The flip side to this reward system is that companies will be able to tell when you most often play games, what games you play and how long you play in one sitting.
You know, that may not be so bad. If game companies find that original, unique, innovative, well-crafted games get more attention from gamers, rather than the crappy sequels they try to pawn on us, then I wouldn't mind sharing that information with them. It's like the Nielsen ratings. I'd LOVE for the networks to know what shows I like, so that they keep them on the air longer. (More Arrested Development, less American Idol!)
Yeah, I agree. Halo was NOT the first popular FPS game for consoles. Now, Goldeneye may not have had the best controls, but it did the best with what it had (only 1 analog stick). But you can't say that it wasn't popular or not a success, since it very much was. (That said, I'm a PC FPS player at heart, and nothing matches keyboard+mouse)
Now, I can see someone arguing that Halo 2 was more innovative, because it brought in the notion of quickmatching, ranking systems, etc. to the console. Even PC FPS titles were still stuck in the server list mentality. However, it's still a bit debatable since many folks have issues with that multiplayer model as well.
There will always be those who prefer the challenge that came with Everquest, that I won't deny. But I'd say the overwhelming popularity of WoW over previous MMOs goes to show that the vast majority of players like the easier path.
MMOs are already one huge treadmill grind. Why make it even longer? I'm of the opinion that games should be fun to play. Make it too frustrating, and I'll find something else to spend my time on. I realize that not everyone shares my playstyle, nor does everyone share yours though.
Says you. WoW was my first MMORPG and I was bored stupid at level 35 because of the lack of interaction with other players. Vanguard looks like it will be a breath of fresh air and a step back in the right direction.
WoW is certainly not my first MMORPG. If you think Vanguard is a step back in the right direction, go play it and let us know afterwards what you think.:)
As for player interaction, a lot of it has to come the player him/herself. WoW is very solo-able, so yeah, there can and will be a lot of people that play the game essentially in single-player mode. Other MMOs, though, all but require group interaction. I haven't decided yet which is better. On one hand, being able to solo through most content is nice when I don't want to spend an hour getting a party together just to do anything. On the other hand, that leads towards a lot of dumb players when they finally DO get into a group. Groups in EQ tended to be a lot more mature and "know their game" a lot better than the typical WoW group.
Hmm, WoW doesn't seem to have that problem. Then again, the game is so enjoyable that most folks don't mind creating a plethora of "alts" (trying out a different character race or class). Then there's also a separate treadmill grind of sorts when you hit the level cap... for example, raiding to get elite gear, reputation grinding, PvP honor grinding, etc. Those aren't that interesting to me personally, but I'll be one of those who just create multiple alts instead.
After playing WoW, how many MMO fans are going to want their game to be harder? One of the greatest things about WoW is the relative ease of the game. You DIDN'T have to do corpse runs, there wasn't any notion of experience loss or debt, and there were many ways for instant travel around the world. I look back to my days playing the original EQ and while it was fun, much of it was because it was new. It's not something I'd want to play again, since I'd miss a lot of the things that WoW had. I'm not saying every MMO now has to be a blatant rip-off of WoW now, but I do wish that some features become more standard.
Also, some of the gameplay mechanics that Vanguard is keeping from EQ (like corpse runs, harsher death penalties, lack of instances), contributed to a lot of problems in EQ and it'll probably be the same for Vanguard. Here a few examples:
1) Equipment remaining on corpse after death (ie. corpse runs) - Just not fun when you lose all your items in the middle of a dungeon, and no one is around to help you anymore. There are many people that give up in this case.
2) Death penalty (experience debt, and the above corpse issue) - Everyone played like a chicken in EQ, afraid to tackle major challenges, being ultra-paranoid about pulls, etc. I know many groups just huddled around the entrances to many zones, so that they could have an easy escape if something went bad, because NO ONE wanted to die. In WoW, dying is still inconvenient, but it's no where near as punishing. I've tackled on many challenges, knowing that there was a good chance that I would die, but taking the risk was fine. It's very hard to do that in an MMO with a much larger death penalty.
3) Lack of instant travel options - I understand that it's more realistic when the world is large and actually takes time to traverse. But it's not fun when your friends or guild members are in another part of the world, and it's going to take you hours to join them. Being able to travel the world and explore lots of places with relative ease is a GOOD thing. Having mounts being more accessible in Vanguard (and flying mounts too!) is definately a good step, but you're still missing out on more instant travel mechanisms (like the many teleport spells in WoW, as well as your heartstone).
That said, I do like some of the new features in Vanguard, specifically that of housing. Okay, it's not new, since UO had it, but it sounds like they're doing a better job of limiting the problems that game had (houses everywhere!). I'd also like to hear more about the crafting system, since that's supposed to be a lot more involved than something like WoW.
TFA mentions that Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE) is rumored to be developing HUB. I'm looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony and the most well-known product I can see from SCEE is Killzone (from Guerilla Games). I wonder if this means that HUB will be a bit more FPS-centric. Although you can easily argue that the first Xbox Live iteration was much the same way with Halo 2.
Yeah, it's going to be very interesting to see how much pressure is put on SCEE from other Sony divisions. (Not like Microsoft doesn't have the same problems, I'm guessing there's a lot of crossover work going on too)
TFA mentions that HUB will be subscription based. However, it doesn't mention if you'll need to pay to access ANY of HUB's features, or just to be able to do multiplayer (which is what Xbox Live does now).
Come to think of it, pricing and functionality is going to be a big deal. Many folks, like yourself, cringe at having to pay to have multiplayer functionality. They're going to hate it even more, if they have to subscribe to TWO (or more!) online services. Most likely, they'll just choose one and stick with it. If one services has better features, more access to games, and is cheaper, then the competitors are in trouble.
Will HUB bring anything new to console gaming? Or is Sony going to primarily focus on copying as much of Xbox Live as possible? It's pretty easy to point at an existing competitor and try to copy as much as their features as possible, but much more difficult to bring something new to the table. The concept of having HUB be a "media HUB" for Sony music, films, etc. is interesting, but I really wouldn't call that new. (And it's something that can already be done on the 360, and presumably Nintendo's Revolution)
As much as people like to whine about the 360's subscription model (which only applies to the "Gold" membership) and the lack of users so far, I do enjoy some of the new features introduced in the latest incarnation of Live. For example, the gamerscore and the achievement system have turned into "mini-games" in themselves (if you enjoy that kind of thing). However, there are definately improvements that can be made. I wonder if Sony's going to go the extra mile, or if they're just going to be content (for now) with playing catch up?
Ack. I meant to say Nintendo, not Microsoft. MS doesn't even have any franchises as popular and historic as Nintendo's. (And no, Halo doesn't count... much too new)
Yeah, it'll all depend on how the licensing contracts were signed and such, and I'm guessing only a handful of people in the world have that knowledge.:)
I was thinking about my own list, and came to the realization that most of the games I'd like to see are 3rd party titles. Why? Well, most of the 1st party games from Microsoft are pretty much franchises and have several sequels already. Smash Bros 64 was great at the time, but if I wanted to play that again, I'm guessing they'll have a Revolution version. Same with Mario Kart, Mario Party, and a couple of other games. Playing Mario 64 or some of the older Zelda games would be nice, though many of them have already been made available for the GB and DS, and I didn't jump to buy those titles.
Now, if they were CHEAP ($5 or so), then I may take the plunge.
Most of the titles you listed were originally developed by Rare, which is now owned by Microsoft. Unfortunately, it's going to be unlikely that we see any of those titles on either Nintendo's or Microsoft's download platforms, since I'm guessing it'll require getting both companies to work together even though they have competing services. It would be cool, though, if they can work something out and we see the games available for BOTH.
I believe the difference is that those games, I believe, we designed to be "edutainment" titles, and the games that TFA is referring to are mainstream titles (Civ III, DDR, and Railroad Tycoon).
I'm not debating the strengths of their games. They've always done a good job of providing solid first party titles, as you've pointed out.
I guess my beef is more with their marketing. It seems like they've always done a mediocre job of this. Anyone remember the claims of "blast processing" from Sega, or the Emotion Engine from Sony? The "Nintendon't" campaign, or the "SEGA!" commercials? Yeah, most of that was essentially marketing hype, and I hated when my friends fell for things like that. And I know that marketing doesn't equal success (see where Sega is now), but it seems like Nintendo is rarely seen as the cool and hip brand that Sega and Sony's Playstation has benefited from.
Going back to my original post, Nintendo proclaiming that they're aiming for the Oprah crowd, probably doesn't make their hardcore gaming fanbois feel very comfortable. Yeah, the games will always be there, and I guess you're right that true hardcore gamers will ALWAYS be attracted to their platform because of the games. But I do wish that Nintendo did a better job of branding themselves better, so that adults don't assume Nintendo = kiddie, and PlayStation/Xbox = cool. I guess what they're trying to do with the Revolution is a step in that direction?
I'll argue that poorly designed and implemented DRM sucks. There are some examples of DRM that most folks don't complain about, such as iTunes. Also, by your account, every MMO is essentially DRM, since it has to validate your account. If that's the case, then I had no problems whatsoever getting into WoW or Everquest or UO (at least the installation part... server uptime is entirely different).
Also, I don't understand your complaint about preferring your PC ("worked my ass off to get stable and enhanced performance"). Most consoles games are far more stable than their PC counterparts, namely because there's only one set of hardware to design for. It's a pain designing something that can run on a mish-mash of hardware and software. (Plus it seems like everyone's PC is stuck with a plethora of spyware, so if a program has problems, who knows if it's the software or some stupid spyware!)
I *would* also point out that because console games can't be patched, they're often better tested. But that isn't the case anymore, since most of the consoles nowadays have online access and we're seeing more buggy games as a result (grrr). But the point I made about stable hardware still stands.
Oh, and one last thing, another poster pointed out that PlayOnline.com appears to be primarily Square now. I'm confused again...
I've worked in multiple formats: completely open air (no cubes, no walls, you can see what everyone is doing), your standard cubicle, and a regular office to myself (what I'm in now). I can say that I definately prefer having my own office.
That said, I admit that I probably WOULD be more productive in a cubicle environment, or in something that you've described. I probably goof off more than I should, and I suspect that's the same with many other folks. I imagine it's hard to get away with reading the latest sports news, if your monitor is in plain view of another coworker.
But it's not like I'm completely closed off from everyone. We all regularly walk the halls to have discussions, as necessary. And instant messaging is always useful too. Finally, I find that those with offices near things like the kitchen or bathroom, tend to have the most hallway conversations. It's easy to just pop your head in and ask a question, on the way back from getting a soda or something.
My wife got hooked on WoW. Previously, she didn't really consider herself much of a gamer (maybe the occasional Sims game). Now she plays more than I do, and tells her friends about it. (And some of her friends were already playing it to begin with)
Nintendo has said that one of the features of the Revolution will include the ability to download Nintendo titles from their previous consoles. Talk about backwards compatibility! This is a fantastic selling point which would appeal to people like my dad who used to spend hours playing Super Mario World, but has trouble playing some of the more modern games. I predict this feature, combined with it's low price point, is going to sell a ton of Revolutions.
With the success of the 360's Live Arcade... yeah, it's a good sign that this feature will do well. There are still a lot of questions to be answered though:
1) How much will the games cost? 2) Will it be only Nintendo-published games, or will there be 3rd party titles as well? 3) How many games will be available at launch? And how many can we expect to be added every month? (I can't imagine ALL of them will be ready at launch) 4) Will there be non-retro/new games available as well? 5) What additional features can we expect for the retro games? (Achievements, multiplayer, etc.)
The fact that Nintendo has mentioned this feature already gives them a leg up over Sony, who hasn't talked about any similar plans for the PS3. I guess we'll know more about this feature in a few months (during E3 in May, at the latest).
I'm not sure about that. I think the best place to find those forum trolling, 13-year old, Nintendo fanbois is at GameFAQs. I've had to use their message boards, from time to time, to find out more information on certain RPGs that I play. I definately get the feeling that there are a lot of Nintendo and Sony fans there (not very many Xbox gamers though). You can check out various polls to see this. Anyway, they're not exactly the brightest bunch...
If that's the case, then Sony had better make some major changes in hiring, if they intend to beat Xbox Live functionality for the PS3 (as they have claimed recently). The PlayOnline UI was horrible. For whatever reason, there were two sets of keys that I had to input, as well as apply for a separate PlayOnline ID and re-enter a bunch of account information, etc. I was hoping I could just re-use my Xbox Live Gamertag and it would just seamlessly "work", but that wasn't the case.
I don't recall the Xbox Live sign-in process being nearly as bad. Actually, I don't remember much about it at all, which I suppose is a good thing.
I don't think you want to target games specifically to women. Just target them for a broad, general audience. Think "G" or "PG" movies. Not all of those movies are targeted specifically for kids (although many are). But they're movies that anyone, at any age, can appreciate.
As much as I like the direction Nintendo is taking, trying to bring some new innovation to the industry with their radical new controller, and their emphasis on making it easier for everyone and their grandparents (literally!) to get into games... I wonder what the typical Nintendo fanboi is thinking. Do they understand and appreciate what Nintendo is doing? When I say "fanboi", I'm referring to those ardent Nintendo supports in forums who consider themselves hardcore gamers, are often immature (fans of l33t sp34k and the like), and want the big N to kick the crap out of the PS3 and the 360 in every possible way.
I used to be a fanboi when I was kid, arguing with friends that "64 bits is better than 32!" and dissing the PSX whenever I could (although I secretly caved in later, because I had to get my fill of Square games). I'm sure there are a lot of these kids today, who still think that Link is the bomb (although they hated his kiddie look in Wind Waker), that good graphics = good games, coolness is everything, and that anything less is just lame. I'm not sure these fanbois appreciate that Nintendo is aiming to bring in Oprah or their moms into gaming, and deliberately "dumbing down" the game experience to do so.
It's obvious to me that Nintendo is aiming for a difference audience than Sony and Microsoft. The latter two are still placing a lot of emphasis on having a more powerful console, better graphics, everything in HD, media functionality, etc. (Personally, I don't think that's a BAD approach, but it'd better not stop the most important aspect, which are the games themselves) It appears that Nintendo is opting not to go that route. So what if the console is not as powerful? It'll cost less. It'll also be more innovative, and you'll still get those wonderful Nintendo games everybody loves so much.
But I think there's the danger of upsetting the "fanboi" audience, since Nintendo is no longer playing the console wars the same way as everyone else. I understand what they're doing, and I imagine most of the/. audience does as well. I think it's risky, but it can be damn effective. But if the ardent Nintendo fanbois don't, and the "gaming buzz" starts to sway negatively for Nintendo, I'm afraid it could mean bad things.
We already know that 3rd party support for Nintendo could be better (referring to the GameCube, NOT handhelds, which continues to be stellar). I will also say that most Revolution purchases will STILL come from gamers, at least in the beginning. (I honestly don't see parents picking up a Revolution for themselves anytime soon... it'll have to start by getting it for their kids and THEN maybe seeing the benefit for themselves) If that doesn't happen, then Nintendo is in for another disappointing console cycle (again, not referring to handhelds, where the DS > PSP)
Anyone else get this feeling? Or am I smoking something here?
Well, I agree that almost anyone with some decent smarts can knock out a cheap game that can hit it big. Or mod an existing one. However, TFA refers to MMO games, and those definately require resources easily an order of magnitude more than, say, just a simple download game.
What I can see is perhaps indie-MMO games the size of maybe a few hundred or even thousand people. It'll very much serve a niche audience. However, you could argue that populations on that scale aren't very "massive".
Hmm, that's what I thought, but then I just tried the FFXI beta on the 360 and was still sent through the PlayOnline experience and browser (which, IMHO, is quite horrible). I find it hard to imagine that Sony would allow their interface to be running on a competitor's machine. Maybe they let Squeenix take it over completely?
I can't imagine that Sony will want to unveil playable demos of the PS3 at the Taipei Game Show. When most gamers see TGS, they think about the Tokyo Game Show. I would imagine that Sony is better off saving any big news and demos for a larger audience, such as the upcoming GDC or even E3.
Slashdot Mirror
The flip side to this reward system is that companies will be able to tell when you most often play games, what games you play and how long you play in one sitting.
You know, that may not be so bad. If game companies find that original, unique, innovative, well-crafted games get more attention from gamers, rather than the crappy sequels they try to pawn on us, then I wouldn't mind sharing that information with them. It's like the Nielsen ratings. I'd LOVE for the networks to know what shows I like, so that they keep them on the air longer. (More Arrested Development, less American Idol!)
Yeah, I agree. Halo was NOT the first popular FPS game for consoles. Now, Goldeneye may not have had the best controls, but it did the best with what it had (only 1 analog stick). But you can't say that it wasn't popular or not a success, since it very much was. (That said, I'm a PC FPS player at heart, and nothing matches keyboard+mouse)
Now, I can see someone arguing that Halo 2 was more innovative, because it brought in the notion of quickmatching, ranking systems, etc. to the console. Even PC FPS titles were still stuck in the server list mentality. However, it's still a bit debatable since many folks have issues with that multiplayer model as well.
There will always be those who prefer the challenge that came with Everquest, that I won't deny. But I'd say the overwhelming popularity of WoW over previous MMOs goes to show that the vast majority of players like the easier path.
MMOs are already one huge treadmill grind. Why make it even longer? I'm of the opinion that games should be fun to play. Make it too frustrating, and I'll find something else to spend my time on. I realize that not everyone shares my playstyle, nor does everyone share yours though.
Says you. WoW was my first MMORPG and I was bored stupid at level 35 because of the lack of interaction with other players. Vanguard looks like it will be a breath of fresh air and a step back in the right direction.
:)
WoW is certainly not my first MMORPG. If you think Vanguard is a step back in the right direction, go play it and let us know afterwards what you think.
As for player interaction, a lot of it has to come the player him/herself. WoW is very solo-able, so yeah, there can and will be a lot of people that play the game essentially in single-player mode. Other MMOs, though, all but require group interaction. I haven't decided yet which is better. On one hand, being able to solo through most content is nice when I don't want to spend an hour getting a party together just to do anything. On the other hand, that leads towards a lot of dumb players when they finally DO get into a group. Groups in EQ tended to be a lot more mature and "know their game" a lot better than the typical WoW group.
Hmm, WoW doesn't seem to have that problem. Then again, the game is so enjoyable that most folks don't mind creating a plethora of "alts" (trying out a different character race or class). Then there's also a separate treadmill grind of sorts when you hit the level cap ... for example, raiding to get elite gear, reputation grinding, PvP honor grinding, etc. Those aren't that interesting to me personally, but I'll be one of those who just create multiple alts instead.
After playing WoW, how many MMO fans are going to want their game to be harder? One of the greatest things about WoW is the relative ease of the game. You DIDN'T have to do corpse runs, there wasn't any notion of experience loss or debt, and there were many ways for instant travel around the world. I look back to my days playing the original EQ and while it was fun, much of it was because it was new. It's not something I'd want to play again, since I'd miss a lot of the things that WoW had. I'm not saying every MMO now has to be a blatant rip-off of WoW now, but I do wish that some features become more standard.
Also, some of the gameplay mechanics that Vanguard is keeping from EQ (like corpse runs, harsher death penalties, lack of instances), contributed to a lot of problems in EQ and it'll probably be the same for Vanguard. Here a few examples:
1) Equipment remaining on corpse after death (ie. corpse runs) - Just not fun when you lose all your items in the middle of a dungeon, and no one is around to help you anymore. There are many people that give up in this case.
2) Death penalty (experience debt, and the above corpse issue) - Everyone played like a chicken in EQ, afraid to tackle major challenges, being ultra-paranoid about pulls, etc. I know many groups just huddled around the entrances to many zones, so that they could have an easy escape if something went bad, because NO ONE wanted to die. In WoW, dying is still inconvenient, but it's no where near as punishing. I've tackled on many challenges, knowing that there was a good chance that I would die, but taking the risk was fine. It's very hard to do that in an MMO with a much larger death penalty.
3) Lack of instant travel options - I understand that it's more realistic when the world is large and actually takes time to traverse. But it's not fun when your friends or guild members are in another part of the world, and it's going to take you hours to join them. Being able to travel the world and explore lots of places with relative ease is a GOOD thing. Having mounts being more accessible in Vanguard (and flying mounts too!) is definately a good step, but you're still missing out on more instant travel mechanisms (like the many teleport spells in WoW, as well as your heartstone).
That said, I do like some of the new features in Vanguard, specifically that of housing. Okay, it's not new, since UO had it, but it sounds like they're doing a better job of limiting the problems that game had (houses everywhere!). I'd also like to hear more about the crafting system, since that's supposed to be a lot more involved than something like WoW.
TFA mentions that Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE) is rumored to be developing HUB. I'm looking at the Wikipedia entry for Sony and the most well-known product I can see from SCEE is Killzone (from Guerilla Games). I wonder if this means that HUB will be a bit more FPS-centric. Although you can easily argue that the first Xbox Live iteration was much the same way with Halo 2.
Yeah, it's going to be very interesting to see how much pressure is put on SCEE from other Sony divisions. (Not like Microsoft doesn't have the same problems, I'm guessing there's a lot of crossover work going on too)
TFA mentions that HUB will be subscription based. However, it doesn't mention if you'll need to pay to access ANY of HUB's features, or just to be able to do multiplayer (which is what Xbox Live does now).
Come to think of it, pricing and functionality is going to be a big deal. Many folks, like yourself, cringe at having to pay to have multiplayer functionality. They're going to hate it even more, if they have to subscribe to TWO (or more!) online services. Most likely, they'll just choose one and stick with it. If one services has better features, more access to games, and is cheaper, then the competitors are in trouble.
Will HUB bring anything new to console gaming? Or is Sony going to primarily focus on copying as much of Xbox Live as possible? It's pretty easy to point at an existing competitor and try to copy as much as their features as possible, but much more difficult to bring something new to the table. The concept of having HUB be a "media HUB" for Sony music, films, etc. is interesting, but I really wouldn't call that new. (And it's something that can already be done on the 360, and presumably Nintendo's Revolution)
As much as people like to whine about the 360's subscription model (which only applies to the "Gold" membership) and the lack of users so far, I do enjoy some of the new features introduced in the latest incarnation of Live. For example, the gamerscore and the achievement system have turned into "mini-games" in themselves (if you enjoy that kind of thing). However, there are definately improvements that can be made. I wonder if Sony's going to go the extra mile, or if they're just going to be content (for now) with playing catch up?
Well, most of the 1st party games from Microsoft
... much too new)
Ack. I meant to say Nintendo, not Microsoft. MS doesn't even have any franchises as popular and historic as Nintendo's. (And no, Halo doesn't count
Yeah, it'll all depend on how the licensing contracts were signed and such, and I'm guessing only a handful of people in the world have that knowledge. :)
I was thinking about my own list, and came to the realization that most of the games I'd like to see are 3rd party titles. Why? Well, most of the 1st party games from Microsoft are pretty much franchises and have several sequels already. Smash Bros 64 was great at the time, but if I wanted to play that again, I'm guessing they'll have a Revolution version. Same with Mario Kart, Mario Party, and a couple of other games. Playing Mario 64 or some of the older Zelda games would be nice, though many of them have already been made available for the GB and DS, and I didn't jump to buy those titles.
Now, if they were CHEAP ($5 or so), then I may take the plunge.
Most of the titles you listed were originally developed by Rare, which is now owned by Microsoft. Unfortunately, it's going to be unlikely that we see any of those titles on either Nintendo's or Microsoft's download platforms, since I'm guessing it'll require getting both companies to work together even though they have competing services. It would be cool, though, if they can work something out and we see the games available for BOTH.
I believe the difference is that those games, I believe, we designed to be "edutainment" titles, and the games that TFA is referring to are mainstream titles (Civ III, DDR, and Railroad Tycoon).
I'm not debating the strengths of their games. They've always done a good job of providing solid first party titles, as you've pointed out.
I guess my beef is more with their marketing. It seems like they've always done a mediocre job of this. Anyone remember the claims of "blast processing" from Sega, or the Emotion Engine from Sony? The "Nintendon't" campaign, or the "SEGA!" commercials? Yeah, most of that was essentially marketing hype, and I hated when my friends fell for things like that. And I know that marketing doesn't equal success (see where Sega is now), but it seems like Nintendo is rarely seen as the cool and hip brand that Sega and Sony's Playstation has benefited from.
Going back to my original post, Nintendo proclaiming that they're aiming for the Oprah crowd, probably doesn't make their hardcore gaming fanbois feel very comfortable. Yeah, the games will always be there, and I guess you're right that true hardcore gamers will ALWAYS be attracted to their platform because of the games. But I do wish that Nintendo did a better job of branding themselves better, so that adults don't assume Nintendo = kiddie, and PlayStation/Xbox = cool. I guess what they're trying to do with the Revolution is a step in that direction?
I'll argue that poorly designed and implemented DRM sucks. There are some examples of DRM that most folks don't complain about, such as iTunes. Also, by your account, every MMO is essentially DRM, since it has to validate your account. If that's the case, then I had no problems whatsoever getting into WoW or Everquest or UO (at least the installation part ... server uptime is entirely different).
...
Also, I don't understand your complaint about preferring your PC ("worked my ass off to get stable and enhanced performance"). Most consoles games are far more stable than their PC counterparts, namely because there's only one set of hardware to design for. It's a pain designing something that can run on a mish-mash of hardware and software. (Plus it seems like everyone's PC is stuck with a plethora of spyware, so if a program has problems, who knows if it's the software or some stupid spyware!)
I *would* also point out that because console games can't be patched, they're often better tested. But that isn't the case anymore, since most of the consoles nowadays have online access and we're seeing more buggy games as a result (grrr). But the point I made about stable hardware still stands.
Oh, and one last thing, another poster pointed out that PlayOnline.com appears to be primarily Square now. I'm confused again
I've worked in multiple formats: completely open air (no cubes, no walls, you can see what everyone is doing), your standard cubicle, and a regular office to myself (what I'm in now). I can say that I definately prefer having my own office.
That said, I admit that I probably WOULD be more productive in a cubicle environment, or in something that you've described. I probably goof off more than I should, and I suspect that's the same with many other folks. I imagine it's hard to get away with reading the latest sports news, if your monitor is in plain view of another coworker.
But it's not like I'm completely closed off from everyone. We all regularly walk the halls to have discussions, as necessary. And instant messaging is always useful too. Finally, I find that those with offices near things like the kitchen or bathroom, tend to have the most hallway conversations. It's easy to just pop your head in and ask a question, on the way back from getting a soda or something.
My wife got hooked on WoW. Previously, she didn't really consider herself much of a gamer (maybe the occasional Sims game). Now she plays more than I do, and tells her friends about it. (And some of her friends were already playing it to begin with)
So yeah, it happens.
Nintendo has said that one of the features of the Revolution will include the ability to download Nintendo titles from their previous consoles. Talk about backwards compatibility! This is a fantastic selling point which would appeal to people like my dad who used to spend hours playing Super Mario World, but has trouble playing some of the more modern games. I predict this feature, combined with it's low price point, is going to sell a ton of Revolutions.
... yeah, it's a good sign that this feature will do well. There are still a lot of questions to be answered though:
With the success of the 360's Live Arcade
1) How much will the games cost?
2) Will it be only Nintendo-published games, or will there be 3rd party titles as well?
3) How many games will be available at launch? And how many can we expect to be added every month? (I can't imagine ALL of them will be ready at launch)
4) Will there be non-retro/new games available as well?
5) What additional features can we expect for the retro games? (Achievements, multiplayer, etc.)
The fact that Nintendo has mentioned this feature already gives them a leg up over Sony, who hasn't talked about any similar plans for the PS3. I guess we'll know more about this feature in a few months (during E3 in May, at the latest).
I'm not sure about that. I think the best place to find those forum trolling, 13-year old, Nintendo fanbois is at GameFAQs. I've had to use their message boards, from time to time, to find out more information on certain RPGs that I play. I definately get the feeling that there are a lot of Nintendo and Sony fans there (not very many Xbox gamers though). You can check out various polls to see this. Anyway, they're not exactly the brightest bunch ...
If that's the case, then Sony had better make some major changes in hiring, if they intend to beat Xbox Live functionality for the PS3 (as they have claimed recently). The PlayOnline UI was horrible. For whatever reason, there were two sets of keys that I had to input, as well as apply for a separate PlayOnline ID and re-enter a bunch of account information, etc. I was hoping I could just re-use my Xbox Live Gamertag and it would just seamlessly "work", but that wasn't the case.
I don't recall the Xbox Live sign-in process being nearly as bad. Actually, I don't remember much about it at all, which I suppose is a good thing.
I don't think you want to target games specifically to women. Just target them for a broad, general audience. Think "G" or "PG" movies. Not all of those movies are targeted specifically for kids (although many are). But they're movies that anyone, at any age, can appreciate.
As much as I like the direction Nintendo is taking, trying to bring some new innovation to the industry with their radical new controller, and their emphasis on making it easier for everyone and their grandparents (literally!) to get into games ... I wonder what the typical Nintendo fanboi is thinking. Do they understand and appreciate what Nintendo is doing? When I say "fanboi", I'm referring to those ardent Nintendo supports in forums who consider themselves hardcore gamers, are often immature (fans of l33t sp34k and the like), and want the big N to kick the crap out of the PS3 and the 360 in every possible way.
/. audience does as well. I think it's risky, but it can be damn effective. But if the ardent Nintendo fanbois don't, and the "gaming buzz" starts to sway negatively for Nintendo, I'm afraid it could mean bad things.
... it'll have to start by getting it for their kids and THEN maybe seeing the benefit for themselves) If that doesn't happen, then Nintendo is in for another disappointing console cycle (again, not referring to handhelds, where the DS > PSP)
I used to be a fanboi when I was kid, arguing with friends that "64 bits is better than 32!" and dissing the PSX whenever I could (although I secretly caved in later, because I had to get my fill of Square games). I'm sure there are a lot of these kids today, who still think that Link is the bomb (although they hated his kiddie look in Wind Waker), that good graphics = good games, coolness is everything, and that anything less is just lame. I'm not sure these fanbois appreciate that Nintendo is aiming to bring in Oprah or their moms into gaming, and deliberately "dumbing down" the game experience to do so.
It's obvious to me that Nintendo is aiming for a difference audience than Sony and Microsoft. The latter two are still placing a lot of emphasis on having a more powerful console, better graphics, everything in HD, media functionality, etc. (Personally, I don't think that's a BAD approach, but it'd better not stop the most important aspect, which are the games themselves) It appears that Nintendo is opting not to go that route. So what if the console is not as powerful? It'll cost less. It'll also be more innovative, and you'll still get those wonderful Nintendo games everybody loves so much.
But I think there's the danger of upsetting the "fanboi" audience, since Nintendo is no longer playing the console wars the same way as everyone else. I understand what they're doing, and I imagine most of the
We already know that 3rd party support for Nintendo could be better (referring to the GameCube, NOT handhelds, which continues to be stellar). I will also say that most Revolution purchases will STILL come from gamers, at least in the beginning. (I honestly don't see parents picking up a Revolution for themselves anytime soon
Anyone else get this feeling? Or am I smoking something here?
Well, I agree that almost anyone with some decent smarts can knock out a cheap game that can hit it big. Or mod an existing one. However, TFA refers to MMO games, and those definately require resources easily an order of magnitude more than, say, just a simple download game.
What I can see is perhaps indie-MMO games the size of maybe a few hundred or even thousand people. It'll very much serve a niche audience. However, you could argue that populations on that scale aren't very "massive".
Hmm, that's what I thought, but then I just tried the FFXI beta on the 360 and was still sent through the PlayOnline experience and browser (which, IMHO, is quite horrible). I find it hard to imagine that Sony would allow their interface to be running on a competitor's machine. Maybe they let Squeenix take it over completely?
I can't imagine that Sony will want to unveil playable demos of the PS3 at the Taipei Game Show. When most gamers see TGS, they think about the Tokyo Game Show. I would imagine that Sony is better off saving any big news and demos for a larger audience, such as the upcoming GDC or even E3.