Yeah but the games for it are specifically compiled for the CPU so the compiler will already have ordered them like an OOOE unit would (or possibly even better).
Yes, if it was for 'teh BluRay' those 140 million PS2 owners out there would of been glad to have instead:
Wii A fucking GameCube with a novelty controller bolted on
Apparently yes because the Wii stole the PS2's position in the market. If you think the Wii is just a Gamecube with a novelty controller bolted on it's no surprise that you have no idea why it's dominating the market.
Wait, Resident Evil was a loss of an exclusive series for the PS3? The previous game in the main series was initially exclusive to the Gamecube but got ports to the PS2, PC and later the Wii too. Was RE5 ever announced as an exclusive? I seem to recall it being PS3/360 pretty much from the start.
Hundred million PS3s? Have you checked the sales numbers? The thing's going over like the Gamecube or something. November 2008 sales were 378k, at that rate it'd take them about 18 years to hit 100M.
Or the monster that is Metal Gear Solid
First party means developers owned by the console manufacturer, not just an exclusive release. MGS is made by Konami, not Sony.
What you should probably face yourself is that they are catching up rapidly.
and in the rare occasion I get enough time to play multiplayer... it'll be with people I already know, rather than the 8 metric tons of idiots that troll the online gaming world looking for a few stupid laughs about dick size and "mad skillz".
I guess that was the kind of person Nintendo thought about when implementing the friend codes but the implementation sounds pretty annoying anyway (I have only one online-capable game for the Wii and that's Endless Ocean so I haven't tried online yet).
No idea why MS and Sony are trying to take the Miis, I guess they thought that's the secret to the "casual" market (as opposed to, say, games anyone can play with little prior knowledge but that still pose a challenge...).
So, I suppose, the moral of the story is: don't buy Ubisoft games when they come out. Wait a year, until the game's down to fifteen bucks and they're stripped of DRM.
Wait, that's not standard procedure for games? I almost always wait for pricedrops.
That still counts as thrown. When I use the Wiimote the strap could fail and the thing would still not go flying off because I'm holding it in my hand. The Wiimote can't go airborne if it wasn't released mid-swing. This is why I and many others consider a Wiimote hitting the TV a user error because the thing shouldn't have left the hand of the user in first place.
I'd like to see anyone who actually takes a full gulp of serve-temperature coffee. That stuff is hot and everybody knows it, you don't just take a gulp from it. You let it cool a bit and start with smaller sips. You just can't take the cup and drink it like it's cold lemonade, any hot drink has to be approached with initial caution. Someone who disregards that would suffer every time he encounters any hot drink.
That or maybe they just have reflexes for releasing what they hold in their hand when performing a throw, something a physical activity-averse geek would not have.
Many of the games out there today have fairly short engagement distances..
I think that's by far the biggest factor, any distance over 100m (and often even less) is considered the domain of sniper rifles in most games. It's even worse in analog-stick controlled games since they have a lower range of speeds the player can input so putting the crosshairs exactly over the target can be hard if the player is supposed to turn around quickly too. Well, okay, it's not a problem in the EDF series but targets in those games are literally the size of a barn.
Does the game really rush or does it just play on a tight schedule and a player who's not doing the same ends up being overwhelmed by the enemy force while he's floating huge amounts of resources or has reached late tech tiers with no units to show for it? That's what I see with most players who scream "rush", they just don't do things fast enough and end up getting steamrolled by a regular attack because they are so behind on production and everything.
Yeah but sometimes things need to be stripped out (like ammo and complex morale systems) to make it approachable again. When you see a later product take some of your ideas and become huge with them (while you didn't) perhaps you should have designed them better.
That's one part of the macro, obviously more troops = better. The other parts are when you get what troops since tanks aren't going to do you a whole lot of good when the enemy is going with helicopters, how you plan to develop your economy (invest a lot, possibly reaping huge growth but also being left defenseless if your enemy attacks before you got your econ going?), when you attack (try to off the enemy with an early attack but be pretty much fucked if he defends? Run a raid on one end of the map and while his forces move back go in and wreck the main?), etc. There's also the micro part that many weaker players revile so much because they want "more strategy, not a clickfest" but micro is what enables tactics which are the real reason the RT is in RTS. Encircle? Blow a hole into the enemy phalanx and rush to his heavy fire support in the back? Toss some special weapons in the right place to disable a lot of his firepower or try to deny him the ability to do so himself? Micro is what makes combat more than just numbers and rock-paper-scissors, it lets a skilled player use that skill even once the battle has started.
You're thinking about the wrong side of this. You talk about the developer's perspective, how much more it costs to do. That's the wrong view. What you should look at is what it does for the customer which seems to be largely ignored these days. The developer's side sees huge increases in game complexity and quality and whatnot but the customer side sees only marginal improvements, nothing notable. To the customer these "HD generation" games seem like they could have been on the previous generation of hardware too.
With crappy graphics it won't sell, you have to provide at least a certain quality there or people will assume you skimped in other parts of the game just as much. Of course you don't need the latest tech but it has to be pleasing to the eye.
Development costs are a fixed cost, they don't affect the optimum price. The value it adds might but from what I see the increases in value are nowhere close to the increases in dev costs or even the increase in game prices (70€ for a PS3/360 game?). In fact it can be argued that the value went down as the game content becomes less due to sheer cost while the increased dev costs mostly improve the graphics. I'll spare you the lengthy rant about how this relates to the Wii's success.
Nintendo's Iwata claims that by skipping 2. you actually increase profits as after a while the customers will get used to your games not getting pricedrops and be more willing to pick them up immediately at full price rather than waiting. Not sure how well that works, when I think a game needs a pricedrop before I'll buy it then I'll wait even if I know it's not going to happen (which consequently ends in me not buying the game).
Of course the length of the sales period isn't the only factor in the profit equation, bad games sell a lot worse than good games. If he thinks that just because the spike doesn't last longer he's not making more money he shouldn't be CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but the games for it are specifically compiled for the CPU so the compiler will already have ordered them like an OOOE unit would (or possibly even better).
Yes, if it was for 'teh BluRay' those 140 million PS2 owners out there would of been glad to have instead:
Wii
A fucking GameCube with a novelty controller bolted on
Apparently yes because the Wii stole the PS2's position in the market. If you think the Wii is just a Gamecube with a novelty controller bolted on it's no surprise that you have no idea why it's dominating the market.
Wait, Resident Evil was a loss of an exclusive series for the PS3? The previous game in the main series was initially exclusive to the Gamecube but got ports to the PS2, PC and later the Wii too. Was RE5 ever announced as an exclusive? I seem to recall it being PS3/360 pretty much from the start.
Hundred million PS3s? Have you checked the sales numbers? The thing's going over like the Gamecube or something. November 2008 sales were 378k, at that rate it'd take them about 18 years to hit 100M.
Or the monster that is Metal Gear Solid
First party means developers owned by the console manufacturer, not just an exclusive release. MGS is made by Konami, not Sony.
What you should probably face yourself is that they are catching up rapidly.
NPD:
Wii 2.04m
DS 1.57m
XBox 360 836k
PSP 421k
PS3 378k
PS2 206k
That doesn't look rapidly, that doesn't even look like catching up.
and in the rare occasion I get enough time to play multiplayer... it'll be with people I already know, rather than the 8 metric tons of idiots that troll the online gaming world looking for a few stupid laughs about dick size and "mad skillz".
I guess that was the kind of person Nintendo thought about when implementing the friend codes but the implementation sounds pretty annoying anyway (I have only one online-capable game for the Wii and that's Endless Ocean so I haven't tried online yet).
No idea why MS and Sony are trying to take the Miis, I guess they thought that's the secret to the "casual" market (as opposed to, say, games anyone can play with little prior knowledge but that still pose a challenge...).
So, I suppose, the moral of the story is: don't buy Ubisoft games when they come out. Wait a year, until the game's down to fifteen bucks and they're stripped of DRM.
Wait, that's not standard procedure for games? I almost always wait for pricedrops.
That still counts as thrown. When I use the Wiimote the strap could fail and the thing would still not go flying off because I'm holding it in my hand. The Wiimote can't go airborne if it wasn't released mid-swing. This is why I and many others consider a Wiimote hitting the TV a user error because the thing shouldn't have left the hand of the user in first place.
Yeah, you just have to make the strap strong enough that something else breaks first. I vote for the wrist of the thrower.
I'd like to see anyone who actually takes a full gulp of serve-temperature coffee. That stuff is hot and everybody knows it, you don't just take a gulp from it. You let it cool a bit and start with smaller sips. You just can't take the cup and drink it like it's cold lemonade, any hot drink has to be approached with initial caution. Someone who disregards that would suffer every time he encounters any hot drink.
That or maybe they just have reflexes for releasing what they hold in their hand when performing a throw, something a physical activity-averse geek would not have.
The obvious solution is to make experts play vs experts and nubs vs nubs instead of mixing them together, boring the experts and frustrating the nubs.
Many of the games out there today have fairly short engagement distances..
I think that's by far the biggest factor, any distance over 100m (and often even less) is considered the domain of sniper rifles in most games. It's even worse in analog-stick controlled games since they have a lower range of speeds the player can input so putting the crosshairs exactly over the target can be hard if the player is supposed to turn around quickly too. Well, okay, it's not a problem in the EDF series but targets in those games are literally the size of a barn.
Does the game really rush or does it just play on a tight schedule and a player who's not doing the same ends up being overwhelmed by the enemy force while he's floating huge amounts of resources or has reached late tech tiers with no units to show for it? That's what I see with most players who scream "rush", they just don't do things fast enough and end up getting steamrolled by a regular attack because they are so behind on production and everything.
Yeah but sometimes things need to be stripped out (like ammo and complex morale systems) to make it approachable again. When you see a later product take some of your ideas and become huge with them (while you didn't) perhaps you should have designed them better.
That's one part of the macro, obviously more troops = better. The other parts are when you get what troops since tanks aren't going to do you a whole lot of good when the enemy is going with helicopters, how you plan to develop your economy (invest a lot, possibly reaping huge growth but also being left defenseless if your enemy attacks before you got your econ going?), when you attack (try to off the enemy with an early attack but be pretty much fucked if he defends? Run a raid on one end of the map and while his forces move back go in and wreck the main?), etc. There's also the micro part that many weaker players revile so much because they want "more strategy, not a clickfest" but micro is what enables tactics which are the real reason the RT is in RTS. Encircle? Blow a hole into the enemy phalanx and rush to his heavy fire support in the back? Toss some special weapons in the right place to disable a lot of his firepower or try to deny him the ability to do so himself? Micro is what makes combat more than just numbers and rock-paper-scissors, it lets a skilled player use that skill even once the battle has started.
So it's a ploy to sell more copies of Vision Training?
Are "gamers" the only people who own a DS?
Yeah, like modern authors who write a best seller and immediately stop writing.
It was a game that was good at doing what people wanted?
You're thinking about the wrong side of this. You talk about the developer's perspective, how much more it costs to do. That's the wrong view. What you should look at is what it does for the customer which seems to be largely ignored these days. The developer's side sees huge increases in game complexity and quality and whatnot but the customer side sees only marginal improvements, nothing notable. To the customer these "HD generation" games seem like they could have been on the previous generation of hardware too.
With crappy graphics it won't sell, you have to provide at least a certain quality there or people will assume you skimped in other parts of the game just as much. Of course you don't need the latest tech but it has to be pleasing to the eye.
Development costs are a fixed cost, they don't affect the optimum price. The value it adds might but from what I see the increases in value are nowhere close to the increases in dev costs or even the increase in game prices (70€ for a PS3/360 game?). In fact it can be argued that the value went down as the game content becomes less due to sheer cost while the increased dev costs mostly improve the graphics. I'll spare you the lengthy rant about how this relates to the Wii's success.
Yeah but look at the 360 and PS3, they're up to 70€ for some stupid reason (the PC versions which many of them have are still at 44€ or so).
Nintendo's Iwata claims that by skipping 2. you actually increase profits as after a while the customers will get used to your games not getting pricedrops and be more willing to pick them up immediately at full price rather than waiting. Not sure how well that works, when I think a game needs a pricedrop before I'll buy it then I'll wait even if I know it's not going to happen (which consequently ends in me not buying the game).
Of course the length of the sales period isn't the only factor in the profit equation, bad games sell a lot worse than good games. If he thinks that just because the spike doesn't last longer he's not making more money he shouldn't be CEO.