I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
It just baffles me honestly. There is no real reason to not release your already done game other than to be a dick.
I've always stayed away from Sony products because they have very frequently used proprietary designs that do not interface well with accessories or other products. Memory cards, plugs, batteries, etc. I'd be okay with paying a price premium for top quality for the main device, but being locked into proprietary accessories that aren't any higher quality or better than the generics and also come with a huge markup has soured me on pretty much any of their electronics.
You could say the same thing about Microsoft and their $200+ proprietary hard drives too :P
Yeah, it's one of the things I've learned to stay away from when purchasing electronics. If I'm locked to proprietary accessories, and accessories will be something I'm expecting to purchase and possibly replace/add to later on, I'm going to stay away from that product.
Also, with regard to Steam and it's lack of ability to sell/buy second-hand, I have hopes that the recent European first sale court case involving an Oracle license will prompt Valve to allow used game sales via the Steam interface, since it appears many of the same principles apply. They can even charge a slight fee for providing a secure method of transferring the games. If they get forced into it, it's better to make some money from the transaction than be left out entirely.
Allowing license sales and taking a 30% cut on all transactions sounds so much like a steam thing to do, actually. They could even go a step farther and give a percentage of the sale to the original publisher, too, thereby satisfying everyone involved (to a degree). Valve is made up of smart people, though, so I'm sure they've thought of this already and there is some sort of publisher-hang up as to why this doesn't happen.
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
I can guarantee you that this wouldn't happen if it were the other way around.
Edit: Meaning if it were originally a 360/PS3 release, they wouldn't delay for a Wii U release.
Sega delayed Sonic & All-stars Racing transformed for the Wii U release. Internal release dates show the game was pushed back months to facilitate the Wii U release.
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
These companies want simultaneous launches so as to perform a single marketing campaign at the one time to maximize awareness and thus sales.
If they launch on one platform now, they have to spend a lot on marketing. Then half a year later, they have to try and revive interest in a game that's old news, and spend a bunch on marketing again.
So that would be the reason.. And if you think about it, it makes sense to try and market the game as available on these three platforms, when two of the platforms account for a hundred million or so installed base combined.
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
These companies want simultaneous launches so as to perform a single marketing campaign at the one time to maximize awareness and thus sales.
If they launch on one platform now, they have to spend a lot on marketing. Then half a year later, they have to try and revive interest in a game that's old news, and spend a bunch on marketing again.
So that would be the reason.. And if you think about it, it makes sense to try and market the game as available on these three platforms, when two of the platforms account for a hundred million or so installed base combined.
It's still a big middle finger to the people who already ordered the Wii U version.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
So Sony is turning it around against all predictions, go figure. I feel like they're due for a big return to the top, with smart consumer friendly moves like PS Plus, a console priced fairly that's leagues ahead of the current gen and will likely actually play used games.
Meanwhile the current leader in the West is moving towards abolishing used games and making your console retain a constant connection to the Internet in order to operate. Oh, and now Siri, because we all demanded that.
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
So Sony is turning it around against all predictions, go figure. I feel like they're due for a big return to the top, with smart consumer friendly moves like PS Plus, a console priced fairly that's leagues ahead of the current gen and will likely actually play used games.
Meanwhile the current leader in the West is moving towards abolishing used games and making your console retain a constant connection to the Internet in order to operate. Oh, and now Siri, because we all demanded that.
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
Not just a rumor, but a patent.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
If you want to cut out the used market completely, then game prices need to come down. It's the only way it has a prayer of working. Otherwise, we'll just see the same situation we see now but to an increased degree: People will buy precious little $59.99 games at launch, saving that privilege for the AAA must-haves. Everything else will bomb, the studio will get sacked, and the game price will plummet. At which point people may then buy it, but it's far too late to matter now.
I'll buy more games and take more shots at $39.99 or even $49.99. Otherwise, I'm buying my must-haves and everything else can rot on the shelf.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
If you want to cut out the used market completely, then game prices need to come down. It's the only way it has a prayer of working. Otherwise, we'll just see the same situation we see now but to an increased degree: People will buy precious little $59.99 games at launch, saving that privilege for the AAA must-haves. Everything else will bomb, the studio will get sacked, and the game price will plummet. At which point people may then buy it, but it's far too late to matter now.
I'll buy more games and take more shots at $39.99 or even $49.99. Otherwise, I'm buying my must-haves and everything else can rot on the shelf.
Before game prices can come down, hardware manufacturers have to lower development fees. Before hardware manufacturers lower development fees, they will need to change the way they monetize the video game industry.
The change you're proposing (at the MSRP) stems from some huge, deep-rooted industry practices. Simply put, to get lower cost games at retail, the entire process of making games and selling them will need to change.
I'd hate this system for the same reason I've always been wary of it:
I pretty much always bring my fighting games (and stuff like that, group games, party games, etc) to friends' houses to play together all the time.
If my fighting games / party games /etc are tied to an account, it becomes a pain in the ass. I can't just take the disc there and play it. What, do I have to log into my account on his system and redownload what we want to play? Pain in the ass.
But I guess every time I bring that up someone says, "Well everyone plays with friends over the internet now so your whole 'bringing things to friends' houses' is outdated and meaningless." So who knows.
This is also going to be a pain in the ass for fighting game tournaments.
If they release the Wii U version now, folks that plan on picking up the 360/PS3 release in September will balk at paying full price. (Basically an inverse of what's happening now with 360/PS3 to Wii U ports.)
If they release all three in September, folks will bitch that they have to wait seven months to play it.
Meanwhile I shrug my shoulders and move on with my life. I've got more videogames to play now as it is, I'm counting this more as a blessing than anything.
If you want to cut out the used market completely, then game prices need to come down. It's the only way it has a prayer of working. Otherwise, we'll just see the same situation we see now but to an increased degree: People will buy precious little $59.99 games at launch, saving that privilege for the AAA must-haves. Everything else will bomb, the studio will get sacked, and the game price will plummet. At which point people may then buy it, but it's far too late to matter now.
I'll buy more games and take more shots at $39.99 or even $49.99. Otherwise, I'm buying my must-haves and everything else can rot on the shelf.
Before game prices can come down, hardware manufacturers have to lower development fees. Before hardware manufacturers lower development fees, they will need to change the way they monetize the video game industry.
The change you're proposing (at the MSRP) stems from some huge, deep-rooted industry practices. Simply put, to get lower cost games at retail, the entire process of making games and selling them will need to change.
Which is why the entire idea of "no used games" is completely terrible. From every angle.
So Sony is turning it around against all predictions, go figure. I feel like they're due for a big return to the top, with smart consumer friendly moves like PS Plus, a console priced fairly that's leagues ahead of the current gen and will likely actually play used games.
Meanwhile the current leader in the West is moving towards abolishing used games and making your console retain a constant connection to the Internet in order to operate. Oh, and now Siri, because we all demanded that.
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
Sony anti-used patents were reported by people at GAF digging through patent paperwork, these latest Microsoft rumors are being reported by news outlets as leaks from sources at the company.
Sort of a difference. I really think ALL hardware makers have something locked away in a patent vault to eliminate used sales but MS is showing the first signs of pulling the trigger.
If you want to cut out the used market completely, then game prices need to come down. It's the only way it has a prayer of working. Otherwise, we'll just see the same situation we see now but to an increased degree: People will buy precious little $59.99 games at launch, saving that privilege for the AAA must-haves. Everything else will bomb, the studio will get sacked, and the game price will plummet. At which point people may then buy it, but it's far too late to matter now.
I'll buy more games and take more shots at $39.99 or even $49.99. Otherwise, I'm buying my must-haves and everything else can rot on the shelf.
Before game prices can come down, hardware manufacturers have to lower development fees. Before hardware manufacturers lower development fees, they will need to change the way they monetize the video game industry.
The change you're proposing (at the MSRP) stems from some huge, deep-rooted industry practices. Simply put, to get lower cost games at retail, the entire process of making games and selling them will need to change.
Oh yeah, I know. Like you said, the entire industry will need to completely revamp and change itself before it can even think of eliminating used games.
If they think they can just cut it off tomorrow and continue with business as usual... I look forward to observing the firestorm from the sidelines.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
These companies want simultaneous launches so as to perform a single marketing campaign at the one time to maximize awareness and thus sales.
If they launch on one platform now, they have to spend a lot on marketing. Then half a year later, they have to try and revive interest in a game that's old news, and spend a bunch on marketing again.
So that would be the reason.. And if you think about it, it makes sense to try and market the game as available on these three platforms, when two of the platforms account for a hundred million or so installed base combined.
Yeah, because we all remember that huge Rayman Origins marketing push.
The Rayman news is really sad, considering the Bastion devs just said how much better it was to make staggered releases and ignore simultaneous launches.
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
I just read in the WiiU thread that Ubi has to pay a penalty fee to Nintendo for breaking an exclusivity contract. Now that's worrisome... a publisher is willing to pay a fee to break WiiU exclusivity...
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
These companies want simultaneous launches so as to perform a single marketing campaign at the one time to maximize awareness and thus sales.
If they launch on one platform now, they have to spend a lot on marketing. Then half a year later, they have to try and revive interest in a game that's old news, and spend a bunch on marketing again.
So that would be the reason.. And if you think about it, it makes sense to try and market the game as available on these three platforms, when two of the platforms account for a hundred million or so installed base combined.
Yeah, because we all remember that huge Rayman Origins marketing push.
Maybe Legends will be different, but yeah.
It may not be a significant marketing push, and we may not even notice it.
But when it comes to games that aren't likely to sell very well in general, like this one and Origins, they're gonna need to focus as much of what little marketing they'll even bother to do for it.
The Rayman news is really sad, considering the Bastion devs just said how much better it was to make staggered releases and ignore simultaneous launches.
Small teams and companies can adapt and change quickly. These big companies feel like they've got this huge risk and tend to go with what they consider a safer bet.
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
I just read in the WiiU thread that Ubi has to pay a penalty fee to Nintendo for breaking an exclusivity contract. Now that's worrisome... a publisher is willing to pay a fee to break WiiU exclusivity...
That was a misquote. It was about Tecmo and Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge.
skeldare on
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
I just read in the WiiU thread that Ubi has to pay a penalty fee to Nintendo for breaking an exclusivity contract. Now that's worrisome... a publisher is willing to pay a fee to break WiiU exclusivity...
That was a misquote. It was about Tecmo and Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge.
Ah, I see.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Could it not be better to release it on WiiU first, have 360 and PS3 fans be all "Oh my god I wanna play that" and then when it's released on ps3 and 360 they're all "Awh yeah!" because they've been waiting seven months.
When I got my PS3 a year and a bit ago, I didn't ignore games from near the start of the console because they were "old now", I thought "awh yeah! I finally get to play them!" and bought them right up.
NNID: Quical
STEAM: Quical
Check out my youtube channel, maybe subscribe?: NerdAndOrGeek
Could it not be better to release it on WiiU first, have 360 and PS3 fans be all "Oh my god I wanna play that" and then when it's released on ps3 and 360 they're all "Awh yeah!" because they've been waiting seven months.
When I got my PS3 a year and a bit ago, I didn't ignore games from near the start of the console because they were "old now", I thought "awh yeah! I finally get to play them!" and bought them right up.
Knowing your average Xbox 360 and PS3 owner, their response would be anything but "Oh my god I wanna play that"
It would be along the lines of the following:
a) "Lol, that gay Rayman Nintendo baby shit? Why would I want to play that?"
b) "A 2D game? They still make those? Why isn't this $15 on the Live Arcade?"
c) "No online multiplayer? No thanks."
So Sony is turning it around against all predictions, go figure. I feel like they're due for a big return to the top, with smart consumer friendly moves like PS Plus, a console priced fairly that's leagues ahead of the current gen and will likely actually play used games.
Meanwhile the current leader in the West is moving towards abolishing used games and making your console retain a constant connection to the Internet in order to operate. Oh, and now Siri, because we all demanded that.
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
Sony anti-used patents were reported by people at GAF digging through patent paperwork, these latest Microsoft rumors are being reported by news outlets as leaks from sources at the company.
Sort of a difference. I really think ALL hardware makers have something locked away in a patent vault to eliminate used sales but MS is showing the first signs of pulling the trigger.
I take it you didn't read the tumblr article linked on here that described how this guy made up a fake insider email to a video game news outlet stating he was a Microsoft insider and promising it was totally true and many outlets (even Yahoo and other big names) ran with it without verifying anything. To me, this points out how ridiculous it is to believe any of these rumors right now because of the many internet fucktards out there (that comic has shown up in here many times) that would just love to screw with all the gamers out there.
Not a good idea to base any of your reasonings on any of these rumors after that.
on the one hand, it sucks for nintendo that this stuff is going down. on the other hand, now i can play some more cool games on my ps3. i just wish bayonetta 2 would go multiplatform now. obviously not going to happen since nintendo funded it or whatever, but a guy can dream.
Assassin's Creed 3's PlayStation Vita companion piece, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation, has either shipped or sold "close to 600,000" units, Ubisoft announced during a financial investors conference call this morning. We say "or" because, while the word "sold" was used, this terminology was also used to refer to Assassin's Creed 3's 12 million shipped units, and therefore the true nature of the statistic is unknown.
It's also unknown what percentage of Liberation's volume is accounted for by its PlayStation Vita bundle. We've reached out to Ubisoft for clarification and further information and will update when either is received.
Assassin's Creed 3's PlayStation Vita companion piece, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation, has either shipped or sold "close to 600,000" units, Ubisoft announced during a financial investors conference call this morning. We say "or" because, while the word "sold" was used, this terminology was also used to refer to Assassin's Creed 3's 12 million shipped units, and therefore the true nature of the statistic is unknown.
It's also unknown what percentage of Liberation's volume is accounted for by its PlayStation Vita bundle. We've reached out to Ubisoft for clarification and further information and will update when either is received.
I'm guessing most are the bundle.
Even if that's sold, that's not that great.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
So Sony is turning it around against all predictions, go figure. I feel like they're due for a big return to the top, with smart consumer friendly moves like PS Plus, a console priced fairly that's leagues ahead of the current gen and will likely actually play used games.
Meanwhile the current leader in the West is moving towards abolishing used games and making your console retain a constant connection to the Internet in order to operate. Oh, and now Siri, because we all demanded that.
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
Sony anti-used patents were reported by people at GAF digging through patent paperwork, these latest Microsoft rumors are being reported by news outlets as leaks from sources at the company.
Sort of a difference. I really think ALL hardware makers have something locked away in a patent vault to eliminate used sales but MS is showing the first signs of pulling the trigger.
Yes, actually, that is a big difference. One of those has proof that it exists in some form, the other currently has absolutely nothing confirming it is or isn't complete bullshit. We're talking rumors here. Does the new xbox have eight gigs of RAM or four gigs? 'cause I've heard both rumors, and they can't both be accurate.
Will sony use their patent? Who knows. But it exists, which is more than we can say for Microsoft at the moment.
Assassin's Creed 3's PlayStation Vita companion piece, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation, has either shipped or sold "close to 600,000" units, Ubisoft announced during a financial investors conference call this morning. We say "or" because, while the word "sold" was used, this terminology was also used to refer to Assassin's Creed 3's 12 million shipped units, and therefore the true nature of the statistic is unknown.
It's also unknown what percentage of Liberation's volume is accounted for by its PlayStation Vita bundle. We've reached out to Ubisoft for clarification and further information and will update when either is received.
Assassin's Creed 3's PlayStation Vita companion piece, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation, has either shipped or sold "close to 600,000" units, Ubisoft announced during a financial investors conference call this morning. We say "or" because, while the word "sold" was used, this terminology was also used to refer to Assassin's Creed 3's 12 million shipped units, and therefore the true nature of the statistic is unknown.
It's also unknown what percentage of Liberation's volume is accounted for by its PlayStation Vita bundle. We've reached out to Ubisoft for clarification and further information and will update when either is received.
I'm guessing most are the bundle.
Even if that's sold, that's not that great.
It is for a non-Nintendo handheld game.
But I'm sure it's a lot less than what they were expecting to sell, especially for a major franchise like Assassin's Creed.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Assassin's Creed 3's PlayStation Vita companion piece, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation, has either shipped or sold "close to 600,000" units, Ubisoft announced during a financial investors conference call this morning. We say "or" because, while the word "sold" was used, this terminology was also used to refer to Assassin's Creed 3's 12 million shipped units, and therefore the true nature of the statistic is unknown.
It's also unknown what percentage of Liberation's volume is accounted for by its PlayStation Vita bundle. We've reached out to Ubisoft for clarification and further information and will update when either is received.
I'm guessing most are the bundle.
Even if that's sold, that's not that great.
It is for a non-Nintendo handheld game.
Does anyone know the numbers for Assassin's Creed Bloodlines, for comparison's sake?
It may not be a significant marketing push, and we may not even notice it.
But when it comes to games that aren't likely to sell very well in general, like this one and Origins, they're gonna need to focus as much of what little marketing they'll even bother to do for it.
That makes sense, though it still sucks for the consumer. Perhaps it has something to do with maintaining relationships with the console-makers as well?
Assassin's Creed 3's PlayStation Vita companion piece, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation, has either shipped or sold "close to 600,000" units, Ubisoft announced during a financial investors conference call this morning. We say "or" because, while the word "sold" was used, this terminology was also used to refer to Assassin's Creed 3's 12 million shipped units, and therefore the true nature of the statistic is unknown.
It's also unknown what percentage of Liberation's volume is accounted for by its PlayStation Vita bundle. We've reached out to Ubisoft for clarification and further information and will update when either is received.
I'm guessing most are the bundle.
Even if that's sold, that's not that great.
It is for a non-Nintendo handheld game.
But I'm sure it's a lot less than what they were expecting to sell, especially for a major franchise like Assassin's Creed.
I sincerely doubt it considering it's on the Vita. Maybe when they started development, but when they finally released it I can't imagine them expecting anything over 500k. It's not a popular franchise in Japan so that's one HUGE market down. What other Vita games have sold as well (honest question)?
I can't begin to state how dickish it is to release a demo and after a montth, weeks before the game launches, you announce a fucking seven-month delay.
You can release the damn Wii U version now and still have your ports in September. There's no drawback to this unless you have some weird contract stipulations.
These companies want simultaneous launches so as to perform a single marketing campaign at the one time to maximize awareness and thus sales.
If they launch on one platform now, they have to spend a lot on marketing. Then half a year later, they have to try and revive interest in a game that's old news, and spend a bunch on marketing again.
So that would be the reason.. And if you think about it, it makes sense to try and market the game as available on these three platforms, when two of the platforms account for a hundred million or so installed base combined.
Which does make sense.
...but why did they not do this from the start? Why did they wait until AFTER they released the demo, and allowed Nintendo to feature it in the retail kiosks, and got everyone believing that it was about to launch soon?
The only real way to read this is that an executive got cold feet.
And MZ makes a good point... much of the 360/PS3 crowd reject things that seem teh kiddy out of hand. It all goes back to Insomniac making Fuse less stylized and more brown when young focus testers kept saying "this looks like something my baby brother would play."
So Sony is turning it around against all predictions, go figure. I feel like they're due for a big return to the top, with smart consumer friendly moves like PS Plus, a console priced fairly that's leagues ahead of the current gen and will likely actually play used games.
Meanwhile the current leader in the West is moving towards abolishing used games and making your console retain a constant connection to the Internet in order to operate. Oh, and now Siri, because we all demanded that.
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
Sony anti-used patents were reported by people at GAF digging through patent paperwork, these latest Microsoft rumors are being reported by news outlets as leaks from sources at the company.
Sort of a difference. I really think ALL hardware makers have something locked away in a patent vault to eliminate used sales but MS is showing the first signs of pulling the trigger.
Yes, actually, that is a big difference. One of those has proof that it exists in some form, the other currently has absolutely nothing confirming it is or isn't complete bullshit. We're talking rumors here. Does the new xbox have eight gigs of RAM or four gigs? 'cause I've heard both rumors, and they can't both be accurate.
Will sony use their patent? Who knows. But it exists, which is more than we can say for Microsoft at the moment.
Yup. Anyone can pose as an unnamed 'source' and the gaming 'journalism' industry will pick up and run with it. Again: http://x-surface.tumblr.com/ And, really, Edge's article reads exactly like this formula - repeat existing rumors and add something that sounds plausible.
Unless it comes from a company through legit, aboveboard forms of communication, it should be considered bogus.
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Could it not be better to release it on WiiU first, have 360 and PS3 fans be all "Oh my god I wanna play that" and then when it's released on ps3 and 360 they're all "Awh yeah!" because they've been waiting seven months.
When I got my PS3 a year and a bit ago, I didn't ignore games from near the start of the console because they were "old now", I thought "awh yeah! I finally get to play them!" and bought them right up.
Knowing your average Xbox 360 and PS3 owner, their response would be anything but "Oh my god I wanna play that"
It would be along the lines of the following:
a) "Lol, that gay Rayman Nintendo baby shit? Why would I want to play that?"
b) "A 2D game? They still make those? Why isn't this $15 on the Live Arcade?"
c) "No online multiplayer? No thanks."
And so on.
Then why is it even being released there in the first place? This doesn't make any sense!
I do, however, remember all of those complaints from the first game.
NNID: Quical
STEAM: Quical
Check out my youtube channel, maybe subscribe?: NerdAndOrGeek
Could it not be better to release it on WiiU first, have 360 and PS3 fans be all "Oh my god I wanna play that" and then when it's released on ps3 and 360 they're all "Awh yeah!" because they've been waiting seven months.
When I got my PS3 a year and a bit ago, I didn't ignore games from near the start of the console because they were "old now", I thought "awh yeah! I finally get to play them!" and bought them right up.
Knowing your average Xbox 360 and PS3 owner, their response would be anything but "Oh my god I wanna play that"
It would be along the lines of the following:
a) "Lol, that gay Rayman Nintendo baby shit? Why would I want to play that?"
b) "A 2D game? They still make those? Why isn't this $15 on the Live Arcade?"
c) "No online multiplayer? No thanks."
And so on.
Then why is it even being released there in the first place? This doesn't make any sense!
I do, however, remember all of those complaints from the first game.
Because Ubisoft is out to make money, and a game released on one platform will likely make less money than a game released on three platforms.
Could it not be better to release it on WiiU first, have 360 and PS3 fans be all "Oh my god I wanna play that" and then when it's released on ps3 and 360 they're all "Awh yeah!" because they've been waiting seven months.
When I got my PS3 a year and a bit ago, I didn't ignore games from near the start of the console because they were "old now", I thought "awh yeah! I finally get to play them!" and bought them right up.
Knowing your average Xbox 360 and PS3 owner, their response would be anything but "Oh my god I wanna play that"
It would be along the lines of the following:
a) "Lol, that gay Rayman Nintendo baby shit? Why would I want to play that?"
b) "A 2D game? They still make those? Why isn't this $15 on the Live Arcade?"
c) "No online multiplayer? No thanks."
And so on.
Then why is it even being released there in the first place? This doesn't make any sense!
I do, however, remember all of those complaints from the first game.
Because Ubisoft is out to make money, and a game released on one platform will likely make less money than a game released on three platforms.
Plus the porting costs are relatively small, especially since they're re-using the engine for the first Rayman.
If I remember correctly, only four or five games broke the 800k mark on the PSP and so AC: Bloodlines probably did far less.
Look, bundles are a good way to do things and that actually bodes well for calls for price cuts for the Vita. Consumers will buy the system at a cost that they feel is appropriate. How does Sony with an army of accountants and economists not see these trends?
If I remember correctly, only four or five games broke the 800k mark on the PSP and so AC: Bloodlines probably did far less.
Look, bundles are a good way to do things and that actually bodes well for calls for price cuts for the Vita. Consumers will buy the system at a cost that they feel is appropriate. How does Sony with an army of accountants and economists not see these trends?
Because their CEO is still relatively new, came from the PlayStation division, and staked the future of Sony (partially) on how well games would do. Cutting the price of the Vita would make him look weak and cause stockholders to panic.
Posts
It just baffles me honestly. There is no real reason to not release your already done game other than to be a dick.
Allowing license sales and taking a 30% cut on all transactions sounds so much like a steam thing to do, actually. They could even go a step farther and give a percentage of the sale to the original publisher, too, thereby satisfying everyone involved (to a degree). Valve is made up of smart people, though, so I'm sure they've thought of this already and there is some sort of publisher-hang up as to why this doesn't happen.
Sega delayed Sonic & All-stars Racing transformed for the Wii U release. Internal release dates show the game was pushed back months to facilitate the Wii U release.
These companies want simultaneous launches so as to perform a single marketing campaign at the one time to maximize awareness and thus sales.
If they launch on one platform now, they have to spend a lot on marketing. Then half a year later, they have to try and revive interest in a game that's old news, and spend a bunch on marketing again.
So that would be the reason.. And if you think about it, it makes sense to try and market the game as available on these three platforms, when two of the platforms account for a hundred million or so installed base combined.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
It's still a big middle finger to the people who already ordered the Wii U version.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Dude, why are you treating Microsoft rumors you don't like as friggen gospel, and ignoring the Sony ones? Sony has an anti-used game rumor as well.
Not just a rumor, but a patent.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I'll buy more games and take more shots at $39.99 or even $49.99. Otherwise, I'm buying my must-haves and everything else can rot on the shelf.
Before game prices can come down, hardware manufacturers have to lower development fees. Before hardware manufacturers lower development fees, they will need to change the way they monetize the video game industry.
The change you're proposing (at the MSRP) stems from some huge, deep-rooted industry practices. Simply put, to get lower cost games at retail, the entire process of making games and selling them will need to change.
This is also going to be a pain in the ass for fighting game tournaments.
If they release the Wii U version now, folks that plan on picking up the 360/PS3 release in September will balk at paying full price. (Basically an inverse of what's happening now with 360/PS3 to Wii U ports.)
If they release all three in September, folks will bitch that they have to wait seven months to play it.
Meanwhile I shrug my shoulders and move on with my life. I've got more videogames to play now as it is, I'm counting this more as a blessing than anything.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Which is why the entire idea of "no used games" is completely terrible. From every angle.
Sony anti-used patents were reported by people at GAF digging through patent paperwork, these latest Microsoft rumors are being reported by news outlets as leaks from sources at the company.
Sort of a difference. I really think ALL hardware makers have something locked away in a patent vault to eliminate used sales but MS is showing the first signs of pulling the trigger.
Oh yeah, I know. Like you said, the entire industry will need to completely revamp and change itself before it can even think of eliminating used games.
If they think they can just cut it off tomorrow and continue with business as usual... I look forward to observing the firestorm from the sidelines.
Maybe Legends will be different, but yeah.
I just read in the WiiU thread that Ubi has to pay a penalty fee to Nintendo for breaking an exclusivity contract. Now that's worrisome... a publisher is willing to pay a fee to break WiiU exclusivity...
It may not be a significant marketing push, and we may not even notice it.
But when it comes to games that aren't likely to sell very well in general, like this one and Origins, they're gonna need to focus as much of what little marketing they'll even bother to do for it.
Small teams and companies can adapt and change quickly. These big companies feel like they've got this huge risk and tend to go with what they consider a safer bet.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
That was a misquote. It was about Tecmo and Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Ah, I see.
When I got my PS3 a year and a bit ago, I didn't ignore games from near the start of the console because they were "old now", I thought "awh yeah! I finally get to play them!" and bought them right up.
STEAM: Quical
Check out my youtube channel, maybe subscribe?: NerdAndOrGeek
Knowing your average Xbox 360 and PS3 owner, their response would be anything but "Oh my god I wanna play that"
It would be along the lines of the following:
a) "Lol, that gay Rayman Nintendo baby shit? Why would I want to play that?"
b) "A 2D game? They still make those? Why isn't this $15 on the Live Arcade?"
c) "No online multiplayer? No thanks."
And so on.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
I take it you didn't read the tumblr article linked on here that described how this guy made up a fake insider email to a video game news outlet stating he was a Microsoft insider and promising it was totally true and many outlets (even Yahoo and other big names) ran with it without verifying anything. To me, this points out how ridiculous it is to believe any of these rumors right now because of the many internet fucktards out there (that comic has shown up in here many times) that would just love to screw with all the gamers out there.
Not a good idea to base any of your reasonings on any of these rumors after that.
Even if that's sold, that's not that great.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Yes, actually, that is a big difference. One of those has proof that it exists in some form, the other currently has absolutely nothing confirming it is or isn't complete bullshit. We're talking rumors here. Does the new xbox have eight gigs of RAM or four gigs? 'cause I've heard both rumors, and they can't both be accurate.
Will sony use their patent? Who knows. But it exists, which is more than we can say for Microsoft at the moment.
It is for a non-Nintendo handheld game.
But I'm sure it's a lot less than what they were expecting to sell, especially for a major franchise like Assassin's Creed.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Does anyone know the numbers for Assassin's Creed Bloodlines, for comparison's sake?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
That makes sense, though it still sucks for the consumer. Perhaps it has something to do with maintaining relationships with the console-makers as well?
Nintendo Network ID: imperialparadox | 3DS FC: 2294-4029-6793
XBL Gamertag: Paradox3351 | PSN: imperialparadox
I sincerely doubt it considering it's on the Vita. Maybe when they started development, but when they finally released it I can't imagine them expecting anything over 500k. It's not a popular franchise in Japan so that's one HUGE market down. What other Vita games have sold as well (honest question)?
Which does make sense.
...but why did they not do this from the start? Why did they wait until AFTER they released the demo, and allowed Nintendo to feature it in the retail kiosks, and got everyone believing that it was about to launch soon?
The only real way to read this is that an executive got cold feet.
And MZ makes a good point... much of the 360/PS3 crowd reject things that seem teh kiddy out of hand. It all goes back to Insomniac making Fuse less stylized and more brown when young focus testers kept saying "this looks like something my baby brother would play."
Yup. Anyone can pose as an unnamed 'source' and the gaming 'journalism' industry will pick up and run with it. Again: http://x-surface.tumblr.com/ And, really, Edge's article reads exactly like this formula - repeat existing rumors and add something that sounds plausible.
Unless it comes from a company through legit, aboveboard forms of communication, it should be considered bogus.
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Then why is it even being released there in the first place? This doesn't make any sense!
I do, however, remember all of those complaints from the first game.
STEAM: Quical
Check out my youtube channel, maybe subscribe?: NerdAndOrGeek
Because Ubisoft is out to make money, and a game released on one platform will likely make less money than a game released on three platforms.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Plus the porting costs are relatively small, especially since they're re-using the engine for the first Rayman.
Look, bundles are a good way to do things and that actually bodes well for calls for price cuts for the Vita. Consumers will buy the system at a cost that they feel is appropriate. How does Sony with an army of accountants and economists not see these trends?
Because their CEO is still relatively new, came from the PlayStation division, and staked the future of Sony (partially) on how well games would do. Cutting the price of the Vita would make him look weak and cause stockholders to panic.
Silly, but there we are.