It's amazing how developers are terrified of the next generation, but will ignore the WiiU waiting for the 720/PS4 all the same. I guess Activision is running the industry now, and just like their company, they are going to run it into the fucking ground. If they had any sense, they'd develop for the WiiU and port to 720/PS4 mostly ignoring their true capabilities unless they get moneyhatted to make up for the risk.
Also if Vita doesn't do decently this Christmas it's dead. Like clearance bins in January, most 3rd party projects cancelled, dead.
It's amazing how developers are terrified of the next generation, but will ignore the WiiU waiting for the 720/PS4 all the same. I guess Activision is running the industry now, and just like their company, they are going to run it into the fucking ground. If they had any sense, they'd develop for the WiiU and port to 720/PS4 mostly ignoring their true capabilities unless they get moneyhatted to make up for the risk.
Also if Vita doesn't do decently this Christmas it's dead. Like clearance bins in January, most 3rd party projects cancelled, dead.
I feel like doom-saying today I guess.
When it's your company on the line, it's not so easy to go with Nintendo, a company that has had mediocre third party sales for the last few generations. Nintendo talks a lot about having better third party support this time around, but a look at their E3 showing reveals that there's not that much improvement since last gen. The biggest userbase means shit when they mostly wants Nintendo games. Companies are also trying to implement online more heavily in their games, and Nintendo still hasn't proven that they'll be on par this time around. Would Dark Souls even be possible on the Wii U? How about Need For Speed's Autolog feature?
Last two gens, MS and Sony have had systems that are comparable with each other in terms of power and features, so it's reasonable to expect the same this time around. A developer wants to target as many platforms as possible, and it would be risky to build/upgrade an engine for Wii U's architecture only to find compatibility issues with Durango/Orbis that might screw them out of getting a launch window title done.
It's amazing how developers are terrified of the next generation, but will ignore the WiiU waiting for the 720/PS4 all the same. I guess Activision is running the industry now, and just like their company, they are going to run it into the fucking ground. If they had any sense, they'd develop for the WiiU and port to 720/PS4 mostly ignoring their true capabilities unless they get moneyhatted to make up for the risk.
Also if Vita doesn't do decently this Christmas it's dead. Like clearance bins in January, most 3rd party projects cancelled, dead.
I feel like doom-saying today I guess.
When it's your company on the line, it's not so easy to go with Nintendo, a company that has had mediocre third party sales for the last few generations. Nintendo talks a lot about having better third party support this time around, but a look at their E3 showing reveals that there's not that much improvement since last gen. The biggest userbase means shit when they mostly wants Nintendo games. Companies are also trying to implement online more heavily in their games, and Nintendo still hasn't proven that they'll be on par this time around. Would Dark Souls even be possible on the Wii U? How about Need For Speed's Autolog feature?
Last two gens, MS and Sony have had systems that are comparable with each other in terms of power and features, so it's reasonable to expect the same this time around. A developer wants to target as many platforms as possible, and it would be risky to build/upgrade an engine for Wii U's architecture only to find compatibility issues with Durango/Orbis that might screw them out of getting a launch window title done.
The problem is the development costs, and they know they are spiraling out of control. This is only going to get worse. Today they need 2 million sales to break even, next gen it's going to be 5 million. Doubling down on something you already know is biting you on the ass is unwise.
I can't defend their decision to spend more and more on art assets, when in many cases most people wouldn't care. I'm just at a point where, if a company ends up bankrupt because they couldn't control themselves, fuck them and good riddance.
The generational leap brings with it many means to lower development costs, and after Steam's success I bet there will be a way for small and mid-size companies to get their games on PSN/XBLA with less hassle.
It's amazing how developers are terrified of the next generation, but will ignore the WiiU waiting for the 720/PS4 all the same. I guess Activision is running the industry now, and just like their company, they are going to run it into the fucking ground. If they had any sense, they'd develop for the WiiU and port to 720/PS4 mostly ignoring their true capabilities unless they get moneyhatted to make up for the risk.
Also if Vita doesn't do decently this Christmas it's dead. Like clearance bins in January, most 3rd party projects cancelled, dead.
I feel like doom-saying today I guess.
When it's your company on the line, it's not so easy to go with Nintendo, a company that has had mediocre third party sales for the last few generations. Nintendo talks a lot about having better third party support this time around, but a look at their E3 showing reveals that there's not that much improvement since last gen. The biggest userbase means shit when they mostly wants Nintendo games. Companies are also trying to implement online more heavily in their games, and Nintendo still hasn't proven that they'll be on par this time around. Would Dark Souls even be possible on the Wii U? How about Need For Speed's Autolog feature?
Last two gens, MS and Sony have had systems that are comparable with each other in terms of power and features, so it's reasonable to expect the same this time around. A developer wants to target as many platforms as possible, and it would be risky to build/upgrade an engine for Wii U's architecture only to find compatibility issues with Durango/Orbis that might screw them out of getting a launch window title done.
Actually there was plenty of third-party development on the Wii this gen... it's just that nearly all of it was shovelware. And Nintendo has already announced a sweeping new online initiative that actually sounds good.
Of course the Bethesda guy is forgetting that audience perception of game systems can be very fluid from one gen to the next. The PS2 was the top-selling system by far with strong casual appeal, while the Gamecube was niche at best. Now the roles are reversed. Of course, they could reverse again.
It's amazing how developers are terrified of the next generation, but will ignore the WiiU waiting for the 720/PS4 all the same. I guess Activision is running the industry now, and just like their company, they are going to run it into the fucking ground. If they had any sense, they'd develop for the WiiU and port to 720/PS4 mostly ignoring their true capabilities unless they get moneyhatted to make up for the risk.
Also if Vita doesn't do decently this Christmas it's dead. Like clearance bins in January, most 3rd party projects cancelled, dead.
I feel like doom-saying today I guess.
When it's your company on the line, it's not so easy to go with Nintendo, a company that has had mediocre third party sales for the last few generations. Nintendo talks a lot about having better third party support this time around, but a look at their E3 showing reveals that there's not that much improvement since last gen. The biggest userbase means shit when they mostly wants Nintendo games. Companies are also trying to implement online more heavily in their games, and Nintendo still hasn't proven that they'll be on par this time around. Would Dark Souls even be possible on the Wii U? How about Need For Speed's Autolog feature?
Last two gens, MS and Sony have had systems that are comparable with each other in terms of power and features, so it's reasonable to expect the same this time around. A developer wants to target as many platforms as possible, and it would be risky to build/upgrade an engine for Wii U's architecture only to find compatibility issues with Durango/Orbis that might screw them out of getting a launch window title done.
The problem is the development costs, and they know they are spiraling out of control. This is only going to get worse. Today they need 2 million sales to break even, next gen it's going to be 5 million. Doubling down on something you already know is biting you on the ass is unwise.
You know, they won't really have to spend all that much more on art assets, considering the current method of creating assets is to create something hyper detailed, and then bake it onto a low(ish) poly model. All that the new generation will bring is baking it on a model with more polys. At least as far as art assets. If anything, the next gen will decrease costs as developers stop having to take quite as many shortcuts to get better results.
Think of it this way, you own a shack, and you have a whole hell of a lot of stuff to fit into it. It takes you hours to fit everything inside, because you have to have an intricate plan on where things will go. If you move to a space with double the space, it will take you less time to unpack and organize all of your stuff. You won't have to struggle to fit everything in, and can instead focus on everything being organized.
It's similar with art assets and console power. The more powerful (and better the development tools), the easier it is to make use of your hi res art assets (which are already being created).
Now, the reason this hasn't been a factor in other console generations is this is the first generation where baking has really been a highly used method in modeling. In the PS2/GCN/Xbox generation, models were still made at the resolution you'd see in the game, with textures made for that level of detail. The major advance this gen has been bump/normal mapping, and because of that development costs shouldn't go up (just as long as the game makers stick to the same number of individual models as this gen).
There was more revenue spent on Wii third party software (at least for several years) than on the 360 or on the PS3. The problem was that most of it was shovelware and divided among too many publishers. On the PS3/360, you had a tad less revenue, but most of it was going to fewer, key AAA titles.
The Wii initially showed that third parties could succeed quite handily with whatever type of game. Unfortunately third parties were nevertheless dismissive and went for the easy bang-for-your-buck route of cranking out simplistic games with low budgets in hopes of making it big with something like Raving Rabbids. Do that enough times and of course you have a self-fulfilling prophecy of third party support that the Wii ended up with.
That said the nice thing about the Wii is its niche games which sold in small numbers and that's nice for us that follow the industry, but it's not going to convince Ubi to make some lousy downport of Assassin's Creed, not that anyone was asking for a Wii version of that or things like it.
The Wii U looks to me like it's going to become another self-fulfilling prophecy where 3rd parties are concerned. It'll be the first out of the gate so third parties are worried about risk and install base. So they'll end up doing lazy ports from the current gen. When those sell fewer on the Wii U with its fledgling install base compared to the PS3/360, they'll just throw projects for WiiU exclusives out the window and begin targetting the Durango/Orbis. They'll think it a safe bet. Nintendo will support it with actually good games on its end and maybe a few other devs/publishers, at least, and that should keep it going. We'll see.
Also, every time we're near the end of a generation with ever-increasing dev costs someone says that the next gen will make development easier and cheaper. And yet every generation costs go way up. It will happen again, at least in the short term while all these publishers are still banking on the blockbuster model. Increased console power and capabilities allows them to throw more money into production values and try to launch the next generation-lasting series like Assassin's Creed or what have you. Publishers don't learn, they don't think, oh, with more power and better tools we can make better games without having to spend time/resources on engine tricks to work out nice visuals/advanced engines and thereby reducing cost and risk. No, they think, OK with all this extra power we need to pour more resources into making more impressive graphics/engines/setpieces because that's the only sure way to sell the 2 to 4 million copies we'll need to make money in this business. Yep.
Also, every time we're near the end of a generation with ever-increasing dev costs someone says that the next gen will make development easier and cheaper. And yet every generation costs go way up. It will happen again, at least in the short term while all these publishers are still banking on the blockbuster model. Increased console power and capabilities allows them to throw more money into production values and try to launch the next generation-lasting series like Assassin's Creed or what have you. Publishers don't learn, they don't think, oh, with more power and better tools we can make better games without having to spend time/resources on engine tricks to work out nice visuals/advanced engines and thereby reducing cost and risk. No, they think, OK with all this extra power we need to pour more resources into making more impressive graphics/engines/setpieces because that's the only sure way to sell the 2 to 4 million copies we'll need to make money in this business. Yep.
That's always a problem with the publishers, not so much with the increased power. I'm certainly hoping this time, with the increased dev costs and the declining industry, that publishers might actually get the point.
I'd like to think the fact that the Wii U already has more current-gen ports than the Wii ever did is a sign of hope, but I'm also worried about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Good riddance if a publisher crashes because they spend more and more money, and when it's not successful they try spending even more. It's literally impossible for them to end up spending more time/money per model or texture, so they might instead do stupid shit like create fully detailed background elements instead of using images.
I'd like to think the fact that the Wii U already has more current-gen ports than the Wii ever did is a sign of hope, but I'm also worried about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I'd like to think the fact that the Wii U already has more current-gen ports than the Wii ever did is a sign of hope, but I'm also worried about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I, too, wish they'd wake up from this Chicken and the Egg predicament. Guys, your games aren't getting a fanbase because you are neglecting to put them there in the first placen.
However, speaking of models that HAVE been proven successful this generation, Steam will continue to get better it seems. Gabe Newell/Valve has apparently reached out to many Japanese developers about getting their localized games on to the PC and Steam platform.
Steam has been getting an increasing number of Japanese titles like Recettear from Carpe Fulgur to most recently a port of ClaDun x2 from NIS America. Marvelous AQL will join the Steam train with Half-Minute Hero: Super Mega Neo Climax Ultimate Boy, which is slated for release on September 27.
"As I understand it, Valve got in touch with us! They’re keen on giving their users great options on their service and they contacted several Japanese publishers," Marvelous AQL producer Esteban Jose Salazar said to Siliconera. "I was actually hired on after MAQL had decided which game to publish. My first day they told me we’d be doing Half-Minute Hero on Steam and my grin was about a foot wide. I’m a huge fan of both. Valve has made it so easy for us to bring the game to Steam with their constant support and amazing publishing tools. Running development of a game in two languages (English and Japanese) can cause major headaches, but Valve was always prompt and professional in helping us out."
Xseed has said Half-Minute Hero was one of their lowest selling titles. That was disappointing news to hear since Half-Minute Hero is stellar with a fantastic localization. There’s one particular scene in the Hero 30 storyline players won’t forget. Salazar believes Steam can give Half-Minute Hero a wider audience. "[Steam] gives us instant visibility without having to worry about an ad campaign and shelf space. In addition, we can be flexible on the price. While we might have to charge more for a disc-based version, with digital distribution we can offer the game at a price that users consider fair."
Marvelous AQL has a long list of titles they could bring to Steam like Luminous Arc 3, No More Heroes, and Grand Knights History. I asked Salazar what’s next for Marvelous AQL and Steam? Will we see original games made for PC? Ports of games that didn’t get localized?
"At this point, we are considering our best options. The PC is a killer platform, Steam is a dynamite service, and as long as I’m here I’ll be championing both for our games, old or new. The best things you can do to see more games from us on Steam is pick up this game and let us know you are interested in others. I can’t give you any specific hints, but if the game sells reasonably well, I personally would like to see us doing something *grand* on the PC. I think others would too, but first I have to show my bosses it’s a lucrative platform."
Nintendo Network ID: V-Faction | XBL: V Faction | Steam | 3DS: 3136 - 6603 - 1330 PokemonWhite Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
Groovy, I've been wanting to try Half-Minute Hero.
Heck, more J-games in general, although I suspect No More Heroes might be stretching things a bit
Xseed has said Half-Minute Hero was one of their lowest selling titles. That was disappointing news to hear since Half-Minute Hero is stellar with a fantastic localization.
If it's on Steam come the end of the year sales, and I suspect it'll alleviate at least some of that problem.
HMH HD is coming out at the end of the month on Steam, with the modes they removed for the XBLA version restored. It's easily on my Top 10 XBLA games, so I'll probably buy it even before a sale. The sales will also determine if they port the sequel as well.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Gabe looks like Santa Claus in that picture.
That said... am I the only one who feels that Steam/Valve are very, VERY well situated to become the #1 distributor of games out there? With them having PC, Linux, and Windows distribution platforms, and rumors constantly popping up about console distribution.. Well, it just sits out there, both as something scary and as something incredibly exciting. Lord knows I've had more exposure to great games thanks to Steam (and the curation here) than I would've 5 years ago.
To put out the tired & true "movie analogy:"
Studios = Developers - Make the product
Labels/Brands = Publishers - Finance the product
Distributors = Walmart/Steam/Gamestop/eShop - Get the product into the consumer's hands
Theater chains = console/hardware manufacturers - provide the means for consumption of the product.
Back in the days of the Studio System, all these elements were owned by the same people, leading to a monopoly and stagnation. That broke somewhere along the line (my memory is fuzzy on the exact reasons), and then we moved into an era of filmmakers with independent product and a survival of all types of media. Well, gaming is getting close to that point too. The publishers are trying to vertically integrate (if they haven't already, such as Nintendo), and people like Steam are there providing options that keep everyone else honest.
That said... am I the only one who feels that Steam/Valve are very, VERY well situated to become the #1 distributor of games out there? With them having PC, Linux, and Windows distribution platforms, and rumors constantly popping up about console distribution.. Well, it just sits out there, both as something scary and as something incredibly exciting. Lord knows I've had more exposure to great games thanks to Steam (and the curation here) than I would've 5 years ago.
To put out the tired & true "movie analogy:"
Studios = Developers - Make the product
Labels/Brands = Publishers - Finance the product
Distributors = Walmart/Steam/Gamestop/eShop - Get the product into the consumer's hands
Theater chains = console/hardware manufacturers - provide the means for consumption of the product.
Back in the days of the Studio System, all these elements were owned by the same people, leading to a monopoly and stagnation. That broke somewhere along the line (my memory is fuzzy on the exact reasons), and then we moved into an era of filmmakers with independent product and a survival of all types of media. Well, gaming is getting close to that point too. The publishers are trying to vertically integrate (if they haven't already, such as Nintendo), and people like Steam are there providing options that keep everyone else honest.
One of Valve's greatest strengths is not being a publicly traded company. Without having to worry about appeasing shareholders, they have the greatest freedom to innovate at their own pace. My greatest fear is what happens when Gabe Newell steps down/dies and what that will mean in regards to who controls the company and its direction.
That said... am I the only one who feels that Steam/Valve are very, VERY well situated to become the #1 distributor of games out there? With them having PC, Linux, and Windows distribution platforms, and rumors constantly popping up about console distribution.. Well, it just sits out there, both as something scary and as something incredibly exciting. Lord knows I've had more exposure to great games thanks to Steam (and the curation here) than I would've 5 years ago.
To put out the tired & true "movie analogy:"
Studios = Developers - Make the product
Labels/Brands = Publishers - Finance the product
Distributors = Walmart/Steam/Gamestop/eShop - Get the product into the consumer's hands
Theater chains = console/hardware manufacturers - provide the means for consumption of the product.
Back in the days of the Studio System, all these elements were owned by the same people, leading to a monopoly and stagnation. That broke somewhere along the line (my memory is fuzzy on the exact reasons), and then we moved into an era of filmmakers with independent product and a survival of all types of media. Well, gaming is getting close to that point too. The publishers are trying to vertically integrate (if they haven't already, such as Nintendo), and people like Steam are there providing options that keep everyone else honest.
One of Valve's greatest strengths is not being a publicly traded company. Without having to worry about appeasing shareholders, they have the greatest freedom to innovate at their own pace. My greatest fear is what happens when Gabe Newell steps down/dies and what that will mean in regards to who controls the company and its direction.
So very much this. If Valve were beholden to shareholders they wouldn't be able to do half the ridiculously awesome stuff that they get up to.
"What release the Source Film Maker for free? For FREE free? Are you MAD?!"
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles. The Nintendo crowd hasn't had a Bethesda game yet, but the PS and Xbox crowds have. There's still the issue of patches and DLC with Nintendo. Hopefully they'll ease up on that, but unless they do, that's a huge turnoff for developers today.
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles. The Nintendo crowd hasn't had a Bethesda game yet, but the PS and Xbox crowds have. There's still the issue of patches and DLC with Nintendo. Hopefully they'll ease up on that, but unless they do, that's a huge turnoff for developers today.
DLC is coming, we know that. Question is how they'll handle patches.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
As you can see below, it's a cycle that has produced more dollars pledged to the Games category each month ($7 million) after Double Fine than the previous three years combined ($4 million):
While 47% of board game projects have been successfully funded, just 23% of video game projects have been. Video Game projects raise more money — the average successfully funded video game raises $96,000 — but more Board & Card Game projects are funded, though often on a smaller scale.
There are graphs and such so go take a look.
Has anyone hear anything about what inspired Double Fine to try Kickstarter?
Also, I wonder if any publishers are data mining Kickstarter for customer research.
I'm pretty sure Double Fine went to kickstarter mainly do the freqent conversation he parodies in the first video.
"I love Adventure games, you should make a new one!"
"Not enough people buy them for a publisher to get on board with financing one."
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles. The Nintendo crowd hasn't had a Bethesda game yet, but the PS and Xbox crowds have. There's still the issue of patches and DLC with Nintendo. Hopefully they'll ease up on that, but unless they do, that's a huge turnoff for developers today.
DLC is coming, we know that. Question is how they'll handle patches.
At the very least they've figured out that sometimes it's okay to have them. They put out an update for Mario Kart 7, even after they had said that they wouldn't fix the specific thing the update fixed.
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles.
Didn't pretty much every PS2 user jump ship to the 360? I know it got the drop on the PS3 but it sold like crazy, presumably to an awful lot of PS2 fans wanting to get their hands on the 'next gen'.
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles.
This is pretty much not true.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles.
Didn't pretty much every PS2 user jump ship to the 360? I know it got the drop on the PS3 but it sold like crazy, presumably to an awful lot of PS2 fans wanting to get their hands on the 'next gen'.
Pretty much. The 360 became the "default" core machine thanks in part to $599, and not enough of them waited around to get the PS3 out of third place even after the price became sane.
Console loyalty is, potentially, fluid. Goes with games, too. Even though Grand Theft Auto was a "PS2" series, a majority of people bought GTA4 on the 360.
This is part of why every new console generation is up for grabs, no matter how well/crap the predecessor did. Well, doing TOO crap can fuck you over, as Sega learned.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles.
This is pretty much not true.
Although it will be interesting to see how true this becomes in the future since all your digital purchases and identity are tied to one console.
I can say that I went from playing Sonic games in one generation in my youth to Mario games in the next.
Wouldn't be surprised at all if this was pretty commonplace and given how who has been competing and how a company leading in market share can find themselves in very different positions throughout the years, it seems to be that console loyalty is pretty interchangeable for most.
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles.
This is pretty much not true.
Although it will be interesting to see how true this becomes in the future since all your digital purchases and identity are tied to one console.
Good point. And I wonder how much the Wii to Wii U purchase transfer will help/the near guaranteed incompatibility between the PS3 and PS4 will hurt.
How absolute is console loyalty these days when 90% of all games simply come out for both systems?
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
This is why console exclusives remain important, and why money hats still get passed around.
Microsoft, Sony have 1st party + money hats. Nintendo just has 1st party and IP partnerships like Other M. (their last attempt at money hats exploded spectacularly). Steam has 1st party.
How absolute is console loyalty these days when 90% of all games simply come out for both systems?
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
There's still the split of FPS fans tending towards Xbox, fighting fans towards PS, platforming and metroidvania fans towards Nintendo. There are exclusives people will stick to certain consoles for. And again, games coming out for multiple systems is going to depend on the hardware of those systems. If a company can make a game for 2 of them identical but has to scale it down or otherwise jump through design hoops for the 3rd, we know what's going to happen.
How absolute is console loyalty these days when 90% of all games simply come out for both systems?
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
This is why console exclusives remain important, and why money hats still get passed around.
Microsoft, Sony have 1st party + money hats. Nintendo just has 1st party and IP partnerships like Other M. (their last attempt at money hats exploded spectacularly). Steam has 1st party.
I wouldn't say they're not still important, but it's pretty clear that exclusives are dropping like a stone. In this current day and age where you apparently need to go multi million big or go home, publishers seem to have come to the conclusion that limiting yourself to one console is career suicide. Everybody is going multi platform. All the famous IP's have jumped ship. GTA, FF, MGS. I'll be surprised if we see many exclusives in the next generation. Especially so if development costs continue to rise.
The only one with an absolute grip on exclusives is Nintendo. Who has long been established as not giving a fuck and who beats to the sound of their own drum.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
How absolute is console loyalty these days when 90% of all games simply come out for both systems?
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
This is why console exclusives remain important, and why money hats still get passed around.
Microsoft, Sony have 1st party + money hats. Nintendo just has 1st party and IP partnerships like Other M. (their last attempt at money hats exploded spectacularly). Steam has 1st party.
I wouldn't say they're not still important, but it's pretty clear that exclusives are dropping like a stone. In this current day and age where you apparently need to go multi million big or go home, publishers seem to have come to the conclusion that limiting yourself to one console is career suicide. Everybody is going multi platform. All the famous IP's have jumped ship. GTA, FF, MGS. I'll be surprised if we see many exclusives in the next generation. Especially so if development costs continue to rise.
The only one with an absolute grip on exclusives is Nintendo. Who has long been established as not giving a fuck and who beats to the sound of their own drum.
As long as there are first parties, there will be exclusives.
How absolute is console loyalty these days when 90% of all games simply come out for both systems?
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
This is why console exclusives remain important, and why money hats still get passed around.
Microsoft, Sony have 1st party + money hats. Nintendo just has 1st party and IP partnerships like Other M. (their last attempt at money hats exploded spectacularly). Steam has 1st party.
I wouldn't say they're not still important, but it's pretty clear that exclusives are dropping like a stone. In this current day and age where you apparently need to go multi million big or go home, publishers seem to have come to the conclusion that limiting yourself to one console is career suicide. Everybody is going multi platform. All the famous IP's have jumped ship. GTA, FF, MGS. I'll be surprised if we see many exclusives in the next generation. Especially so if development costs continue to rise.
The only one with an absolute grip on exclusives is Nintendo. Who has long been established as not giving a fuck and who beats to the sound of their own drum.
As long as there are first parties, there will be exclusives.
I'm not saying they'll completely vanish, because like you said, there will always be 1st parties. It's just clear that exclusives are no longer the driving force behind consoles that they once were.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
That said... am I the only one who feels that Steam/Valve are very, VERY well situated to become the #1 distributor of games out there? With them having PC, Linux, and Windows distribution platforms, and rumors constantly popping up about console distribution.. Well, it just sits out there, both as something scary and as something incredibly exciting. Lord knows I've had more exposure to great games thanks to Steam (and the curation here) than I would've 5 years ago.
To put out the tired & true "movie analogy:"
Studios = Developers - Make the product
Labels/Brands = Publishers - Finance the product
Distributors = Walmart/Steam/Gamestop/eShop - Get the product into the consumer's hands
Theater chains = console/hardware manufacturers - provide the means for consumption of the product.
Back in the days of the Studio System, all these elements were owned by the same people, leading to a monopoly and stagnation. That broke somewhere along the line (my memory is fuzzy on the exact reasons), and then we moved into an era of filmmakers with independent product and a survival of all types of media. Well, gaming is getting close to that point too. The publishers are trying to vertically integrate (if they haven't already, such as Nintendo), and people like Steam are there providing options that keep everyone else honest.
One of Valve's greatest strengths is not being a publicly traded company. Without having to worry about appeasing shareholders, they have the greatest freedom to innovate at their own pace. My greatest fear is what happens when Gabe Newell steps down/dies and what that will mean in regards to who controls the company and its direction.
So very much this. If Valve were beholden to shareholders they wouldn't be able to do half the ridiculously awesome stuff that they get up to.
"What release the Source Film Maker for free? For FREE free? Are you MAD?!"
I basically view Gabe as a sort of real life Games Industry Willy Wonka.
If you told me Valve employed Oompa Loompas, I would only be marginally surprised.
That said... am I the only one who feels that Steam/Valve are very, VERY well situated to become the #1 distributor of games out there? With them having PC, Linux, and Windows distribution platforms, and rumors constantly popping up about console distribution.. Well, it just sits out there, both as something scary and as something incredibly exciting. Lord knows I've had more exposure to great games thanks to Steam (and the curation here) than I would've 5 years ago.
To put out the tired & true "movie analogy:"
Studios = Developers - Make the product
Labels/Brands = Publishers - Finance the product
Distributors = Walmart/Steam/Gamestop/eShop - Get the product into the consumer's hands
Theater chains = console/hardware manufacturers - provide the means for consumption of the product.
Back in the days of the Studio System, all these elements were owned by the same people, leading to a monopoly and stagnation. That broke somewhere along the line (my memory is fuzzy on the exact reasons), and then we moved into an era of filmmakers with independent product and a survival of all types of media. Well, gaming is getting close to that point too. The publishers are trying to vertically integrate (if they haven't already, such as Nintendo), and people like Steam are there providing options that keep everyone else honest.
One of Valve's greatest strengths is not being a publicly traded company. Without having to worry about appeasing shareholders, they have the greatest freedom to innovate at their own pace. My greatest fear is what happens when Gabe Newell steps down/dies and what that will mean in regards to who controls the company and its direction.
So very much this. If Valve were beholden to shareholders they wouldn't be able to do half the ridiculously awesome stuff that they get up to.
"What release the Source Film Maker for free? For FREE free? Are you MAD?!"
I basically view Gabe as a sort of real life Games Industry Willy Wonka.
If you told me Valve employed Oompa Loompas, I would only be marginally surprised.
Download Steam, it will seem, like a result - of pure imagination~...
How absolute is console loyalty these days when 90% of all games simply come out for both systems?
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
This is why console exclusives remain important, and why money hats still get passed around.
Microsoft, Sony have 1st party + money hats. Nintendo just has 1st party and IP partnerships like Other M. (their last attempt at money hats exploded spectacularly). Steam has 1st party.
I wouldn't say they're not still important, but it's pretty clear that exclusives are dropping like a stone. In this current day and age where you apparently need to go multi million big or go home, publishers seem to have come to the conclusion that limiting yourself to one console is career suicide. Everybody is going multi platform. All the famous IP's have jumped ship. GTA, FF, MGS. I'll be surprised if we see many exclusives in the next generation. Especially so if development costs continue to rise.
The only one with an absolute grip on exclusives is Nintendo. Who has long been established as not giving a fuck and who beats to the sound of their own drum.
As long as there are first parties, there will be exclusives.
I'm not saying they'll completely vanish, because like you said, there will always be 1st parties. It's just clear that exclusives are no longer the driving force behind consoles that they once were.
I only agree partially because it's been about 5 years since exclusives mattered. I won't lie: In 2010, Along with the price, I bought a 360 to play Halo Reach. I bought a Wii to play Super Mario Galaxy in 2008. I still want to get a PS3 for Tokyo Jungle.
Exclusives and first party games matter much, much more at the beginning of a console generation. When the prices are high, you need as many incentives as possible to get gamers to pick your system up. The launch lineup is a factor in this. So are things like backwards compatibility, extra features, online support, the transference of digital goods, and straight-up "console warz" favoritism -- which is actually a manifestation of brand loyalty and projections about quality going forward.
So here we are, at the cusp of a new generation, when game prices are so expensive that 3rd parties can't afford to go exclusive. That leaves the impetus on the 1st parties and a company's reputation to drive early adopters. And as you pointed out, 1st party games aren't nearly the selling points they used to be, except in the case of Nintendo.
Honestly? I think that instead of pushing the bleeding edge, Sony/Microsoft should probably dial back their systems to about 2010/2011 tech levels. It'll be cheaper, people will be more comfortable with it, and it will still be a massive gain over current standards. But I don't think that fits their 10 year models for console cycles.
Posts
Also if Vita doesn't do decently this Christmas it's dead. Like clearance bins in January, most 3rd party projects cancelled, dead.
I feel like doom-saying today I guess.
When it's your company on the line, it's not so easy to go with Nintendo, a company that has had mediocre third party sales for the last few generations. Nintendo talks a lot about having better third party support this time around, but a look at their E3 showing reveals that there's not that much improvement since last gen. The biggest userbase means shit when they mostly wants Nintendo games. Companies are also trying to implement online more heavily in their games, and Nintendo still hasn't proven that they'll be on par this time around. Would Dark Souls even be possible on the Wii U? How about Need For Speed's Autolog feature?
Last two gens, MS and Sony have had systems that are comparable with each other in terms of power and features, so it's reasonable to expect the same this time around. A developer wants to target as many platforms as possible, and it would be risky to build/upgrade an engine for Wii U's architecture only to find compatibility issues with Durango/Orbis that might screw them out of getting a launch window title done.
Twitter
The problem is the development costs, and they know they are spiraling out of control. This is only going to get worse. Today they need 2 million sales to break even, next gen it's going to be 5 million. Doubling down on something you already know is biting you on the ass is unwise.
The generational leap brings with it many means to lower development costs, and after Steam's success I bet there will be a way for small and mid-size companies to get their games on PSN/XBLA with less hassle.
Twitter
Actually there was plenty of third-party development on the Wii this gen... it's just that nearly all of it was shovelware. And Nintendo has already announced a sweeping new online initiative that actually sounds good.
Of course the Bethesda guy is forgetting that audience perception of game systems can be very fluid from one gen to the next. The PS2 was the top-selling system by far with strong casual appeal, while the Gamecube was niche at best. Now the roles are reversed. Of course, they could reverse again.
You know, they won't really have to spend all that much more on art assets, considering the current method of creating assets is to create something hyper detailed, and then bake it onto a low(ish) poly model. All that the new generation will bring is baking it on a model with more polys. At least as far as art assets. If anything, the next gen will decrease costs as developers stop having to take quite as many shortcuts to get better results.
Think of it this way, you own a shack, and you have a whole hell of a lot of stuff to fit into it. It takes you hours to fit everything inside, because you have to have an intricate plan on where things will go. If you move to a space with double the space, it will take you less time to unpack and organize all of your stuff. You won't have to struggle to fit everything in, and can instead focus on everything being organized.
It's similar with art assets and console power. The more powerful (and better the development tools), the easier it is to make use of your hi res art assets (which are already being created).
Now, the reason this hasn't been a factor in other console generations is this is the first generation where baking has really been a highly used method in modeling. In the PS2/GCN/Xbox generation, models were still made at the resolution you'd see in the game, with textures made for that level of detail. The major advance this gen has been bump/normal mapping, and because of that development costs shouldn't go up (just as long as the game makers stick to the same number of individual models as this gen).
The Wii initially showed that third parties could succeed quite handily with whatever type of game. Unfortunately third parties were nevertheless dismissive and went for the easy bang-for-your-buck route of cranking out simplistic games with low budgets in hopes of making it big with something like Raving Rabbids. Do that enough times and of course you have a self-fulfilling prophecy of third party support that the Wii ended up with.
That said the nice thing about the Wii is its niche games which sold in small numbers and that's nice for us that follow the industry, but it's not going to convince Ubi to make some lousy downport of Assassin's Creed, not that anyone was asking for a Wii version of that or things like it.
The Wii U looks to me like it's going to become another self-fulfilling prophecy where 3rd parties are concerned. It'll be the first out of the gate so third parties are worried about risk and install base. So they'll end up doing lazy ports from the current gen. When those sell fewer on the Wii U with its fledgling install base compared to the PS3/360, they'll just throw projects for WiiU exclusives out the window and begin targetting the Durango/Orbis. They'll think it a safe bet. Nintendo will support it with actually good games on its end and maybe a few other devs/publishers, at least, and that should keep it going. We'll see.
Also, every time we're near the end of a generation with ever-increasing dev costs someone says that the next gen will make development easier and cheaper. And yet every generation costs go way up. It will happen again, at least in the short term while all these publishers are still banking on the blockbuster model. Increased console power and capabilities allows them to throw more money into production values and try to launch the next generation-lasting series like Assassin's Creed or what have you. Publishers don't learn, they don't think, oh, with more power and better tools we can make better games without having to spend time/resources on engine tricks to work out nice visuals/advanced engines and thereby reducing cost and risk. No, they think, OK with all this extra power we need to pour more resources into making more impressive graphics/engines/setpieces because that's the only sure way to sell the 2 to 4 million copies we'll need to make money in this business. Yep.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
That's always a problem with the publishers, not so much with the increased power. I'm certainly hoping this time, with the increased dev costs and the declining industry, that publishers might actually get the point.
Twitter
Aren't those last gen ports to the Wii U? :P
However, speaking of models that HAVE been proven successful this generation, Steam will continue to get better it seems. Gabe Newell/Valve has apparently reached out to many Japanese developers about getting their localized games on to the PC and Steam platform.
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/09/07/valve-contacted-japanese-developers-to-bring-their-games-to-steam/
And this, too.
Pokemon White Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White 2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
Heck, more J-games in general, although I suspect No More Heroes might be stretching things a bit
If it's on Steam come the end of the year sales, and I suspect it'll alleviate at least some of that problem.
Link
Twitter
That said... am I the only one who feels that Steam/Valve are very, VERY well situated to become the #1 distributor of games out there? With them having PC, Linux, and Windows distribution platforms, and rumors constantly popping up about console distribution.. Well, it just sits out there, both as something scary and as something incredibly exciting. Lord knows I've had more exposure to great games thanks to Steam (and the curation here) than I would've 5 years ago.
To put out the tired & true "movie analogy:"
Studios = Developers - Make the product
Labels/Brands = Publishers - Finance the product
Distributors = Walmart/Steam/Gamestop/eShop - Get the product into the consumer's hands
Theater chains = console/hardware manufacturers - provide the means for consumption of the product.
Back in the days of the Studio System, all these elements were owned by the same people, leading to a monopoly and stagnation. That broke somewhere along the line (my memory is fuzzy on the exact reasons), and then we moved into an era of filmmakers with independent product and a survival of all types of media. Well, gaming is getting close to that point too. The publishers are trying to vertically integrate (if they haven't already, such as Nintendo), and people like Steam are there providing options that keep everyone else honest.
One of Valve's greatest strengths is not being a publicly traded company. Without having to worry about appeasing shareholders, they have the greatest freedom to innovate at their own pace. My greatest fear is what happens when Gabe Newell steps down/dies and what that will mean in regards to who controls the company and its direction.
So very much this. If Valve were beholden to shareholders they wouldn't be able to do half the ridiculously awesome stuff that they get up to.
"What release the Source Film Maker for free? For FREE free? Are you MAD?!"
If I have a PS3 now, chances are I'm going to get a PS4 when it comes out, not jump ship to something else. People tend to be pretty loyal to their consoles. The Nintendo crowd hasn't had a Bethesda game yet, but the PS and Xbox crowds have. There's still the issue of patches and DLC with Nintendo. Hopefully they'll ease up on that, but unless they do, that's a huge turnoff for developers today.
DLC is coming, we know that. Question is how they'll handle patches.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I'm pretty sure Double Fine went to kickstarter mainly do the freqent conversation he parodies in the first video.
"I love Adventure games, you should make a new one!"
"Not enough people buy them for a publisher to get on board with financing one."
"Well, I'd buy it!"
At the very least they've figured out that sometimes it's okay to have them. They put out an update for Mario Kart 7, even after they had said that they wouldn't fix the specific thing the update fixed.
Didn't pretty much every PS2 user jump ship to the 360? I know it got the drop on the PS3 but it sold like crazy, presumably to an awful lot of PS2 fans wanting to get their hands on the 'next gen'.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
This is pretty much not true.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Pretty much. The 360 became the "default" core machine thanks in part to $599, and not enough of them waited around to get the PS3 out of third place even after the price became sane.
Console loyalty is, potentially, fluid. Goes with games, too. Even though Grand Theft Auto was a "PS2" series, a majority of people bought GTA4 on the 360.
This is part of why every new console generation is up for grabs, no matter how well/crap the predecessor did. Well, doing TOO crap can fuck you over, as Sega learned.
Although it will be interesting to see how true this becomes in the future since all your digital purchases and identity are tied to one console.
Wouldn't be surprised at all if this was pretty commonplace and given how who has been competing and how a company leading in market share can find themselves in very different positions throughout the years, it seems to be that console loyalty is pretty interchangeable for most.
Good point. And I wonder how much the Wii to Wii U purchase transfer will help/the near guaranteed incompatibility between the PS3 and PS4 will hurt.
A person is only as loyal as the price tag on the machine.
This is why console exclusives remain important, and why money hats still get passed around.
Microsoft, Sony have 1st party + money hats. Nintendo just has 1st party and IP partnerships like Other M. (their last attempt at money hats exploded spectacularly). Steam has 1st party.
Citation, please.
There's still the split of FPS fans tending towards Xbox, fighting fans towards PS, platforming and metroidvania fans towards Nintendo. There are exclusives people will stick to certain consoles for. And again, games coming out for multiple systems is going to depend on the hardware of those systems. If a company can make a game for 2 of them identical but has to scale it down or otherwise jump through design hoops for the 3rd, we know what's going to happen.
I wouldn't say they're not still important, but it's pretty clear that exclusives are dropping like a stone. In this current day and age where you apparently need to go multi million big or go home, publishers seem to have come to the conclusion that limiting yourself to one console is career suicide. Everybody is going multi platform. All the famous IP's have jumped ship. GTA, FF, MGS. I'll be surprised if we see many exclusives in the next generation. Especially so if development costs continue to rise.
The only one with an absolute grip on exclusives is Nintendo. Who has long been established as not giving a fuck and who beats to the sound of their own drum.
As long as there are first parties, there will be exclusives.
I'm not saying they'll completely vanish, because like you said, there will always be 1st parties. It's just clear that exclusives are no longer the driving force behind consoles that they once were.
I basically view Gabe as a sort of real life Games Industry Willy Wonka.
If you told me Valve employed Oompa Loompas, I would only be marginally surprised.
Download Steam, it will seem, like a result - of pure imagination~...
A quick search pulled this:
http://www.gamezone.com/products/xbox-720/news/warren-spector-worried-by-next-gen-costs
Terrified may be an exaggeration, but rising costs have been a growing concern among devs; this isn't exactly a new development.
I only agree partially because it's been about 5 years since exclusives mattered. I won't lie: In 2010, Along with the price, I bought a 360 to play Halo Reach. I bought a Wii to play Super Mario Galaxy in 2008. I still want to get a PS3 for Tokyo Jungle.
Exclusives and first party games matter much, much more at the beginning of a console generation. When the prices are high, you need as many incentives as possible to get gamers to pick your system up. The launch lineup is a factor in this. So are things like backwards compatibility, extra features, online support, the transference of digital goods, and straight-up "console warz" favoritism -- which is actually a manifestation of brand loyalty and projections about quality going forward.
So here we are, at the cusp of a new generation, when game prices are so expensive that 3rd parties can't afford to go exclusive. That leaves the impetus on the 1st parties and a company's reputation to drive early adopters. And as you pointed out, 1st party games aren't nearly the selling points they used to be, except in the case of Nintendo.
Honestly? I think that instead of pushing the bleeding edge, Sony/Microsoft should probably dial back their systems to about 2010/2011 tech levels. It'll be cheaper, people will be more comfortable with it, and it will still be a massive gain over current standards. But I don't think that fits their 10 year models for console cycles.