Slashdot Mirror
E3 Power Rankings, Probably Moving Next Year
The Escapist takes a crack at ascribing 'power rankings' to this year's E3 players. Microsoft, EA, and Irrational are in the top three spots, with Bethesda and the newly-employed Peter Moore rounding out the top five. From the site's commentary on Microsoft: "Despite the lawsuits, the man with the biggest pockets earns the top slot by a fair margin. Microsoft has cleaned up on big-name exclusives and is slowly but surely building up Games For Windows as a brand. However, what really does it for Microsoft is Fallout 3, Halo 3, Mass Effect and BioShock. If one of those doesn't sell you a buggy, overheating, now-under-warranty Xbox 360, nothing will. Their upcoming billion-dollar 360 repair costs might dethrone them sooner than later, though." Meanwhile, the rumour is going around that LA won't be the site of the event next year.
For some reason I couldn't access the GameSpot blog. In any case, Google Cache has it, and it's one of those blogs linking to another source.
In any case, the original source was this MCV article. The GameSpot article basically confirms the story but points out that it isn't a done deal yet - they're just considering new locations.
They seem to be suggesting that E3 will be moving to Las Vegas, although it's not final yet. (The article also seems to suggest that New York was suggested and then decided against, which makes sense, since the Big Three game companies in the US (Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sory) are all on the west coast.)
"However, what really does it for Microsoft is Fallout 3, Halo 3, Mass Effect and BioShock. If one of those doesn't sell you a buggy, overheating, now-under-warranty Xbox 360, nothing will."
This is really MS's problem right here. I'm sure those games will be great and sell well, but they certain cater to a specific taste. The 360 really needs to branch out in it's library to be more diverse if it's going to sell beyond just the normal hardcore gamer. Right now it has the same stigma as the Xbox 1 did. I don't think that's going to help them down the road.
I agree that MSFT's problem is that they have to narrow a gaming reach.
Lots of FPS and combat games won't alter the perception that you care nothing for casual gamers and the other 90 percent of the market.
No matter how much you stress Viva Pinata! in your PR spin.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"you care nothing for casual gamers"
Yeah, because XBox Live Arcade is for hardcore gamers. -roll eyes-
I just looked through the games list on EBGames.com to see how things stack up for boxed games. The 360 has a ton of shooters and action games, and so-so amount of other games. So then I looked at the PS3 and PS2. Surprise, surprise... The same thing. Maybe not -quite- as thick on shooters, but the actions games are there in full force. I'm including both of those because GTA/etc are considered Action. (Because they are not strictly first-person, I guess.)
Don't let Slashdot spin let you think that all games on ANY console are of 1 genre. It's not even close to that.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
And here I was thinking they were going to rank things based on the amount of power they consumed.... Stupid me....
I agree with this. Everyone is criticizing Microsoft and Sony for failing to capture the casual gamer. At the same time, they're lauding the Wii for succeeding. But they fail to realize that one of the main reasons the Wii is doing so well is because the casual gamer doesn't want to spend a lot of money on something that they treat, well, casually. The price point is the big thing with the Wii, once you get past the novelty hook that puts it on so many news shows.
But does the casual gamer want to spend $50 a game? Probably not. Casual gaming will be mainly filled out by low cost games, via things like PSN, Live Arcade, and the Virtual Console. With that in mind, Microsoft arguably has one of the most attractive lineups for casual gamers out there, even exceeding Nintendo's. Casual gamers are exactly who games like Bomberman, Uno, Zuma, Catan, Poker, etc, are aimed at. Cheap titles that can be played for short periods of time and sometimes shared with friends. Sony is starting to catch up with PSN but it doesn't look like they're getting as broad a portfolio of supposedly casual games. They're continuing to play the "hardcore" card. And Nintendo, strangely, is actually currently a bit more "hard-core gamer" focused in its online initiative, given that most of its titles are old Nintendo games that only nostalgia fans would be interested in (believe me, I've tried playing them and most just don't hold up).
The shame is that Microsoft is still priced out of the casual gamer's market with the console itself. Once the 360 comes down to a mass market price, they may be a bit more capable of capturing the casual gamer market than people have been giving them credit for.
"However, what really does it for Microsoft is Fallout 3, Halo 3, Mass Effect and BioShock. If one of those doesn't sell you a buggy, overheating, now-under-warranty Xbox 360, nothing will." Dare I point out that Bioshock is coming the PC as is Fallout 3 (so who cares about the console versions). What's more, considering both Halo and Halo 2 have both come to PC, my bet is that Halo 3 eventually will too. Finally, my bet is that Mass Effect will hit the PC at some point too, as all of Bioware's RPGs have at one point or another. So...reason to buy a 360 again when everything they have that's worth playing is for sure or almost certainly will hit the PC in the near future (or another console)? Oh yeah...none. I'll stick with my PC, PS3, and Wii; thanks a bunch, come again.
Don't forget the new Beautiful Katamari Damacy which is a 360 exclusive right now.
I think that'll be the game that does me in....
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.