As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Industry] Business is dooming.

19495969799

Posts

  • Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated NZRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I don't think Konami would ever agree to go XBO exclusive, it'd kill the franchise in Japan. Though you weren't being serious anyway.

    Unco-ordinated on
    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    I wasn't?

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • fearsomepiratefearsomepirate I ate a pickle once. Registered User regular
    I listed four widely-recognized, popular, classic games that made the 3D perspective a market success. The only one you listed was Dance Central, and that wasn't popular enough to establish that everyone needs Kinect.

    That's the reason your comparison to SNES 3D was terrible. We all knew in 1993 that 3D games were fun and that we wanted our game machines to be able to play more of them. Not many people were saying, "You know, I don't care if the next-gen machine can't play more games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, and Virtua Fighter." Lots of people don't feel that way about Kinect, which is why lots of people are saying, "Why should I have to pay $100 extra for it when the PS4 plays the games I want for less?"

    That's the thing, you don't have to. You are perfectly free to buy a PS4. And while that may not be what Microsoft wants, people to be turned off by the Xbox One because of the Kinect, it doesn't say much about how the overall market feels about it.
    You're right. The failure of any Kinect game other than Dance Central to crack the NPD Top Ten says how the overall market feels about it.
    Your tastes do not make something risky or not. Your tastes are entirely subjective.
    You're right, which is why I'm not arguing based on whether or not I personally liked a thing. I'm pointing out your analogy to SNES 3D was bad because pre-Playstation 3D produced many commercially successful games, even if we restrict to the three-year period immediately after pseudo-3D hit around 1980.

    Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
    PSN ID: fearsomepirate
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    I listed four widely-recognized, popular, classic games that made the 3D perspective a market success. The only one you listed was Dance Central, and that wasn't popular enough to establish that everyone needs Kinect.

    That's the reason your comparison to SNES 3D was terrible. We all knew in 1993 that 3D games were fun and that we wanted our game machines to be able to play more of them. Not many people were saying, "You know, I don't care if the next-gen machine can't play more games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, and Virtua Fighter." Lots of people don't feel that way about Kinect, which is why lots of people are saying, "Why should I have to pay $100 extra for it when the PS4 plays the games I want for less?"

    That's the thing, you don't have to. You are perfectly free to buy a PS4. And while that may not be what Microsoft wants, people to be turned off by the Xbox One because of the Kinect, it doesn't say much about how the overall market feels about it.
    You're right. The failure of any Kinect game other than Dance Central to crack the NPD Top Ten says how the overall market feels about it.
    Your tastes do not make something risky or not. Your tastes are entirely subjective.
    You're right, which is why I'm not arguing based on whether or not I personally liked a thing. I'm pointing out your analogy to SNES 3D was bad because pre-Playstation 3D produced many commercially successful games, even if we restrict to the three-year period immediately after pseudo-3D hit around 1980.

    So a game now needs to break the top ten to be commercially viable? Obviously Microsoft thinks it's worth the risk. And seeing how they're (at the moment) scrambling to recover from the DRM fiasco, if they didn't think this was worth the risk they could still remove the Kinect. Maybe they know some things you don't (especially considering most well regarded Kinect games were XBLA titles, so we don't have sales numbers for them). Also, I think you might need to go look at the quote trees, that analogy wasn't at all mine.

    Also, I think you might need to check your dates, because 3D hit in the mid 70's. Those games were well outside of that two and a half year period.

    No I don't.
  • Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated NZRegistered User regular
    I wasn't?
    Oh, I thought it was a joke suggestion. In that case, I'll go with the better answer and say that I doubt Microsoft's board would be happy spending that much money on any game, no matter what it is.

    The thing about Kinect is that yeah, it doesn't make sense to significantly raise the price of your console because you want to bundle in an accessory that people may never use. But the XBO isn't meant to just be a game console, it's meant to be the integral device in your living room and Kinect is a key part of that. So taking it out of the bundle simply doesn't make any sense if you look at it from Microsoft's perspective.

    Now, whether that strategy makes any sense is a completely different question and to that I'd answer no. I don't think there's any demand for most of the features they're offering and the focus on them will further alienate audiences outside the US who won't have access to those features, which will likely result in them shrinking their userbase.

    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I listed four widely-recognized, popular, classic games that made the 3D perspective a market success. The only one you listed was Dance Central, and that wasn't popular enough to establish that everyone needs Kinect.

    That's the reason your comparison to SNES 3D was terrible. We all knew in 1993 that 3D games were fun and that we wanted our game machines to be able to play more of them. Not many people were saying, "You know, I don't care if the next-gen machine can't play more games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, and Virtua Fighter." Lots of people don't feel that way about Kinect, which is why lots of people are saying, "Why should I have to pay $100 extra for it when the PS4 plays the games I want for less?"

    That's the thing, you don't have to. You are perfectly free to buy a PS4. And while that may not be what Microsoft wants, people to be turned off by the Xbox One because of the Kinect, it doesn't say much about how the overall market feels about it.
    You're right. The failure of any Kinect game other than Dance Central to crack the NPD Top Ten says how the overall market feels about it.
    Your tastes do not make something risky or not. Your tastes are entirely subjective.
    You're right, which is why I'm not arguing based on whether or not I personally liked a thing. I'm pointing out your analogy to SNES 3D was bad because pre-Playstation 3D produced many commercially successful games, even if we restrict to the three-year period immediately after pseudo-3D hit around 1980.

    And yet, Kinect managed to sell over 24 million units despite being released on a then 5 year old console. That is nigh unheard of for a peripheral.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    I listed four widely-recognized, popular, classic games that made the 3D perspective a market success. The only one you listed was Dance Central, and that wasn't popular enough to establish that everyone needs Kinect.

    That's the reason your comparison to SNES 3D was terrible. We all knew in 1993 that 3D games were fun and that we wanted our game machines to be able to play more of them. Not many people were saying, "You know, I don't care if the next-gen machine can't play more games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, and Virtua Fighter." Lots of people don't feel that way about Kinect, which is why lots of people are saying, "Why should I have to pay $100 extra for it when the PS4 plays the games I want for less?"

    That's the thing, you don't have to. You are perfectly free to buy a PS4. And while that may not be what Microsoft wants, people to be turned off by the Xbox One because of the Kinect, it doesn't say much about how the overall market feels about it.
    You're right. The failure of any Kinect game other than Dance Central to crack the NPD Top Ten says how the overall market feels about it.
    Your tastes do not make something risky or not. Your tastes are entirely subjective.
    You're right, which is why I'm not arguing based on whether or not I personally liked a thing. I'm pointing out your analogy to SNES 3D was bad because pre-Playstation 3D produced many commercially successful games, even if we restrict to the three-year period immediately after pseudo-3D hit around 1980.

    Single-platform games rarely make the NPD Top Ten regardless of how well they sell because the NPD Top Ten is based on total sales across all platforms. And anyway, your information is flawed - Star Wars Kinect made the NPD Top 10 (#2 in April 2012) and Dance Central was the 8th best-selling game of 2010 according to NPD which is shockingly good considering it was a platform-exclusive that required an additional accessory.

    The Kinect was a huge success for Microsoft.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I listed four widely-recognized, popular, classic games that made the 3D perspective a market success. The only one you listed was Dance Central, and that wasn't popular enough to establish that everyone needs Kinect.

    That's the reason your comparison to SNES 3D was terrible. We all knew in 1993 that 3D games were fun and that we wanted our game machines to be able to play more of them. Not many people were saying, "You know, I don't care if the next-gen machine can't play more games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, and Virtua Fighter." Lots of people don't feel that way about Kinect, which is why lots of people are saying, "Why should I have to pay $100 extra for it when the PS4 plays the games I want for less?"

    That's the thing, you don't have to. You are perfectly free to buy a PS4. And while that may not be what Microsoft wants, people to be turned off by the Xbox One because of the Kinect, it doesn't say much about how the overall market feels about it.
    You're right. The failure of any Kinect game other than Dance Central to crack the NPD Top Ten says how the overall market feels about it.
    Your tastes do not make something risky or not. Your tastes are entirely subjective.
    You're right, which is why I'm not arguing based on whether or not I personally liked a thing. I'm pointing out your analogy to SNES 3D was bad because pre-Playstation 3D produced many commercially successful games, even if we restrict to the three-year period immediately after pseudo-3D hit around 1980.

    So a game now needs to break the top ten to be commercially viable? Obviously Microsoft thinks it's worth the risk. And seeing how they're (at the moment) scrambling to recover from the DRM fiasco, if they didn't think this was worth the risk they could still remove the Kinect. Maybe they know some things you don't (especially considering most well regarded Kinect games were XBLA titles, so we don't have sales numbers for them). Also, I think you might need to go look at the quote trees, that analogy wasn't at all mine.

    Okay then... when was the last Kinect game released that was a definite financial success? We haven't really heard of any performance braggery since the first Dance Central and the first Kinect Sports, which leads me to believe most Kinect haven't really been big performers.

    ...well, there's all the Zumba games, I guess. Though those are on other platforms as well.

    Though the Kinect was a huge success in that it caused a very rare and very big mid-generation console sales bump thanks to the halo effect it gave the 360. And of course the peripheral sold well.... I just don't think the Kinect-specific stuff has been all that significant sales-wise for the last year and a half. And I don't think Kinect 2.0 will get people excited much this time around, especially since no one (including Microsoft) is doing anything interesting for it. It's old tech. It's the same reason Nintendo knew they couldn't simply rest on their laurels with the Wiimote given the last couple years of crappy Wii sales.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    Maybe a bit of a perception bias in this and other gaming enthusiast forums over the success of the Kinect due to it being targeted away from us? I personally am surprised at those Kinect numbers given how flawed it is my eyes. If it did indeed do that well then including it makes a lot more sense.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • Brutal JBrutal J Sorry! Sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry. Registered User regular
    I listed four widely-recognized, popular, classic games that made the 3D perspective a market success. The only one you listed was Dance Central, and that wasn't popular enough to establish that everyone needs Kinect.

    That's the reason your comparison to SNES 3D was terrible. We all knew in 1993 that 3D games were fun and that we wanted our game machines to be able to play more of them. Not many people were saying, "You know, I don't care if the next-gen machine can't play more games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, and Virtua Fighter." Lots of people don't feel that way about Kinect, which is why lots of people are saying, "Why should I have to pay $100 extra for it when the PS4 plays the games I want for less?"

    That's the thing, you don't have to. You are perfectly free to buy a PS4. And while that may not be what Microsoft wants, people to be turned off by the Xbox One because of the Kinect, it doesn't say much about how the overall market feels about it.
    You're right. The failure of any Kinect game other than Dance Central to crack the NPD Top Ten says how the overall market feels about it.
    Your tastes do not make something risky or not. Your tastes are entirely subjective.
    You're right, which is why I'm not arguing based on whether or not I personally liked a thing. I'm pointing out your analogy to SNES 3D was bad because pre-Playstation 3D produced many commercially successful games, even if we restrict to the three-year period immediately after pseudo-3D hit around 1980.

    Single-platform games rarely make the NPD Top Ten regardless of how well they sell because the NPD Top Ten is based on total sales across all platforms. And anyway, your information is flawed - Star Wars Kinect made the NPD Top 10 (#2 in April 2012) and Dance Central was the 8th best-selling game of 2010 according to NPD which is shockingly good considering it was a platform-exclusive that required an additional accessory.

    The Kinect was a huge success for Microsoft.

    The problem is that's one genre, dance games. Guitar Hero was a smash mega hit with a not-in-the-box peripheral, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to package plastic instruments with the console.

    Kinect in the box would be a better idea if they could sell it to people not apart of a large, but still niche, audience that may or may not continue to be there in the long term.

  • RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    Brutal J wrote: »
    The problem is that's one genre, dance games. Guitar Hero was a smash mega hit with a not-in-the-box peripheral, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to package plastic instruments with the console.

    Actually, Star Wars Kinect is a collection of all sorts of different styles of games. It's apparently also not a very good game but that's besides the point.

    Anyway, the Kinect was a big sales success and reinvigorated Xbox 360 console sales. Bundling a much better version of the Kinect with the Xbox One and using that to help set the system apart from the competition is a gamble but it's one that could pay off big if the right software shows up.

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    the wii was also a big success, didn't do a damn thing for its successor. kinect 2.0 could easily be another wii u

  • Brutal JBrutal J Sorry! Sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry. Registered User regular
    Brutal J wrote: »
    The problem is that's one genre, dance games. Guitar Hero was a smash mega hit with a not-in-the-box peripheral, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to package plastic instruments with the console.

    Actually, Star Wars Kinect is a collection of all sorts of different styles of games. It's apparently also not a very good game but that's besides the point.

    Anyway, the Kinect was a big sales success and reinvigorated Xbox 360 console sales. Bundling a much better version of the Kinect with the Xbox One and using that to help set the system apart from the competition is a gamble but it's one that could pay off big if the right software shows up.

    Wasn't the dance part of that the only part people somehow liked?

    And the right software showing up is Kinect's problem. I think the fear is that if there was "the right software" we'd have heard about it by now. It's been 2 years now right? Or are we going on 3?

    I mean no one really wanted to see Kinect during MS's E3 conference, but if there going to push it on everyone, it's about time they show something worthwhile on it. As it stands now it's an extra $100 markup on the console with minimal benefit to most gamers.

    The Kinect certainly helped sales of the 360, but as it stands now, it's going to cost them sales for the 180, at least in the short term.

  • CokomonCokomon Our butts are worth fighting for! Registered User regular
    The real metric for whether or not the Kinect 2.0 is success will be next holiday season. If there is a $400 or lower Xbox One SKU without the Kinect, then it was not a success.

    post.png
    Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
  • RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    the wii was also a big success, didn't do a damn thing for its successor. kinect 2.0 could easily be another wii u

    That's not a very useful comparison seeing as how the Wii U's focus is completely different than the Wii's (rather than try to continue targeting the audience that made the Wii a success, they backtracked and tried to regain the hardcore gamer audience). Plus the Wii's success was primarily during its early years - it dropped in popularity drastically in its later years (which doesn't bode well for a successor).

    Don't get me wrong; I expect the Xbox One to come in last in this new console generation. It's the most expensive system, it's weaker (and from the sound of it, is designed worse) than the PS4, Microsoft's 1st party game development is smaller & less accomplished than either Nintendo or Sony's development teams, Microsoft has a poor image among developers due to backlash from several XBLA developers, and Microsoft has had a huge PR blunder with all of the negative-DRM news that is not going to go away just because they changed their mind at the last minute. Literally, the only way I can see the Xbox One possibly succeeding is through the Kinect. Even if they dropped the Kinect & lowered the price to match the PS4, they'd still have all of their other problems however, if a new game that uses the new Kinect manages to catch the population's imagination in a big way, Microsoft would be back in the game.

  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    the wii was also a big success, didn't do a damn thing for its successor. kinect 2.0 could easily be another wii u

    That's not a very useful comparison seeing as how the Wii U's focus is completely different than the Wii's (rather than try to continue targeting the audience that made the Wii a success, they backtracked and tried to regain the hardcore gamer audience). Plus the Wii's success was primarily during its early years - it dropped in popularity drastically in its later years (which doesn't bode well for a successor).

    Don't get me wrong; I expect the Xbox One to come in last in this new console generation. It's the most expensive system, it's weaker (and from the sound of it, is designed worse) than the PS4, Microsoft's 1st party game development is smaller & less accomplished than either Nintendo or Sony's development teams, Microsoft has a poor image among developers due to backlash from several XBLA developers, and Microsoft has had a huge PR blunder with all of the negative-DRM news that is not going to go away just because they changed their mind at the last minute. Literally, the only way I can see the Xbox One possibly succeeding is through the Kinect. Even if they dropped the Kinect & lowered the price to match the PS4, they'd still have all of their other problems however, if a new game that uses the new Kinect manages to catch the population's imagination in a big way, Microsoft would be back in the game.

    Hmmmm, so you see the WiiU making a bit of a comeback?

    Anyway, I think almost nothing will keep the XBO from being beat bt the PS4 world wide, but if they could hit a lower price in some way then I think they'd have a better chance of leveraging the fact that lots of people in the US have friend lists, gamerscores, etc., that they'd like to keep but will not be enough to overcome the $500 price especially if their friends don't end up getting a XBO.

    The Kinect taking off thing is a bit of a red herring. Even if true, it doesn't mean that and 360 based Kinect 2.0 bundle couldn't take off even more. The only way to justify MS's plan is if there is some synergy between Kinect and AAA next gen games, IMO.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I expect we'll see WiiU grow a large chunk when Mario Kart 8 hits next year. That series sells like crazy.

    Glal on
  • RonaldoTheGypsyRonaldoTheGypsy Yes, yes Registered User regular
    The WiiU is bound to have good games. And people like to play good games. Nintendo's still sitting on piles of money so if the Kinect 2.0 ends up being like the Wii U I would say that's a best-case scenario.

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    Plus the Wii's success was primarily during its early years - it dropped in popularity drastically in its later years (which doesn't bode well for a successor).

    that's pretty much what happened with kinect is what I'm saying. the time frame is smaller, but kinect hasn't done much of anything in a good two years.

    Jars on
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    Making an enhanced version of Kinect mandatory with the new Xbox is one of the few things that Microsoft is doing right; it gives them great potential to get exclusives that you just can't do on the other systems.

    I don't see how this makes sense. At best, it's a wash; on one hand, you have the potential for exclusives, nothing guaranteed...on the other, you have the 100% certainty that the console is $100 more expensive than the competition.

    How do you get exclusives made for your system when it doesn't sell well enough to justify it due to being $100 more expensive?

    Are those unique exclusives guaranteed to sell well? Does it count as "doing something right" when you try to do something interesting that doesn't end up benefiting your bottom line? Do console manufacturers win moral victories for this sort of thing?

    The benefits are all potential and the drawbacks are all very real.

    And the worst part is, none of the results are measurable. If the system sells poorly, you can blame their relative lack of exclusives compared to Sony and Nintendo, or damaged public perception from this recent fiasco. You could still claim that the public is generally excited for Kinect and the price wasn't what hurt them at all.

    Or you could completely blame the price and Kinect by extension, and say that the public got over the E3 confusion and people were really attached to maintaining their gamerscore and getting the next Halo but the price drove them away.

    Either way you'd have nothing solid.
    furlion wrote: »
    If it can actually detect heart rate changes from a distance I could see that being useful and adding a lot of immersion. While most games may not make your heart rate increase from fear, anger and frustration do a pretty damn good job. Some of the more difficult/stressful games could implement it in a cool way. For instance in Dark Souls it can be very frustrating to lose against the same enemy or boss over and over and over (ad infinitum). By monitoring hear rate the game could adjust the AI on the fly to the player such as maybe altering the enemy AI or placement of the enemies. Or allow you to customize your responses in games like Mass Effect or Skyrim based not just upon the words used but also your tone and facial expression/body language. Although I have a hard time believing it could detect sarcasm but it would add a ton of immersion to be able to sneer as you tell someone to walk off a cliff just to add extra emphasis. It is pretty obvious that most of the meaning behind what we say is based on how we say it, and the ability to detect the entire range of how we communicate could be really interesting. Much like with cloud processing/computing the potential is there but I am doubtful the reality will ever really justify the extra expense or bragging rights.

    People don't like to be pandered to, though. Everyone gets pissed when they die 5 times in a Nintendo game and it offers them that invincibility suit or AI man to get them through the level. People want to feel like they actually beat the game as it was designed. They don't want to get up to a boss fight again after dying repeatedly and think to themselves, "wait a minute, this feels subtly easier than previous times...goddammit Kinect and your heart rate sensor!" They also don't necessarily want the game to get harder when they play well, because it still means the inverse is true. Nobody likes dying and thinking "shit, I just enabled easy mode."

    Plus there's the fact that this can be done already without sensing your heart rate. The game can be made easier or harder based on your performance already, we don't need the fancy stuff. Don't get caught up in advanced technology when an approximation will accomplish the same thing, as far as the general public will notice.

    And I still don't know how you'd determine the optimal way to alter a game based on somebody's emotional state or heart rate. If I'm getting scared in a horror game, do you dial it back a bit to get me relaxed before you scare me again, or do you try to keep the scares up? If I'm relaxed and unshakable, do you just constantly try and fail to scare me for the entire game? That sounds boring and uneven. Why let the game try to design itself in real time when generally the designers know what they're doing?

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    They also don't necessarily want the game to get harder when they play well, because it still means the inverse is true. Nobody likes dying and thinking "shit, I just enabled easy mode."
    Ignoring Kinect, this isn't universally true- the dynamic difficulty in God Hand is what made the game so much fun, constantly trying to stay within Die difficulty, resolving to do better every time it dropped lower, yet at the same time appreciating the minute breather you were given before getting back in the fight... it was quite lovely that way.
    It's a matter of balance really. Nobody likes failure penalties either, but they're not there to like, they're there to give your successes meaning. Well done they're sublime. Done poorly they're loathsome.

    As a less acclaimed example, I quite liked the dynamic difficulty in Prey. I just wish they hadn't gotten scared and locked the highest difficulty on the first playthrough, as the death mechanics made a lot more sense when they were literally the only way to regain health.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    Plus the Wii's success was primarily during its early years - it dropped in popularity drastically in its later years (which doesn't bode well for a successor).

    that's pretty much what happened with kinect is what I'm saying. the time frame is smaller, but kinect hasn't done much of anything in a good two years.

    Massive growth is not an indefinite thing is how I would describe all this.

  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I just don't think microsoft cares about consoles if they can't grow the brand beyond core gamers. The money isn't there. Everything about the xbox one looks like it's tied to growing the brand in a couple different ways, and if it flames out, maybe microsoft just doesn't try again, it's not worth losing millions of dollars for years to maybe break even 7 years down the line. Especially for a company as large as microsoft, the risk is high, and the profit margins are low.

    Then again, I keep expecting sony's consumer electronics division to give up and just spin off the insurance division which is propping up the whole company, so what do I know.

    Knight_ on
    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    I just noticed when relistening to this week's Idle Thumbs that Jake made a very good observation about things. He said he's not as interested in what the XB1 and PS4 are now as he is interested in what they will be a few years from now, citing that the 360 wasn't what it ended up becoming prior to its launch. There's way too many hypotheticals and wishful dreams to be had of that, but Microsoft at least demonstrated already that nothing is actually set in stone about these pieces of hardware. Something about them or the services they provide can change a year after their launch even.

  • fearsomepiratefearsomepirate I ate a pickle once. Registered User regular
    Single-platform games rarely make the NPD Top Ten regardless of how well they sell because the NPD Top Ten is based on total sales across all platforms.
    Exclusive games are usually first party, and first party games frequently make the NPD Top Ten.
    And anyway, your information is flawed - Star Wars Kinect made the NPD Top 10 (#2 in April 2012) and Dance Central was the 8th best-selling game of 2010 according to NPD which is shockingly good considering it was a platform-exclusive that required an additional accessory.
    That's two games, one of which exploited the most successful license in the history of entertainment. One's a dance game, and the other's a minigame collection. That doesn't really establish anything other than genres we already knew were fun with motion control are, in fact, fun with motion control.
    Brutal J wrote:
    The problem is that's one genre, dance games. Guitar Hero was a smash mega hit with a not-in-the-box peripheral, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to package plastic instruments with the console.
    This summarizes the problem with every argument I've seen so far. You could say the same about the DDR dance mat, the Wii Fit balance board, and racing wheels. Why isn't Microsoft putting a balance board in the box? Nintendo sold 20 million of the things.

    People buy hardware to get at games. The comparatively low sales of Kinect games relative to the hardware (to put it in perspective, it sold as many hardware units as the Gamecube) indicates that its appeal really isn't that high, and that many people will view it as a $100 pack-in doorstop.

    Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
    PSN ID: fearsomepirate
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    So does anyone have an idea on if Zenimax is big enough to absorb the losses if/when Eldar Scrolls Online is a flop? Or are we looking at something similar to Square after the Final Fantasy movie and they'll be looking for some kind of merger/buyout?

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    Good question. Everything I've seen of it the game looks bad, it actually looks like an expansion for the Age of Conan MMO or could pass for it. I can't see the game doing well at all unless it's F2P and gives the player some neat stuff out of the gate.

  • Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated NZRegistered User regular
    So does anyone have an idea on if Zenimax is big enough to absorb the losses if/when Eldar Scrolls Online is a flop? Or are we looking at something similar to Square after the Final Fantasy movie and they'll be looking for some kind of merger/buyout?

    They have a number of very rich investors. Just look at their board of directors:
    http://www.zenimax.com/bod.htm

    Donald Trump's brother, Jerry Bruckheimer, the President/CEO of CBS, etc.

    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • vagrant_windsvagrant_winds Overworked Mysterious Eldritch Horror Hunter XX Registered User regular
    So does anyone have an idea on if Zenimax is big enough to absorb the losses if/when Eldar Scrolls Online is a flop? Or are we looking at something similar to Square after the Final Fantasy movie and they'll be looking for some kind of merger/buyout?

    They have a number of very rich investors. Just look at their board of directors:
    http://www.zenimax.com/bod.htm

    Donald Trump's brother, Jerry Bruckheimer, the President/CEO of CBS, etc.

    How do they court these investments? What makes a good single-player game is not what makes a good mmo. Are they just using branding to get money from ignorant and rich investors?

    // Steam: VWinds // PSN: vagrant_winds //
    // Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    So does anyone have an idea on if Zenimax is big enough to absorb the losses if/when Eldar Scrolls Online is a flop? Or are we looking at something similar to Square after the Final Fantasy movie and they'll be looking for some kind of merger/buyout?

    They have a number of very rich investors. Just look at their board of directors:
    http://www.zenimax.com/bod.htm

    Donald Trump's brother, Jerry Bruckheimer, the President/CEO of CBS, etc.

    I'm no expert on corporate structure or anything, but I'd be surprised if it was usual for a corporation to go to it's directors for loans or capital.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    Hmmmm, I stumbled onto this thing. Seems like a Azure server that might be up to the power of the XBO cost about $.40 per hour. If, say, MS was making 3 of those available for each XBO per their PR and you played a 8 hour game that would be Something like $10 in cloud costs for your playthrough.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited June 2013
    Hmmmm, I stumbled onto this thing. Seems like a Azure server that might be up to the power of the XBO cost about $.40 per hour. If, say, MS was making 3 of those available for each XBO per their PR and you played a 8 hour game that would be Something like $10 in cloud costs for your playthrough.
    Yes, that's what microsoft charges people to use their service, to pay back infrastructure, make a profit and whatnot. This is the reason I kind of chuckle at the thought of Sony building up a service like this or renting space on a rack. For Microsoft it is mostly a sunk cost that profits through its other ventures and provides incentives for people to pick the XBO; for Sony, it will be an active and expensive line item.

    Also, that 3 per xbox thing is probably moot in multiplayer games, in which a single dedicated server is spawned to handle needs for all the people playing on it. And those are theoretical maximums; not likely what these dedicated servers will be pushing non-stop.

    edit: also, you wouldn't rent 3 IaaS machines of similar power per xbox request; you would have a singular block of power and capability abstract from the metal it may or may not be wholly resident on.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    Yeah, when I cross posted to the cloud thread, I put in some more caveats. I just wanted to get a grip on the economics of actually providing more computing power through Azure.

    That said, I think you are pushing the sunk cost argument a bit far here. The whole point of cloud computing is to keep computing resources used instead of idle. In theory, if using Azure for XBO isn't an opportunity cost to MS because they can't sell those servers then MS is doing it wrong.

    [edit] Just to be clear those costs were for virtual servers so they aren't the cost of renting physical machines. Also it's a real guess as to how many cores you would need to match the 5 cores available for gaming on the XBO.


    lowlylowlycook on
    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Yeah, when I cross posted to the cloud thread, I put in some more caveats. I just wanted to get a grip on the economics of actually providing more computing power through Azure.

    That said, I think you are pushing the sunk cost argument a bit far here. The whole point of cloud computing is to keep computing resources used instead of idle. In theory, if using Azure for XBO isn't an opportunity cost to MS because they can't sell those servers then MS is doing it wrong.

    What I am saying is that they spent billions laying down infrastructure, buying up dark fiber, and all of the other major expenses to get things to where they are. That is a major hurdle.

    So if it theoretically costs then, lets say, 3-4 cents an hour in real world moneys to run one of these processes, and they in turn charge companies 40 cents.... it isn't highway robbery; they spent billions making this all come together, and they have to recoup those costs.

    For their own internal projects they aren't going to charge THEMSELVES 40 cents an hour though; thats silly. They are going to balance actual internal cost against the live gold subscriptions, and chances are they would not have moved in this direction if they hadn't already done so and determined this is either a break-even vaue add to the console, or even slightly profitable. Less profitable than renting the boxes to Office365 enterprise users, but still profitable, and capable of bolstering sales to other aspects of the xbox business.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited June 2013
    It should also be noted that there is always the guy who goes to the chinese buffet and eats 40 dollars worth of crab legs. Yeah, the buffet lost money on him. But he usually shows up with 3-4 friends who eat a lot of rice and sweet and sour chicken, and cost the place almost nothing.

    Cloud computing may fall into a similar vein where they know they will lose money on some people who never stop playing computation-heavy games for 40+ hours a week, but since the majority of console owners are content to play madden, halo, Call of Duty, etc... the demands those games will place on the cloud amount to simple, low cost dedicated servers and traffic management.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    This is going to be a really interesting console generation transition. If the games don't migrate, the consumers won't. If the consumers won't migrate you keep having to port to the last gen to avoid losing money...so the consumers don't migrate.

    There's a potential here for a nasty little feedback loop if the big publishers are really as risk averse as they seem.

    Well at some point, it stopped making sense to make tie in games for every movie. You can count on several hundred thousand copies based on the movie's hype and advertising budget and that was enough. Now that budgets have ballooned, several hundred thousand copies is known as a flop so why bother.

    I think it's more that the people who grew up with shitty licensed ports are buying games for their kids now and recognize that licensed games are generally shitty and don't buy them.

  • FoomyFoomy Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    This is going to be a really interesting console generation transition. If the games don't migrate, the consumers won't. If the consumers won't migrate you keep having to port to the last gen to avoid losing money...so the consumers don't migrate.

    There's a potential here for a nasty little feedback loop if the big publishers are really as risk averse as they seem.

    Well at some point, it stopped making sense to make tie in games for every movie. You can count on several hundred thousand copies based on the movie's hype and advertising budget and that was enough. Now that budgets have ballooned, several hundred thousand copies is known as a flop so why bother.

    I think it's more that the people who grew up with shitty licensed ports are buying games for their kids now and recognize that licensed games are generally shitty and don't buy them.

    All the shitty movie/tv games are moving over to iOS, where they can sell those 100k and be considered a success, or are ftp and covered in micro transactions. So they still exist, just moved platforms.

    Steam Profile: FoomyFooms
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    Foomy wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    This is going to be a really interesting console generation transition. If the games don't migrate, the consumers won't. If the consumers won't migrate you keep having to port to the last gen to avoid losing money...so the consumers don't migrate.

    There's a potential here for a nasty little feedback loop if the big publishers are really as risk averse as they seem.

    Well at some point, it stopped making sense to make tie in games for every movie. You can count on several hundred thousand copies based on the movie's hype and advertising budget and that was enough. Now that budgets have ballooned, several hundred thousand copies is known as a flop so why bother.

    I think it's more that the people who grew up with shitty licensed ports are buying games for their kids now and recognize that licensed games are generally shitty and don't buy them.

    All the shitty movie/tv games are moving over to iOS, where they can sell those 100k and be considered a success, or are ftp and covered in micro transactions. So they still exist, just moved platforms.

    Exactly.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Geth, recycle the thread on page 100

    YL9WnCY.png
  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Rorus Raz. Thread will be recycled after 100 pages.

This discussion has been closed.