That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
So the question is which is going to prove more successful, The Old Republic's resentful hate-filled F2P model or FFXIV's "throw more money at it and give it another go".
Can you qualify this exactly? I've seen no emotional cues from EA / Bioware regarding TOR's transition to F2P. The only reactions I see are from people posting on internet message boards. And it comes down to smug "Ha, I knew it all along!" to "oh no, the game is going to shut down "
Mostly it was in jest. The whole $4 for the hide helmet option comes across as hilariously petty.
Oh they specified the prices on things? Can you provide a link?
While you're doing that, if it's true that they put a price tag on the hide-helmet function, fuck them. That is so dumb.
I know they mention it in the PAR article. Along with other fun things like limiting you to 2 hotbars or only getting 3 race options in character creation.
That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
Gonna disagree here. Subscriptions simply places the incentives on making sure the player plays as long as possible. This does not inherently suggest quality, it often times means nothing more than relying on addiction tactics as is the case with WoW, and making content literally impossible to complete without investing an arbitrarily huge time metric.
Neither subscriptions nor F2P necessarily have your best interests at heart.
That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
Oh okay, now I've got it. And that's the thing; in converting a game from subscription to F2P you have to break it down in a way that makes some sense.
I'm reading the PA Report article about TOR's F2P model, which is more in-depth than the fucking site's official page, and this is downright depressing. They chopped the game up into things to sell in a manner as if they've earned the right to do this, rather than trying to lure people into playing the game. I was stoked that it was going F2P because I haven't played the game yet, and despite hearing it wasn't great, I'm a Star Wars fan and still want to run around and experience it first hand. Reading this crap is making the game a massive turn off. I've already paid money into Dungeon Fighter Online and other games, to the extent that I've given my accounts some longevity of use and versatility if I change my mind about shit. I even got to try those games to a fair extent before dumping money in. The shit TOR has you pay for, or severely restricts, is harsher than other games. It's harsher than Korean games.
That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
Gonna disagree here. Subscriptions simply places the incentives on making sure the player plays as long as possible. This does not inherently suggest quality, it often times means nothing more than relying on addiction tactics as is the case with WoW, and making content literally impossible to complete without investing an arbitrarily huge time metric.
Neither subscriptions nor F2P necessarily have your best interests at heart.
Certainly. I just suspect that one is more detrimental than the other.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
Gonna disagree here. Subscriptions simply places the incentives on making sure the player plays as long as possible. This does not inherently suggest quality, it often times means nothing more than relying on addiction tactics as is the case with WoW, and making content literally impossible to complete without investing an arbitrarily huge time metric.
Neither subscriptions nor F2P necessarily have your best interests at heart.
Certainly. I just suspect that one is more detrimental than the other.
You'd need to support that argument. I think you can easily find as many shitty subscription based games as F2P. It's almost like the unifying theme is the extent to which the developer, personally, gives a single fuck.
That's the thing. F2P might work better for the publishers financially but subscriptions do a better job of aligning the publisher's incentives with what makes for a good game.
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
Gonna disagree here. Subscriptions simply places the incentives on making sure the player plays as long as possible. This does not inherently suggest quality, it often times means nothing more than relying on addiction tactics as is the case with WoW, and making content literally impossible to complete without investing an arbitrarily huge time metric.
Neither subscriptions nor F2P necessarily have your best interests at heart.
Certainly. I just suspect that one is more detrimental than the other.
You'd need to support that argument. I think you can easily find as many shitty subscription based games as F2P. It's almost like the unifying theme is the extent to which the developer, personally, gives a single fuck.
Hmmmm. I don't really think I will. But I guess the reason that I think that way has to do with second hand reports about how f2p games work in China/Korea and considering them to be the "pure" form of f2p vs the Western MMO that aren't really designed for it. And there is nothing to say that a f2p game won't rely on addiction psychology with say random chests you buy with real money. Perhaps articles about how social/mobile games use the f2p model (i.e. measuring how many minutes they should let you play without either waiting or paying) have also helped form my opinion.
And yeah, a good f2p game could easily, easily be better than a bad sub game.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The barrier of entry in cost to play a game doesn't dictate the quality at all, and neither does the method of transaction. The only thing that goes up as you pay more is the risk of what you get for your dollar. $10 game on Steam vs. $60 console game. What if they're both good? Does that mean the $10 wins just because it was cheaper? Or maybe it doesn't matter in that regard. If the $10 game isn't fun to you though, then hey you lucked out, it's only a loss of $10. Other way around? "Fuck, I'm out $60!"
It's like when people try to reconcile their time with an MMO after quitting. Subscriptions have a harder break-away I think. F2P models, you're buying access to things and it may come out to cheaper than a couple months' worth, and if you really dig a game, you're probably the type of person who is okay with fun lasting for only in the moment and not something you somehow need to carry on forever even when you're not engaging the product anymore. My protection in F2P games is paying to unlock functions that last forever only. And if I really get into a specific character and can foresee playing for a long time, bam, more money down. I can deal with putting that money in, I reconcile it in the same fashion that I reconcile going out for a good meal, or super-sizing my comfort food.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Frozenbyte comments on Nintendo's restructuring of indie game price setting and the cost of patching removed. The short of it, as described Saturday night, is, "Hooray!"
The only launch without some huge problems would have been the Wii, though I am probably forgetting some issue Nintendo had. The PS3 got so many terrible ports not to mention I think they kind of rushed the PSN out the door for the Japanese launch. The 360 hardware had some issues everyone knows about. I think the 3DS launched without a bunch of shit that was finally added weeks or months later. This isn't even going into all the games that are worse off because developers don't yet fully know the hardware and tools for the hardware.
I recently started TOR as F2P and have to agree it does feel very restrictive. I don't know if all the character/race limits are because I'm new or because I'm F2P but compared to when I tried playing Wow a few years (quite a few years) ago, it just wasn't as much fun to start because I felt so limited.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Sorry to be freakishly posting here a lot today, one more thing about the news story of Wii U's bricking:
I spoke to some people better than I with computers and tech-in-general and they confirmed what I was suspecting: Any device that has firmware updates is at risk of breaking if you interrupt the installation process of new firmware. So this isn't like, "Oh, Nintendo did it wrong," it's the nature of the technology itself. Granted, some manufacturers put in a fail-safe ROM with backup firmware just in case this happens but I don't have the data on how commonplace that is nor how expensive it is to integrate.
The only launch without some huge problems would have been the Wii, though I am probably forgetting some issue Nintendo had. The PS3 got so many terrible ports not to mention I think they kind of rushed the PSN out the door for the Japanese launch. The 360 hardware had some issues everyone knows about. I think the 3DS launched without a bunch of shit that was finally added weeks or months later.
Yeah, the 3DS's online store didn't work at all at launch whereas The Vita didn't have PS1 compatibility at launch. I don't remember any issues with the Wii itself at launch other than the fact that it was extremely difficult to buy the system.
When was the last truly hitch free system launch? SNES?
The only launch without some huge problems would have been the Wii, though I am probably forgetting some issue Nintendo had. The PS3 got so many terrible ports not to mention I think they kind of rushed the PSN out the door for the Japanese launch. The 360 hardware had some issues everyone knows about. I think the 3DS launched without a bunch of shit that was finally added weeks or months later.
Yeah, the 3DS's online store didn't work at all at launch whereas The Vita didn't have PS1 compatibility at launch. I don't remember any issues with the Wii itself at launch other than the fact that it was extremely difficult to buy the system.
When was the last truly hitch free system launch? SNES?
The 3DS also didn't have the web browser implemented for the first...what, two months? I don't recall specifically, I stopped paying attention after the first month/month and a half.
I don't recall any launch issues with the Gamecube. The original NDS also launched fairly well too, despite some general flaws in design, which were corrected for the DSLite... which had some hinge problems in the initial batches.
The original Xbox's launch went off without a hitch in the least, as far as consumers were concerned anyway. XBL didn't exist (or rather, it was only a promised feature), but considering unified online on consoles didn't exist, that was hardly an issue.
I honestly could have sworn there were complaints about the 360 at launch, but it was more than six years ago. I traded my launch console for a 360 S a while back.
In that regard, I guess it was like the Playstation 2--smiley, happy faces. Class action lawsuit comes later.
I honestly could have sworn there were complaints about the 360 at launch, but it was more than six years ago. I traded my launch console for a 360 S a while back.
In that regard, I guess it was like the Playstation 2--smiley, happy faces. Class action lawsuit comes later.
Or the Playstation 1, kind of. Adoption was really stale until the DualShock controller and a couple big price drops, as I recall, but all the early units were generally okay until the disc reader assembly started to wear and people were forced to flip the console upside down to play games on it.
I honestly could have sworn there were complaints about the 360 at launch, but it was more than six years ago. I traded my launch console for a 360 S a while back.
In that regard, I guess it was like the Playstation 2--smiley, happy faces. Class action lawsuit comes later.
Or the Playstation 1, kind of. Adoption was really stale until the DualShock controller and a couple big price drops, as I recall, but all the early units were generally okay until the disc reader assembly started to wear and people were forced to flip the console upside down to play games on it.
Playstation 1 quality control complaints seemed rather consistently "there" from the start. People didn't care because of its popularity or because video game consoles didn't really have a reputation for being "reliable" as far as the zeitgeist went, it seemed. Hell, I was in Japan and thought the PS1 was fantastic, especially after seeing Einhander for the first time. I sure as hell wasn't going to spend the equivalent of hundreds of dollars on something that had a reputation for turning into a weak plastic shrapnel bomb on occasion, though.
I can say pretty confidently that the PS3 is Sony's most reliable console endeavor at launch, even with the rapid dying-off of the early 60 GB models that we got ~3 years after the fact. it didn't do them a lot of good though, so maybe reliability isn't that high on their list of concerns (especially given the PS2 and it's huge success).
Liberation isn't a pos with just a brand name, it's a really good game with some flaws.
I meant to refer only to Declassified. Liberation is the far superior game and sold worse due to having a less huge name.
Now that everybody is experiencing the various WiiU problems, I feel like nobody remembers any console launches ever.
It's Nintendo, console launches of the past don't matter. :P
Seriously though, every launch has it's share of hiccups.
And every launch fault can be correctly attributed to whoever launched it. Why is this different now?
The 360 had serious hardware QA issues. The PS3 had a neophyte PSN, which clearly didn't measure up to Xbox Live, which had been on 360 for a year at that point. It also had an anemic launch lineup compared to its counterpart. The 3DS costs too much and lacked an killer apps. The Vita has no killer app, costs too much perceptually, and heart-stopping memory card prices.
You launch into your current reality, not the reality you feel looks best for you. The Vita prior to the 3DS price cut and Mario Kart/Mario 3D looked competitive. After? Not so much. Google isn't launching 10-inch Android tablets into the void, it's launching them into a market dominated by the iPad.
This time around, Nintendo has learned from some past mistakes, but it still need to improve. The issues I've stated previously are real issues.
The games are fun. Tablet play is a great idea for a home console (Microsoft, just steal it. Don't feel bad). It's just... rough. And it's rough compared to the reality the system is launching into. That speaks not to the system's success or failure, merely towards where Nintendo should focus their improvements.
I like a field of great hardware. It's part of my job. I own all of the systems, and I want them all to improve.
Nintendo needs to steal party chat and other awesome functions before Microsoft descends down the road of "well, here's a tablet that is useless without the console...what can we do with it?" I suspect.
Reliability wise, as long as they avoid the PS2's example--hot as hell product, initial complaints with launch that were ignored, class-action lawsuit afterwards--they've got that base covered.
Synthesis on
0
Options
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
It's Nintendo, console launches of the past don't matter. :P
I for one am particularly enjoying all the complaints about how the machine isn't original and innovative enough, which I'm totally sure we'll also be hearing when Microsoft and Sony finally get around to unveiling The Exact Same Shit For A Third Time Only Now The Polygons Are Really Really Shiny. Yes, that will happen.
It's Nintendo, console launches of the past don't matter. :P
I for one am particularly enjoying all the complaints about how the machine isn't original and innovative enough, which I'm totally sure we'll also be hearing when Microsoft and Sony finally get around to unveiling The Exact Same Shit For A Third Time Only Now The Polygons Are Really Really Shiny. Yes, that will happen.
When Microsoft or Sony do it, they're totally ripping us off.
When Nintendo does it, OMG! Prettier Zelda time! Hurray!
Sarcasm aside, this is probably not a useful line of thought to pursue.
No, you keep forgetting: The Exact Same Shit For A Third Time Only Now The Polygons Are Really Really Shiny will also result in giving us totally new game experiences we could never before imagine for some reason.
At any rate, after all the kerfuffle about how Microsoft is evil for charging for patches I'm surprised there hasn't been more said about Nintendo's policy allowing publishers to set and change their prices whenever they want, and no charge for patches.
I'm just hoping all this free online stuff won't come in exchange for molasses-slow download speeds a la PSN, but we'll have to see how things shake out.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure the console streaming the game to your controller flawlessly (even in a limited range) is innovative. I think people use the words "not innovative" to not sound petty when saying, "I don't care about it." Which is actually better to say because it is, at the very least, not ignorant.
As with all things, the real reactions come about a month after people have had time with something. I'm sure some of us will fall into the traps for the new XBox and Playstation consoles when they launch. "OH THE BATTERY PACK OVERHEATS, FOR SHAAAAAAAAME" - I'll admit I get high-horsey sometimes but I work on preventing it.
Still, valid concerns are valid. As long as the right gravity is applied. The Wii U bricks if it's performing a firmware update and you interrupt the process by turning it off or the power goes out. Well, a danger foreseen is half-avoided they say. It's manageable and that's what counts. It's not a hoop-jump everyone is having to perform.
It's Nintendo, console launches of the past don't matter. :P
I for one am particularly enjoying all the complaints about how the machine isn't original and innovative enough, which I'm totally sure we'll also be hearing when Microsoft and Sony finally get around to unveiling The Exact Same Shit For A Third Time Only Now The Polygons Are Really Really Shiny. Yes, that will happen.
Ah, those complaints are off. Yes, the tablet boils down to the DS model in HD, but that's a great model. It's clear Nintendo came at the idea and said, "this is a cool idea, what can we do with it". It doesn't have the clear vision the Wii had, but that can be whittled down by the audience if the system gets a chance.
Netflix on the Wii U is great, with all your Netflix and TV controls on the GamePad. It lacks the polish of the 360 version, which is still the smoothest of the three (360/PS3/Wii U), but that's locked behind Live Gold and only gets super-awesome with Kinect voice control. The Wii U's implementation is a polished, simpler mirror of the PS3 + iOS/Android hook that launched this September.
All told it's about as innovative as the system that proceeded it, so that's in the good column. I expect Microsoft may try something similar just because the tablet controller provides excellent multimedia capabilities and that's where Microsoft's focus is now.
I'm pretty sure the console streaming the game to your controller flawlessly (even in a limited range) is innovative. I think people use the words "not innovative" to not sound petty when saying, "I don't care about it." Which is actually better to say because it is, at the very least, not ignorant.
It's OnLive/Gaikai on a smaller scale. I'm glad Nintendo was the first to step up and show how that could work locally.
I expect Microsoft may try something similar just because the tablet controller provides excellent multimedia capabilities and that's where Microsoft's focus is now.
That reminds me:
Windows 8 may not be off to a strong start. Sales aren’t meeting Microsoft‘s own expectations, a longtime company observer says. At the same time, a major online PC retailer says sales of the new OS are “slow going.”
Blogger Paul Thurrott, writing on his Supersite for Windows, says Windows 8 isn’t selling as well as Microsoft thought it would, citing a “trusted” source at the company. While it was clear that Windows 8, which radically changes the Windows interface to incorporate touch, likely wouldn’t sell as quickly as other major releases, the report suggests the new OS isn’t even meeting those lowered expectations.
Windows 8 sales haven’t been that good for Newegg, either. Speaking to Slashgear, Newegg Senior Vice President of Product Management Merle McIntosh says the online retailer was prepared for huge demand at launch, which never materialized. However, he did say sales of Windows 8 hardware and software were “steadily improving.”
Thurrott’s source says Microsoft is laying most of the blame on hardware manufacturers and their “inability to deliver.” However, many PC makers shipped devices on or shortly after Windows 8′s Oct. 26 launch. The report suggests Microsoft is disappointed with the initial designs of Windows 8 hardware, which comprises a wide variety of form factors, potentially leading to customer confusion.
There’s also the extremely poor timing of the departure of Steven Sinofsky, who led the company’s Windows division through the releases of Windows 7 and 8. Sinofsky left the company — officially of his own accord — just two weeks after the worldwide release of Windows 8. Microsoft’s Julie Larson-Green (shown above) was named as his replacement.
So far the only official number for Windows 8 sales has been from Microsoft, which says the software has been downloaded 4 million times in the first four days after launch.
It probably shouldn't have. Am I the only one who thinks this is just...how these things have always played out?
Windows XP comes out. No one likes it. Windows Vista comes out. No one likes it. Windows 7 comes out. People are okay with it, but hardly in an uproar.
I distinctly remember 98 and 95 having their own share of negative controversy as well.
I expect Microsoft may try something similar just because the tablet controller provides excellent multimedia capabilities and that's where Microsoft's focus is now.
That reminds me:
Windows 8 may not be off to a strong start. Sales aren’t meeting Microsoft‘s own expectations, a longtime company observer says. At the same time, a major online PC retailer says sales of the new OS are “slow going.”
Blogger Paul Thurrott, writing on his Supersite for Windows, says Windows 8 isn’t selling as well as Microsoft thought it would, citing a “trusted” source at the company. While it was clear that Windows 8, which radically changes the Windows interface to incorporate touch, likely wouldn’t sell as quickly as other major releases, the report suggests the new OS isn’t even meeting those lowered expectations.
Windows 8 sales haven’t been that good for Newegg, either. Speaking to Slashgear, Newegg Senior Vice President of Product Management Merle McIntosh says the online retailer was prepared for huge demand at launch, which never materialized. However, he did say sales of Windows 8 hardware and software were “steadily improving.”
Thurrott’s source says Microsoft is laying most of the blame on hardware manufacturers and their “inability to deliver.” However, many PC makers shipped devices on or shortly after Windows 8′s Oct. 26 launch. The report suggests Microsoft is disappointed with the initial designs of Windows 8 hardware, which comprises a wide variety of form factors, potentially leading to customer confusion.
There’s also the extremely poor timing of the departure of Steven Sinofsky, who led the company’s Windows division through the releases of Windows 7 and 8. Sinofsky left the company — officially of his own accord — just two weeks after the worldwide release of Windows 8. Microsoft’s Julie Larson-Green (shown above) was named as his replacement.
So far the only official number for Windows 8 sales has been from Microsoft, which says the software has been downloaded 4 million times in the first four days after launch.
Not sure why Microsoft would assume that Windows 8 would suddenly result in manufacturers making more awesome hardware designs.
They were probably hoping they would follow their lead with Surface instead of shitting out the same versions as before except Now With Extra Racing Stripe!
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm surprised Newegg was expecting some huge demand. That's a site I thought was more for enthusiast PC people who know what they're doing themselves. Like I would expect Amazon to be like, "Windows 8, gotta stock up and be ready!"
It probably shouldn't have. Am I the only one who thinks this is just...how these things have always played out?
Windows XP comes out. No one likes it. Windows Vista comes out. No one likes it. Windows 7 comes out. People are okay with it, but hardly in an uproar.
I distinctly remember 98 and 95 having their own share of negative controversy as well.
Posts
I'm not understanding what you're saying, LLC. Can you give some examples or something?
I know they mention it in the PAR article. Along with other fun things like limiting you to 2 hotbars or only getting 3 race options in character creation.
Now that everybody is experiencing the various WiiU problems, I feel like nobody remembers any console launches ever.
I'm saying that f2p means that the games has to be designed with micropayments in mind and so the publisher's goal is to annoy you into paying to not be annoyed and then annoy you again. Whereas with a subscription game the goal of the publisher it to make the game worth subscribing for a new month.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Gonna disagree here. Subscriptions simply places the incentives on making sure the player plays as long as possible. This does not inherently suggest quality, it often times means nothing more than relying on addiction tactics as is the case with WoW, and making content literally impossible to complete without investing an arbitrarily huge time metric.
Neither subscriptions nor F2P necessarily have your best interests at heart.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Oh okay, now I've got it. And that's the thing; in converting a game from subscription to F2P you have to break it down in a way that makes some sense.
I'm reading the PA Report article about TOR's F2P model, which is more in-depth than the fucking site's official page, and this is downright depressing. They chopped the game up into things to sell in a manner as if they've earned the right to do this, rather than trying to lure people into playing the game. I was stoked that it was going F2P because I haven't played the game yet, and despite hearing it wasn't great, I'm a Star Wars fan and still want to run around and experience it first hand. Reading this crap is making the game a massive turn off. I've already paid money into Dungeon Fighter Online and other games, to the extent that I've given my accounts some longevity of use and versatility if I change my mind about shit. I even got to try those games to a fair extent before dumping money in. The shit TOR has you pay for, or severely restricts, is harsher than other games. It's harsher than Korean games.
God this disappoints the hell out of me.
Certainly. I just suspect that one is more detrimental than the other.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
You'd need to support that argument. I think you can easily find as many shitty subscription based games as F2P. It's almost like the unifying theme is the extent to which the developer, personally, gives a single fuck.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
He was referring to COD Declassified as the POS with the brand name being the victor since it was a bigger launch than Liberation.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
It's Nintendo, console launches of the past don't matter. :P
Seriously though, every launch has it's share of hiccups.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
It's been about 7 years since the last non-handheld console releases, everyone has just forgotten how rough a launch can be.
I figure Nintendo will have most of the problems sorted out in a few months.
Hmmmm. I don't really think I will. But I guess the reason that I think that way has to do with second hand reports about how f2p games work in China/Korea and considering them to be the "pure" form of f2p vs the Western MMO that aren't really designed for it. And there is nothing to say that a f2p game won't rely on addiction psychology with say random chests you buy with real money. Perhaps articles about how social/mobile games use the f2p model (i.e. measuring how many minutes they should let you play without either waiting or paying) have also helped form my opinion.
And yeah, a good f2p game could easily, easily be better than a bad sub game.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It's like when people try to reconcile their time with an MMO after quitting. Subscriptions have a harder break-away I think. F2P models, you're buying access to things and it may come out to cheaper than a couple months' worth, and if you really dig a game, you're probably the type of person who is okay with fun lasting for only in the moment and not something you somehow need to carry on forever even when you're not engaging the product anymore. My protection in F2P games is paying to unlock functions that last forever only. And if I really get into a specific character and can foresee playing for a long time, bam, more money down. I can deal with putting that money in, I reconcile it in the same fashion that I reconcile going out for a good meal, or super-sizing my comfort food.
I spoke to some people better than I with computers and tech-in-general and they confirmed what I was suspecting: Any device that has firmware updates is at risk of breaking if you interrupt the installation process of new firmware. So this isn't like, "Oh, Nintendo did it wrong," it's the nature of the technology itself. Granted, some manufacturers put in a fail-safe ROM with backup firmware just in case this happens but I don't have the data on how commonplace that is nor how expensive it is to integrate.
So yeah. Facts and information.
Yeah, the 3DS's online store didn't work at all at launch whereas The Vita didn't have PS1 compatibility at launch. I don't remember any issues with the Wii itself at launch other than the fact that it was extremely difficult to buy the system.
When was the last truly hitch free system launch? SNES?
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
The 3DS also didn't have the web browser implemented for the first...what, two months? I don't recall specifically, I stopped paying attention after the first month/month and a half.
I mean, there were major issues down the line, but I don't recall the RROD being an issue at launch.
Nah, all the problems with the 360 came after launch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Overheating problems were reported almost immediately.
http://xbox360.1up.com/news/xbox-360-crashes-reported
I honestly could have sworn there were complaints about the 360 at launch, but it was more than six years ago. I traded my launch console for a 360 S a while back.
In that regard, I guess it was like the Playstation 2--smiley, happy faces. Class action lawsuit comes later.
Or the Playstation 1, kind of. Adoption was really stale until the DualShock controller and a couple big price drops, as I recall, but all the early units were generally okay until the disc reader assembly started to wear and people were forced to flip the console upside down to play games on it.
Playstation 1 quality control complaints seemed rather consistently "there" from the start. People didn't care because of its popularity or because video game consoles didn't really have a reputation for being "reliable" as far as the zeitgeist went, it seemed. Hell, I was in Japan and thought the PS1 was fantastic, especially after seeing Einhander for the first time. I sure as hell wasn't going to spend the equivalent of hundreds of dollars on something that had a reputation for turning into a weak plastic shrapnel bomb on occasion, though.
I can say pretty confidently that the PS3 is Sony's most reliable console endeavor at launch, even with the rapid dying-off of the early 60 GB models that we got ~3 years after the fact. it didn't do them a lot of good though, so maybe reliability isn't that high on their list of concerns (especially given the PS2 and it's huge success).
And every launch fault can be correctly attributed to whoever launched it. Why is this different now?
The 360 had serious hardware QA issues. The PS3 had a neophyte PSN, which clearly didn't measure up to Xbox Live, which had been on 360 for a year at that point. It also had an anemic launch lineup compared to its counterpart. The 3DS costs too much and lacked an killer apps. The Vita has no killer app, costs too much perceptually, and heart-stopping memory card prices.
You launch into your current reality, not the reality you feel looks best for you. The Vita prior to the 3DS price cut and Mario Kart/Mario 3D looked competitive. After? Not so much. Google isn't launching 10-inch Android tablets into the void, it's launching them into a market dominated by the iPad.
This time around, Nintendo has learned from some past mistakes, but it still need to improve. The issues I've stated previously are real issues.
The games are fun. Tablet play is a great idea for a home console (Microsoft, just steal it. Don't feel bad). It's just... rough. And it's rough compared to the reality the system is launching into. That speaks not to the system's success or failure, merely towards where Nintendo should focus their improvements.
I like a field of great hardware. It's part of my job. I own all of the systems, and I want them all to improve.
Yep, I worked at GameStop when the 360 launched. There were issues, mostly relating to faulty hardware.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Reliability wise, as long as they avoid the PS2's example--hot as hell product, initial complaints with launch that were ignored, class-action lawsuit afterwards--they've got that base covered.
I for one am particularly enjoying all the complaints about how the machine isn't original and innovative enough, which I'm totally sure we'll also be hearing when Microsoft and Sony finally get around to unveiling The Exact Same Shit For A Third Time Only Now The Polygons Are Really Really Shiny. Yes, that will happen.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
When Microsoft or Sony do it, they're totally ripping us off.
When Nintendo does it, OMG! Prettier Zelda time! Hurray!
Sarcasm aside, this is probably not a useful line of thought to pursue.
At any rate, after all the kerfuffle about how Microsoft is evil for charging for patches I'm surprised there hasn't been more said about Nintendo's policy allowing publishers to set and change their prices whenever they want, and no charge for patches.
I'm just hoping all this free online stuff won't come in exchange for molasses-slow download speeds a la PSN, but we'll have to see how things shake out.
As with all things, the real reactions come about a month after people have had time with something. I'm sure some of us will fall into the traps for the new XBox and Playstation consoles when they launch. "OH THE BATTERY PACK OVERHEATS, FOR SHAAAAAAAAME" - I'll admit I get high-horsey sometimes but I work on preventing it.
Still, valid concerns are valid. As long as the right gravity is applied. The Wii U bricks if it's performing a firmware update and you interrupt the process by turning it off or the power goes out. Well, a danger foreseen is half-avoided they say. It's manageable and that's what counts. It's not a hoop-jump everyone is having to perform.
Ah, those complaints are off. Yes, the tablet boils down to the DS model in HD, but that's a great model. It's clear Nintendo came at the idea and said, "this is a cool idea, what can we do with it". It doesn't have the clear vision the Wii had, but that can be whittled down by the audience if the system gets a chance.
Netflix on the Wii U is great, with all your Netflix and TV controls on the GamePad. It lacks the polish of the 360 version, which is still the smoothest of the three (360/PS3/Wii U), but that's locked behind Live Gold and only gets super-awesome with Kinect voice control. The Wii U's implementation is a polished, simpler mirror of the PS3 + iOS/Android hook that launched this September.
All told it's about as innovative as the system that proceeded it, so that's in the good column. I expect Microsoft may try something similar just because the tablet controller provides excellent multimedia capabilities and that's where Microsoft's focus is now.
It's OnLive/Gaikai on a smaller scale. I'm glad Nintendo was the first to step up and show how that could work locally.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
That reminds me:
http://mashable.com/2012/11/19/windows-8-falling-short/
Not sure why Microsoft would assume that Windows 8 would suddenly result in manufacturers making more awesome hardware designs.
Windows XP comes out. No one likes it. Windows Vista comes out. No one likes it. Windows 7 comes out. People are okay with it, but hardly in an uproar.
I distinctly remember 98 and 95 having their own share of negative controversy as well.
They were probably hoping they would follow their lead with Surface instead of shitting out the same versions as before except Now With Extra Racing Stripe!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Such a neat, deceptively immersive idea.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Because Luddites.