Just trolling, man! ;)
But yeah, the notion of "consoles real gamers use", even if jokular, has become rather ambiguous because consoles are dying. They've essentially become overpriced PCs whose main use is to play overpriced games that aren't available on a PC, all the while enduring inferior image quality and sharp framerate drops. Hardcore populace is holding on to previous generations and actual PC games, while casuals move on to iOS/Android, browser games (Facebook apps included), and shovelware Steam titles.
This generation has run out of steam (lol) by 2009, and there won't be any "simple" selling points to make people pay through their nose for new systems once again, like improved graphics, or wireless capabilities, or motion-sensing controls, or stereoscopy, or multimedia capabilities, or touchpads—it's all been done, or at least claimed, this gen. Trying to use any of this to sell essentially what Wii was to Gamecube will not work with the underwhelming game library typical for all of this gen's consoles.
Ironically, Nintendo may still have the chance simply because they waited out before hopping onto the HD train, so they would be able to deliver a real qualitative leap compared to the Wii. Besides, history has shown a new Mario or Zelda would be as good as a killer app for their systems.
Here is a recommended read.
I don't intend to drag this thread off-topic, so if there happens to be some interesting discussion I'll split it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
The Ouya is the ultimate casual console. Nothing bad about that, of course—I just hope it'll accumulate all the cheap transient titles keeping the remaining platforms relatively clean. :P
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Hardcore populace is holding on to previous generations and actual PC games, while casuals move on to iOS/Android, browser games (Facebook apps included), and shovelware Steam titles.
I'm not so sure the situation is that clear. (This kind of thing is not, in fact, nothing new. For instance, when Microsoft first announced their Xbox console, many people predicted that it would mean the downfall of PC/Windows as a gaming platform, as all the gaming development would move to the cheaper, stabler and piracy-free Microsoft console. This didn't happen and PC gaming has been alive and well to this day.)
Handheld multimedia/gaming platforms have certainly raised to be a serious competitor to traditional consoles. However, they occupy a slightly different niche, and they have their limitations.
A touchscreen is good for many things, but really bad at others. It will never supplant controllers. But that's only a minor thing. The major problem is that they can't easily be multiplayer. While a group of friends could ostensibly play around an iPad, it's just not the same thing as them sitting on a sofa playing a party game in a normal console in front of a huge-ass TV, each player with their own controller. (And the iPad was the most capable handheld that could ostensibly be used for multiplayer games. Just forget about it with the ridiculously small smartphones.)
Also, for example on the Xbox 360 side, quite surprisingly, studies have shown that over 50% of the total time spent using the console, on average, is not for playing games, but for watching multimedia (mainly movies). You can, of course, watch movies with a smartphone/tablet, but it's just not the same thing, especially since it's basically a one-person experience. Quite often it's a family or friends who want to watch movies, and they want to watch them on a big-screen TV, not on a laughably small tablet screen. I'm certain that most people, even when watching alone, would prefer a big screen instead of a smartphone for this.
There's also a quite funny phenomenon with Apple's AppStore in particular: The vast majority of apps/games are priced in the 1-2 dollar range. Almost nobody will buy a game for 50+ dollars. How many big game companies are ready to sell their games at 1 dollar apiece, when there's a market where they can sell them at 50+? (There's nothing stopping them from selling the games at 50+ dollars at the AppStore. It's just that almost nobody will buy them when they can buy 50 other games for the same money.)
I believe that this, rather ironically, limits the iPhone to only very small-budget games. (There are, of course, big exceptions to this, but they are very rare when comparing to the PC/console market.)
I'm not so sure the situation is that clear. (This kind of thing is not, in fact, nothing new. For instance, when Microsoft first announced their Xbox console, many people predicted that it would mean the downfall of PC/Windows as a gaming platform, as all the gaming development would move to the cheaper, stabler and piracy-free Microsoft console. This didn't happen and PC gaming has been alive and well to this day.)
The thing with PC/Windows (more PC than Windows, even) is that it's not going away regardless of its game library. Virtually everybody has them and will use them anyway. A console without games is a glorified DVD player.
Warp wrote:
Handheld multimedia/gaming platforms have certainly raised to be a serious competitor to traditional consoles. However, they occupy a slightly different niche, and they have their limitations.
Their limitations are gradually going away. 3DS, Vita and modern tablets can show convincing imagery at this point; the consoles have passable controllers built in, while the tablets have external controllers as well as the built-in touchpad/accelerometer/camera/etc. All of them connect to other units wirelessly and generally have everything home consoles do, except smaller. Nintendo's WiiU is the exact point of convergence between a home console and a handheld.
Warp wrote:
A touchscreen is good for many things, but really bad at others. It will never supplant controllers.
Believe it or not, I think the same about gamepad vs. keyboard+mouse for first and third person action games. (I believe, you, too, are on the keyboard side.) Yet it stuck because most gamers, even hardcore (arguably) ones, don't care about that. By hardcore I mean goal-oriented players who learn the game and play it competitively.
Warp wrote:
The major problem is that they can't easily be multiplayer. While a group of friends could ostensibly play around an iPad, it's just not the same thing as them sitting on a sofa playing a party game in a normal console in front of a huge-ass TV, each player with their own controller. (And the iPad was the most capable handheld that could ostensibly be used for multiplayer games. Just forget about it with the ridiculously small smartphones.)
Technically, there's nothing preventing multiplayer there. A lot of people have iOS and Android devices nowadays—it's only a matter of interconnecting them, which isn't hard at all. You don't have to use one iPad—you can use any number of iPads, and each player will even have their own screen others can't see!
Warp wrote:
Also, for example on the Xbox 360 side, quite surprisingly, studies have shown that over 50% of the total time spent using the console, on average, is not for playing games, but for watching multimedia (mainly movies).
Yes, and you can do it on your existing console. That's the thing: the current generation completely fulfills its role as media players for every distribution model present on the market, from Blu-ray to YouTube.
Warp wrote:
There's also a quite funny phenomenon with Apple's AppStore in particular: The vast majority of apps/games are priced in the 1-2 dollar range. Almost nobody will buy a game for 50+ dollars. How many big game companies are ready to sell their games at 1 dollar apiece, when there's a market where they can sell them at 50+? (There's nothing stopping them from selling the games at 50+ dollars at the AppStore. It's just that almost nobody will buy them when they can buy 50 other games for the same money.)
Yes, exactly. That's why the Ouya will trump big-budget publishers into the ground. These days the AAA titles aren't much more fun and don't receive much more play than dirt-cheap titles like Tiny Wings or Angry Birds. And for the price of one AAA title you can buy more fun time—fun that is always with you, instantly accessible, easy to learn and not plagued with ridiculous playtime padding. At the same time, the expensive titles can't be sold cheaper for two reasons: 1) design studios will run out of business, 2) retailers hold publishers by the balls, so they need their share of the pie and presence of retail boxes that cost a lot to produce and distribute.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
These days the AAA titles aren't much more fun and don't receive much more play than dirt-cheap titles like Tiny Wings or Angry Birds
Ugh, really moozooh?
http://www.vgchartz.com/
Look at the current top seller: NCAA Football 2013. You really think the people who are buying that are going to buy something called Oozal? Ouizal? Or the Playstation 4 or Xbox 720 which has brand recognition? Publishers are not going to abandon those systems, they make a killing re-releasing the same Football, Basketball and Soccer games every year with updated rosters. And people aren't going to abandon their console-fanboyism.
www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/USA/
Look at #1/#4 and #7, basically rehashes of the same game; and yet they sold as top sellers in 2011.
Sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world. Console gamers who play football and war games aren't going to abandon them to fling cute birds around a screen. And, like it or not, those are the ones that account for the majority of gamers.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
You really think the people who are buying that are going to buy something called Oozal? Ouizal? Oh wait, Ouya! Boy I sure sounded like a dunderhead.
...
Console gamers who play football and war games aren't going to abandon them to fling cute birds around a screen. And, like it or not, those are the ones that account for the majority of gamers revenue...maybe.
You really think the people who are buying that are going to buy something called Oozal? Ouizal? Oh wait, Ouya! Boy I sure sounded like a dunderhead.
...
That was my intent.
... account for the majority of revenue.
Actually, you are helping my point better with that. EA and other big name publishers are companies, out to make money, not artistic games.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure sales are an accurate reflection of revenue.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
The majority of gamers you're alluding to—the ones playing the same crap over and over—are also the ones who buy games on their parents' money. Now how exactly do you think they're going to convince parents they need another gaming system? Think of at least one solid thing beside "it has the game I want".
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Do you really think some artist who has to make 16 cars in 2 weeks will want to add everything detailed like the underside, the glove compartment, The wiring below the dashboard and steering wheel, detail under the seat. All with custom textures and personal designs
These people have to work smart not just hard. They won't waste time on trivial stuff that might not even be seen. Not to mention everything they'll make will be low poly or simple shapes. They'll repeat or fake if they can.
I'm sure they would love to let their hair down and get crazy with their work, but they do have a quota to meet.
Do you really think some artist who has to make 16 cars in 2 weeks will want to add everything detailed like the underside, the glove compartment, The wiring below the dashboard and steering wheel, detail under the seat. All with custom textures and personal designs
These people have to work smart not just hard. They won't waste time on trivial stuff that might not even be seen. Not to mention everything they'll make will be low poly or simple shapes. They'll repeat or fake if they can.
I'm sure they would love to let their hair down and get crazy with their work, but they do have a quota to meet.
Your point being?..
I'd also like to add that sales don't always represent the revenue. The budgets on modern console games are often so high they take hundreds of thousands of copies to pay off, which is most often not the case with 1-2$ AppStore stuff. It doesn't help that the high budget console games are all retail releases, which means additional expenses on physical media manufacturing, logistics, and paying retailers their share. Steam, AppStore and other digital distribution models allow to bypass all of this, potentially increasing the profit margins, closing the door on the secondary market, and making it possible to have bargain sales at any time you need without running out of items to sell. Sony and Microsoft would love to enforce digital distribution because of that, obviously, but retailers won't go for that. They can't be forced either because the consoles themselves are distributed that way.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
That despite them wanting to make the best car or fire hydrant or any asset in the game. Get really artistic. They have a quota of a certain amount things to make in a short amount of time. If everything was original for so many objects it would take 20 years for a said game to come out. If they don't get bankrupt first or massive lag.
I don't even understand who you're referring to, is it the AAA title developers? If so, sure they can. In fact they do exactly that with graphics, sound design and other things of secondary value rather than coming up with something original and interesting. Because graphics sell, being clever doesn't. In fact, the most recent game I remember that had its priorities right despite (lol) the relatively high production values is Portal; Portal 2 and Deus Ex: HR would qualify if they weren't themselves riding on the ideas and setting of their predecessors. In multiplayer games gameplay matters even more; I'd even say it's all that really matters—colorful graphics just distract from action, music is either unneeded or better played through an audio player in background, and the entire fun is in pacing, controls, and interaction with the in-game environment. And it's disturbing how few developers get that right these days, instead time and time again opting to concentrate on graphics, cookie-cutter plots nobody cares about, and forgettable music.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Yes I was referring to the AAA title developers sorry. Regarding games today overall. What I feel is missing from the earlier 3D game days is that the gameplay was really drawn and planned out to a 2D design of a map/level. They thought well about how to add gameplay elements that fit in theme
Nowadays with levels they get these ridiculously huge areas that take forever to get through with not much of gameplay interest in it.
Another thing I do miss is the cool stylized handpainted textures of the XBOX/PS2 days. I wish there was more of it in modern games over photosourcing
The ridiculously huge areas are one of the known and most-exploited ways to extend playing time in recent years. An expensive game sells better if you can't complete it in an evening or two, even if the only thing that prevents you is running back and forth over functionally empty landscape.
It's why I've grown to prefer shmups, roguelikes, and games like Tetris. There's no pointless padding, it's all meaningful action all the way through.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
DarkKobold wrote:
Sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world. Console gamers who play football and war games aren't going to abandon them to fling cute birds around a screen. And, like it or not, those are the ones that account for the majority of gamers.
The major sports franchises already have their successful mobile versions and also mobile phones aren't that far behind.
The next-gen consoles are gonna be an inevitable failure, I must admit.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
Considering the market has been on this generation for seven (7) years, people want the new thing (probably).
Nintendo seems to have a plan. Make a tablet that can play our games as well as a console. That way we can cater to the iPad crowd and maby try and take from Apple.
The last "large" delay between generations was back in 1983 to 1988. That's 5 years between generations. The release of the Nintendo Family Computer (NES) to the release of the Sega Mega Drive (Genesis).
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war.
The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
To be fair, NES and its generation hasn't been as extensively upgraded as X360/PS3: new software features, extensible hardware, drastic changes in input devices (Kinect and whatever Sony's thing's name is) to name some. The NES's performance has been pushed to its limits within a few years, while the X360 and PS3 games still can't use their host systems efficiently.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In my opinion, the only thing that might be cool about the Wii U is TV compatibility with DS/3DS games finally (much like the Super Game Boy and the Game Boy Player). Other than that it just looks god awful. Most of the "new" games look like watered down versions of existing Wii and Gamecube games and mediocre sequels. Some are ports of PS3/XBOX 360/PC games with touch screen gimmicks. One of their games is literally New Super Mario Bros Wii, but the sorry sap with the Wii U controller creates platforms for the other 3. It feels like a Sega CD or 32x to me.
Currently working on:
-Possibly the Wily Tower (Mega Man the Wily Wars)
Nintendo consistently appears to be doing something incredibly stupid that then turns out to be brilliant -- at least in terms of success for their company. Say what you will about the Wii's motion control, it sold a crapton of consoles, including a bunch to people who had never played videogames before in their lives, and all at a profit.
Thus, I'm reserving comment on the Wii U because anything I could say about it will likely come back to bite me in the ass.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Nintendo consistently appears to be doing something incredibly stupid that then turns out to be brilliant -- at least in terms of success for their company. Say what you will about the Wii's motion control, it sold a crapton of consoles, including a bunch to people who had never played videogames before in their lives, and all at a profit.
Thus, I'm reserving comment on the Wii U because anything I could say about it will likely come back to bite me in the ass.
You do make a good point and I feel like that's a good possibility for sure. I've always been mainly a Nintendo Gamer, didn't own PlayStation or XBOX, I DID have a Genesis though. All my friends thought the Wii was going to be stupid and gimmicky, I defended it and bought it. There were some gimmicky games but they had good titles like Mario and Zelda, Punch out was also awesome. I haven't bought more than 2 new games in the past few years for any new consoles.
Maybe I'm just not that avid of a gamer anymore, but I just don't think it looks like a good system (peripheral?). It will still generate "Mom money" because of all of its social networking and movies for all ages, but without HD, my iPod can have better graphics than any Wii game Nintendo's made also, who wants to play big name games like Call of Duty (or whatever second rate FPS is or becomes popular) with motion controls. I played the 2010 remake of Goldeneye 007 with motion controls, it was okay but once I used a classic controller it played much better and for the record I liked the Wii Goldeneye a lot. Even if the Wii U is some great financial success (which it probably will be) I still don't think I would like it, but that's just my opinion.
Currently working on:
-Possibly the Wily Tower (Mega Man the Wily Wars)
But the Wii U will have HD, won't it? 1080p HD?
Well, I know I'm going to buy the Wii U anyway, because I will want to play Pikmin 3 and my siblings will want to play New Super Mario Bros. U with me, and I'm also a pretty big Nintendo fan. None of Nintendo's other systems have let me down; I don't think this one will either.
