I was willing to give the 360 version a chance, and then found out that the game doesn't support co-op game play, so I can't sit at home and play this with my friends.
Not only is that functionality not in the 360 version (nor is Owner mode, audibles, and other features), but that co-op play was *removed* from the Xbox and PS2 versions as well. So, for my friend who likes to sit down and play on the same team with his son - too bad! I only play Madden with my friends on the same team - too bad for me!
Basically EA has said this game is no longer for people who play together. Its for those who play alone or who just want to use Xbox Live to trash-talk other players in an online game...
Well, to counter some of your points, I also was standing out in early morning light on October 26th, 2000 and got one of the few 1st generation PS2s. It still works fine.
Didn't get my Xbox until earlier this year, but have been playing it hard and heavy and no problems.
Of course, in both cases I do take the time to make sure that the consoles are not in a position to get overheated (which is always a potential problem) and to clean them often to remove dust buildup.
My PS1 from 1995 only finally bit the bullet in 2002 when the cd-rom started skipping. I haven't had a PC last that long without something going bad.
Not to point fingers, but how many people that have had problems with consoles take the time to make sure their product is clean, not sitting on carpet, etc? I see the same problem with friends who don't do these things and have to buy new consoles -- however, these are the same friends who don't do the same upkeep on their PCs and constantly have problems with them too...
It's surprising (or not) how long these products last with a little bit of preventive maintenance.
Yes, camping can be a problem, but it is also a challenge.
One of my good friends that I deathmatch with in Halo is a freaking nightmare with a sniper rifle, and tends to pick levels where he can get a good position and just go to town.
Now, admittedly, after he frags me 10X in a row from his killspot, I can get a bit frustrated and angry, but it is STILL a game -- and that little bit of anger just impels me to want to frag him even more.
I have been known to do the same thing back to him (except my weapon of choice is grenades), so fair is fair. If someone is camping, at least for me, my objective switches to getting the camper.
As far as being tactful, actually I've never considered it. I also would not consider being *rude*, but I would definitely let you know that I'm gunning for ya! That's part of the fun after all...
Actually, speaking as a hardcore gamer, I already have all three consoles.
But your assumption here is correct -- I buy games for specific consoles when they are:
A) Exclusive to a particular console
B) One offers an advantage in graphics
C) One offers game bonuses (extra levels, etc.)
If all things considered are equal, I will choose a game on the basis of ease of use, meaning PS2 because I prefer their controller setup.
Again, this is from the perspective of a hardcore gamer with sufficient disposable income to purchase what games I want. If I had to pick and choose, however, I still would follow the criteria above.
Hey, you forgot that McDowell's had two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions, but they *didn't* have sesame seeds on their buns...
The biggest success on the Xbox is Halo, which was not driven by any IP (other than taking Niven's Ringworld). Movie tie-ins like Enter the Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean do well, but not at the levels of a Vice City. In fact, most tie-in games suck and this is quickly reflected in the speed with which they fall into discount bins everywhere.
Given the number of successful games (across consoles and computers) that are not movie-based, I don't see his point.
The problem is that I can't say games in the sentence above.
And as a horror niche-game (without the wide-appeal of a FPS -- for example Halo) you are not going to be able to market the merits of the GC based on that one game (again, unlike MS was able to with Halo).
Actually, he's right from the perspective that he is not Nintendo's *current* market, but that he is their *target* market to expand.
One thing you notice in these threads is the inevitable call for Nintendo to expand their market share by selling to new customers. And the Sony/Xbox core audience is a legitimate market to focus on for this effort.
So, with that premise, if this is a targeted customer, what does Nintendo need to do with the GC to get him to buy the console and games?
Myself, I was very much taken by the Resident Evil series for the GC, and is in fact the reason I bought the console. While the games were essentially the same, the graphics were phenomenal and I thought *this* is the future of the GC. So I waited for more games with this level of realism... and haven't seen one since.
The GC was designed solely to play games -- no architecture to play cd's or dvd's, so I reasoned that developed games on the GC would even beat the Xbox in visuals. And the RE series does. The problem is no other games seem to strive for this on the GC.
Also, there is still a perception that the the GC is a middle-of-the-road type of system. The whole "it's ok, but is not as cool as the PS2 or as powerful as the Xbox." Admittedly, those who have the technical knowledge know that that's not necessarily true, but this is not common knowledge amongst the majority of the gaming public. And that continues to hurt Nintendo's GC sales.
But the horror survival game is itself a niche market. Do you really think that the GC Resident Evil sales were from net-new players, or mostly old RE players who saw the new graphics and had the cash to buy the new ones to add to the collection?
And what exactly is the rest of the market? Sony and MS make games FOR the market. Developers make games FOR the market. What market? Males, not just teenage, but teenage to middle-aged. Sure teens *want* to play Vice City (and this is not the place to discuss parents who allow them to own "M"-rated games), but it was the older males who drove the sales of that game. Likewise, I would bet that older males have driven the successes of the other high-profile games.
The point is that again and again people say market to some other group -- teenage girls, etc. Yet time and time again the MARKET doesn't support those games. Sure, you have your occasional Tetris or Sims game, but the female market for games is notoriously fickle (insert joke here).
Enter Nintendo, who provide 90% of their titles that are kiddie-level games. Sure, they have a small percentage of other games that appeal, but most are aimed at kids. How can they expand their share using this strategy? Sony gets the most first-look games, and MS has the best graphics -- what does Nintendo offer me? Don't get me wrong, RE for the Cube is awesome, but I know that those graphics would be EVEN better on the Xbox, and the game, while updated, is the same game as the PS version. The only new offering there is Eternal Darkness.
I've seen and played a lot of the GC stuff -- it doesn't appeal to me -- your thirty-something male gamer. Played the original Metroid, and the new one is good, no doubt, but not good enough for me to buy a copy at full price. As far as playing a girl, isn't that what Silent Hill 3 is all about?
Here's the thing -- I have all three consoles and a gaming PC. Got the PS2 first, then the Cube, then the Xbox.
While there are certainly poor games for the PS2, it gets the majority of game titles and a good number of first-shot titles -- i.e. Red Faction. I can also play all my old PS1 titles, and the controller for the PS2 is the best there is IMO.
The Cube has some lush games (the Resident Evil releases), but is marketed mainly towards kids. There is little main-line game support for various reasons, and nothing marketed towards adults that I can't find either sooner on PS2 or with better graphics and gameplay on the Xbox.
The Xbox was my latest acquisition, and it certainly does a great job with great games. Sadly, there are still very few of those -- Halo and Star Wars: KOTOR to name the few.
I love PC games myself, but look to the consoles to play games with friends (not all have broadband and even with it you get slowdowns and glitches), to experience fewer bugs (you only have to code it to work on one console, not every PC in existence), and to watch it easily on my big TV without having to run wires and buy a new video card to support TV out.
The Cube seems stuck in its niche role, and I don't see any way for them to break out of it with their current strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Your guess is fairly accurate. The big three won't allow licensing for AO-rated software, so basically those products won't work on their systems.
I was willing to give the 360 version a chance, and then found out that the game doesn't support co-op game play, so I can't sit at home and play this with my friends.
Not only is that functionality not in the 360 version (nor is Owner mode, audibles, and other features), but that co-op play was *removed* from the Xbox and PS2 versions as well. So, for my friend who likes to sit down and play on the same team with his son - too bad! I only play Madden with my friends on the same team - too bad for me!
Basically EA has said this game is no longer for people who play together. Its for those who play alone or who just want to use Xbox Live to trash-talk other players in an online game...
Pathetic.
Where's all the D&D gamers???
Well, to counter some of your points, I also was standing out in early morning light on October 26th, 2000 and got one of the few 1st generation PS2s. It still works fine.
Didn't get my Xbox until earlier this year, but have been playing it hard and heavy and no problems.
Of course, in both cases I do take the time to make sure that the consoles are not in a position to get overheated (which is always a potential problem) and to clean them often to remove dust buildup.
My PS1 from 1995 only finally bit the bullet in 2002 when the cd-rom started skipping. I haven't had a PC last that long without something going bad.
Not to point fingers, but how many people that have had problems with consoles take the time to make sure their product is clean, not sitting on carpet, etc? I see the same problem with friends who don't do these things and have to buy new consoles -- however, these are the same friends who don't do the same upkeep on their PCs and constantly have problems with them too...
It's surprising (or not) how long these products last with a little bit of preventive maintenance.
Yes, camping can be a problem, but it is also a challenge.
One of my good friends that I deathmatch with in Halo is a freaking nightmare with a sniper rifle, and tends to pick levels where he can get a good position and just go to town.
Now, admittedly, after he frags me 10X in a row from his killspot, I can get a bit frustrated and angry, but it is STILL a game -- and that little bit of anger just impels me to want to frag him even more.
I have been known to do the same thing back to him (except my weapon of choice is grenades), so fair is fair. If someone is camping, at least for me, my objective switches to getting the camper.
As far as being tactful, actually I've never considered it. I also would not consider being *rude*, but I would definitely let you know that I'm gunning for ya! That's part of the fun after all...
Actually, speaking as a hardcore gamer, I already have all three consoles.
But your assumption here is correct -- I buy games for specific consoles when they are:
A) Exclusive to a particular console
B) One offers an advantage in graphics
C) One offers game bonuses (extra levels, etc.)
If all things considered are equal, I will choose a game on the basis of ease of use, meaning PS2 because I prefer their controller setup.
Again, this is from the perspective of a hardcore gamer with sufficient disposable income to purchase what games I want. If I had to pick and choose, however, I still would follow the criteria above.
Everyone knows that orcs are 1HD sword-fodder, and that trolls regenerate all but fire/acid damage.
I believe it is a requirement for nerds and geeks to have played Dungeons & Dragons.
Unless we are talking Tolkien, in which case orcs were "copies" of elves and trolls were "copies" of Ents that turn to stone in the sunlight...
Yes, this is true.
However, they did have a stock of dynamite-enhanced arrows...
Hey, you forgot that McDowell's had two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions, but they *didn't* have sesame seeds on their buns...
Don't forget Barry calling Jill "the master of unlocking" before he gives her a lockpick...
I'm really not sure what his point is here.
The biggest success on the Xbox is Halo, which was not driven by any IP (other than taking Niven's Ringworld). Movie tie-ins like Enter the Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean do well, but not at the levels of a Vice City. In fact, most tie-in games suck and this is quickly reflected in the speed with which they fall into discount bins everywhere.
Given the number of successful games (across consoles and computers) that are not movie-based, I don't see his point.
Don't you mean "Monster Manual"?
Oh I have, and it *is* a great game.
The problem is that I can't say games in the sentence above.
And as a horror niche-game (without the wide-appeal of a FPS -- for example Halo) you are not going to be able to market the merits of the GC based on that one game (again, unlike MS was able to with Halo).
Actually, he's right from the perspective that he is not Nintendo's *current* market, but that he is their *target* market to expand.
One thing you notice in these threads is the inevitable call for Nintendo to expand their market share by selling to new customers. And the Sony/Xbox core audience is a legitimate market to focus on for this effort.
So, with that premise, if this is a targeted customer, what does Nintendo need to do with the GC to get him to buy the console and games?
Myself, I was very much taken by the Resident Evil series for the GC, and is in fact the reason I bought the console. While the games were essentially the same, the graphics were phenomenal and I thought *this* is the future of the GC. So I waited for more games with this level of realism... and haven't seen one since.
The GC was designed solely to play games -- no architecture to play cd's or dvd's, so I reasoned that developed games on the GC would even beat the Xbox in visuals. And the RE series does. The problem is no other games seem to strive for this on the GC.
Also, there is still a perception that the the GC is a middle-of-the-road type of system. The whole "it's ok, but is not as cool as the PS2 or as powerful as the Xbox." Admittedly, those who have the technical knowledge know that that's not necessarily true, but this is not common knowledge amongst the majority of the gaming public. And that continues to hurt Nintendo's GC sales.
Marketing?
Yeah, I loved the tv spot for the new Resident Evil series on the Cube. Not to mention all the ads in the gaming magazines.
Oh, wait... I never saw those.
Where was the huge marketing push by Nintendo to get people to buy these games?
My gamer friends didn't even know that the RE was rereleased, and had never even heard of Eternal Darkness.
So, if Nintendo is marketing these more mature games, I would like to know how many *hundreds* of dollars they've spent in this marketing blitz...
But the horror survival game is itself a niche market. Do you really think that the GC Resident Evil sales were from net-new players, or mostly old RE players who saw the new graphics and had the cash to buy the new ones to add to the collection?
And what exactly is the rest of the market? Sony and MS make games FOR the market. Developers make games FOR the market. What market? Males, not just teenage, but teenage to middle-aged. Sure teens *want* to play Vice City (and this is not the place to discuss parents who allow them to own "M"-rated games), but it was the older males who drove the sales of that game. Likewise, I would bet that older males have driven the successes of the other high-profile games.
The point is that again and again people say market to some other group -- teenage girls, etc. Yet time and time again the MARKET doesn't support those games. Sure, you have your occasional Tetris or Sims game, but the female market for games is notoriously fickle (insert joke here).
Enter Nintendo, who provide 90% of their titles that are kiddie-level games. Sure, they have a small percentage of other games that appeal, but most are aimed at kids. How can they expand their share using this strategy? Sony gets the most first-look games, and MS has the best graphics -- what does Nintendo offer me? Don't get me wrong, RE for the Cube is awesome, but I know that those graphics would be EVEN better on the Xbox, and the game, while updated, is the same game as the PS version. The only new offering there is Eternal Darkness.
I've seen and played a lot of the GC stuff -- it doesn't appeal to me -- your thirty-something male gamer. Played the original Metroid, and the new one is good, no doubt, but not good enough for me to buy a copy at full price. As far as playing a girl, isn't that what Silent Hill 3 is all about?
Here's the thing -- I have all three consoles and a gaming PC. Got the PS2 first, then the Cube, then the Xbox.
While there are certainly poor games for the PS2, it gets the majority of game titles and a good number of first-shot titles -- i.e. Red Faction. I can also play all my old PS1 titles, and the controller for the PS2 is the best there is IMO.
The Cube has some lush games (the Resident Evil releases), but is marketed mainly towards kids. There is little main-line game support for various reasons, and nothing marketed towards adults that I can't find either sooner on PS2 or with better graphics and gameplay on the Xbox.
The Xbox was my latest acquisition, and it certainly does a great job with great games. Sadly, there are still very few of those -- Halo and Star Wars: KOTOR to name the few.
I love PC games myself, but look to the consoles to play games with friends (not all have broadband and even with it you get slowdowns and glitches), to experience fewer bugs (you only have to code it to work on one console, not every PC in existence), and to watch it easily on my big TV without having to run wires and buy a new video card to support TV out.
The Cube seems stuck in its niche role, and I don't see any way for them to break out of it with their current strategy.