@queuing_for_PS4 @Mimorpg Funny, "queuing_for_PS4." I was going to say the same thing about YOU.
"I am king! You will bow before me!" "Nintendo will be crushed! There's nothing that can be done about it!"
No corroborating evidence whatsoever; just rhetorical nonsense. You might as well say "Global warming is happening because I SAID SO!!!!"
I'm sure you enjoy mocking people for the sake of mocking them, but I'd venture to say that suggests you have set your life goals a little low. Might I suggest moving towards the scientific method? (i.e. Present some evidence to back up what you're saying so we can actually take anything you say seriously?)
@queuing_for_PS4 @Samparksh @Mimorpg Yes. I'd imagine that you--being the king--automatically know everything and can therefore pronounce those who disagree utterly wrong. It's not like we live in a democracy or have a free market or anything. This is your kingdom and all must bow to your holy grace...until you wind up in hell for pretending to be an arrogant god.
Nintendo has survived in the face of very tough competition. They HAVE brought a lot of their problems on themselves. No argument there. But you don't know the future anymore than we do. Perhaps they will die after this generation, perhaps not. Perhaps some day they'll even be on top again, though they'd need a serious change in management style for that. If THAT happens, YOU'LL be kissing OUR hands. Or at least, you would if we had that kind of elitist bent to us. (To be fair, I'm sure there are some who do, but I ain't one of them.) In short, get over yourself.
@Prats1993 @widdowson91 Variety? Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, and Resistance count as "variety"? Ratchet and Clank--the last dinosaur from Sony's platformer days--is on its, like, 10th iteration and is getting as old as Zelda. Infamous is a fun superhero sandbox game, sure, but so are Prototype and Spider Man and a thousand other sandbox games. Uncharted is--quite possibly--the most overrated game series for the mere reason that it does nothing but steal ideas from other games and "do them better," which nobody has been able to explain to me yet. It's gameplay is shooting from cover and climbing stuff like in Prince of Persia, and little else. God of War is pretty much the same tired hack-n-slash DMC ripoff its always been. Most of the "variety" in Sony's AND Microsoft's catalog is the exception, not the rule, and certainly not anymore groundbreaking than what Nintendo does.
If people actually spent a little time looking at what was available on the Wii compared to the other two consoles, even if you wanted to argue it wasn't higher quality, the catalog is much more unique than what Sony and Microsoft were offering. Today, guns are almost everywhere...except on Wii. Ever heard of Elebits? How about Zack and Wiki? No More Heroes? The Trauma Center games? Excitebots? de Blob? (Disregarding the sequel.) Epic Mickey? (Ditto.) Fragile Dreams? Boom Blox? Deadly Creatures? Little King's Story?
Again, I'm not saying this means Wii had the best games by any means, but it DID have good variety for those who were actually willing to look. Almost everything on Sony and Microsoft's consoles this generation has been FPS, action, and sports titles. That's not "variety" except in the minds of gamer who decide that "variety" actually just means "what I want to play."
@slainta Please don't lump me in with those other MS fanboys. I hardly ever play on XBL, and when I do its usually a fighting game, which reminds me why I often don't play online. I'm not a huge fan of XBL or the $60 price tag anymore than the next guy. And I don't have any problem with the idea that XBL is crap, though I honestly think that's really just a matter of opinion REGARDLESS of whether its run poorly or not. To assign those characteristics to me based solely on the idea that I've decided to present a few possibilities that MAY explain the $60 price tag seems kind of intellectually lazy. No offense.
Now let me explain a few things about what COULD explain the discrepancies between the free models of Wii, Steam, and PS3 versus XBL. Yes, the Wii offers online for free. That's nice...except that you have to jump through 50 hoops to use it. Two days of trading friend codes for a 4 hour play session is not nearly as appealing as a $60 price tag for most gamers IMO. So maybe the reason its so cheap is because hardly anybody plays online to take up the bandwidth. PS3 does have online that's free sure...and it has spent most of this generation in last place and with Sony losing money. Coincidence? I don't know. As to your claim that PS3 is starting to outsell the 360, I'm not sure what your point is. First of all, you said SHIPPED, not BOUGHT. Now that might sound like a small distinction, but Clive Cussler was taken to court over the claim that he had SOLD 100 million copies of his novels when in fact it was actually 100 million IN PRINT. Second, what is this supposed to prove? That the PS3 at the VERY END of the console cycle is going to be seen as the superior system? That sounds kind of fanboyish to me, but I'll assume you're just arguing its a better deal. But if you think the PS3 actually wins this cycle cause it manages to outsell the 360 ONE YEAR before the PS4 is supposed to release--which is funny cause I remember them saying it was designed to last 10 years--I think you're ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary. Lastly, Steam is owned by Valve, a company that many claim can do no wrong and which many customer would purchase a product from simply for having the name "Valve" on the label. When you've got a company that--to the best of my knowledge--is only working with Steam, Online, and a few gaming projects, yet seems to rake in the same--or more--money than conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft--who are in many more markets and have several other divisions to keep afloat with the money they rake in--is it REALLY that surprising that Valve can maintain its online infrastructure without charging anything? (Yes, my argument is built on the assumption that Valve really DOES rake in as much money as Microsoft or Sony, and if I'm wrong about that, I admit to the utter incompetency of this claim.)
I'm curious why you haven't addressed any of the points I made before. Instead you've essentially repeated yourself by saying its "simple" to maintain this online infrastructure. I doubt "simple" is adequate to describe the actual process, lest we'd all be able to do it. (To be fair, I don't think "simple" is adequate to describe ANYTHING in real life if you really think about it.) As I said before, give me real revenue data and cost analysis to show where that money went. Did the CEO pocket it all? Or did they just break even? How much did it ACTUALLY cost--as opposed to how much it SHOULD cost--to run the service? To develop the games? I'm not saying they WILL reflect that they didn't pocket the money; I'm just wondering why nobody is actually interested in finding the evidence. Like I said: it's easier to just throw around theories than actually support them with irrefutable proof. Case in point: ME. LOL
Let me make this crystal clear: I don't know if my claims have much in the way of credibility or likelihood. Here's what I DO know: there are literally hundreds of times in my life--and I imagine the lives of many others--when I was certain I understood the picture, then discovered how I didn't at all. Despite what people say about many things, there are lots of possibilities--many COMPLETELY plausible--that can explain things that people treat as simple and obvious. I'm not interested in making people think they're wrong. I just want them to avoid getting complacent and closed-minded. Why waste my breath on here? Because I am a gamer first and foremost, and its a venue where I find thinking that is "certain" and "oversimplified" far too often. I respect that you've presented an argument in favor of "greed," but don't kid yourself into thinking you've PROVED greed. Nothing is certain in this world, except that nothing is certain.
@slainta @steelmouth Okay fine. Yes, I'm not overly literate on how computers work or how online servers are supposed to work. Something tells me, however, that you don't work for either Microsoft or Sony. You may know how THEORETICALLY it's supposed to work, but that's theory. What Microsoft and Sony are dealing with is REALITY. You can calculate that it only takes a few KB of memory to run the online gaming, but those calculations don't necessarily translate into a game running smoothly. For all we know, it takes TWICE that much, or a HUNDRED times that much to provide the entirety of the service Microsoft or Sony provides. But how, you may ask, is that possible? Why don't you ask Microsoft yourself? If I'm wrong about that, fine. But nobody seems all that interested in actually DETERMINING the truth about this; just throwing around theories, even if they ARE backed up by certain statistics. I'm sure if anybody DID ask Microsoft and MS gave a reasonable answer, gamers would spin it into how it was just a lie. Cause in general--from my experience--gamers want to eat their cake and have it too.
Now maybe they COULD pay for that bandwidth easily with minimal sales off eShop. That's possible. But it disregards how much of that money has to go back to the developers of the game, and how much those games cost in the first place. By this logic, even if the game makes a profit, you aren't breaking even cause you have to pump it back into paying for the bandwidth. So what happens on the days when sales are low on eShop? Oh well? Let the online go kaput? THAT would piss gamers off more than making them pay for it in the first place. So THEORETICALLY it might pay for itself, but without real sales figures--and cost and revenue figures that account for everything--you're just throwing out an idea without corroboration. Plus you're disregarding market forces. The base cost could be low for those KBPS, but the demand for them is extremely high due to the popularity of online gaming. So the workers who produce and run those know they can get away with gouging Microsoft cause otherwise Microsoft would end up losing money in the face of no online. That's how supply and demand work, something else most people on here don't want to consider or think about.
Yes, everything I've provided is speculative, like most people here, but that's my point. All any of us can do is speculate as to what's going on here, and there's an all-too-usual tendency for everyone to come down on the side of "CORPORATIONS ARE GREEDY AND EVIL" in the speculation department. Cause it's so much easier to just blame one person and make our world black and white than to acknowledge our world is gray in almost every corner and will ALWAYS be gray in every corner. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like more actual data and proof that exceptions don't apply.
@DBZ19 @mn Actually no. I don't approve of what Capcom has done with its DLC all the time. Locking 12 characters on the disc with SFxT was a stupid move, and they're paying the price for it, as they should. But there's a world of difference between 12 characters that can add enormous value to a game and 2 characters that almost everyone in the FGC agrees aren't worth using, which is what happened with MvC3. It's like being given a choice between chocolate cake and brussel sprouts, choosing the chocolate cake, and then claiming that because they're on the table and nobody else wants them, you are entitled to the brussel sprouts as well. In fact, considering the hardcore fighting game community buys the latest iterations regardless of whether they're "worth it," I'd say that means the content has more value than the money in the eyes of said consumers.
There's also a few other problems with the criticism of Capcom's practices. The first is that, though this doesn't necessarily justify charging for them, gamers would be just as pissed if you locked characters in a fighting game. I know because I asked many of them before MvC3 was released, and I was the only one that wanted characters locked. So that's not going to make them happy either. The second problem is this: if Capcom stopped locking content on discs--which is what the majority of gamers complain about with them--it wouldn't net them any brownie points at all. Know why? Because Capcom said it WAS going to reevaluate their DLC strategy after Dragon's Dogma, and the comments on that story all claimed they'd just remove the content from the disc and charge for them anyway, thereby showing they hadn't changed at all and were still just greedy jerks. Of course, I'm not sure how this is different from creating DLC and charging for it in the first place, but I suppose in a twisted way it makes sense to gamers. In other words, Capcom can't win in the eyes of gamers. In fact, NONE of the giants can win in the eyes of gamers.
As to your point of the timing of DLC, while I won't say gamers are wrong to criticize Day 1 DLC or--as you have--1 month DLC, I think they're not considering all the factors. First of all, if Day 1 or Month 1 DLC isn't acceptable, how long SHOULD they wait? When should they start working on it? For that matter, if you were going to get the DLC anyway, WHY DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN IT GETS RELEASED? Just wait until you're ready to purchase it and THEN purchase it. Nobody's forcing you to buy it day one. Or better yet, do what I do: wait for a GOTY edition and pay less for the WHOLE experience. Why is patience such a problem for gamers? I DO understand that they feel entitled to it because--presumably--it was available on the disc when the game launched, but that's unproven. Bioware and other companies have already told us that the content on the discs must be finished three months in advance. Should they take a 3 month vacation and then come back to the game?
Speaking of a vacation, what about the gamers that finish the game in a week and are pissed that they have to wait "so long" for more content? How about the new games that will be released in the same month as the DLC, which will likely garner more attention than the DLC release? Or what about gamers--like myself--who need to strike while the iron is hot, lest they lose interest in the story or game? If you play through a game three months before DLC and have moved on to other things when the DLC launches, why on earth would you care? What if huge technological advances make your DLC obsolete when it launches, leading to criticism in light of the new standards, which are going up faster than the standards in almost any entertainment medium?
You see, it's not a simple matter of, "Launch DLC later, gamers happy." Not even close, actually. No matter when you launch the DLC, you're taking a risk of some kind. It's up to the developers to decide what risks they wanna take and when. I'm convinced that you'll get just as much whining and complaining when you launch DLC later as you will if you launch DLC right at the start line. Look at Half Life 2: Episode 3 and tell me people are glad Valve didn't release it in the first month. If I'm wrong about that, then hopefully the developers will learn. If not, they'll pay for it.
Now I'm not saying I disagree with all the hate gamers have over the money they have to pay for things. There are times when it's just not fair. But many gamers have taken this to mean that ANY extra money they have to pay for anything is "gouging" or "unjust" or "unfair." It's not that simple, and if I have to scream it to get people to understand that, I will.
@V3rciS Two problems: 1) MS DOESN'T have a monopoly in the online gaming space and is unlikely to get one in light of the fierce competition in the industry. 2) In what world is it a necessity to play online? A monopoly on gasoline is a problem. A monopoly on the grocery industry is a problem. A monopoly on life insurance is a problem. A monopoly in the online gaming market...not so big a deal. Why? Cause playing games online is a WANT, not a necessity.
This doesn't mean I approve of a monopoly in the online gaming space. I don't. But the rule, "If you don't like it, don't buy it" still applies.
You know, I'd love nothing more than to have my games for free, as would virtually every gamer on the planet. (It still wouldn't stop them from complaining all the time, but they'd be happier.) Unfortunately, this is reality.
Let's do a little logical deduction here: Nintendo offers its online gaming for free. That's totally awesome...except you have to jump through 50 hoops to make use of it. Ridiculous as it sounds on paper, players would rather spend $60 than spend 2 days trading friend codes for a 4-hour online session. And Playstation 3 is a completely free service as well...and Sony has spent more than half the PS3's lifespan losing money. So in other words, the only thing acceptable to gamers is a model where the people they claim to support lose money. I'm sure Playstation Plus has made up some of the difference, but sooner or later gamers will just claim they have a god given right to THAT content as well.
There's a reason "exploitative" practices crop up in the marketplace: the marketplace is about making money. When you aren't making it anymore, you start to die off. And here's something people STILL can't seem to figure out: a practice isn't exploitative until everyone wakes up and decides it's not worth participating in it. You can call it "exploitative" to charge $100 for fish at the market, and you can scream about how unfair it is, but if you keep showing up and purchasing it anyway you might as well keep your mouth shut. Cause it's doing absolutely no good. If you're still showing up and buying at the "unfair" price, YOU STILL VALUE IT MORE THAN THE MONEY. Therefore, it's not a raw deal. Yes, in the case of things like groceries and gasoline that isn't the case, but last I checked online gaming wasn't a necessity to healthy living. If it's not worth it, don't buy it. Period.
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to see Xbox Live be free next generation. In fact, in light of the recent implementation of Online Passes, it would keep us from having to pay double to play online games. But if Microsoft can't do that without taking a huge chunk of their revenue away, not only will they not do it, but we shouldn't WANT them to. You know those Halo games that weaken our resolve? Where do you think Microsoft finds the money to fund those projects? From homeless guys on the street? At best, they borrow money to make it, and believe it or not, loans have to be paid back. And no, $60 is NOT more than enough to cover the whole cost given that it's an increase in $10 after the number of titles released has been roughly slashed in half since last generation. That ain't an increase in profits or revenue; that's just working hard to stay at the same level you were before.
Ultimately though, this is what bugs me about articles like these and the simplified logic they present: it's all about the gamer and never about the developer. I'm convinced that around half the gamer population would let the entire industry sink if it meant they got free games for the next two years. They seem to want the developers to work for free while we rob them blind. Okay, so I'm using hyperbole there, but I think it's more true than most of us think. And anytime I hear gamers whining--for the billionth time--about having to pay extra for things--half of which is "essential" DLC that is anything BUT essential (Who the hell NEEDS to play as Catwoman and Robin in Arkham City? Who NEEDS to have Jill and Shuma-Gorath in UMvC3 when they're low tier throwaways anyway?)--I just think of a little kid who is given everything he's asked for, then gradually becomes dissatisfied and demands more at no cost. If we get our way all the time, we'll stop appreciating it when we do. Period.
One last thing: "This stuff should be free." People, if you get down to it, NOTHING should be free. TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) Whether we pay nothing for it or not, SOMEONE is paying for it somewhere, and we should count ourselves lucky that we DO get anything for free, cause someone else is paying for us to have it.
@dreamfist11 @abHS4L88 dreamfist, what is your problem? I get that abHS4L88 defends Nintendo too much, but from what I've seen he does it in a reasonable tone with minimal hate. You seem more interested in just pissing people off, which is EXACTLY what a troll is known for doing. I mean, you're not necessarily WRONG--you were right to call mike9876543210 on his hypocritical claim of not having played the game and therefore not being in a position to commentate, which I don't agree with anyway--but you don't have to be a complete ass about it.
I mean what are you getting out of this? You just criticized abH for continuing to respond to your comments when he claims not to care--which is a valid point--but why do YOU keep responding? Do you just enjoy busting people's balls for the sake of busting people's balls? Is YOUR pride tied into this nonsense? Why not have a rational debate and discussion about these things? If you're just looking to expose "Nintendo fagboys"--not an admirable life's ambition, but whatever floats your boat--and you actually think you have cause you've beaten them at a few comments, then I can safely say that I'VE exposed more people than you have by several miles. Of course, this assumes that if I just write a few comments of ridicule I automatically "win"--as you seem to think it does in your case--but considering many of them reply with intelligent responses and we usually part on kind terms, I wouldn't really say that I've "won." And frankly, you're not winning either.
By the way, just because I know it's your automatic response to anyone even remotely siding with Nintendo or Wii U games, I'll burst your predictable response right now: I DON'T OWN A WII U AND I HAVEN'T PLAYED ZOMBIU. Also, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I like the stuff they make, but I've actually moved away from my console loyalty since the Wii/360/PS3 era started.
I can tell you have some legitimate ideas to contribute on here, and I hope at some point you take the time to provide them. :)
@WingChopMasta @--_Kikaider_-- "The Wii sold because the gimmick was fresh, not because it brought anything innovative or defining in the gaming industry."
If you were someone who didn't enjoy what the Wii offered, that's fine. You're certainly not alone. But I question the validity of this comment on many levels.
First of all, do you know what the difference is between "being innovative" and "implementing a gimmick"? Neither do I, because people have still not been able to figure it out. In fact, if "innovative" means bringing something lasting to the industry, there's been FAR less innovation than people have claimed in the past several years. Viewtiful Joe was highly innovative, but the mechanics it introduced are not universally adopted by action games today. Okami had some innovative ideas--though I think it was mostly just a Zelda clone with beautiful artwork--that are shunned as "gimmicks" today. (i.e. the paintbrush mechanic, which somehow turned into a "gimmick" when other games tried to implement similar features). Braid is considered a masterpiece of innovation for its use of time mechanics, a feature that I have not seen done very often in 2D platform/puzzlers since its release, implying it had no lasting impact either. The only real difference one can claim between "gimmicks" and "innovation" is that gimmicks tend to be short-lived and wear off fast, whereas innovation tends to remain interesting throughout an entire experience. But here's the thing: you can't tell which is which until you've already released the product. So in essence, criticizing a company for producing a "gimmick" is essentially telling them they should just play it safe all the time, which leads to cookie-cutter sequels and LESS innovation.
Also, you're claiming that it "only" poked at a new market: casual gamers. What exactly do you call that if not "changing the industry"? Expanding the industry? Why do you think Xbox and Playstation decided to create their own motion-controlled devices? These things have become a major part of the market now, and I don't see any signs of the casual gamers just abandoning the market suddenly. They might not game as much as we do, but that doesn't mean they've disappeared. So Nintendo might not have transformed the industry for the hardcore gamers, but they STILL transformed it in some meaningful ways.
Lastly, meaning absolutely no offense, I'd like to point out that your "fix things that aren't broken" comment is indicative of a serious hypocritical issue I've had with gamers for a while now. Gamers clamor for innovation in the industry cause it "won't take risks," but then they GET something that takes risks and whine, "Why fix what isn't broken?!" Unless gamers want to get very precise in what they're asking be "fixed"--which ironically would take the surprise out of innovations--a generalized statement like "give us innovation" is to say most of what games offer IS broken and needs to be fixed. It's like a child demanding soup from her mother, then getting it and whining, "I wanted TOMATO soup!!" If the child doesn't state that clearly to begin with, you can't blame the mother for serving chicken noodle.
This doesn't mean that you're wrong about Wii U's gamepad getting used in ways it doesn't need to be, but A) at least they're TRYING to do something different and B) unless Nintendo is actually PRESSURING them into using the features--which to be fair, I've heard is something they HAVE done--you can't blame the Wii U for destroying a hardcore game. In general, if you HAVE to blame something, I'd say it's better to either blame the developer or blame BOTH factors.
cachinscythe's comments