"The Nintendo controller is not going to be based around a gimmick. It has been said many times that it is going to be soemthing totally unique in design that will allow everyone to enjoy gaming."
Why do people buy this kind of marketing-talk just because it's from Nintendo. Look at all the ridiculous things MS and Sony have said at various points about their consoles, before they launch. Nintendo have no more claim to credibility. It's not as if they haven't had flops before... remember the Virtual Boy?
And I stand by my point that the mainstream does not care about playing classic games. This is a strange little fiction that some sections of the gaming press have picked up. Go and look at the gaming charts and what do you see? Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, World of Warcraft, Gran Turismo 4, the latest version of Madden. When was the last time you saw a classic game collection, even one sold dirt-cheap, for a non-handheld gaming platform in any kind of sales top 10. The collections are there; I could walk into HMV right now, if I wanted, and buy several. But most people just ignore them.
I seriously don't think allowing minor developers onto the system is going to be the answer either. Micro-developer games have been around on the PC for as long as I can remember and it's been many a year since they've had any kind of impact on the major commercial gaming landscape.
Ultimately, mainstream gamers these days have expectations regarding quantity of content and production values. Retro and indie games can't deliver this. It's not a pleasant truth, but the sales figures speak for themselves.
Oh, I absolutely agree that you have a point here. However, these innovations were made standard at a time when Nintendo had significantly more market presence than they do now.
More recently, we've seen the real control innovation coming from outside Nintendo, with the likes of the Eye-toy and the popularity of dance-mat gaming.
If I was a fanboy, I wouldn't have been predicting a second place finish, would I?
As for the "MS games people do have a passion for games" thing, look at stuff like the Flight Simulator series. Hell, look at the fact that they carried on putting out the (generally excellent) Combat Flight Simulator series at a time when major commercial development in the genre was drying up elsewhere. Also look at how they've kept the Mechwarrior franchise alive and well (through both PC and X-Box titles) and even increased its audience (admittedly while upsetting some of the hardcore).
When the original X-Box came out, I was anything but a fan of it. To be honest, I thought it was crap and that its games were boring. However, MS have learned rapidly from mistakes and adapted accordingly during the first generation. Look at the redesign of the controller and the emphasis on RPGs (such as KOTOR and Jade Empire) that has characterised the latter part of the X-Box cycle. It's this kind of rapid adaptibility that I think will let MS leave Nintendo (who tend to stick with their design decisions, even when they've been shown to be mistakes *cough* N64 Cartridges *cough*) in the dust in the longer run and certainly close the gap on Sony.
Except that Nintendo games in the current generation have, at least here in the UK, been consistently more expensive than games for the PS2 and X-Box and consistently less likely to be included in multi-buy special offers.
Read my post. Specifically, the last few lines of the last "major" paragraph. Profitability now does not necessarily translate into future profitability. Ask anybody who knows anything about business.
Microsoft and Sony can *afford* to be unprofitable for a while. In the case of MS's games division, this has been a deliberate strategy to get market share.
I think I broadly agree with the conclusions of these articles, although I would raise a couple of counter-points and cautions.
First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer. If they do want this, then quite frankly, I think they're mad. The fact that Windows remains the only realistic platform for home computer-gaming (and yes, I know you can play UT2004 on Linux. When you can play every other game on my shelf on it, I might start to listen) is a huge advantage for Microsoft on all kinds of levels. It keeps Windows on home PCs... nobody wants to have to tell the kids they can't play their games any more because daddy wanted to experiment with Linux. By doing so, it keeps the population at large extremely familiar with Linux. This means that companies and government departments have a huge incentive to stick with it on their desktops; there's a reasonable expectation that new employees will already know it to a basic extent. Windows gaming has many problems, the ease of piracy perhaps chief among them, but MS would be crazy to kill it.
Other than that, I agree that MS are putting a lot of eggs into the 360 basket. I'd be a bit more optimistic than the article about their chances; I'd also be more willing to say that a lot of people who work in MS games have a real passion for games - they put out a lot of high quality (and often fairly niche) titles. Personally - I'd see the 360 coming out of the next round as a strong second, with perhaps 2/3rds the sales of the PS3.
The PS3 article did make me smile. It's true that Sony have taken what could be seen as a soul-less, corporate attitude to the console market. It's also true that they've managed to give their customers a lot of fun by doing so. Their ability to draw high quality third party developers to their platform is going to remain the single most important factor in the console next-gen. Personally, I suspect the PS3 will win the next-gen battle, with slightly better overall sales figures than the PS1 or PS2.
On the Nintendo front (and this is where I get modded down by the zealots), I agree that they've got a tough fight for survival in the next generation. Putting so much faith in the ability to play games from previous systems is going to please the hardcore, but the mass-market just aren't going to care. The controller might be wonderful and innovative, but we're not back in the early 90s, when Nintendo could lead the market in this respect. Chances are, the controller will end up as an oddity used for a couple of first and third party games, but otherwise be largely forgotten. And yes, the point about how the DS's strong standing isn't as positive for Nintendo as you might think is *very* valid. Of course, they could pull off something spectacular with the Revolution and leave the generation as market leaders. I woudn't go betting the ranch on it, though. Microsoft and Sony can afford to accept losses today, while they maneuveur for the market position that will allow them to make much bigger profits in the future. Nintendo don't have the pockets to allow for that; if their profit stream dries up, they're in trouble. Personally, I suspect the Revolution's going to flop.
Oh well, this is all just speculation. I suspect we won't have any real kind of picture until this time next year.
Remember, all cultures are valid and must be respected. Except Western Anglo-Saxon culture. That doesn't count. Chinese people *want* to be oppressed. That's their culture. Those students in Tiannamen Square? They *wanted* to be run over by tanks. Don't you get that? But don't even think about making me recite the pledge of alliegance in school. That's a violation of my rights.
Remember, all women must have rights (including the right to kill unborn children, as we're not 100% sure they're really alive), unless they come from a culture that traditionally subordinates women. In which case, it's fine to treat them as property. In fact, don't listen to what they say, that's what they want deep down. The fact that, until 100 years ago, Anglo-Saxon culture treated women as property is not relevant; as we've discussed, that's not a proper culture.
Remember, tyranny is bad. Really bad. Unless the tyrant doesn't like George Bush, in which case it's a legitimate expression of valid grievances.
It's this strange web of nonsensical alliances of convenience that have shut the Left out of Government for so long. You've just managed to pick up on one expression of it.
OK, reading through the original post, I think I can see the problem that some people have with MMORPGs. Thing is, though, I don't agree that this is a problem inherant in the genre, it's more a matter of how players approach it.
The key factor here is size. I've done one or two MUDs and most of these had player counts in the hundreds, or occasionally the low thousands. A large-scale commercial graphical MMORPG, on the other hand, isn't really commercially viable with less than about 50,000 players.
There are some obvious implications here. Even if the MMORPG in question takes the common approach of parcelling players on different servers, with average populations of 10,000 or so (which is a pretty low estimate for a lot of the games out there), it's always going to be more people than you can get to know. Hell, my secondary school had 1,000 pupils and I doubt I knew more than 150 or so, even on a passing basis. And that was without the problems of location and language barriers that you have in a MMORPG.
The result of this is that a player who doesn't have a good, consistent group of friends in a MMORPG, be they real-life friends or online acquiantances, is going to have a pretty lonely experience. In a MUD, on the other hand, with just a few hundred people, it's easier to become a known face much more quickly.
Now personally, I *much* prefer playing a graphical MMORPG. These games are designed to be played for pretty serious amounts of time and if I'm going to look at anything for that long, I want my eye-candy, goddamit. Moreover, I'm always impressed when the developers of a MMORPG manage to come up with a new visual location design that really knocks me back. Both FFXI and WoW have managed this fairly regularly (although you have to get pretty deep into the Zilart and Promathia strands of FFXI to find the prettiest areas). The quality of service and regularity of updates that you get from a well-run commercial MMORPG is more than worth the monthly fee.
I guess if there's a solution for people who are finding it hard to "click" with a MMORPG and missing the interractions of a MUD, it's to find a regular group. Either throw heavy things at real life friends until they sign up, or actively seek out a group of like-minded players in game. A good guild/linkshell of 50-100 people, with its own rivalries, goals and ethos, can completely transform your gaming experience.
In fact, now that I think about it, you can go even further than this. All three of the endings to Deus Ex are essentially "small government" endings.
*SPOILERS*
Option 1 is that you restore the Illuminati to power. They reshape the world's social structures to how they were in the mid/late 20th century. National governments are re-established, but the international bodies have their wings clipped. The Illuminati watch over this, but avoid direct involvement. This is, roughly speaking, the ending most favourable for a free-market capitalist. This is the ending I chose.
Option 2 is that you destroy the world's centralised computer network and usher in a new dark age. National and international governments collapse. This is essentially an anarchist ending.
Option 3 is that you hand over control of the world to the Helios AI. The AI assumes the role of an international government, managing security and distribution of resources. Other than that, humanity is left to its own devices. This ending is essentially techno-utopian. A lot of my fairly apolitical nerd friends went for this ending.
The biggest groups left "disenfranchised" here are probably social-democrats and Communists. There's no option to usher in any kind of human-run world-government. No option to push the world onto the path of socialism. You could argue that the Helios route might bring this about through other channels, but you'd be going beyond what's said in the game there.
Ok, before I begin writing a comment about bias in games, I should put my own cards on the table. I'm a conservative; pro-Iraq war, anti-abortion, deeply suspicious of the UN and even though I'm British, I like George Bush.
However, that said, I actually found a lot to like about Deus Ex, contrary to what the article seems to imply. First of all, it was a great game. That's the most important thing, regardless of any political messages. However, the political messages in Deus Ex could certainly be seen has having a conservative slant. The United Nations were very much the bad-guys. One of the three possible endings, the Illuminati ending, essentially let you choose to embrace 20th-century capitalism. The guys who led you down the path were shady at times, but their heart seemed to be in the right place. Now, the sequel (Invisible War) on the other hand, seemed a bit more didactic in its approach. Then again, the writing in the sequel, much like the gameplay, seemed vastly less intelligent overall.
Looking elsewhere in games, political messages seem to be fairly broadly spread. There are plenty of games out there, such as the original Command & Conquer and Red Alert, which aren't afraid to paint the West as the good guys and terrorists/the Soviets as the baddies. Similarly, you get games like KOTOR and Jade Empire, which tend to present the pacifist, left-wing choices as "good". Of course, I enjoyed KOTOR and Jade Empire immensely, despite their politics, because they're both good games. (KOTOR 2, on the other hand, I can live without, because it was just too enmeshed in the hack-author love-fest that is the Star Wars expanded universe to have a coherent or interesting plot).
More interesting than the issue of political bias, I think, is the issue of cultural assumptions in games. Full Spectrum Warrior is a good example of this. As is pretty widely known, this game is essentially an adapted version of a tactical training simulator used by the US military. What surprised me about the game was how casualty-averse it is. If a single member of your squad dies, you fail a mission. Moreover, the missions essentially resembled a puzzle game. The bad guys could be counted on to react predictably in any given situation, with surprises coming only if they had been specifically included by the people designing the mission. Now, I guess in the context of a story-based game, with continuity of characters, this makes sense. However, it did make me wonder about the assumptions this would impart if the actual military simulator uses the same parameters. Is it only preparing soldiers for success? Would it result in panic or a loss of momentum in a situation where members of a squad were killed by something unexpected? If the AI in the game isn't programmed to make a banzai charge if cornered, is this going to lead to a blind spot in the field if a real, unpredictable, human opponent tries this? To what extent do we pick up assumptions from games (or films, books etc) that influence how we react in real life?
Biggest party in the UK at the moment is Labour. Until the 1990s, Labour was basically a socialist party. They believed in strong trade unions, nationalised industries, tax-and-spend economics and, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, nuclear disarmament. Labour was responsible for a serious crisis in the UK economy in the late 70s, with strike action bringing the UK to a virtual stand-still. On the basis of this, they were swept from Office and spent the better part of 2 decades in the political wilderness. In the 1990s, they got new leaders, first John Smith (who died after a couple of years) and then Tony Blair, who swept the old hard-left away and replaced them with a centrist, maybe centre-right "broad church" coalition. This won resounding election victories in 1997 and 2001 and a narrower, but still decisive, victory in 2005. Labour's majority in the Commons from 1997 until the 2005 election was so massive that other parties were effectively shut out of the picture altogether, with the real opposition to the government essentially being provided by dissidents within the party. This will probably change now that their majority is reduced.
The Conservatives (often called the Tories) are the other big party in the UK political system. They're effectively the "small government" party, although this part of the message tends to get lost. Unlike US conservatives, the UK conservative party doesn't have any real religious base; they're essentially more economic than social conservatives these days. The Conservatives are basically credited with/blamed for (depending on who you ask) reversing the UK's post-Imperial economic decline/destoying the UK's working class. Margaret Thatcher, their leader throughout the 80s, basically shattered the power of the trade unions, most notably the National Union of Miners, which had previously been vastly powerful. While this was a good thing for the country economically in broad terms, and laid the foundations for the UK's current prosperity relative to the rest of Europe, it had some pretty grim social effects, particularly on the working class in the North of the country. Opinion is still *sharply* divided over whether Thatcher was a good thing or not, largely along social lines. The wheels fell off the Conservative machine in the 90s, with a series of embarrassing economic and foreign policy blunders and a damaging split in the party over their line on the European Union. This led to a shattering defeat in 1997. It's taken the Conservatives a long time to get back on their feet from this; they went through two useless leaders (William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith), then found a relatively good one in Michael Howard. Sadly, he then went and quit after losing what was effectively an unwinnable election and the current leadership contest is proving pretty damaging to the party. The party still has a strong base of support in England (where it is more popular than Labour, whose strongholds tend to be in Scotland and Wales), but the Parliamentary party haven't been able to energise this for over a decade. They'll probably manage to do better in the next elections (probably 2009), if they can pull themselves together a bit. Their fortunes are being helped in the long run by a growing frustration with the higher taxes that have crept in under Labour. Broadly speaking, the Conservatives today are low-tax and Euro-sceptic.
The third party in the UK are the Liberal Democrats. Prior to the First World War, the Liberals were (along with the Tories) one of the two main parties. However, a series of miscalculations saw them losing this space to the newer, more aggressive Labour party. Historically, the Liberal Democrats have been "Liberal" in the classic sense of the word; low tax, small government, relaxed social policies. However, following Labour's swing to the right, the Lib Dems have essentially out-flanked them on the left. They picked up some seats on the basis of anti-war sentiment in the previous election, as they were the only major party to oppose
Ok, this one isn't quite as simple or as amusing as the summary makes out, I'm afraid.
One of the live issues here in the UK at the moment is the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill that Blair is currently pushing through Parliament. This is broadly similar to the existing laws on "Incitement to Racial Hatred". The difference is that, under current laws, only Jews and Sikhs are protected, according to some interpretations. Christianity is protected separately, under some rarely (read "not in my lifetime") enforced blasphemy laws. Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway, so all the situation really needs is for existing laws to be enforced...
Now, the reason why this is being pushed through is that the Labour party has taken a lot of flak over Iraq from the UK's Islamic community, which is normally a staunch supporter of Labour. Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat at the last general election, standing on an extremist anti-war, anti-establishment platform (which is a little ironic considering his own lifestyle). Therefore, Labour introduces this bill in an effort to get the UK Islamic community behind them again.
Now, this leads to two problems. First of all, a lot of people, particularly commedians, notice that this has serious implications for freedom of speech. One can no longer ridicule a religion or its texts and be sure of being on safe legal ground. Now, Blair's response to this was to say that the letter of the law would not be enforced. This is obviously a pretty pathetic argument and kind of missing the whole point of "the law" (that it lets people know whether they are behaving legally or not). It also leaves the door open to all kinds of future abuses.
The other problem is that if Blair honestly doesn't intend to see the law enforced, then he's creating a lot of false expectations among the UK Islamic community and other particularly devout religious groups. A lot of these people are expecting that, come the enactment of this, it will be illegal to say anything critical of their religion or to call any aspect of it into question. If this doesn't happen, there could be a lot of disappointment, some of it violent.
So all in all, this story is a little more serious than it first seems.
Strangely, I still wouldn't be completely surprised if we did see the Phantom in one form or another. I seriously doubt it's ever going to be a competitor to the big MS/Sony/Nintendo triad, but I can see a machine like that would have its niche.
I'd have thought a system with a subscription-based games would be perfect for use in... say... hotels, holiday camps... basically, anywhere that people stay for a relatively short length of time and are going to want to keep the kids entertained. This works best if you have a system whereby you can rent a number of simple-ish arcade games for a short period, for a low fee. From what I've read of the supposed Phantom pay-to-play system, this could work. You bolt the system down in the room and you've got no easily removed game disks or cartridges - *BANG*, you random theft problems disappear. There are a lot of hotel rooms out there.
Of course, we'll have to see whether the people pushing the phantom are bright enough to see this, or if they're too determined to compete with the big boys.
By and large, I agree with most of the conclusions. It would have been nice to see a little more (or indeed, any) discussion of classic PC controllers, from the era when the joystick was king. Anybody else remember the Thrustmaster F16?
On the current generation controllers, I think it's maybe a little harsh on the X-Box S-controller. Yes, the white and black buttons aren't brilliantly placed, but it still has a number of advantages over the dualshock. A single set of shoulder buttons, rather than two, feels more intuitive and it's much, much easier to use the S-controller's shoulder buttons in an analogue capacity. I suspect this may be why PS2 driving games (such as Gran Turismo 3 and 4) tend to default to using the face buttons to emulate pedals, while the X-Box games (such as Forza), usually default to shoulder buttons. On balance, I'd take a good set of shoulder buttons either time. I also find the S-controller's analogue sticks a bit stiffer, which is nicer for playing fpses and driving games, although perhaps less good for twitch-shooters and beat-em-ups.
Oh, and while Nintendo may have been pioneers with wireless controllers during this generation, let's not forget that they used a pretty unscrupulous practice to encourage adoption. The cable length on the default Gamecube controller is PATHETIC. I like to sit a decent distance from my TV to play games. This means that if I want to play a Gamecube game, I have to pluck the system out of the cabinet and put it in the middle of the floor. Not impressed.
I must say, it's most considerate of them to put all of the titles I'm not going to want to touch with a barge-pole together on one label, for easy avoidance. Major in-game advertising AND appearances by MTV celebs. How... delightful.
I understand your point here. However, FFXI *does* have areas that require skill-based gameplay. There is actually a fairly high measure of skill required to play certain jobs, although this varies a lot from job to job.
The straight damage dealer jobs tend to be the easiest. Playing these well is basically a combination of having the patience to farm for ages to get the best equipment, knowing how to control the damage you inflict to manage hate properly and knowing how to skillchain effectively. Dark Knight is perhaps slightly harder than the other straight DDs, as it requires a bit of magic use (at least, it does for the better players).
Mages and healers are a good bit harder. Playing as White Mage can sometimes feel like a game of whack-a-mole, particularly if you don't have an especially skilled tank, as you need to be reactive as your party members hp gets low. At higher levels, you've also got to be extremely active with status cures and be able to counter special attacks that might cripple your tank within seconds. Red Mages and Bards have to mix the requirements of keeping party members buffed appropriately (which as Bard can require a lot of careful positioning and running around), with the need to keep the enemy debuffed.
The tanks (Paladin and Ninja) are probably the hardest job to play. A good Paladin needs to be able to time his cures so that his casting doesn't get interrupted and needs to be able to use the right defensive job ability at the drop of a hat. As the original comment says, Cover is a pain in the arse, but an incredibly important one. Ninjas need to balance the requirement to keep their shadows up with the ability to run around the "elemental wheel" to keep hate.
And that's just for xp parties. The second FFXI expansion, Chains of Promathia, added a series of level-capped missions which are intensely skill based. As the fights are all level capped, some of them as low as level 30, everybody in the party needs to be damned good at their job in order to win these fights. You need to plan tactics carefully beforehand and make sure everybody knows them. You also need people who can react well to unexpected situations; I don't think I've ever done a CoP boss fight where something unexpected (or something we'd hoped to avoid) didn't happen at some point in the fight.
I don't think it's so bad outside the dreaded Euro-zone. Here in the UK, I can't remember the last time I paid more than £35 (52 Euros) for a new PS2 or X-Box release, or £30 (45 Euros) or so for a new PC release. In fact, I'll usually pay less than that. I was on holiday in the USA a few months ago and was surprised by how expensive their games were, even with the pound being exceptionally strong against the dollar.
I think it helps that we have HMV and Game pretty much locked in a tooth-and-nail price war at the moment here on games. It's rare that either of them will charge the full RRP on a new release and it's astounding how quickly games get included in the "2 for £30" type deals. This kind of offer, particularly on relatively new games, seemed to be almost entirely absent in the States.
Nintendo games are a bit of an exception here. Although they occasionally entered stores at below the RRP, the big franchise titles never seemed to be included in special offers. I'm assuming there's some kind of marketing deal at work here. At any rate, it's cost them quite a few sales from me at least. Plus GBA games are so stupidly, insultingly expensive in the UK (often £30 each for a new title with almost no special offers) that I've only ever bought them while in the USA.
This doesn't seem an especially unrealistic estimate. If anything, I'd say it's slightly lower than where MS should be aiming, given their stated intention to rival the PS3. After all, they've got an entire Christmas season to themselves, they've got a pretty well oiled marketing machine and they're going to be hitting the Japanese market *much* harder than they did last time around. I know that's not saying much, but with the developers they have on board this time, it could all end very differently.
If I had to hazard a guess as to why they've picked the 10 million figure, I'd say that they've decided: a) that it sounds a nice big number to people who don't know the console market b) that they're probably not going to have to give embarrassing explanations when they fall short of it and c) that there's a good chance they'll exceed it, in which case they can have a good gloat.
You've got a slight point about FFXII being a.hack ripoff (although Kingdom Hearts would perhaps be a fairer comparison, as it's both older and also by Square), but personally, I'm going to wait and see.
Almost every installment of the Final Fantasy series has changed something about the game-world or play-mechanics from the previous installments. Every-time, we see the more short-sighted of the fanboys wailing about how this is the ruination of the series and how it's removed everything that ever made it worth playing. Personally, I take the longer view. Every time Square have changed the play mechanics, they've managed to create an interesting and enjoyable game, rather than "just another sequel". The only recent title in which they *didn't* significantly change things, but rather went for a deliberate nostalgia trip, was FFIX. This seems to be to be a title that's largely forgotten when people talk about the series these days.
I really can't believe the lack of planning that this move demonstrates. TFA correctly highlights the fact that not many consumers possess HD TVs at the moment. However, the 10% figure on its own should not be taken as evidence that HD TV isn't worth supporting.
First of all, consider that people who own HD TVs already are people who spend a lot of money on consumer electronics. These people are almost certainly going to be disproportionately likely to be early adopters of the next-gen consoles, even if they aren't hardcore gamers.
Next, think about the length of a console cycle. The current cycle has lasted... what... about four years (depending on when you time it from)? It's going to be getting on five or more by the time all three systems are on the shelves. In other words, you don't need to be thinking about the number of households that have HD TV now, you need to be planning for the number who will have HD TV in 2008 or so, by the mid-point of the next cycle. Remember what happened to the level of DVD-player adoption over a similar time-scale?
Oh, and I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but the "it's the games, stupid" rhetoric would sound a lot more convincing if Nintendo had any real track record of being able to deliver sufficient quantity of games over the last decade, or if they weren't making decision after decision that looks set to drive third-party cross-platform developers away.
I see all the comments so far are basically saying this is a deliberate part of Microsoft's hype campaign.
They're probably right.
However, there's one indication I've seen that Microsoft's predictions might not be so far off the mark. I play FFXI; a MMORPG with a high (I'd guess about 40%) proportion of Japanese players. I've had conversations with quite a few Japanese players who are actually pretty exicted about the 360. Given the original X-Box basically vanished without a trace in Japan, this could be a potential indicator that the 360 is destined for bigger things. At the very least, it seems that Microsoft's deliberate targeting of Japanese developers is at least going some way towards achieving its intended effect.
There's an interesting debate to be had about the future of the franchise, but sadly, this won't be the article to spark it off.
The author's main problem is that he didn't like FFXI or FFX-2. As far as I'm concerned, that's his problem. Far from being a failure, FFXI still has a commanding position in terms of the size of its user-base. Last I saw, it was only behind WoW and the Korean MMORPGs (for which figures should be treated with a degree of caution due to the methodology used to count players there). Indeed, before the release of WoW, it had been the biggest MMORPG played outside of Korea for quite a while. User figures have been steady for a long time, with the release of WoW not making any significant dent. In the highly competative, dog-eat-dog world of MMORPG publishing, I'd call that a resounding success, rather than a harbinger of doom.
FFX-2 has always been contraversial among Final Fantasy fans. I'll admit that it's never been my favorite installment in the series (this would be FFX - and yes, I've played the whole "main" series, including FF6). However, this isn't to say it's without merit. In many ways, it's a return to more traditional gameplay, with a much steeper difficulty curve than other recent games in the series and a job-based character system. If you approach it without expecting it to be "more of the same" from FFX, then it's actually a very good RPG. A lot of tormented, gothy Final Fantasy fans felt they had to dislike FFX-2 out of principle, because it's actually quite upbeat. Personally, I'm secure enough that I can play a game like this without it making me "doubt my masculinity" (author's words).
The most significant issue the author raises, in my view, is the wait for FFXII. This has certainly been longer than I expected. However, I think this is largely a reflection of the fact that development times and costs have risen, to match customer expectations. When you completely rework your graphical engine, combat system and game world for each installment of your series, you can't be expected to stick to a Madden-style production schedule. At any rate, I'll reserve judgement on FFXII until I can actually play it.
I think it's more about marketing and intended sales than it is about quality these days. My understanding of an "AAA" title is one that takes centre-place on a platform's lineup, is used as a tool for pushing that platform and is expected to (and indeed does) produce vast sales.
Examples of "AAA" titles from the last year would be:
PC: Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Rome: Total War PS2: GTA San Andreas, Gran Turismo 4, Metal Gear Solid 3 X-Box: Halo 2, Forza Motorsport, Jade Empire Gamecube: Metroid Prime 2, Resident Evil 4
You've probably also got a few big cross-platform titles that qualify because they're promoted heavily for other reasons, like the (apparently dismal) Revenge of the Sith tie-in.
Quake 3 still stands out in my mind as the ultimate example of why it's a bad idea to develop any game (except possibly a MMORPG) with the hard-core in mind. I remember the consultation phase ID went through while developing it, where they talked to a lot of the "top" hardcore players from Quake and Quake 2 to get their input into game mechanics and map design. I also remember how most of these people then turned around and savaged the game after its release.
There's simply no gain to be had in pitching your product at this market.
First, Compared to the "casual" market (which includes a lot of people who definitely count as gamers, but don't focus on one title or genre exclusively), the number of potential buyers is tiny. They're also extremely vocal, on forums, message boards, IRC and at industry events. This can give the impression that they're a larger group than they are.
Second, this group knows no gratitude. I've never seen a developer go as far as ID did during the Quake 3 development process and I've never seen a developer take such (unwarrented) flak after release for dumbing-down, selling-out, or whatever the term of the day at the time was. Everything about the game was slated; the physics, the maps, even the fact that it had pretty graphics.
Third, this group is insanely conservative in terms of its gaming habits. I was part of the "hardcore" fps gaming scene for a while and one of the most disgusting thing about it was the palpable fear with which the people at the top of the game would approach anything that proposed even mild changes to the game as they knew it. This was extremely noticable every time Counter-Strike approached a new version release. With new iterations of the Quake and Unreal Tournament series, it was even worse. The top players were petrified that any changes to the game might diminish the little tricks they were using to stay on top and force them to adapt or even, god forbid, lose their place and the reputation that went with it. When Quake 3 came out, I remember how terrified a lot of the top Quake/Quake 2 players were of the prospect that they might have to fight to regain their prestige. The result was a lot of trash-talk about the game and a very slow adoption rate.
Finally, this group of players is the most insular and cliquey around. I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen newbies in hardcore games (both MMORPGs and fpses) subjected to a barrage of obscenities within moments of connecting. With a primarily online game, a developer is investing a lot of their reputation in the behaviour of their players. What I saw in Quake 3 was a long way from being impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Nintendo controller is not going to be based around a gimmick. It has been said many times that it is going to be soemthing totally unique in design that will allow everyone to enjoy gaming."
Why do people buy this kind of marketing-talk just because it's from Nintendo. Look at all the ridiculous things MS and Sony have said at various points about their consoles, before they launch. Nintendo have no more claim to credibility. It's not as if they haven't had flops before... remember the Virtual Boy?
And I stand by my point that the mainstream does not care about playing classic games. This is a strange little fiction that some sections of the gaming press have picked up. Go and look at the gaming charts and what do you see? Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, World of Warcraft, Gran Turismo 4, the latest version of Madden. When was the last time you saw a classic game collection, even one sold dirt-cheap, for a non-handheld gaming platform in any kind of sales top 10. The collections are there; I could walk into HMV right now, if I wanted, and buy several. But most people just ignore them.
I seriously don't think allowing minor developers onto the system is going to be the answer either. Micro-developer games have been around on the PC for as long as I can remember and it's been many a year since they've had any kind of impact on the major commercial gaming landscape.
Ultimately, mainstream gamers these days have expectations regarding quantity of content and production values. Retro and indie games can't deliver this. It's not a pleasant truth, but the sales figures speak for themselves.
Oh, I absolutely agree that you have a point here. However, these innovations were made standard at a time when Nintendo had significantly more market presence than they do now. More recently, we've seen the real control innovation coming from outside Nintendo, with the likes of the Eye-toy and the popularity of dance-mat gaming.
If I was a fanboy, I wouldn't have been predicting a second place finish, would I?
As for the "MS games people do have a passion for games" thing, look at stuff like the Flight Simulator series. Hell, look at the fact that they carried on putting out the (generally excellent) Combat Flight Simulator series at a time when major commercial development in the genre was drying up elsewhere. Also look at how they've kept the Mechwarrior franchise alive and well (through both PC and X-Box titles) and even increased its audience (admittedly while upsetting some of the hardcore).
When the original X-Box came out, I was anything but a fan of it. To be honest, I thought it was crap and that its games were boring. However, MS have learned rapidly from mistakes and adapted accordingly during the first generation. Look at the redesign of the controller and the emphasis on RPGs (such as KOTOR and Jade Empire) that has characterised the latter part of the X-Box cycle. It's this kind of rapid adaptibility that I think will let MS leave Nintendo (who tend to stick with their design decisions, even when they've been shown to be mistakes *cough* N64 Cartridges *cough*) in the dust in the longer run and certainly close the gap on Sony.
Except that Nintendo games in the current generation have, at least here in the UK, been consistently more expensive than games for the PS2 and X-Box and consistently less likely to be included in multi-buy special offers.
Don't hold your breath.
Read my post. Specifically, the last few lines of the last "major" paragraph. Profitability now does not necessarily translate into future profitability. Ask anybody who knows anything about business.
Microsoft and Sony can *afford* to be unprofitable for a while. In the case of MS's games division, this has been a deliberate strategy to get market share.
I think I broadly agree with the conclusions of these articles, although I would raise a couple of counter-points and cautions.
First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer. If they do want this, then quite frankly, I think they're mad. The fact that Windows remains the only realistic platform for home computer-gaming (and yes, I know you can play UT2004 on Linux. When you can play every other game on my shelf on it, I might start to listen) is a huge advantage for Microsoft on all kinds of levels. It keeps Windows on home PCs... nobody wants to have to tell the kids they can't play their games any more because daddy wanted to experiment with Linux. By doing so, it keeps the population at large extremely familiar with Linux. This means that companies and government departments have a huge incentive to stick with it on their desktops; there's a reasonable expectation that new employees will already know it to a basic extent. Windows gaming has many problems, the ease of piracy perhaps chief among them, but MS would be crazy to kill it.
Other than that, I agree that MS are putting a lot of eggs into the 360 basket. I'd be a bit more optimistic than the article about their chances; I'd also be more willing to say that a lot of people who work in MS games have a real passion for games - they put out a lot of high quality (and often fairly niche) titles. Personally - I'd see the 360 coming out of the next round as a strong second, with perhaps 2/3rds the sales of the PS3.
The PS3 article did make me smile. It's true that Sony have taken what could be seen as a soul-less, corporate attitude to the console market. It's also true that they've managed to give their customers a lot of fun by doing so. Their ability to draw high quality third party developers to their platform is going to remain the single most important factor in the console next-gen. Personally, I suspect the PS3 will win the next-gen battle, with slightly better overall sales figures than the PS1 or PS2.
On the Nintendo front (and this is where I get modded down by the zealots), I agree that they've got a tough fight for survival in the next generation. Putting so much faith in the ability to play games from previous systems is going to please the hardcore, but the mass-market just aren't going to care. The controller might be wonderful and innovative, but we're not back in the early 90s, when Nintendo could lead the market in this respect. Chances are, the controller will end up as an oddity used for a couple of first and third party games, but otherwise be largely forgotten. And yes, the point about how the DS's strong standing isn't as positive for Nintendo as you might think is *very* valid. Of course, they could pull off something spectacular with the Revolution and leave the generation as market leaders. I woudn't go betting the ranch on it, though. Microsoft and Sony can afford to accept losses today, while they maneuveur for the market position that will allow them to make much bigger profits in the future. Nintendo don't have the pockets to allow for that; if their profit stream dries up, they're in trouble. Personally, I suspect the Revolution's going to flop.
Oh well, this is all just speculation. I suspect we won't have any real kind of picture until this time next year.
Remember, all cultures are valid and must be respected. Except Western Anglo-Saxon culture. That doesn't count. Chinese people *want* to be oppressed. That's their culture. Those students in Tiannamen Square? They *wanted* to be run over by tanks. Don't you get that? But don't even think about making me recite the pledge of alliegance in school. That's a violation of my rights.
Remember, all women must have rights (including the right to kill unborn children, as we're not 100% sure they're really alive), unless they come from a culture that traditionally subordinates women. In which case, it's fine to treat them as property. In fact, don't listen to what they say, that's what they want deep down. The fact that, until 100 years ago, Anglo-Saxon culture treated women as property is not relevant; as we've discussed, that's not a proper culture.
Remember, tyranny is bad. Really bad. Unless the tyrant doesn't like George Bush, in which case it's a legitimate expression of valid grievances.
It's this strange web of nonsensical alliances of convenience that have shut the Left out of Government for so long. You've just managed to pick up on one expression of it.
OK, reading through the original post, I think I can see the problem that some people have with MMORPGs. Thing is, though, I don't agree that this is a problem inherant in the genre, it's more a matter of how players approach it.
The key factor here is size. I've done one or two MUDs and most of these had player counts in the hundreds, or occasionally the low thousands. A large-scale commercial graphical MMORPG, on the other hand, isn't really commercially viable with less than about 50,000 players.
There are some obvious implications here. Even if the MMORPG in question takes the common approach of parcelling players on different servers, with average populations of 10,000 or so (which is a pretty low estimate for a lot of the games out there), it's always going to be more people than you can get to know. Hell, my secondary school had 1,000 pupils and I doubt I knew more than 150 or so, even on a passing basis. And that was without the problems of location and language barriers that you have in a MMORPG.
The result of this is that a player who doesn't have a good, consistent group of friends in a MMORPG, be they real-life friends or online acquiantances, is going to have a pretty lonely experience. In a MUD, on the other hand, with just a few hundred people, it's easier to become a known face much more quickly.
Now personally, I *much* prefer playing a graphical MMORPG. These games are designed to be played for pretty serious amounts of time and if I'm going to look at anything for that long, I want my eye-candy, goddamit. Moreover, I'm always impressed when the developers of a MMORPG manage to come up with a new visual location design that really knocks me back. Both FFXI and WoW have managed this fairly regularly (although you have to get pretty deep into the Zilart and Promathia strands of FFXI to find the prettiest areas). The quality of service and regularity of updates that you get from a well-run commercial MMORPG is more than worth the monthly fee.
I guess if there's a solution for people who are finding it hard to "click" with a MMORPG and missing the interractions of a MUD, it's to find a regular group. Either throw heavy things at real life friends until they sign up, or actively seek out a group of like-minded players in game. A good guild/linkshell of 50-100 people, with its own rivalries, goals and ethos, can completely transform your gaming experience.
In fact, now that I think about it, you can go even further than this. All three of the endings to Deus Ex are essentially "small government" endings.
*SPOILERS*
Option 1 is that you restore the Illuminati to power. They reshape the world's social structures to how they were in the mid/late 20th century. National governments are re-established, but the international bodies have their wings clipped. The Illuminati watch over this, but avoid direct involvement. This is, roughly speaking, the ending most favourable for a free-market capitalist. This is the ending I chose.
Option 2 is that you destroy the world's centralised computer network and usher in a new dark age. National and international governments collapse. This is essentially an anarchist ending.
Option 3 is that you hand over control of the world to the Helios AI. The AI assumes the role of an international government, managing security and distribution of resources. Other than that, humanity is left to its own devices. This ending is essentially techno-utopian. A lot of my fairly apolitical nerd friends went for this ending.
The biggest groups left "disenfranchised" here are probably social-democrats and Communists. There's no option to usher in any kind of human-run world-government. No option to push the world onto the path of socialism. You could argue that the Helios route might bring this about through other channels, but you'd be going beyond what's said in the game there.
Ok, before I begin writing a comment about bias in games, I should put my own cards on the table. I'm a conservative; pro-Iraq war, anti-abortion, deeply suspicious of the UN and even though I'm British, I like George Bush.
However, that said, I actually found a lot to like about Deus Ex, contrary to what the article seems to imply. First of all, it was a great game. That's the most important thing, regardless of any political messages. However, the political messages in Deus Ex could certainly be seen has having a conservative slant. The United Nations were very much the bad-guys. One of the three possible endings, the Illuminati ending, essentially let you choose to embrace 20th-century capitalism. The guys who led you down the path were shady at times, but their heart seemed to be in the right place. Now, the sequel (Invisible War) on the other hand, seemed a bit more didactic in its approach. Then again, the writing in the sequel, much like the gameplay, seemed vastly less intelligent overall.
Looking elsewhere in games, political messages seem to be fairly broadly spread. There are plenty of games out there, such as the original Command & Conquer and Red Alert, which aren't afraid to paint the West as the good guys and terrorists/the Soviets as the baddies. Similarly, you get games like KOTOR and Jade Empire, which tend to present the pacifist, left-wing choices as "good". Of course, I enjoyed KOTOR and Jade Empire immensely, despite their politics, because they're both good games. (KOTOR 2, on the other hand, I can live without, because it was just too enmeshed in the hack-author love-fest that is the Star Wars expanded universe to have a coherent or interesting plot).
More interesting than the issue of political bias, I think, is the issue of cultural assumptions in games. Full Spectrum Warrior is a good example of this. As is pretty widely known, this game is essentially an adapted version of a tactical training simulator used by the US military. What surprised me about the game was how casualty-averse it is. If a single member of your squad dies, you fail a mission. Moreover, the missions essentially resembled a puzzle game. The bad guys could be counted on to react predictably in any given situation, with surprises coming only if they had been specifically included by the people designing the mission. Now, I guess in the context of a story-based game, with continuity of characters, this makes sense. However, it did make me wonder about the assumptions this would impart if the actual military simulator uses the same parameters. Is it only preparing soldiers for success? Would it result in panic or a loss of momentum in a situation where members of a squad were killed by something unexpected? If the AI in the game isn't programmed to make a banzai charge if cornered, is this going to lead to a blind spot in the field if a real, unpredictable, human opponent tries this? To what extent do we pick up assumptions from games (or films, books etc) that influence how we react in real life?
Sure, no problem.
Biggest party in the UK at the moment is Labour. Until the 1990s, Labour was basically a socialist party. They believed in strong trade unions, nationalised industries, tax-and-spend economics and, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, nuclear disarmament. Labour was responsible for a serious crisis in the UK economy in the late 70s, with strike action bringing the UK to a virtual stand-still. On the basis of this, they were swept from Office and spent the better part of 2 decades in the political wilderness. In the 1990s, they got new leaders, first John Smith (who died after a couple of years) and then Tony Blair, who swept the old hard-left away and replaced them with a centrist, maybe centre-right "broad church" coalition. This won resounding election victories in 1997 and 2001 and a narrower, but still decisive, victory in 2005. Labour's majority in the Commons from 1997 until the 2005 election was so massive that other parties were effectively shut out of the picture altogether, with the real opposition to the government essentially being provided by dissidents within the party. This will probably change now that their majority is reduced.
The Conservatives (often called the Tories) are the other big party in the UK political system. They're effectively the "small government" party, although this part of the message tends to get lost. Unlike US conservatives, the UK conservative party doesn't have any real religious base; they're essentially more economic than social conservatives these days. The Conservatives are basically credited with/blamed for (depending on who you ask) reversing the UK's post-Imperial economic decline/destoying the UK's working class. Margaret Thatcher, their leader throughout the 80s, basically shattered the power of the trade unions, most notably the National Union of Miners, which had previously been vastly powerful. While this was a good thing for the country economically in broad terms, and laid the foundations for the UK's current prosperity relative to the rest of Europe, it had some pretty grim social effects, particularly on the working class in the North of the country. Opinion is still *sharply* divided over whether Thatcher was a good thing or not, largely along social lines. The wheels fell off the Conservative machine in the 90s, with a series of embarrassing economic and foreign policy blunders and a damaging split in the party over their line on the European Union. This led to a shattering defeat in 1997. It's taken the Conservatives a long time to get back on their feet from this; they went through two useless leaders (William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith), then found a relatively good one in Michael Howard. Sadly, he then went and quit after losing what was effectively an unwinnable election and the current leadership contest is proving pretty damaging to the party. The party still has a strong base of support in England (where it is more popular than Labour, whose strongholds tend to be in Scotland and Wales), but the Parliamentary party haven't been able to energise this for over a decade. They'll probably manage to do better in the next elections (probably 2009), if they can pull themselves together a bit. Their fortunes are being helped in the long run by a growing frustration with the higher taxes that have crept in under Labour. Broadly speaking, the Conservatives today are low-tax and Euro-sceptic.
The third party in the UK are the Liberal Democrats. Prior to the First World War, the Liberals were (along with the Tories) one of the two main parties. However, a series of miscalculations saw them losing this space to the newer, more aggressive Labour party. Historically, the Liberal Democrats have been "Liberal" in the classic sense of the word; low tax, small government, relaxed social policies. However, following Labour's swing to the right, the Lib Dems have essentially out-flanked them on the left. They picked up some seats on the basis of anti-war sentiment in the previous election, as they were the only major party to oppose
Ok, this one isn't quite as simple or as amusing as the summary makes out, I'm afraid.
One of the live issues here in the UK at the moment is the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill that Blair is currently pushing through Parliament. This is broadly similar to the existing laws on "Incitement to Racial Hatred". The difference is that, under current laws, only Jews and Sikhs are protected, according to some interpretations. Christianity is protected separately, under some rarely (read "not in my lifetime") enforced blasphemy laws. Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway, so all the situation really needs is for existing laws to be enforced...
Now, the reason why this is being pushed through is that the Labour party has taken a lot of flak over Iraq from the UK's Islamic community, which is normally a staunch supporter of Labour. Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat at the last general election, standing on an extremist anti-war, anti-establishment platform (which is a little ironic considering his own lifestyle). Therefore, Labour introduces this bill in an effort to get the UK Islamic community behind them again.
Now, this leads to two problems. First of all, a lot of people, particularly commedians, notice that this has serious implications for freedom of speech. One can no longer ridicule a religion or its texts and be sure of being on safe legal ground. Now, Blair's response to this was to say that the letter of the law would not be enforced. This is obviously a pretty pathetic argument and kind of missing the whole point of "the law" (that it lets people know whether they are behaving legally or not). It also leaves the door open to all kinds of future abuses.
The other problem is that if Blair honestly doesn't intend to see the law enforced, then he's creating a lot of false expectations among the UK Islamic community and other particularly devout religious groups. A lot of these people are expecting that, come the enactment of this, it will be illegal to say anything critical of their religion or to call any aspect of it into question. If this doesn't happen, there could be a lot of disappointment, some of it violent.
So all in all, this story is a little more serious than it first seems.
Strangely, I still wouldn't be completely surprised if we did see the Phantom in one form or another. I seriously doubt it's ever going to be a competitor to the big MS/Sony/Nintendo triad, but I can see a machine like that would have its niche.
I'd have thought a system with a subscription-based games would be perfect for use in... say... hotels, holiday camps... basically, anywhere that people stay for a relatively short length of time and are going to want to keep the kids entertained. This works best if you have a system whereby you can rent a number of simple-ish arcade games for a short period, for a low fee. From what I've read of the supposed Phantom pay-to-play system, this could work. You bolt the system down in the room and you've got no easily removed game disks or cartridges - *BANG*, you random theft problems disappear. There are a lot of hotel rooms out there.
Of course, we'll have to see whether the people pushing the phantom are bright enough to see this, or if they're too determined to compete with the big boys.
By and large, I agree with most of the conclusions. It would have been nice to see a little more (or indeed, any) discussion of classic PC controllers, from the era when the joystick was king. Anybody else remember the Thrustmaster F16?
On the current generation controllers, I think it's maybe a little harsh on the X-Box S-controller. Yes, the white and black buttons aren't brilliantly placed, but it still has a number of advantages over the dualshock. A single set of shoulder buttons, rather than two, feels more intuitive and it's much, much easier to use the S-controller's shoulder buttons in an analogue capacity. I suspect this may be why PS2 driving games (such as Gran Turismo 3 and 4) tend to default to using the face buttons to emulate pedals, while the X-Box games (such as Forza), usually default to shoulder buttons. On balance, I'd take a good set of shoulder buttons either time. I also find the S-controller's analogue sticks a bit stiffer, which is nicer for playing fpses and driving games, although perhaps less good for twitch-shooters and beat-em-ups.
Oh, and while Nintendo may have been pioneers with wireless controllers during this generation, let's not forget that they used a pretty unscrupulous practice to encourage adoption. The cable length on the default Gamecube controller is PATHETIC. I like to sit a decent distance from my TV to play games. This means that if I want to play a Gamecube game, I have to pluck the system out of the cabinet and put it in the middle of the floor. Not impressed.
I must say, it's most considerate of them to put all of the titles I'm not going to want to touch with a barge-pole together on one label, for easy avoidance. Major in-game advertising AND appearances by MTV celebs. How... delightful.
I understand your point here. However, FFXI *does* have areas that require skill-based gameplay. There is actually a fairly high measure of skill required to play certain jobs, although this varies a lot from job to job.
The straight damage dealer jobs tend to be the easiest. Playing these well is basically a combination of having the patience to farm for ages to get the best equipment, knowing how to control the damage you inflict to manage hate properly and knowing how to skillchain effectively. Dark Knight is perhaps slightly harder than the other straight DDs, as it requires a bit of magic use (at least, it does for the better players).
Mages and healers are a good bit harder. Playing as White Mage can sometimes feel like a game of whack-a-mole, particularly if you don't have an especially skilled tank, as you need to be reactive as your party members hp gets low. At higher levels, you've also got to be extremely active with status cures and be able to counter special attacks that might cripple your tank within seconds. Red Mages and Bards have to mix the requirements of keeping party members buffed appropriately (which as Bard can require a lot of careful positioning and running around), with the need to keep the enemy debuffed.
The tanks (Paladin and Ninja) are probably the hardest job to play. A good Paladin needs to be able to time his cures so that his casting doesn't get interrupted and needs to be able to use the right defensive job ability at the drop of a hat. As the original comment says, Cover is a pain in the arse, but an incredibly important one. Ninjas need to balance the requirement to keep their shadows up with the ability to run around the "elemental wheel" to keep hate.
And that's just for xp parties. The second FFXI expansion, Chains of Promathia, added a series of level-capped missions which are intensely skill based. As the fights are all level capped, some of them as low as level 30, everybody in the party needs to be damned good at their job in order to win these fights. You need to plan tactics carefully beforehand and make sure everybody knows them. You also need people who can react well to unexpected situations; I don't think I've ever done a CoP boss fight where something unexpected (or something we'd hoped to avoid) didn't happen at some point in the fight.
I don't think it's so bad outside the dreaded Euro-zone. Here in the UK, I can't remember the last time I paid more than £35 (52 Euros) for a new PS2 or X-Box release, or £30 (45 Euros) or so for a new PC release. In fact, I'll usually pay less than that. I was on holiday in the USA a few months ago and was surprised by how expensive their games were, even with the pound being exceptionally strong against the dollar.
I think it helps that we have HMV and Game pretty much locked in a tooth-and-nail price war at the moment here on games. It's rare that either of them will charge the full RRP on a new release and it's astounding how quickly games get included in the "2 for £30" type deals. This kind of offer, particularly on relatively new games, seemed to be almost entirely absent in the States.
Nintendo games are a bit of an exception here. Although they occasionally entered stores at below the RRP, the big franchise titles never seemed to be included in special offers. I'm assuming there's some kind of marketing deal at work here. At any rate, it's cost them quite a few sales from me at least. Plus GBA games are so stupidly, insultingly expensive in the UK (often £30 each for a new title with almost no special offers) that I've only ever bought them while in the USA.
This doesn't seem an especially unrealistic estimate. If anything, I'd say it's slightly lower than where MS should be aiming, given their stated intention to rival the PS3. After all, they've got an entire Christmas season to themselves, they've got a pretty well oiled marketing machine and they're going to be hitting the Japanese market *much* harder than they did last time around. I know that's not saying much, but with the developers they have on board this time, it could all end very differently.
If I had to hazard a guess as to why they've picked the 10 million figure, I'd say that they've decided: a) that it sounds a nice big number to people who don't know the console market b) that they're probably not going to have to give embarrassing explanations when they fall short of it and c) that there's a good chance they'll exceed it, in which case they can have a good gloat.
You've got a slight point about FFXII being a .hack ripoff (although Kingdom Hearts would perhaps be a fairer comparison, as it's both older and also by Square), but personally, I'm going to wait and see.
Almost every installment of the Final Fantasy series has changed something about the game-world or play-mechanics from the previous installments. Every-time, we see the more short-sighted of the fanboys wailing about how this is the ruination of the series and how it's removed everything that ever made it worth playing. Personally, I take the longer view. Every time Square have changed the play mechanics, they've managed to create an interesting and enjoyable game, rather than "just another sequel". The only recent title in which they *didn't* significantly change things, but rather went for a deliberate nostalgia trip, was FFIX. This seems to be to be a title that's largely forgotten when people talk about the series these days.
I really can't believe the lack of planning that this move demonstrates. TFA correctly highlights the fact that not many consumers possess HD TVs at the moment. However, the 10% figure on its own should not be taken as evidence that HD TV isn't worth supporting.
First of all, consider that people who own HD TVs already are people who spend a lot of money on consumer electronics. These people are almost certainly going to be disproportionately likely to be early adopters of the next-gen consoles, even if they aren't hardcore gamers.
Next, think about the length of a console cycle. The current cycle has lasted... what... about four years (depending on when you time it from)? It's going to be getting on five or more by the time all three systems are on the shelves. In other words, you don't need to be thinking about the number of households that have HD TV now, you need to be planning for the number who will have HD TV in 2008 or so, by the mid-point of the next cycle. Remember what happened to the level of DVD-player adoption over a similar time-scale?
Oh, and I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but the "it's the games, stupid" rhetoric would sound a lot more convincing if Nintendo had any real track record of being able to deliver sufficient quantity of games over the last decade, or if they weren't making decision after decision that looks set to drive third-party cross-platform developers away.
I never said FFXI was the reason, rather that Japanese people I'd spoken to in FFXI were pretty excited about the 360.
I see all the comments so far are basically saying this is a deliberate part of Microsoft's hype campaign.
They're probably right.
However, there's one indication I've seen that Microsoft's predictions might not be so far off the mark. I play FFXI; a MMORPG with a high (I'd guess about 40%) proportion of Japanese players. I've had conversations with quite a few Japanese players who are actually pretty exicted about the 360. Given the original X-Box basically vanished without a trace in Japan, this could be a potential indicator that the 360 is destined for bigger things. At the very least, it seems that Microsoft's deliberate targeting of Japanese developers is at least going some way towards achieving its intended effect.
There's an interesting debate to be had about the future of the franchise, but sadly, this won't be the article to spark it off.
The author's main problem is that he didn't like FFXI or FFX-2. As far as I'm concerned, that's his problem. Far from being a failure, FFXI still has a commanding position in terms of the size of its user-base. Last I saw, it was only behind WoW and the Korean MMORPGs (for which figures should be treated with a degree of caution due to the methodology used to count players there). Indeed, before the release of WoW, it had been the biggest MMORPG played outside of Korea for quite a while. User figures have been steady for a long time, with the release of WoW not making any significant dent. In the highly competative, dog-eat-dog world of MMORPG publishing, I'd call that a resounding success, rather than a harbinger of doom.
FFX-2 has always been contraversial among Final Fantasy fans. I'll admit that it's never been my favorite installment in the series (this would be FFX - and yes, I've played the whole "main" series, including FF6). However, this isn't to say it's without merit. In many ways, it's a return to more traditional gameplay, with a much steeper difficulty curve than other recent games in the series and a job-based character system. If you approach it without expecting it to be "more of the same" from FFX, then it's actually a very good RPG. A lot of tormented, gothy Final Fantasy fans felt they had to dislike FFX-2 out of principle, because it's actually quite upbeat. Personally, I'm secure enough that I can play a game like this without it making me "doubt my masculinity" (author's words).
The most significant issue the author raises, in my view, is the wait for FFXII. This has certainly been longer than I expected. However, I think this is largely a reflection of the fact that development times and costs have risen, to match customer expectations. When you completely rework your graphical engine, combat system and game world for each installment of your series, you can't be expected to stick to a Madden-style production schedule. At any rate, I'll reserve judgement on FFXII until I can actually play it.
I think it's more about marketing and intended sales than it is about quality these days. My understanding of an "AAA" title is one that takes centre-place on a platform's lineup, is used as a tool for pushing that platform and is expected to (and indeed does) produce vast sales.
Examples of "AAA" titles from the last year would be:
PC: Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Rome: Total War
PS2: GTA San Andreas, Gran Turismo 4, Metal Gear Solid 3
X-Box: Halo 2, Forza Motorsport, Jade Empire
Gamecube: Metroid Prime 2, Resident Evil 4
You've probably also got a few big cross-platform titles that qualify because they're promoted heavily for other reasons, like the (apparently dismal) Revenge of the Sith tie-in.
Quake 3 still stands out in my mind as the ultimate example of why it's a bad idea to develop any game (except possibly a MMORPG) with the hard-core in mind. I remember the consultation phase ID went through while developing it, where they talked to a lot of the "top" hardcore players from Quake and Quake 2 to get their input into game mechanics and map design. I also remember how most of these people then turned around and savaged the game after its release.
There's simply no gain to be had in pitching your product at this market.
First, Compared to the "casual" market (which includes a lot of people who definitely count as gamers, but don't focus on one title or genre exclusively), the number of potential buyers is tiny. They're also extremely vocal, on forums, message boards, IRC and at industry events. This can give the impression that they're a larger group than they are.
Second, this group knows no gratitude. I've never seen a developer go as far as ID did during the Quake 3 development process and I've never seen a developer take such (unwarrented) flak after release for dumbing-down, selling-out, or whatever the term of the day at the time was. Everything about the game was slated; the physics, the maps, even the fact that it had pretty graphics.
Third, this group is insanely conservative in terms of its gaming habits. I was part of the "hardcore" fps gaming scene for a while and one of the most disgusting thing about it was the palpable fear with which the people at the top of the game would approach anything that proposed even mild changes to the game as they knew it. This was extremely noticable every time Counter-Strike approached a new version release. With new iterations of the Quake and Unreal Tournament series, it was even worse. The top players were petrified that any changes to the game might diminish the little tricks they were using to stay on top and force them to adapt or even, god forbid, lose their place and the reputation that went with it. When Quake 3 came out, I remember how terrified a lot of the top Quake/Quake 2 players were of the prospect that they might have to fight to regain their prestige. The result was a lot of trash-talk about the game and a very slow adoption rate.
Finally, this group of players is the most insular and cliquey around. I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen newbies in hardcore games (both MMORPGs and fpses) subjected to a barrage of obscenities within moments of connecting. With a primarily online game, a developer is investing a lot of their reputation in the behaviour of their players. What I saw in Quake 3 was a long way from being impressive.