GameCube? There's only one answer: the exclusives. I mean, how easy is that logic? I'm not going to buy it for the cross-console titles, that's for sure. Because I already own another console that I could buy those same games on.
 
The 10% was refering to the overall console market, not the percentage of GC owners. So he was agreeing with your assesment.
 
SirTendeth said:
The 10% was refering to the overall console market, not the percentage of GC owners. So he was agreeing with your assesment.
Click to expand...

No, he wasn't.

Some points:

Scooby: His answer, well Nintendo will make some damn good games, but Nintendo's games can only take them so far(i.e. 10% of people only own gamecube.)

Me: I own PS2. Why would I buy GameCube? There's only one answer: the exclusives.

My point I am making is that *anyone* that owns a GameCube probably owns it for the exclusives, not just the 10% who only own a GameCube. I mean, I think I'm making sense here, right?
 
xbdestroya said:
... and I think we can all agree that nobody bought the GameCube for the cross-console titles; they bought it for the exclusives.
Click to expand...
i've owned all 3 current generation consoles from almost launch, and right now, i'm only buying cross platform games on the GC and PS2. why? because nintendo and sony have promised a decent percentage of backwards compatability out of the box, and MS's coverage will be spotty, at least at first. i might have picked up my GC for the exclusives, but i find myself picking up more cross platform games because i'll have a longer window of opportunity to play them, without the hassle of digging out my old consoles.

about graphics being everything...
GTA3 features boxy environments, boxy characters, boxy cars, and blurry textures, but ended up being the defining game of this generation. almost every genre has tried to offer the "open world" style of play GTA has offered. everything from racing games and GTA clones (a given) to superhero and cartoon games (spider-man 2, hulk, simpsons), extreme sports games (tony hawk), and even activist titles (Steer Madness).

Katamari Damacy also made a name for itself this generation, and it features simple graphics but rewarding gameplay.
 
xbdestroya said:
I do find some holes in his logic though.

Like when he asks who owns a GameCube, and then refines it to who only owns a GameCube because the initial showing was too strong. Well - he makes the implication that the GameCube installed base is thus 10%, and developers are not going to target that - when in fact the installed base is much greater, and I think we can all agree that nobody bought the GameCube for the cross-console titles; they bought it for the exclusives.
Click to expand...

Isn't that sort of the point? When big multi-platform games are released, most don't sell that well on the Gamecube, while the X-Box and PS2 sell decent numbers. Publishers have pulled back on the Gamecube because it is effectivley 10%.

If they bought it for the Nintendo exclusives, they'll do the same thing regardless of the controller for their next-gen console. So the controller is targeted at consumers that didn't buy a Gamecube this generation, do you really think they'll go for Nintendo because of the new style of control?
 
Brimstone said:
Isn't that sort of the point? When big multi-platform games are released, most don't sell that well on the Gamecube, while the X-Box and PS2 sell decent numbers. Publishers have pulled back on the Gamecube because it is effectivley 10%.

If they bought it for the Nintendo exclusives, they'll do the same thing regardless of the controller for their next-gen console. So the controller is targeted at consumers that didn't buy a Gamecube this generation, do you really think they'll go for Nintendo because of the new style of control?
Click to expand...

Ok maybe I'm missing something here. Aren't we just talking about third-party developer support for Rev in general? I never approached the situation saying that Rev would make a 'comfortable' place for a dev to put their cross-console title (though that prototype 'standard' controller add-on for Rev could alleviate that) I was simply giving the reasons why developing an exclusive title on the Rev wouldn't be akin to 'suicide' as Rein seems to imply.

I see the Rev as similar to the console world's DS. DS has surprisingly strong third party support, and if the Rev is cheap to develop for, I don't see why Rev also wouldn't have a line of short, enjoyable, exclusive titles.

My only issue with this '10%' thing is the notion that Nintendo-style gameplay only works to drive the minority of GameCube sales - aka the GameCube only set - where on the contrary I feel it drives the majority.

In the poll we recently did here, weren't the majority of future Rev owners buying another console as well? Now - who among us was not buying the Rev for potential exclusive Nintendo content and wacky gameplay?
 
Scott_Arm said:
Well, graphics cannot overcome a bad game. Good gameplay can overcome bad graphics, or sub-par graphics, at least. Tons of people jumped into the world of mmorpgs when the graphics were quite far behind other games on the market, because the gameplay was something new and exciting. Tons of people still play Tetris, which is in no way visually exciting. Tons of people use emulators to play old NES, SNES, arcade games on their PS2s, Xboxs or PCs because the games are good.
Click to expand...

And how much of the gaming market would you honestly say these people represent? 1%? maybe 2%

You make a good point about box art for people that are window shopping. If all you have to judge the game by is the graphics, then you're probably going to pick the one that looks better. But, a lot of people buy games based on reviews or word of mouth, and games that are fun to play will always benefit from word of mouth. I've never had someone recommend that I buy a game to look at the graphics, even though it wasn't a very good game.
Click to expand...

And I can say the reverse. I've never had someone recommend the most god-aweful ugly game just because the gameplay was good.

Like I said, they are equally important. If either one flat out sucks the game will not sell. Great games are games with both great graphics and great gameplay, good games are games where one or the other is lacking somewhat, and bad games have failed miserably in one of those two aspects, or both.
 
xbd, I'm pretty sure I understand your point.

I guess I am on the flip side of things where I don't think everything N makes is great or even good half the time. If I get a Rev, it will be once it hits the $100 mark.

To be honest, I am hoping Live! Arcade will fill my void for classic gaming and simple, yet fun gameplay. I'm pretty sure I will be playing Wik and Outpost Kaloki X for hours on end and probably Geometry Wars, as well, that is assuming I can get my wife off of Hexic or some word puzzle game.
 
xbdestroy : I agree wtih your reasoning here. Why else buy a GC if you already own a console, unless for the exclusives? So the market for Revolution exclsuives should be everyone with two consoles including a GC. From the poll here we saw that was the case, and it seems plausible a substantial number of people will have a Revolution alongside their other system, making a plentifully large-enough userbase for any party to develop for.
 
xbdestroya said:
Ok maybe I'm missing something here. Aren't we just talking about third-party developer support for Rev in general? I never approached the situation saying that Rev would make a 'comfortable' place for a dev to put their cross-console title (though that prototype 'standard' controller add-on for Rev could alleviate that) I was simply giving the reasons why developing an exclusive title on the Rev wouldn't be akin to 'suicide' as Rein seems to imply.

I see the Rev as similar to the console world's DS. DS has surprisingly strong third party support, and if the Rev is cheap to develop for, I don't see why Rev also wouldn't have a line of short, enjoyable, exclusive titles.

My only issue with this '10%' thing is the notion that Nintendo-style gameplay only works to drive the minority of GameCube sales - aka the GameCube only set - where on the contrary I feel it drives the majority.

In the poll we recently did here, weren't the majority of future Rev owners buying another console as well? Now - who among us was not buying the Rev for potential exclusive Nintendo content and wacky gameplay?
Click to expand...

It's a hit driven buisness. For a publisher to commit resources to a platform like revolution and take advantage of the controller is taking away from 2 other platforms userbase. Once you make your unique game, your faced with competing with high quality Nintendo first/second party games. It's not so much they'll lose money on the Revolution, it's that they would have made more money by concentrating on PS3 and Xbox 360.

Programmers and artists are in short supply. It's taking a risk not having them commited to the other platforms making the games as good as they can be.

And as far as porting games with a regular control scheme, Nintendo is going to have the weaker hardware, so a person that owns Revolution and PS3/XB360 is going to pick up the PS3/XB360 version.
 
Brimstone said:
It's a hit driven buisness. For a publisher to commit resources to a platform like revolution and take advantage of the controller is taking away from 2 other platforms userbase. Once you make your unique game, your faced with competing with high quality Nintendo first/second party games. It's not so much they'll lose money on the Revolution, it's that they would have made more money by concentrating on PS3 and Xbox 360.
Click to expand...
True, but that didn't impact PS2's exclusive lineup. Plenty of developers went ahead against stiff competition, and that was before there were 90 million machines sold.
 
scooby_dooby said:
Ya I'm really loking forward to playing alot of Demo's from XBLive Arcade, sounds like a great time waster....
Click to expand...


Come on, Bejeweled on the big screen FFS! :D



....which is already on XBLA...

What they really need are all the arcade games from the early nineties...like Simpsons and Golden Axe
 
This is ridiculous! That little hand raise excerise was nothing more than BS statisitcs. Who goes to these events? Hardcore gamers or your average console gaming joe? Let's say hardcore. Now, again another assumption, your average hardcore gamer is spilt into 2 groups those who buy any console as long as there is a good game for it and those who hold steadfast love for a console. These assumptions I think are logical given that your average gamer doesn't give a piddlywink about gaming panels. What we have here is a sample, possibly poor since the draw is next gen Xbox, of the HARDCORE gaming population. As a result it's much more likely that these guys would own multiple consoles. As such, you're probably more likely to get a small percentage of people owning any 1 console. Trying to single out Nintendo without posing the same question to others is ridiculous. I'm willing to lay down 10 dollars, that if he asked the same set of questions for XBox and PS2 (remember PS2's numbers come from the average gamer not the hardcore... we are NOT legion) he'd get the same blessed numbers. This is silly, and the fact that someone like Mark Rein (who I imagine is a rather smart guy) wouldn't realize that just smacks of him going after Nintendo.
 
Mefisutoferesu said:
This is ridiculous! That little hand raise excerise was nothing more than BS statisitcs. Who goes to these events? Hardcore gamers or your average console gaming joe? Let's say hardcore. Now, again another assumption, your average hardcore gamer is spilt into 2 groups those who buy any console as long as there is a good game for it and those who hold steadfast love for a console. These assumptions I think are logical given that your average gamer doesn't give a piddlywink about gaming panels. What we have here is a sample, possibly poor since the draw is next gen Xbox, of the HARDCORE gaming population. As a result it's much more likely that these guys would own multiple consoles. As such, you're probably more likely to get a small percentage of people owning any 1 console. Trying to single out Nintendo without posing the same question to others is ridiculous. I'm willing to lay down 10 dollars, that if he asked the same set of questions for XBox and PS2 (remember PS2's numbers come from the average gamer not the hardcore... we are NOT legion) he'd get the same blessed numbers. This is silly, and the fact that someone like Mark Rein (who I imagine is a rather smart guy) wouldn't realize that just smacks of him going after Nintendo.
Click to expand...

The fact that Mark actually had to switch up from "Owning a Gamecube" to "Only owning a Gamecube" you can tell that his poll came back to bite him in the ass. Gamecube IS the secondary console someone gets...I mean..its fricking $99 right now, get that Wind Waker, Mario Sunshine, Fire Emblem etc etc. Mark Rein just tried to put the Gamecube and Nintendo in a bad light when in actuality its not as bad as he tried to portray.
 
Powderkeg said:
And how much of the gaming market would you honestly say these people represent? 1%? maybe 2%



And I can say the reverse. I've never had someone recommend the most god-aweful ugly game just because the gameplay was good.

Like I said, they are equally important. If either one flat out sucks the game will not sell. Great games are games with both great graphics and great gameplay, good games are games where one or the other is lacking somewhat, and bad games have failed miserably in one of those two aspects, or both.
Click to expand...

I don't see why someone would not recommend a game with outdated graphics, even though the gameplay was really good. People still play Diablo2. Hell, I skipped out on Diablo2 and never played it till a year ago. They still have good old titles in stores because they sell occassionally. I have a friend who just played through half life the first time maybe a year ago.

If a game has garbage gameplay no one will like it. If the graphics are horrendous, no one will like it. But as someone else mentioned, games like the Sims and GTA are extremely popular, even though they didn't offer cutting edge graphics. I'm not arguing that good games can have horrible graphics. I'm arguing that graphics aren't the be-all and end-all of gaming. A game just needs graphics that are reasonable enough to inform you of what's happening in the game. I just think good gameplay can overcome sub-par graphics(not horrible) more often than good graphics can overcome bad gameplay, in the eyes of most players.
 
I agree with you, but when going from one generation to the next, it's 99% all about the GFX.

Mark was responding to everyone's questions about "What can this hardware now allow you to do that you couldn't do before"

He said Grapics, plain and simple. Everything from physics, to AI, to larger environments are all spokes around the hub that is GFX to use his metaphor. Everything is viewed with the eyes, so all these things end up contributing to better on screen visuals, in one form or another. Next-Gen systems don't offer you any extra ability to create new "gameplay" experiences, it's all about GFX. I think that's his point.
 
Marc pretty much echoed everything I had to say about the Revolution controller, although on the subject of HDMI he appears clueless (didn't even know HDCP). You cannot get HDMI/HDCP via an "adapter cable" First of all, there is the problem of going from analog to digital. Search for boxes on the net that convert component->DVI/HDMI or DVI->component. They are very complex electronics.

Secondly, there is the issue of HDCP. HDCP requires support in the device itself which is rendering the visuals, at the software and hardware layer.

There is especially true if MS hopes that the XB360 can stream HD-DVD content from an MCE box on the network (one of their scenarios). It's not possible at HD resolutions without software and hardware in the XB360 to support it.

I predict that real HDMI support on the XB360 will require another SKU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top