Maybe I'm just a purist, but I'd rather Konami not go back and "fix" anything. Some of what makes a game great *are* its quirks, bugs, and imbalances. The only exception are high severity bugs which cause nasty things like crashes, lost saves, etc. (For example, the infamous Sketch bug from FF3/6)
Things like game balance shouldn't need to be touched, especially since this is a single-player game we're talking about. As others have already mentioned, if you don't like how overpowered a combination is, then don't use it! I'm sure there are a lot of people who are excited about the game, and *want* to be able to use that awesome combo.
A 3rd person/1st person game (can switch) using the Wii-mote as the whipping mechanism.
That just sounds like a horrible idea to me. Have you ever played a Castlevania game before? Do you know how much whipping goes on? Your arm would get tired in no time.
This idea sounds like something that originally seems cool, but in the end, is exposed as being really gimmicky, and detracts from the game experience more than it adds. One example is the symbol-drawing mechanic in Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow for the DS. Excellent game, but the symbol-drawing felt like something tacked on just to take advantage of the touch screen. You only needed it to open doors to boss areas, and for the final take-down for the boss. You never needed to use the stylus any other time, so to suddenly switch gears from using the D-pad and buttons to take down a boss, to fumble around and get the stylus, was frustrating. If you failed, you had to go back to fighting the boss. (You could chance it and use your fingers to draw the pattern instead, but the "fat finger phenomenon" could sometimes screw you over)
I'm all for taking advantage the unique features of the Wii, but please, let's put some thought into it and use it where appropriate.
Of course they'd rather we spend like typical consumers, but they still make a profit off the transaction fees.
Ahh, I forgot about that. Then again, we typically don't have to pay the fee, although you could argue that we do, but it's just transparent (retailers push the cost onto us, although in that case even if you always paid in cash, you'd be feeling it).
Anyone who needs a credit card is already in financial trouble, despite what their ego might tell them. Statistically very few people pay off their credit card balance in full.
I don't know about the statistics, but I'm one of the folks that always pay off the credit card balance. We use credit cards, and we're certainly NOT in financial trouble. It's a useful service for several reasons:
Internet shopping
For large purchases, I don't want to carry several hundred dollars in cash with me
Perks like free frequent flier miles for spending on the card can be nice (and outweight the annual fee you have to pay)
Having it record all your transactions can actually be quite useful for budgeting purposes
Of course there are a LOT of downsides, as already mentioned in this thread. Plus there are the dangers of identity theft, and potential privacy issues. But as long as you're smart about it, and aware of the dangers, why not take advantage of the upsides?
I do agree that your average credit card user, who thinks that "paying the minimum is OK", is stupid and shouldn't have one. Then again, I'm sure the credit card companies hate people like me, who are essentially taking advantage of the system.
I was thinking about this yesterday... I had downloaded a rom of Crono Trigger for the SNES, and I'm having a blast. When all the new games like Battlefield 2, Titan Quest, UT2004, and FEAR get old, I like to go back to the old games. So someone might say... why go back to the old games? They're old and pixellated. But they're FUN! The old classics like Crono Trigger, Secret of Mana, original Mario Bros., Zelda Link to the Past, Super Metroid... they don't make em like that anymore. And there's a generation of "gamers" coming up that have missed out on a lot because of that.
I'm a little wary everytime someone talks about how great video games were in the past, and how new games have it wrong because of "X", where "X" represents something like lack of creativity, too much complexity, or in this case, too much dependence on graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I loved most of those games as well. But we should realize that those of us who played them are under the aura of the "video game nostalgia", where those games can almost do no wrong. There have been times where I've tried to re-play older titles, and just realized that while they were great for their time, there ARE advances in current games which I do miss (whether it be better game mechanics, or graphics, or gameplay balance, etc.). For example, the original Mario Bros was great for its time, but there's no way I'd spend hours playing it anymore (although that's just me).
Yes, there are some classic games that I'll love to play now, no matter what. But it's not because they didn't do "X". It's because they were just good games. There are plenty of games today that I enjoy that do "X", that I'm sure we'll be talking about 10 years from now. And I'm sure there were plenty of folks 10 years ago, lamenting how those generation of games were not "getting it" by doing too much of "X", and bringing up nostalgia over even older games (Zork, etc.).
And finally, it goes without saying but sometimes it seems like it's not obvious enough to people: Game quality is subjective!. I happen to like Oblivion far more than Morrowind (which I never got close to finishing). It wasn't the graphics that I liked so much (if anything it was much too uncanny valley for me). I know a ton of people that happened to love the exact games you cited as being bad, so to each his own.
Agreed. Whoever has the favor of Square-Enix has a great chance of "winning" next-gen.
However, what's interesting this time around, is that Square-Enix may be moving more cross platform than ever before. It all started with FF:Crystal Chronicles on the GC, and now we're getting news of their games on all the platforms. Sony still seems to have the most favor, with the main Final Fantasy franchise still exclusive to the PS3 (at least for now), but I imagine that could easily change. It'll still be a few years before we see FFXIII released. (Heck, we're still a few months out before FFXII comes out to the US)
You're forgetting the largest platform for casual games: the PC. This includes download and web games. A large number of folks spend their days on sites like Pogo, MSN Games, Real Arcade, etc. Many folks do play during work, others are homebodies (retirees, stay-at-home parents, etc.). The number of concurrent users on these sites are fairly staggering, up to 200,000 simultaneous users at times. Yes, the PC is a fixed location, but it's also something that you can multi-task easily. Do work, and play a few rounds of a puzzle game every so often. Can't really do that with a console.
But I agree, if you compare between portables and consoles, the former is definately going to win out. Especially if you consider the mobile phone as a portable gaming device.
Bzzt! You sound like a traditional hard-core gamer that doesn't get what casual gamers spend their money on. No, it's not about $200 graphics cards. Or going to the store to pick up a $50 retail title or expansion.
Casual gamers are the ones who buy those $20 download games that the rest of us scoff at. They also purchase those $3 ringtones, or shell out $8 every couple of months for a new mobile game.
A little bit here and there definately adds up. That's why casual gaming is one of the largest growth areas of the industry, and why a lot of people are now taking notice.
I think it's because computer games aren't social. TV and movies are. You can watch a TV show with your friends or even talk about a TV show with your friend and you don't feel like you should be watching it instead. The same goes for movies. Even with a massively multiplayer online game, you're still sitting by yourself at your computer. Talking to someone out of game about the game is silly, unless you're trying to talk them into playing.
Bzzt! Very wrong. There are a ton of social aspects in many games. For example, I take it you've never played multiplayer games with friends before? In college, we played a lot of split-screen multiplayer games and there was plenty of socialization going on (trash talking, comparing strategies, etc.). With MMOs, there is a ton of socialization going on within the game. Party chat, general chat, guild chat, roleplaying, etc. Even in single-player games, there were often folks just sitting back watching what was going on, making comments and so forth. People will talk about the game just as often as they talk about TV shows and movies.
In fact, I find that games provide MORE social opportunities than just watching a TV show. TVs and movies are all passive. Everyone is staring at the same screen. Maybe after the show is over, you can discuss what happened and such, but that doesn't happen so much during it. (Many people, myself included, find it rude when you talk in the middle of a show) On the other hand, games are a lot more interactive. Additionally, there are often times where you can socialize, for example in between levels, or while the game is paused, or even in the middle of the game.
I had an opportunity a while ago to visit a "gaming center" for an article I was writing. Think of it as an internet cafe without the cafe. A LAN Party as a business. Anyway, the center was participating in a nationwide C&C Red Alert tournament. It wasn't social at all even though all the guys were sitting in the same room playing the same game.
A tournament is a poor representation of being social in a game. Gee, you think in the middle of competition, you're going to have lots of chatting going on?
If you really want to see social gaming, then go visit a college campus. Walk through some of the dorms and you're sure to find a group of people playing games (Halo 2, Burnout, etc.). Or sit behind someone playing World of Warcraft and marvel at all the chat going on between players. You'll be amazed at how gamers aren't the stereotypical, loner geek-with-no-friends.
It's stupid to talk about any product "deserving" (or not deserving) market share. Gee, Linux "deserves" to get a better market share because it's OSS and that's a good thing? No, it should get the market share based on its merits. And it's not quite there yet (although arguably close). (You can argue that other products *cough Windows cough* have achieved their market share through less legal means, but that's a different conversation for now)
Accordingly, why should WoW deserve to get less market share because you, of all people, tend not to like it? Is it because it's popular? Heaven forbid that a popular product happens to be a better product, for those who buy it.
Everyone has their own opinions on products. All of those "hardcore gamers" who think that WoW is ruining the genre, or ruining games in general because it happens to be popular, need to look in the mirror. If we really want gaming to be a form of mass-market entertainment (see Nintendo's E3 2006 press conference for a really good speech on this), we need MORE titles like WoW. If you happen to be bored by it, then that's fine. Just don't spout this BS about how it doesn't "deserve" its market share.
It's no surprise that Halo would end up last on that list for Japanese gamers. FPS titles are not nearly as popular there as it is here. It's like expressing shock that Mobile Suit Gundam ZZAlpha-Beta-Google is not a top 10 anticipated title in the US, or that the latest date simulator isn't in the top 5. Different cultures means different tastes in games and genres.
What is interesting is that an FPS game made the list at all, and that it's Halo 3. As one other poster mentioned, it depends on whether or not this was just a list of 10 games and Halo made last, or it was an open-ended list. Looking at the titles that did make the list, I have a feeling it's the latter. For example, why Bioshock (Wii) on that list, when it was the 360 version that was shown all over the place?
The thing that would be most interesting is to see what the Japanese think of the upcoming 360-exclusive RPGs coming to the system. Blue Dragon and Lost Oddyssey, in particular, come to mind. Those games will be the true test of how the platform succeeds in the Japanese market.
What you are describing is Second Life [secondlife.com], and I hate to break it to you but it's becoming immensely popular for exactly the reasons set forth by the author. Because it's so open-ended, people come -- and stay. They're over a couple hundred thousand in population now, and the rate of increase is growing all the time.
Looking at their website, they do list a population of currently 230,000. But folks online? A measly 5,902 right now. So I take it population is essentially just a list of everyone who has ever signed up for a membership. I wouldn't call that exactly "immensely popular".
I wouldn't even classify Second Life as a game, since it's so open-ended. It's a virtual world. I think what they're doing is very cool, but not my slice of pie. Nor is it what most gamers want, otherwise they'd be in that universe and not in WoW or EQ. It's still very much a niche audience. Maybe in the future, it'll be the greatest thing ever, but personally I don't think that'll happen for at least another generation or two. There are still too many technological Luddites this day and age. Let's wait until the "MySpace" generation grows up, though, and Second Life could very well see the boom that you're proposing.
Vanguard will be huge. Lots of us are just biding our time waiting for its release. Quite frankly, I say its a Good Thing that they get rid of anything WoWish. The core Dev team has its roots in EQ (989 studios / verant interactive / etc). It is expected that this game will cater to the hardcore gamer, not to the casual one.
If anything, I think those self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" who hate everything WoW, love EQ and grinds, are giving gamers and MMORPGs in general a bad name. Sort of like how fantical Star Trek / Star Wars geeks could make it hard for the mainstream public to get attached to sci-fi, lest they become one of those "Star Dorks".
Why all the hate for a game that truly brought MMOs to the masses? I can understand if the game mechanics in WoW are not your thing. (Frankly though, as someone who started off playing UO and EQ, I don't understand why gamers LIKE to go back to the way those games played) But it's really arrogant to not realize the benefits that WoW gave to the genre, or to think that casual = bad/lame.
In an industry where companies are trying to reach a BROADER audience (take for example the Nintendo Wii, or how casual gaming is really taking off), I frankly don't understand why Sigil is trying to go in the opposite direction.
Hey, that's a really good link. Thanks for sharing it!
Yeah, I understand that not everyone can jump up to stage 5+ immediately, and most companies are going to have to take "baby steps". I was just venting at developers who are still stuck in the early stages, and think that it is "good enough" to read books, with never the thought that they should go beyond. Frankly, I think that's a lot of the problems with open-source apps and why their usability often lags behind. Devs don't want to take the next jump, either because they don't think they can, or they don't want to.:(
Customer support always assumes that the customer doesn't know what you're doing. I'd rather not spend an hour or more having somebody walk me through a re-install just to see the problem recur. (I had already done this). Further, I had already verified that it was a HL2 update issue (rather than a change of a machine) because it literally changed from working -> broken within a single Steam update. I had played some time before, shut it off, turned it back on, watched Steam update itself, then watched it not work anymore. All my other intensive games, (Doom3, FarCry)... working perfectly.
The game was simply fucked, which turned me off as a customer permanently. I'm sure you guys offer great customer service or whatever, but I'm one of those people that doesn't want to waste hours of my life talking to you over a problem that *may* or may not be resolved to retain me as a customer for a delivery system that I have grown to absolutely despise.
As someone who works in QA for a living, and whose customers are end-users just like you, I wanted to give my two cents regarding customer service. (This applies to pretty much ALL software, not just Steam)
You are correct that customer service does NOT make up for a crappy experience. If software had no bugs, there'd be no need for customer service. As a QA engineer, it is my job to ensure that our product is bug free as much as possible.
The problem is that it is nigh impossible to create bug free code in this day and age, with the complexity of programs nowadays, and also how open the PC platform is. Then you also have to consider things like ship dates and costs. From the QA perspective, we're supposed to find the bugs and only allow release when the product meets our quality bar. Unfortunately, that bar can never be at the "perfect" rate, because that would mean nothing ever ships. (For example, we'd spend years alone testing every combination of hardware, drivers, network configuration, etc.)
So at some point, we have to ship. After that point, then we have to rely on things like customer service to get a gauge of what we did right, and what we did wrong (bugs that slipped, etc.). There are always new things that popped up that no one had any idea it would be an issue, most often due to external dependencies.
One example I'll give... we got a user report complaining that our website was not working at all for him. There was lots of cursing, how we must have been incompetent, etc. Although we could have just ignored him for rudeness, we took the time to investigate. It turns out the issue was due to a piece of malware that had infected his machine. His issue actually had nothing to do with our site code, and there's nothing we could do about it, other than coding some bizarre one-off that detected this peculiar piece of malware and handled it with an appropriate error message. But that's obviously easier to do after the fact, and arguably not something that's a priority. (If you compare a feature that would affect a handful of users, versus working on a new feature that would affect a much larger number... what would you choose?)
I guess what I'm trying to say is to cut customer support some slack. Any decent QA department WANTS to fix your problems, and we're not out to just "screw you over" with a bad product. Chances are that your issue is very specific to your configuration, for whatever reason. Yes, your experience does suck, and I completely understand that for a game, you DON'T want to spend hours on the phone walking through your support issue. But doing so may fix your problem, and make the product better overall.
I think too many companies focus just on heuristic evaluation. That's basically paying a UI expert to tell you what to do and what not to do. A lot of companies won't even hire a usability expert, instead relying on their own engineers to "read a lot of books" and try to wing it.
This is bad.
Just like how software engineers should not be trusted to test their own code, they should also not be trusted to do "good usability". I'm saying this as a software engineer, who also has a Masters in usability engineering and has been in the field for a few years. Too often I'm surrounded by fellow engineers who think they know what's best for the user. Also, they'll claim that a certain design is best because it also makes for a "clean UI" and "clean code design". Then we sit users in front of the application, and all hell breaks loose.
Don't do this. Spend the money to hire a good usability expert, and have THEM perform proper usability studies. Good usability is NOT necessarily about a "clean UI" or "clean code". It's about a product that people know how to use. After this is established, it is then up to the engineers to make sure the actual implementation itself is clean, extensible, un-cluttered, etc. Not the other way around.
You have to update data files (rosters, etc.) each year, or even more frequently. Except for the limitations of console formats where you couldn't expect much in the way of being able to apply updaets, there is no reason why that has to mean a new game release -- it could just be a nominally priced, or even free, downloadable product.
I believe the latest sports titles, at least the ones on Xbox, do allow you to update the rosters mid-season, to take advantage of all the free agency/trading action that happens in and off-season. I just don't know to what extent it continues. Somehow, I doubt you can play Madden 2006 with the 2007 roster. (Anyone know for sure?)
But there's plenty of room for innovation in the games, anyhow, in things like the UI, player AI, play designers and other "strategy planning" features. Unfortunately, the "must release every year" practice so far, I think, has cramped development in those areas, you get small feature tweaks and lots of glitzy but shallow add-ons (more songs in the soundtrack! a bunch of different intro/menu videos!). Hopefully, the features of this console generation will change the practices, but they may have become ossified.
I totally agree about the cramped schedules. It seems like we need to wait several years before various features really get flushed out well. Apparently, a lot of out-of-game functionality (franchise modes, etc.) actually got cut out of the last version of Madden for the 360, since there just wasn't enough time to invest in it, on top of the existing graphic engine update for the next-gen console. They're coming back for Madden 2007 though.
I imagine it may be the same for the PS3 and Wii editions (unless they can take advantage of learnings from the 360 development). The first editions of sports titles on a new platform may look pretty (or in the Wii's case, have interesting control features), but might be pretty bare-bones.
I agree that those non-simulation sports games (the Mario-line, NFL Blitz, NBA Live, Street games, etc.) can be a lot of fun. But they're almost a different genre itself. One reason why the Mario titles do pretty well is because they DON'T have to release a new one every year. We see one being developed once every few years, usually aligning with a console generation. I think that's perfect, since it allows time for true innovation to occur. What we see happening with the Wii Sports lineup is a great example of this.
I think sports games are, in a way, harder to innovate than other genres. That's because you're essentially boxed in to how the sport works and handles itself. You can't really change the rules, too much, without people complaining about how unrealistic it is. (Then again, some people LIKE that, which is why games like NBA Jam and NFL Blitz have a sizeable fanbase) That, and you HAVE to release a new version each year. I don't see any other franchise where this has to happen (imagine a new FF or MGS or Halo every year).
Furthermore, what most people REALLY want from year-to-year, and why people keep buying these damn games, is primarily roster updates. It'd be brain-dead easy to create a Madden game, then just have it download new rosters every year. You'd only have to update the game itself (engine, etc.) every few years, when there is enough innovation or graphics/gameplay update to warrant a new version.
Obviously, that would be a bad business decision for EA, revenue-wise. They COULD recoup it by forcing people to buy the roster updates, but it's hard to convince people to pay even $20-30 for just a list of new names. Instead, what they do is just re-use the existing engine, add in a couple of small tweaks and features, and voila... you now have something people are willing to pay $50-60 for, even though most of what they REALLY want is an updated roster list.
I think in the end, it just comes down to the consumer. As a football fan, I'll admit that I enjoy playing football games (the last one I bought was NFL 2K5). However, I'm not going to buy one EVERY year, since that's just too costly. I'll pick up a new one every so often, and I'll live with outdated rosters for a bit (or just not play a football game for a while). But I DO know there are folks who ARE big sports fans and really want a new game every year. Or friends who stagger their football game purchases from mine, so that maybe I got 2005, and they'll get 2006, and my other buddy will get 2007, etc. Rather than bitching, just vote with your wallet.
Now about EA locking up all these exclusive sports licensing deals... that just plain sucks.
Rumble is something that's very subjective. My wife hates it and always turns it off when she starts the game. It "scares" her, when she's playing and the controller starts to shake during a tense moment.
Me? I love the rumble. One game that uses it extremely well is Shadow of the Colossus. It just adds extra depth to the game, and makes it literally "feel" like you are there or involved in some way.
Is it a deal-breaker not to have rumble? Certainly not. After all, I've played numerous games on the PC or older platforms without rumble. Will I miss it though? Certainly.
if you just went out and bought a HDTV without HDMI input and you dont plan to upgrade your expensive HDTV for at least another 5- 10 years.
I think it's more about the mental aspect of knowingly buying something you CAN'T upgrade later. Basically, future-proofing yourself. It's the same reason people buy all these bells and whistles for things like their car or various consumer gadgets, that they never really end up using. But at the time of purchase, they like to think that someday they will.
For only $100 more, you get a bunch of extra features that would probably cost over $100 if you added them on later. And you get a piece of functionality you can NEVER get. If you're already spending several hundred dollars for a console, what's another $100?
So the $500 system is seemingly becoming less and less of an option.
Hey hey, don't shoot the messenger. I agree that better horsepower does not equal a better game. You were just talking about the cost of the box, which horsepower does affect.
Regarding games, everyone has a different idea of fun. I never picked up a GC, since it didn't have anything I really *had* to have, that was worth the price of a new console. However, there were plenty of games on the Xbox and especially PS2 side that I just had to play. *shrugs*
My Nintendo "console" for this generation? The DS. But I definately see myself picking up the Wii, even at launch (and I rarely get consoles at launch).
As others have noted, the horsepower under the Wii, while a bit greater than the GC, is still no match for the 360 or Cell. In terms of pricing, that's probably a good thing for consumers. I highly doubt it'll sell for $300. The only folks who really want that are probably the Sony fanbois who will do anything to see the competition fail.:P (And I really don't understand the fanboi phenomenon anymore)
By mass manufacture I meant the number of units. Of course they'll be better off a few years later. But when introducing new technologies economies of scale play a huge factor. Your using all new equipment you'll get your ROI back a lot faster on the hundreds of millions -> billions you spend on getting the factories up and running if you produce and ship 4 million units versus less then a half a million (standalone hd drives will NOT sell anywhere close to that many units--and they'll be sold by different vendors).
Also Sony's PS3 will not always be a few hundred behind. Their tech has the most to lose from a price point. There is no reason for blu-ray drives to cost more to manufacture then dvd-drives a year ago, in 2-3 years. The cost of the cell chip will decrease greatly after moving from 90nm process to probably 45nm process near the end of it's life cycle.
Knowing sony they will also attempt to integrate other chip functions into one new smaller chip as they've done with past consoles. At most they will be $10-$20 dollars behind for dvd backwards compatibility and $35-$50 dollars behind for the hard drive near the nd of it's life cycle so at around this time they will be close to $149-$199.
You are still extremely optimistic if you think that a mere few months and 4 million units suddenly means "mass manufacture", in the sense that costs are now really low. If that were the case, then that would also affect the 360, which has been on the market for several months and have had several millions shipped.
Yes, they've now made that huge leap from product concept and prototype, to an actual product, there's no doubt about it. But when people talk about economies of scale and costs coming down after manufacturing mass amounts of product, that's again over the period of years and more than a mere 4 million units. It's a combination of both time and number of units.
I think we both agree that the costs will come down. But it seems to me that you think we're going to have $300 premium-PS3s next year, and I honestly don't see that happening.
But, I was saying that Sony, unless they're really really dense, should be dropping the retail price to around $500 for non-crippled PS3. And, yes, they need more fun games - that I'm not so sure about - they may have shot themselves in the foot with their dev kit pricing.
I'm doubtful they can drop the retail price this year. As many people have speculated, they KNOW they've got enough Sony-loyalists that they should easily sell out. So Sony's greed will get the better of them, and they'll use the high price to limit their loss on the console somewhat. When the console becomes more readily available, probably in mid 2007, then I would expect a price drop. They would have to, in order to keep in line with what MS is doing by then.
But then again, this is Sony, and they can change their minds on a dime. The shareholders may not be happy if Sony drops the price of the PS3, but millions of gamers would.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm just a purist, but I'd rather Konami not go back and "fix" anything. Some of what makes a game great *are* its quirks, bugs, and imbalances. The only exception are high severity bugs which cause nasty things like crashes, lost saves, etc. (For example, the infamous Sketch bug from FF3/6)
Things like game balance shouldn't need to be touched, especially since this is a single-player game we're talking about. As others have already mentioned, if you don't like how overpowered a combination is, then don't use it! I'm sure there are a lot of people who are excited about the game, and *want* to be able to use that awesome combo.
That just sounds like a horrible idea to me. Have you ever played a Castlevania game before? Do you know how much whipping goes on? Your arm would get tired in no time.
This idea sounds like something that originally seems cool, but in the end, is exposed as being really gimmicky, and detracts from the game experience more than it adds. One example is the symbol-drawing mechanic in Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow for the DS. Excellent game, but the symbol-drawing felt like something tacked on just to take advantage of the touch screen. You only needed it to open doors to boss areas, and for the final take-down for the boss. You never needed to use the stylus any other time, so to suddenly switch gears from using the D-pad and buttons to take down a boss, to fumble around and get the stylus, was frustrating. If you failed, you had to go back to fighting the boss. (You could chance it and use your fingers to draw the pattern instead, but the "fat finger phenomenon" could sometimes screw you over)
I'm all for taking advantage the unique features of the Wii, but please, let's put some thought into it and use it where appropriate.
Of course they'd rather we spend like typical consumers, but they still make a profit off the transaction fees.
Ahh, I forgot about that. Then again, we typically don't have to pay the fee, although you could argue that we do, but it's just transparent (retailers push the cost onto us, although in that case even if you always paid in cash, you'd be feeling it).
I don't know about the statistics, but I'm one of the folks that always pay off the credit card balance. We use credit cards, and we're certainly NOT in financial trouble. It's a useful service for several reasons:
- Internet shopping
- For large purchases, I don't want to carry several hundred dollars in cash with me
- Perks like free frequent flier miles for spending on the card can be nice (and outweight the annual fee you have to pay)
- Having it record all your transactions can actually be quite useful for budgeting purposes
Of course there are a LOT of downsides, as already mentioned in this thread. Plus there are the dangers of identity theft, and potential privacy issues. But as long as you're smart about it, and aware of the dangers, why not take advantage of the upsides?I do agree that your average credit card user, who thinks that "paying the minimum is OK", is stupid and shouldn't have one. Then again, I'm sure the credit card companies hate people like me, who are essentially taking advantage of the system.
I'm a little wary everytime someone talks about how great video games were in the past, and how new games have it wrong because of "X", where "X" represents something like lack of creativity, too much complexity, or in this case, too much dependence on graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I loved most of those games as well. But we should realize that those of us who played them are under the aura of the "video game nostalgia", where those games can almost do no wrong. There have been times where I've tried to re-play older titles, and just realized that while they were great for their time, there ARE advances in current games which I do miss (whether it be better game mechanics, or graphics, or gameplay balance, etc.). For example, the original Mario Bros was great for its time, but there's no way I'd spend hours playing it anymore (although that's just me).
Yes, there are some classic games that I'll love to play now, no matter what. But it's not because they didn't do "X". It's because they were just good games. There are plenty of games today that I enjoy that do "X", that I'm sure we'll be talking about 10 years from now. And I'm sure there were plenty of folks 10 years ago, lamenting how those generation of games were not "getting it" by doing too much of "X", and bringing up nostalgia over even older games (Zork, etc.).
And finally, it goes without saying but sometimes it seems like it's not obvious enough to people: Game quality is subjective!. I happen to like Oblivion far more than Morrowind (which I never got close to finishing). It wasn't the graphics that I liked so much (if anything it was much too uncanny valley for me). I know a ton of people that happened to love the exact games you cited as being bad, so to each his own.
Mod parent up!
Agreed. Whoever has the favor of Square-Enix has a great chance of "winning" next-gen.
However, what's interesting this time around, is that Square-Enix may be moving more cross platform than ever before. It all started with FF:Crystal Chronicles on the GC, and now we're getting news of their games on all the platforms. Sony still seems to have the most favor, with the main Final Fantasy franchise still exclusive to the PS3 (at least for now), but I imagine that could easily change. It'll still be a few years before we see FFXIII released. (Heck, we're still a few months out before FFXII comes out to the US)
You're forgetting the largest platform for casual games: the PC. This includes download and web games. A large number of folks spend their days on sites like Pogo, MSN Games, Real Arcade, etc. Many folks do play during work, others are homebodies (retirees, stay-at-home parents, etc.). The number of concurrent users on these sites are fairly staggering, up to 200,000 simultaneous users at times. Yes, the PC is a fixed location, but it's also something that you can multi-task easily. Do work, and play a few rounds of a puzzle game every so often. Can't really do that with a console.
But I agree, if you compare between portables and consoles, the former is definately going to win out. Especially if you consider the mobile phone as a portable gaming device.
Bzzt! You sound like a traditional hard-core gamer that doesn't get what casual gamers spend their money on. No, it's not about $200 graphics cards. Or going to the store to pick up a $50 retail title or expansion.
Casual gamers are the ones who buy those $20 download games that the rest of us scoff at. They also purchase those $3 ringtones, or shell out $8 every couple of months for a new mobile game.
A little bit here and there definately adds up. That's why casual gaming is one of the largest growth areas of the industry, and why a lot of people are now taking notice.
In fact, I find that games provide MORE social opportunities than just watching a TV show. TVs and movies are all passive. Everyone is staring at the same screen. Maybe after the show is over, you can discuss what happened and such, but that doesn't happen so much during it. (Many people, myself included, find it rude when you talk in the middle of a show) On the other hand, games are a lot more interactive. Additionally, there are often times where you can socialize, for example in between levels, or while the game is paused, or even in the middle of the game.
A tournament is a poor representation of being social in a game. Gee, you think in the middle of competition, you're going to have lots of chatting going on?
If you really want to see social gaming, then go visit a college campus. Walk through some of the dorms and you're sure to find a group of people playing games (Halo 2, Burnout, etc.). Or sit behind someone playing World of Warcraft and marvel at all the chat going on between players. You'll be amazed at how gamers aren't the stereotypical, loner geek-with-no-friends.
It's stupid to talk about any product "deserving" (or not deserving) market share. Gee, Linux "deserves" to get a better market share because it's OSS and that's a good thing? No, it should get the market share based on its merits. And it's not quite there yet (although arguably close). (You can argue that other products *cough Windows cough* have achieved their market share through less legal means, but that's a different conversation for now)
Accordingly, why should WoW deserve to get less market share because you, of all people, tend not to like it? Is it because it's popular? Heaven forbid that a popular product happens to be a better product, for those who buy it.
Everyone has their own opinions on products. All of those "hardcore gamers" who think that WoW is ruining the genre, or ruining games in general because it happens to be popular, need to look in the mirror. If we really want gaming to be a form of mass-market entertainment (see Nintendo's E3 2006 press conference for a really good speech on this), we need MORE titles like WoW. If you happen to be bored by it, then that's fine. Just don't spout this BS about how it doesn't "deserve" its market share.
It's no surprise that Halo would end up last on that list for Japanese gamers. FPS titles are not nearly as popular there as it is here. It's like expressing shock that Mobile Suit Gundam ZZAlpha-Beta-Google is not a top 10 anticipated title in the US, or that the latest date simulator isn't in the top 5. Different cultures means different tastes in games and genres.
What is interesting is that an FPS game made the list at all, and that it's Halo 3. As one other poster mentioned, it depends on whether or not this was just a list of 10 games and Halo made last, or it was an open-ended list. Looking at the titles that did make the list, I have a feeling it's the latter. For example, why Bioshock (Wii) on that list, when it was the 360 version that was shown all over the place?
The thing that would be most interesting is to see what the Japanese think of the upcoming 360-exclusive RPGs coming to the system. Blue Dragon and Lost Oddyssey, in particular, come to mind. Those games will be the true test of how the platform succeeds in the Japanese market.
I wouldn't even classify Second Life as a game, since it's so open-ended. It's a virtual world. I think what they're doing is very cool, but not my slice of pie. Nor is it what most gamers want, otherwise they'd be in that universe and not in WoW or EQ. It's still very much a niche audience. Maybe in the future, it'll be the greatest thing ever, but personally I don't think that'll happen for at least another generation or two. There are still too many technological Luddites this day and age. Let's wait until the "MySpace" generation grows up, though, and Second Life could very well see the boom that you're proposing.
Why all the hate for a game that truly brought MMOs to the masses? I can understand if the game mechanics in WoW are not your thing. (Frankly though, as someone who started off playing UO and EQ, I don't understand why gamers LIKE to go back to the way those games played) But it's really arrogant to not realize the benefits that WoW gave to the genre, or to think that casual = bad/lame.
In an industry where companies are trying to reach a BROADER audience (take for example the Nintendo Wii, or how casual gaming is really taking off), I frankly don't understand why Sigil is trying to go in the opposite direction.
Hey, that's a really good link. Thanks for sharing it!
:(
Yeah, I understand that not everyone can jump up to stage 5+ immediately, and most companies are going to have to take "baby steps". I was just venting at developers who are still stuck in the early stages, and think that it is "good enough" to read books, with never the thought that they should go beyond. Frankly, I think that's a lot of the problems with open-source apps and why their usability often lags behind. Devs don't want to take the next jump, either because they don't think they can, or they don't want to.
You are correct that customer service does NOT make up for a crappy experience. If software had no bugs, there'd be no need for customer service. As a QA engineer, it is my job to ensure that our product is bug free as much as possible.
The problem is that it is nigh impossible to create bug free code in this day and age, with the complexity of programs nowadays, and also how open the PC platform is. Then you also have to consider things like ship dates and costs. From the QA perspective, we're supposed to find the bugs and only allow release when the product meets our quality bar. Unfortunately, that bar can never be at the "perfect" rate, because that would mean nothing ever ships. (For example, we'd spend years alone testing every combination of hardware, drivers, network configuration, etc.)
So at some point, we have to ship. After that point, then we have to rely on things like customer service to get a gauge of what we did right, and what we did wrong (bugs that slipped, etc.). There are always new things that popped up that no one had any idea it would be an issue, most often due to external dependencies.
One example I'll give
I guess what I'm trying to say is to cut customer support some slack. Any decent QA department WANTS to fix your problems, and we're not out to just "screw you over" with a bad product. Chances are that your issue is very specific to your configuration, for whatever reason. Yes, your experience does suck, and I completely understand that for a game, you DON'T want to spend hours on the phone walking through your support issue. But doing so may fix your problem, and make the product better overall.
I think too many companies focus just on heuristic evaluation. That's basically paying a UI expert to tell you what to do and what not to do. A lot of companies won't even hire a usability expert, instead relying on their own engineers to "read a lot of books" and try to wing it.
This is bad.
Just like how software engineers should not be trusted to test their own code, they should also not be trusted to do "good usability". I'm saying this as a software engineer, who also has a Masters in usability engineering and has been in the field for a few years. Too often I'm surrounded by fellow engineers who think they know what's best for the user. Also, they'll claim that a certain design is best because it also makes for a "clean UI" and "clean code design". Then we sit users in front of the application, and all hell breaks loose.
Don't do this. Spend the money to hire a good usability expert, and have THEM perform proper usability studies. Good usability is NOT necessarily about a "clean UI" or "clean code". It's about a product that people know how to use. After this is established, it is then up to the engineers to make sure the actual implementation itself is clean, extensible, un-cluttered, etc. Not the other way around.
I totally agree about the cramped schedules. It seems like we need to wait several years before various features really get flushed out well. Apparently, a lot of out-of-game functionality (franchise modes, etc.) actually got cut out of the last version of Madden for the 360, since there just wasn't enough time to invest in it, on top of the existing graphic engine update for the next-gen console. They're coming back for Madden 2007 though.
I imagine it may be the same for the PS3 and Wii editions (unless they can take advantage of learnings from the 360 development). The first editions of sports titles on a new platform may look pretty (or in the Wii's case, have interesting control features), but might be pretty bare-bones.
I agree that those non-simulation sports games (the Mario-line, NFL Blitz, NBA Live, Street games, etc.) can be a lot of fun. But they're almost a different genre itself. One reason why the Mario titles do pretty well is because they DON'T have to release a new one every year. We see one being developed once every few years, usually aligning with a console generation. I think that's perfect, since it allows time for true innovation to occur. What we see happening with the Wii Sports lineup is a great example of this.
I think sports games are, in a way, harder to innovate than other genres. That's because you're essentially boxed in to how the sport works and handles itself. You can't really change the rules, too much, without people complaining about how unrealistic it is. (Then again, some people LIKE that, which is why games like NBA Jam and NFL Blitz have a sizeable fanbase) That, and you HAVE to release a new version each year. I don't see any other franchise where this has to happen (imagine a new FF or MGS or Halo every year).
... you now have something people are willing to pay $50-60 for, even though most of what they REALLY want is an updated roster list.
... that just plain sucks.
Furthermore, what most people REALLY want from year-to-year, and why people keep buying these damn games, is primarily roster updates. It'd be brain-dead easy to create a Madden game, then just have it download new rosters every year. You'd only have to update the game itself (engine, etc.) every few years, when there is enough innovation or graphics/gameplay update to warrant a new version.
Obviously, that would be a bad business decision for EA, revenue-wise. They COULD recoup it by forcing people to buy the roster updates, but it's hard to convince people to pay even $20-30 for just a list of new names. Instead, what they do is just re-use the existing engine, add in a couple of small tweaks and features, and voila
I think in the end, it just comes down to the consumer. As a football fan, I'll admit that I enjoy playing football games (the last one I bought was NFL 2K5). However, I'm not going to buy one EVERY year, since that's just too costly. I'll pick up a new one every so often, and I'll live with outdated rosters for a bit (or just not play a football game for a while). But I DO know there are folks who ARE big sports fans and really want a new game every year. Or friends who stagger their football game purchases from mine, so that maybe I got 2005, and they'll get 2006, and my other buddy will get 2007, etc. Rather than bitching, just vote with your wallet.
Now about EA locking up all these exclusive sports licensing deals
Rumble is something that's very subjective. My wife hates it and always turns it off when she starts the game. It "scares" her, when she's playing and the controller starts to shake during a tense moment.
Me? I love the rumble. One game that uses it extremely well is Shadow of the Colossus. It just adds extra depth to the game, and makes it literally "feel" like you are there or involved in some way.
Is it a deal-breaker not to have rumble? Certainly not. After all, I've played numerous games on the PC or older platforms without rumble. Will I miss it though? Certainly.
if you just went out and bought a HDTV without HDMI input and you dont plan to upgrade your expensive HDTV for at least another 5- 10 years.
I think it's more about the mental aspect of knowingly buying something you CAN'T upgrade later. Basically, future-proofing yourself. It's the same reason people buy all these bells and whistles for things like their car or various consumer gadgets, that they never really end up using. But at the time of purchase, they like to think that someday they will.
For only $100 more, you get a bunch of extra features that would probably cost over $100 if you added them on later. And you get a piece of functionality you can NEVER get. If you're already spending several hundred dollars for a console, what's another $100?
So the $500 system is seemingly becoming less and less of an option.
Hey hey, don't shoot the messenger. I agree that better horsepower does not equal a better game. You were just talking about the cost of the box, which horsepower does affect.
Regarding games, everyone has a different idea of fun. I never picked up a GC, since it didn't have anything I really *had* to have, that was worth the price of a new console. However, there were plenty of games on the Xbox and especially PS2 side that I just had to play. *shrugs*
My Nintendo "console" for this generation? The DS. But I definately see myself picking up the Wii, even at launch (and I rarely get consoles at launch).
As others have noted, the horsepower under the Wii, while a bit greater than the GC, is still no match for the 360 or Cell. In terms of pricing, that's probably a good thing for consumers. I highly doubt it'll sell for $300. The only folks who really want that are probably the Sony fanbois who will do anything to see the competition fail. :P (And I really don't understand the fanboi phenomenon anymore)
My money is on $250.
Yes, they've now made that huge leap from product concept and prototype, to an actual product, there's no doubt about it. But when people talk about economies of scale and costs coming down after manufacturing mass amounts of product, that's again over the period of years and more than a mere 4 million units. It's a combination of both time and number of units.
I think we both agree that the costs will come down. But it seems to me that you think we're going to have $300 premium-PS3s next year, and I honestly don't see that happening.
But, I was saying that Sony, unless they're really really dense, should be dropping the retail price to around $500 for non-crippled PS3. And, yes, they need more fun games - that I'm not so sure about - they may have shot themselves in the foot with their dev kit pricing.
I'm doubtful they can drop the retail price this year. As many people have speculated, they KNOW they've got enough Sony-loyalists that they should easily sell out. So Sony's greed will get the better of them, and they'll use the high price to limit their loss on the console somewhat. When the console becomes more readily available, probably in mid 2007, then I would expect a price drop. They would have to, in order to keep in line with what MS is doing by then.
But then again, this is Sony, and they can change their minds on a dime. The shareholders may not be happy if Sony drops the price of the PS3, but millions of gamers would.