This a terrible move for the future of sports games. ESPN will undoubtedly bash sports fans over the head with overblown tie-ins and advertisements.
Since this is coming from EA, the kings of annoying product placement, I don't see how you are going to tell the difference from what they already do. It's not like Madden was a game with some purity from advertising until now!
How would you even get reliable numbers for PS2 online gamers in the US? There isn't any unified login service, and since it is free you have plenty of 'multi-user individuals' (especially all of the cheaters). This is ignoring the fact that the two audiences aren't remotely comparable (one of them subscribes, the other is free, PS2 has roughly seven times more consoles sold, etc.).
And with the critical support (most videogame jouralists love it), economic support (most publishers make use of it now), and popular support (people who use Live for a while learn to swear by it) Xbox Live enjoys, calling it "an unmitigated disaster" is pretty silly. I imagine the proof will be in the next generation online plans from Sony, though...
I think that a much bigger factor is that Warren Spector wasn't the lead designer anymore. A game like DE simply isn't something that can reasonably be accomplished by someone new to that position. The game has all the hallmarks of an inexperienced dev team (in particular, note the tonal and pacing issues).
Anyway, hardware really didn't affect the game like some people pretend it did. The streamlined gameplay was because Harvey Smith and his team wanted it that way (the Xbox has certainly seen plenty of more complicated gameplay systems than Deus Ex 1!), and the vast majority of them would have occurred even if the game was PC only. I disagree with the decision as well, but the devs wanted the gameplay to be simpler and more focused.
Most of the engine limitations were simply because they chose poor technology - the hacked-up UT2k3 engine didn't scale or perform well on the PC, either. Lots of Xbox games feature huge levels with minimal or even non-existent load times (see Riddick, Halo series, Ninja Gaiden...).
(And I would point out that the original DE was pretty spotty when it came to tech as well. Very slow on most systems when it was released, without particularly nice graphics to compensate. I suspect they just donn't have the calibur of 3D programmer required...)
And as much as I love DE1, it really didn't leave room for a sequel. Near-future stuff works fine, but once you get close to or even past the Singularity, it is almost impossible to create a realistic or interesting setting (as any human just wouldn't be close to where the real action is). Most of the truly interesting conspiracy theories were already dealt with (seriously, you already used the Templars, the Illuminati, and Majestic 12). Most of the interesting future tech was used (nanotechnology especially, though I do think Invisible War expanded on it in interesting areas). And you couldn't reasonably expand on the cyberpunk theme too much, because the world had already been pulled back from the brink in the original. (The globalization issues that Invisible War brought up was a good attempt, but that is really hard to address in a FPS - there are no real masses, you understand?)
For people who play online regularly, XBox Live is worth it, but not so much for infrequent online gamers. Sony's approach is less convenient, but is pretty good considering it's free. Some people don't WANT to pay each month just to use the network adapter that they have on their console - I'm glad they have a free online system, even if you think it isn't 'good'.
The original poster made it clear they were a "hardcore gamer". Obviously a system catering its online system to casual games doesn't matter to them, and can even be a negative to some gamers (it leads to more little kids online, for example). And it was clearly an 'IMO' statement, so you seem to be taking it a little too personally...
Anyway, here are credible reasons to believe that the PS2 just doesn't have a good online system compared to Xbox Live: 1. No unified friend list (and with that, no ability to check what game's your friends are playing). 2. Widespread cheating. (This is probably the biggest deal. Look at what happens to fighting games on the PS2 as opposed to the Xbox versions.) 3. Freaking typing is used in many games to communicate. 4. No real ability to update games, either to fix unforseen glitches or add content (yeah, a few PS2 games allow this, but not to the same level). 5. It's free. This is actually a negative, as the nominal Xbox Live fee allows grievers and people who exploit temporary glitches (like in Halo2) to have their credit card(s) banned. They also end up basically losing money if they mess around. 6. Online games can be "turned off". (MS did make a deal with EA to allow them to do this with Xbox Live, but they are thankfully the only company who can. And honestly, who really enjoys EA games and isn't used to getting ripped off anyway?)
That's kind of funny. From my perspective, games like KOTOR or Deus Ex: Invisible War on the Xbox are too limited because of their insistence on programming it as if it is a PC game.:D Lots of load times all over the place instead of a streaming universe (because you can always buy more RAM or a faster hard drive), no real attention to scene polycounts (because you can always get a better videocard), etc. (It isn't a surprise that both of these games are built on older game engines that were created for the PC.)
The Xbox and PC are certainly not equivalent at running the same games. It isn't a big surprise that a game designed for the PC will look better than a console port. But when you program specifically for the Xbox hardware's strengths, some of the games easily meet or even exceed current PC visual quality. Look at Ninja Gaiden, Amped 2 (which can run at 720p), DOA2U, Rallisport Challenge 2, or Conker: Live & Reloaded. All of these easily stand up to the best visuals you can find in current PC games. (Hell, look at GT4 on the lowly PS2 - no PC racing game comes close in graphical quality.) Being able to tailor your art assets to a powerful standardized platform makes up for a lot of excess videocard or CPU hardware.
(Obviously all that ends up really mattering is the games, of course.)
It should be pointed out that those numbers are basically just low-end estimates. Like the similar US data (via the NPD), many large stores simply aren't polled in the numbers that Magic Box posts.
It would be really hard to find a semi-new video card that can't do good desktop 2D (though obviously the Matroxes probably have the best visual fidelity). Radeon's are designed and sold for 3D usage, and the 9200 is a shabby example of one (it was upon release, too). It's not that the card won't work, it is just not the kind of card you advertise having.
Don't worry about it much as Burnout 2 is a much better game anyway. Better music, better courses, better gameplay (both racing and crash mode), better challenge (as in having challenge, period). The glitchy online play and slighty better graphics is really all you are missing.
(And I don't purchase EA games either. My experience is through playing my brother's game. If you desperately need to try it to see what a fall from excellence it really is, renting it won't give EA any money...)
Just FYI, it is actually just a Radeon 9200 chipset with RAM. Calling it a graphics card implies it could be upgraded, which is sadly not the case (though understandable when the case is only a couple inches tall!).
And it is pretty shabby. Especially since this variant has a quarter of the RAM that the standard 9200 cards have (running well under $40 retail), which also go up to a possible 256 MB.
Way to misunderstand the (rhetorical) question. One measly game (that isn't even exlusive to boot) doesn't really refute what the grandparent post said, does it?
They don't exactly like it when I point out the irony. ("Why would I want to get a system where I can play an old and tired game with Mario in it where I can get the PSP and play Gran Turismo?")
Probably because your friends recognize that the Mario game will just be a port of some very old game (witness every Mario GBA sidescroller, or Mario 64 DS). But AFAIK most of the PSP games are either completely new versions (such as in the case of GTA, Metal Gear, Ridge Racer, Wipeout) or similar to games that are just being released now (GT4). There are completely different levels of "old and tired" - Nintendo generally aims for the worst kind, especially with their portables.
Another issue is that Nintendo ultimately only has a few franchises they pass around (mainly Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Pokemon, F-Zero) - the PSP has a ridiculous number of established franchises coming to it, most of them from non-Sony companies.
To soft of summarize: DS got a port of Namco's old N64 Ridge Racer. The PSP gets a completely new version. It's pretty obvious which situation is more attractive to most people. I suspect this pattern will continue for most of these system's lifespans, and sales will reflect it pretty clearly.
(For the record, I am probably not getting either system. But the PSP is certainly more tempting than anything the DS has shown so far...)
AFAIK Saturn actually did better than the N64. It sold really well in Japan, hovering close and sometimes even beating the PS1 until near the end of the 32-bit generation - but the N64 completely and utterly bombed over there. Strong American sales didn't really make up for the total indifference the Japanese had towards it (and this was when the Japanese videogame industry was larger than it is today). The Saturn might also have outdone the Gamecube, but it is probably too early to tell.
Re:Great just what the gaming industry needs
on
Xbox 2 for $400?
·
· Score: 1
I see video games as an extension of paper puzzle games and board games. They need to be mentally engaging and fun to play over just "pretty." If you want to lookit eye catchy objects with minimal thought processing behind it, goto a museum (not to knock the art world I like museums.)
But a lot of these "boring action/fps games" are mentally engaging. In the good ones (like the Halo series as an example) you really have to think tactically and outsmart your enemies (and oftentimes other human players), manage weapons or upgrades, using plenty of spatial analysis for all of this, etc. They really are presenting 'puzzle features', it is just a seamless part of the gameplay.
Graphics should function as a way to visually serve the story and the gameplay.
Graphics should serve the gameplay (and I can't really think of too many above average action/fps games that don't understand that - something like "bump maps and fx" give increased visual clarity and variety, which makes target identification easier...). But the story should serve the gameplay.
(It occurs to me that a lot of your complaints might be heavily PC focused. Perhaps some of it is true in that case - but in the whole wide world of videogaming, gameplay is almost always the master. The real problem is that a lot of designers have a poor understanding of what good gameplay really is...)
(And what really makes videogames take a long time to develop nowadays is the content, period. Some of this is increased visual clarity, but a lot of it is just that players are demanding more complex content.)
The EBs in my area (well, the two I have been to) have the Gamecube in the front of the store, actually. The Gamestop has it in a nicer, more spacious area, right next to the large GBA section. So no, I don't think that's the problem.
The Gamecube just doesn't get a lot of exclusive games, and most multiplatform releases are usually worse than the other versions available. (Framerate issues seem to be a perennial complaint in GC reviews for multiplatform games, but sound and control issues are also plentiful, and the online component is always removed for non-Phantasy Star games.)
Third party games also just don't sell very on the Gamecube. Gamecube owners on average buy less games (which is a good reason for retailers to not give it much attention... the Gamecube has never been neck-and-neck with the Xbox when it came to what really mattered: attach rate). The biggest publisher on the system (and in the world AFAIK) is Nintendo themselves. (Yes, Sony not publishing that many good games in the early life-span of their consoles can actually be a selling point to other publishers.)
People can make up all of the excuses they want about Gamecube's poor sales and mindshare, but when all other things are relatively equal like they are in this generation (i.e. the GC hardware isn't massively more expensive or underpowered), it always comes down to the games and how they sell.
Imagine that! Game consoles succeed based on the games they have. Please, stop this damn persecution complex nonsense ("The videogame industry is out to get us Nintendo fans!")!
On the other hand, that kind of thing is already happening. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within was released back in November, about a year after the last one. I have only played an hour or so, but it was pretty bad (glitches all over, some poor voice acting, bad animation, ridiculous music, hilariously silly new "dark" theme, all charm and humor has been removed, combat about as boring as in the last game but now it occurs every couple minutes or so...). I assume Ubisoft is readying another sequel for the next-gen launch this coming Fall...
(Not that I want EA to take over Ubisoft, understand.)
Really? Have you played Rallisport Challenge 2? Project Gotham Racing 2? ESPN NFL 2K5? Dead or Alive Ultimate? Kingdom Under Fire: the Crusaders? How about universal buddy systems, stats tracking, and voice communication? How about an essentially cheat-free environment? You have any of that yet?
The first attempt at anything is often improved upon.
I think that while the X-Box has some nice hardware, it really needs analog buttons and a controller redesign. I shudder to think of how MGS3 will play on X-Box when they port it minus the analog.
Huh? The controller buttons (minus Start and Back, IIRC) are analog on the Xbox. They always have been. And you get better analog triggers and sticks, too.
Some people obviously aren't into online play, and you sound like one of them. A lot of us can put up with the occassional dumbass, and smart developers can design their games to punish that kind of behavior in most genres. Easy fix for sports games 'droppers': after a few drops that player is put into a category where they can only play against people also in the dropper category. Keep the assholes busy with each other. Allow a gradual shift back into the good player category if they clean up their act (say, every 10-20 games with no drops they can subtract one from their total).
But I find the most important thing to play against nice, polite people is to choose the right game to play. Some games appeal more to grievers than others - Counterstrike and leveling treadmill games being the classic examples. But when playing games like Dead or Alive 2 Ultimate online (which is my main online game lately), I maybe encounter 1 asshole every 20-30 players. No big deal.
Devs seem to think that cube owners are all children, so few mature games.
The fact is that Gamecube owners just buy less games than owners of other systems, mature or not. I don't have the game attach rates handy right now, but they are easily the lowest among this generation. Something like half or even less of what PS2 gamers buy. And of course most of those comparatively meager sales go to Nintendo, so there just isn't much room for third parties.
The GBA's attach rate is also pretty low, which is kind of interesting I think. Is it an advertising issue? Is it a demographic issue (ex: kids don't get too many new games)? Is it some kind of issue with Nintendo and their policies? I wish I knew.
Incidentally the Xbox has the highest attach rate this generation, which is one of the reasons it does get comparative third party support even though the PS2 handily outsells it most months. Xbox owners buy lots and lots of games...
You might want to give Anarchy Online a shot. They recently went free (both fee and initial cost for a year). I shyed away from MMORPGs prior to it, but I have to admit it is kind of fun...
(ok, supposedly Bayou Billy was harder than its Japanese region counterpart, but otherwise...)
Actually it is really hard to find a game with different regional difficulty levels made in the last decade that is otherwise. Most Japanese games nowadays are made harder for Westerners, since most Japanese gamers want their games really ridiculously easy.
As you suggest, Sony is making a profit on their hardware. What is especially hilarious with the original misinformation post is that Nintendo is losing money on current Gamecube sales. It is being sold below cost to get to that 'magic' $99 price point.
Regardless, overall profit is what matters, just like you stated.
The author shows a complete misunderstanding of how businesses maintain corporate identity and branding when he launches into such brilliant ideas as suggesting Donkey Konga would have been better served with brand new characters instead of recycling Donkey Kong. Because we all know how the PS2's Taiko Drum Master is burning up the charts (another drum peripheral game, nearly identical to Konga, also developed by Namco) because people are just begging for new drum games featuring all new IP.
I just happen to see a lot of new stuff on GameCube, such as Viewtiful Joe, Pikmin, Super Monkey Ball, Ikaruga, etc. And such games are often greatly appreciated.
Yeah, and only Pikmin is made by Nintendo and isn't also available on other systems (and Super Monkey Ball and Ikaruga were both previously released on other systems). Third parties make innovative games for every system - a lot of GC fans just don't seem to pay attention for some 'mysterious' reason. Rez, Katamari Damacy, Kingdom Under Fire: the Crusaders, Psi-ops, Fatal Frame, etc. etc. etc. It isn't like non-Gamecube owners are lost in a wasteland of boring console franchises.
(And the Gamecube gets less of these games than the Xbox or especially the PS2 do, though it is surprisingly close considering how unprofitable the Gamecube is for third parties.)
And most of the 3rd party developers prefer to build on their franchises as well. (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Splinter Cell, Kingdom Hearts, etc. etc.)
That isn't really very fair. Every 'original' game you mentioned except Ikaruga (which to some extent is a sequel itself!) has also seen a sequel this generation. Halo, Splinter Cell, and Kingdom Hearts are all new creations of this console generation, just like Pikmin or Viewtiful Joe are.
Slashdot Mirror
Since this is coming from EA, the kings of annoying product placement, I don't see how you are going to tell the difference from what they already do. It's not like Madden was a game with some purity from advertising until now!
How would you even get reliable numbers for PS2 online gamers in the US? There isn't any unified login service, and since it is free you have plenty of 'multi-user individuals' (especially all of the cheaters). This is ignoring the fact that the two audiences aren't remotely comparable (one of them subscribes, the other is free, PS2 has roughly seven times more consoles sold, etc.).
And with the critical support (most videogame jouralists love it), economic support (most publishers make use of it now), and popular support (people who use Live for a while learn to swear by it) Xbox Live enjoys, calling it "an unmitigated disaster" is pretty silly. I imagine the proof will be in the next generation online plans from Sony, though...
I think that a much bigger factor is that Warren Spector wasn't the lead designer anymore. A game like DE simply isn't something that can reasonably be accomplished by someone new to that position. The game has all the hallmarks of an inexperienced dev team (in particular, note the tonal and pacing issues).
Anyway, hardware really didn't affect the game like some people pretend it did. The streamlined gameplay was because Harvey Smith and his team wanted it that way (the Xbox has certainly seen plenty of more complicated gameplay systems than Deus Ex 1!), and the vast majority of them would have occurred even if the game was PC only. I disagree with the decision as well, but the devs wanted the gameplay to be simpler and more focused.
Most of the engine limitations were simply because they chose poor technology - the hacked-up UT2k3 engine didn't scale or perform well on the PC, either. Lots of Xbox games feature huge levels with minimal or even non-existent load times (see Riddick, Halo series, Ninja Gaiden...).
(And I would point out that the original DE was pretty spotty when it came to tech as well. Very slow on most systems when it was released, without particularly nice graphics to compensate. I suspect they just donn't have the calibur of 3D programmer required...)
And as much as I love DE1, it really didn't leave room for a sequel. Near-future stuff works fine, but once you get close to or even past the Singularity, it is almost impossible to create a realistic or interesting setting (as any human just wouldn't be close to where the real action is). Most of the truly interesting conspiracy theories were already dealt with (seriously, you already used the Templars, the Illuminati, and Majestic 12). Most of the interesting future tech was used (nanotechnology especially, though I do think Invisible War expanded on it in interesting areas). And you couldn't reasonably expand on the cyberpunk theme too much, because the world had already been pulled back from the brink in the original. (The globalization issues that Invisible War brought up was a good attempt, but that is really hard to address in a FPS - there are no real masses, you understand?)
The original poster made it clear they were a "hardcore gamer". Obviously a system catering its online system to casual games doesn't matter to them, and can even be a negative to some gamers (it leads to more little kids online, for example). And it was clearly an 'IMO' statement, so you seem to be taking it a little too personally...
Anyway, here are credible reasons to believe that the PS2 just doesn't have a good online system compared to Xbox Live:
1. No unified friend list (and with that, no ability to check what game's your friends are playing).
2. Widespread cheating. (This is probably the biggest deal. Look at what happens to fighting games on the PS2 as opposed to the Xbox versions.)
3. Freaking typing is used in many games to communicate.
4. No real ability to update games, either to fix unforseen glitches or add content (yeah, a few PS2 games allow this, but not to the same level).
5. It's free. This is actually a negative, as the nominal Xbox Live fee allows grievers and people who exploit temporary glitches (like in Halo2) to have their credit card(s) banned. They also end up basically losing money if they mess around.
6. Online games can be "turned off". (MS did make a deal with EA to allow them to do this with Xbox Live, but they are thankfully the only company who can. And honestly, who really enjoys EA games and isn't used to getting ripped off anyway?)
That's kind of funny. From my perspective, games like KOTOR or Deus Ex: Invisible War on the Xbox are too limited because of their insistence on programming it as if it is a PC game. :D Lots of load times all over the place instead of a streaming universe (because you can always buy more RAM or a faster hard drive), no real attention to scene polycounts (because you can always get a better videocard), etc. (It isn't a surprise that both of these games are built on older game engines that were created for the PC.)
The Xbox and PC are certainly not equivalent at running the same games. It isn't a big surprise that a game designed for the PC will look better than a console port. But when you program specifically for the Xbox hardware's strengths, some of the games easily meet or even exceed current PC visual quality. Look at Ninja Gaiden, Amped 2 (which can run at 720p), DOA2U, Rallisport Challenge 2, or Conker: Live & Reloaded. All of these easily stand up to the best visuals you can find in current PC games. (Hell, look at GT4 on the lowly PS2 - no PC racing game comes close in graphical quality.) Being able to tailor your art assets to a powerful standardized platform makes up for a lot of excess videocard or CPU hardware.
(Obviously all that ends up really mattering is the games, of course.)
It should be pointed out that those numbers are basically just low-end estimates. Like the similar US data (via the NPD), many large stores simply aren't polled in the numbers that Magic Box posts.
The original poster was obviously referring to the 2D sidescrolling Mario games. The RPGs just don't scratch the same itch...
It would be really hard to find a semi-new video card that can't do good desktop 2D (though obviously the Matroxes probably have the best visual fidelity). Radeon's are designed and sold for 3D usage, and the 9200 is a shabby example of one (it was upon release, too). It's not that the card won't work, it is just not the kind of card you advertise having.
Don't worry about it much as Burnout 2 is a much better game anyway. Better music, better courses, better gameplay (both racing and crash mode), better challenge (as in having challenge, period). The glitchy online play and slighty better graphics is really all you are missing.
(And I don't purchase EA games either. My experience is through playing my brother's game. If you desperately need to try it to see what a fall from excellence it really is, renting it won't give EA any money...)
Just FYI, it is actually just a Radeon 9200 chipset with RAM. Calling it a graphics card implies it could be upgraded, which is sadly not the case (though understandable when the case is only a couple inches tall!).
And it is pretty shabby. Especially since this variant has a quarter of the RAM that the standard 9200 cards have (running well under $40 retail), which also go up to a possible 256 MB.
Way to misunderstand the (rhetorical) question. One measly game (that isn't even exlusive to boot) doesn't really refute what the grandparent post said, does it?
Another issue is that Nintendo ultimately only has a few franchises they pass around (mainly Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Pokemon, F-Zero) - the PSP has a ridiculous number of established franchises coming to it, most of them from non-Sony companies.
To soft of summarize: DS got a port of Namco's old N64 Ridge Racer. The PSP gets a completely new version. It's pretty obvious which situation is more attractive to most people. I suspect this pattern will continue for most of these system's lifespans, and sales will reflect it pretty clearly.
(For the record, I am probably not getting either system. But the PSP is certainly more tempting than anything the DS has shown so far...)
AFAIK Saturn actually did better than the N64. It sold really well in Japan, hovering close and sometimes even beating the PS1 until near the end of the 32-bit generation - but the N64 completely and utterly bombed over there. Strong American sales didn't really make up for the total indifference the Japanese had towards it (and this was when the Japanese videogame industry was larger than it is today). The Saturn might also have outdone the Gamecube, but it is probably too early to tell.
Graphics should serve the gameplay (and I can't really think of too many above average action/fps games that don't understand that - something like "bump maps and fx" give increased visual clarity and variety, which makes target identification easier...). But the story should serve the gameplay.
(It occurs to me that a lot of your complaints might be heavily PC focused. Perhaps some of it is true in that case - but in the whole wide world of videogaming, gameplay is almost always the master. The real problem is that a lot of designers have a poor understanding of what good gameplay really is...)
(And what really makes videogames take a long time to develop nowadays is the content, period. Some of this is increased visual clarity, but a lot of it is just that players are demanding more complex content.)
The EBs in my area (well, the two I have been to) have the Gamecube in the front of the store, actually. The Gamestop has it in a nicer, more spacious area, right next to the large GBA section. So no, I don't think that's the problem.
The Gamecube just doesn't get a lot of exclusive games, and most multiplatform releases are usually worse than the other versions available. (Framerate issues seem to be a perennial complaint in GC reviews for multiplatform games, but sound and control issues are also plentiful, and the online component is always removed for non-Phantasy Star games.)
Third party games also just don't sell very on the Gamecube. Gamecube owners on average buy less games (which is a good reason for retailers to not give it much attention... the Gamecube has never been neck-and-neck with the Xbox when it came to what really mattered: attach rate). The biggest publisher on the system (and in the world AFAIK) is Nintendo themselves. (Yes, Sony not publishing that many good games in the early life-span of their consoles can actually be a selling point to other publishers.)
People can make up all of the excuses they want about Gamecube's poor sales and mindshare, but when all other things are relatively equal like they are in this generation (i.e. the GC hardware isn't massively more expensive or underpowered), it always comes down to the games and how they sell.
Imagine that! Game consoles succeed based on the games they have. Please, stop this damn persecution complex nonsense ("The videogame industry is out to get us Nintendo fans!")!
On the other hand, that kind of thing is already happening. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within was released back in November, about a year after the last one. I have only played an hour or so, but it was pretty bad (glitches all over, some poor voice acting, bad animation, ridiculous music, hilariously silly new "dark" theme, all charm and humor has been removed, combat about as boring as in the last game but now it occurs every couple minutes or so...). I assume Ubisoft is readying another sequel for the next-gen launch this coming Fall...
(Not that I want EA to take over Ubisoft, understand.)
Really? Have you played Rallisport Challenge 2? Project Gotham Racing 2? ESPN NFL 2K5? Dead or Alive Ultimate? Kingdom Under Fire: the Crusaders? How about universal buddy systems, stats tracking, and voice communication? How about an essentially cheat-free environment? You have any of that yet?
The first attempt at anything is often improved upon.
I think that while the X-Box has some nice hardware, it really needs analog buttons and a controller redesign. I shudder to think of how MGS3 will play on X-Box when they port it minus the analog.
Huh? The controller buttons (minus Start and Back, IIRC) are analog on the Xbox. They always have been. And you get better analog triggers and sticks, too.
Some people obviously aren't into online play, and you sound like one of them. A lot of us can put up with the occassional dumbass, and smart developers can design their games to punish that kind of behavior in most genres. Easy fix for sports games 'droppers': after a few drops that player is put into a category where they can only play against people also in the dropper category. Keep the assholes busy with each other. Allow a gradual shift back into the good player category if they clean up their act (say, every 10-20 games with no drops they can subtract one from their total).
But I find the most important thing to play against nice, polite people is to choose the right game to play. Some games appeal more to grievers than others - Counterstrike and leveling treadmill games being the classic examples. But when playing games like Dead or Alive 2 Ultimate online (which is my main online game lately), I maybe encounter 1 asshole every 20-30 players. No big deal.
Devs seem to think that cube owners are all children, so few mature games.
The fact is that Gamecube owners just buy less games than owners of other systems, mature or not. I don't have the game attach rates handy right now, but they are easily the lowest among this generation. Something like half or even less of what PS2 gamers buy. And of course most of those comparatively meager sales go to Nintendo, so there just isn't much room for third parties.
The GBA's attach rate is also pretty low, which is kind of interesting I think. Is it an advertising issue? Is it a demographic issue (ex: kids don't get too many new games)? Is it some kind of issue with Nintendo and their policies? I wish I knew.
Incidentally the Xbox has the highest attach rate this generation, which is one of the reasons it does get comparative third party support even though the PS2 handily outsells it most months. Xbox owners buy lots and lots of games...
You might want to give Anarchy Online a shot. They recently went free (both fee and initial cost for a year). I shyed away from MMORPGs prior to it, but I have to admit it is kind of fun...
(ok, supposedly Bayou Billy was harder than its Japanese region counterpart, but otherwise...)
Actually it is really hard to find a game with different regional difficulty levels made in the last decade that is otherwise. Most Japanese games nowadays are made harder for Westerners, since most Japanese gamers want their games really ridiculously easy.
As you suggest, Sony is making a profit on their hardware. What is especially hilarious with the original misinformation post is that Nintendo is losing money on current Gamecube sales. It is being sold below cost to get to that 'magic' $99 price point.
Regardless, overall profit is what matters, just like you stated.
The author shows a complete misunderstanding of how businesses maintain corporate identity and branding when he launches into such brilliant ideas as suggesting Donkey Konga would have been better served with brand new characters instead of recycling Donkey Kong. Because we all know how the PS2's Taiko Drum Master is burning up the charts (another drum peripheral game, nearly identical to Konga, also developed by Namco) because people are just begging for new drum games featuring all new IP.
Umm, Taiko Drum Master (AKA "Taiko no Tatsujin") is a gigantic success in Japan. Six arcade versions and five home releases since it came out in 2001, and home sales in excess of 2 million or so units. It is easily one of the top three most profitable Namco series. Where do you think Nintendo got the idea for Donkey Konga, and why did they then ask Namco to make it? It isn't because the idea wasn't successful until an old franchise character was slapped on it!
Good understanding of "how businesses maintain corporate identity and branding" though!
(Here's a free clue: you need to create successful new brands sometimes.)
I just happen to see a lot of new stuff on GameCube, such as Viewtiful Joe, Pikmin, Super Monkey Ball, Ikaruga, etc. And such games are often greatly appreciated.
Yeah, and only Pikmin is made by Nintendo and isn't also available on other systems (and Super Monkey Ball and Ikaruga were both previously released on other systems). Third parties make innovative games for every system - a lot of GC fans just don't seem to pay attention for some 'mysterious' reason. Rez, Katamari Damacy, Kingdom Under Fire: the Crusaders, Psi-ops, Fatal Frame, etc. etc. etc. It isn't like non-Gamecube owners are lost in a wasteland of boring console franchises.
(And the Gamecube gets less of these games than the Xbox or especially the PS2 do, though it is surprisingly close considering how unprofitable the Gamecube is for third parties.)
And most of the 3rd party developers prefer to build on their franchises as well. (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Splinter Cell, Kingdom Hearts, etc. etc.)
That isn't really very fair. Every 'original' game you mentioned except Ikaruga (which to some extent is a sequel itself!) has also seen a sequel this generation. Halo, Splinter Cell, and Kingdom Hearts are all new creations of this console generation, just like Pikmin or Viewtiful Joe are.
The article's premise is ridiculous and unsupported by evidence. Nintendo's franchise games are:
a) Consistently among the highest-quality games available for any system, and
b) Consistently among the top sellers for Nintendo systems.
Man, it's too bad the article didn't bring up both of those points... Oh wait, it did. How about you try reading for a change?