-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Media Create Sales 5/14 - 5/20
- Thread starter Cheesemeister
- Start date
hydragonwarrior
Member
Could someone post some old crow-eating Media Create posts? This thread could use a bit of nostalgic hilarity.
Odysseus said:
I'm betting they are making different colours now - Europe has got more units recently, but nothing like a 50% increace or whatever was touted.
Any DVD style changes would be firmware related - no point in making 2 SKU to confuse the consumers right?
And Best Wishes to Vink - he needs no luck, sounds like a great girl Eteric Rice said:
Developers are NOT ignoring the Wii, nor are they being stupid.
I've said this before, but it gets ignored every time. I don't know how many more mediocre Wii game announcements its going to take before it's pretty clear, that in terms of third party support, the Wii is not going to have the same calibur that other leading consoles had in the past. Not unless the PC, the PS3 and the 360....ALL of them become totally irrelevant in the long run.
It's really easy to see why developers continue to announce most of their major projects for PS3/360. Even in the past, when developers announced exclusive/timed exclusive games for the leading console, they knew in the back of their heads that if something went wrong, and their game bombed, they could easily port their games to other consoles and make them multiplatform for a very small investment. This has not changed. The disadvantage of the Wii is that it's so drastically different than the other major players in this generation. Putting a game on the Wii IS risky, despite what some people may think. Not only does it have to be something unique and special to stand out, because you're not going to wow anyone with the graphics, but it has to be taylored to its controller.
Now think about this for a second? How easy is it to port a game to and from PC, 360 and PS3 for a developer? Pretty easy. In fact most games start on PC anyway.
So with a very small investment(I think there was a thread that showed a port added about 10% to their cost) developers can put a game on ALL 3 next-gen platforms, and now they are not LIMITED to one console's user base.
The Wii, as hot as it's selling is at about 7 million LTD. The other 3 total closer to about 20 million potential buyers(i'm using estimated numbers so please let's not get into this). So at this point in their life...a developer can pick any of the 3 next-gen consoles, and know with a quick port, they can reach up to 20 million potential buyers. Which choice is safer and offers more potential return?
And on top of that, let's do remember it's still extremely early in this generation. It's only been 6 months since all platforms hit the street. Anything can still happen.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I happen to believe the best explanation of why this continues to happen is not "because developers are stupid", or "because they want to go out of business" or even "developers just have not had enough time to shift focus(yeah right...they must have had the time to shift focus if they are announcing all of these other games)".....but rather because they are NOT stupid, and they DON'T want to go out of business and BECAUSE they looked at risk and return on investment.
Xisiqomelir
Member
jimbo said:
Okay, I won't.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Jimbo,
Maybe it's just the sleep deprivation talking, but I think you're my favorite joke character.
Maybe it's just the sleep deprivation talking, but I think you're my favorite joke character.
ziran said:
Massive resources as in what? Huge game projects that typically cost a lot of money and time to develop? No, I don't.
Massive resources as in lots of games, but the type of games that have been announced for the Wii and continue to get announced? Yes.
A developer will put 5 games that copy Wii Sports and Wii play before they will put a massive project like Metal Gear Solid on the Wii.
xabre said:
No, they won't JUST put it on that console. They may INITIALLY develop it for that console, but they will port it. Just goes to show you, some of you have a hard time understanding this whole idea of MULTIPLATFORM GAME DEVELOPMENT.
I know it's new and all but it will come to you.
The Sphinx said:
Actually yes, and it probably happens more often than you think. If it didn't the thousands and thousands of games that never made the top 10 for the PS2 would have put a lot of developers out of business.
Let me give you an example:
PS2 game costs $5 million to make.
P2S game sells 100,000 copies = $5 million dollars. Developer breaks even.
PS2 developers invests another 10% for Xbox port or 500k dollars. Total game development = $5.5 million
Xbox port sells 40,000 copies. Developer makes 2 million dollars.
Total game devlopment with port = 5.5 million. Total revenue after port = 7 million.
Total gross profit = 1.5 million
And the above scenario happened a lot more often than did the million seller hit game scenario.
Pureauthor
Member
jimbo said:
This isn't an example, chief. This is a potential scenario. Examples generally require actual facts and events that actually occurred to back them up.
Go find specific tites that actually did this and then you have an example. Right now you're just waffling.
Rancid Mildew
Banned
To be fair, he does have a valid point. If developers look at the market as Wii vs. everything else, Nintendo will never ever have a majority marketshare. I'm not sure if developers are indeed looking at the market that way; it's impossible to tell at this point. Personally, I'm inclined to think that they aren't based off of the IGDA report and recent game announcements. Also, it isn't that easy to port between the 360/PS3/PC. The similarities stop at the resolution output. If the Wii continues to sell, the lower development cost and the large marketshare will definitely look very attractive. At the very least, developers in Japan should shift their top notch resources to the Wii since most of their games are Japan exclusive and usually come out in Japan first. I'm sure E3 and the months following E3 will be very revealing of the type of games the Wii receives.
Pureauthor
Member
Rancid Mildew said:
That's only if you include 'PC' into the everything else, which doesn't exactly have much precedent going for it. Else all games would be PC-first, then ported to consoles.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Hey Vinnk, hope i'm not too late.
Good luck buddy. Though it sounds like you won't need it.
Good luck buddy. Though it sounds like you won't need it.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
7 million PC users confirmed.Xisiqomelir said:
jimbo said:
Good argument, but you are ignoring the fact that developing a Wii game costs WAY less money than a PS3/360 one, so it is a much smaller risk. A smaller risk negates the need to have that "exit strategy" you are mentioning at all costs. Furthermore, should things in the future go really weird, Wii may outsell both 360 and PS3 combined...
Conclusion: If Wii really sells 100+m and leaves PS3 and 360 way behind, I do think that in the process many developers will change their policy and focus on the production of titles for the Nintendo platform. Why invest 30 million dollars in a Triple A PS3/360 title when with the same money you can produce 10 Triple A games for the leading hardware?
Right, that's my issue with the "ports will hamstring the Wii" argument. Companies have demonstrated an unwillingness to port in the past. Take a well-known example from last gen: Soul Calibur.Rancid Mildew said:
Soul Calibur 2 was released simultaneously on all systems. The PS2 version did well, the GameCube version did quite well (outselling PS2 despite the small userbase), and the XBox version performed rather poorly. Now it was obvious the series had potential sales on at least two systems. Namco had managed to get all three versions out, they all played similarly, and from the outside at least the multi-platform release looked like a success.
Yet Soul Calibur 3 was released on the PS2 only. Why? For whatever reason some developers just don't like releasing multiplatform games. It disrupts workflow, it increases the size of development teams, it lengthens development time, it makes quality control much more of a pain in the ass. Apparently the fairly clear benefit of more sales on the Cube were outweighed by the time and trouble it took to port between those systems (which, all in all, aren't any further apart technologically than PS3 and 360).
Sure, SOME developers will adapt to a regimen of multiplatform development on everything they do this generation. Some publishers already nearly do that (EA for example). It's in their DNA. But there are other developers/publishers who will find a single platform for each game and stick with that, even if it means lost sales. And if there ARE hand-me-down ports, like RE4, they historically tend to move from a low-userbase console to the dominant console. A list of games that started on Cube then went to XBox, or vice versa, would be very short.
Rancid Mildew
Banned
Pureauthor said:
Oh. Well, that's ridiculous. PCs have been in a tier separate from consoles for a very long time; there isn't any reason for that to change as the PC gaming market is healthy enough without their mediocre proletariat console brethren. And it looks like the new PC games of the next two years such as Crysis will be too complex for even the PS3 and the 360.
I guess he would still have a point if the Wii falls short of the PS3 and 360 combined though. That doesn't appear very likely. And as I said, at least in Japan, the Wii should be getting high caliber support since its sales have apparently opened an unnegotiable delta. There is no incentive for the Japanese developers to go multiplatform, ignoring the Wii, when their games either stay in Japan forever or for a year. Further, it would be financially stupid to develop only for the 360 and PS3 when those game sales will tank horribly in Japan.
Pureauthor
Member
Exactly. The entire lynchpin of jimbo's predictions hinges on the PC, since a) The PS3 is performing terribly worldwide, b) the X360 is performing decently in one of the three markets, lousy in another, and is a complete joke in the third c) the Wii is the fastest selling console ever.
Okay.jimbo said:
What I think's going to happen is, games on PS3 and 360 are going to have their budgets and resources scaled back, because the development teams for Wii have to come from somewhere. 3rd Parties have been caught off guard, but need to support the system because it's selling so well, and eventually they'll have successful games in every genre.
Definitely a possibility. Sony's lost their way in Japan.xabre said:
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I do think Jimbo has a point but was a lil off mark. I think now, as of today, most devs/pubs are in a weird position. They all backed 360/PS3 development because the PS3 was the presumed victor until the price announcement. That was 1 year ago. Considering that devs have been caught with their pants down, they are trying to determine the best way to react to the market.
Some things cause me to speculate that devs are in transition. 1) Some big name games have fallen off the map. Some PS3 exclusives are being ported to the 360. Devs know that the PS3 is failing. So, we don't see a ton of PS3 exclusives being made but whatever they are working on, it probably makes sense to finish up, port to the 360 and hope for the best.
So, where is all the support going for PS3? 360? Wii? No, no one will know for at least a year. Looking at the trends, GAF didn't recognize the Wii's trajectory until the last month or two. It's fine to make a guess and be proven right, it's a whole different ballgame when you are betting millions of dollars in development costs. So, a little patience would help and just as people admonish others for calling the race so early, we can't really guess where development will go. That's where Jimbo is a little off base but I think he left himself an out by stating that 'anything can happen.'
Just remember, support has already started to shift. EA is backing it in a huge way, Ubisoft is backing it in a huge way. They won't decide the war but they will provide everything the GCN didn't have. Support for the casual market. Nintendo is striking at the casuals in a different way and EA and Ubi are providing all the crap that casuals don't mind buying. And now, we can expect them to launch with all other console versions, same day and date.
Some things cause me to speculate that devs are in transition. 1) Some big name games have fallen off the map. Some PS3 exclusives are being ported to the 360. Devs know that the PS3 is failing. So, we don't see a ton of PS3 exclusives being made but whatever they are working on, it probably makes sense to finish up, port to the 360 and hope for the best.
So, where is all the support going for PS3? 360? Wii? No, no one will know for at least a year. Looking at the trends, GAF didn't recognize the Wii's trajectory until the last month or two. It's fine to make a guess and be proven right, it's a whole different ballgame when you are betting millions of dollars in development costs. So, a little patience would help and just as people admonish others for calling the race so early, we can't really guess where development will go. That's where Jimbo is a little off base but I think he left himself an out by stating that 'anything can happen.'
Just remember, support has already started to shift. EA is backing it in a huge way, Ubisoft is backing it in a huge way. They won't decide the war but they will provide everything the GCN didn't have. Support for the casual market. Nintendo is striking at the casuals in a different way and EA and Ubi are providing all the crap that casuals don't mind buying. And now, we can expect them to launch with all other console versions, same day and date.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
We also seems to be ignoring the anemically low install base of the PS3.
There's a reason the PS3 is being compared to GameCube, port jobs, while potentially netting more money is successful, are seen as dangerous if failed and rarely seen as worth the effort. Couple that with the increased costs of the PS3, and you have 3rd party devs who go where the bread and butter is.
If I make a multiplatofrm title for today's environment, There's only a subsection of the PS3's fanbase i'm effectively going to reach. Would it be worth the dev cost and risk for a potential increase in sales? Even if I aim for multiplatform with 360 and PS3, will they reach more people than just releasing the game on Wii (for a reduced price, at that) will?
No company will enter an endeavor for a marginal increase in dollars.
There's a reason the PS3 is being compared to GameCube, port jobs, while potentially netting more money is successful, are seen as dangerous if failed and rarely seen as worth the effort. Couple that with the increased costs of the PS3, and you have 3rd party devs who go where the bread and butter is.
If I make a multiplatofrm title for today's environment, There's only a subsection of the PS3's fanbase i'm effectively going to reach. Would it be worth the dev cost and risk for a potential increase in sales? Even if I aim for multiplatform with 360 and PS3, will they reach more people than just releasing the game on Wii (for a reduced price, at that) will?
No company will enter an endeavor for a marginal increase in dollars.
lots of pc games are a pretty good fit for wii because of the interface, though resolution issues might still require a bit of a rethink. ea is doing my sims (more of a re-envisioning than a port really), and it wouldn't surprise me to see spore in some form show up on wii.
analog stick plus pointer is a pretty flexible interface combination - wii ports to and from will show up from the usual suspects.
as far as big epics go - there is definitely a perception that the market for these is elsewhere other than wii-only owners. i think this is changing (very slowly), but the number of announced third party wii games that look like weekend-sucking timesinks is pretty small.
analog stick plus pointer is a pretty flexible interface combination - wii ports to and from will show up from the usual suspects.
as far as big epics go - there is definitely a perception that the market for these is elsewhere other than wii-only owners. i think this is changing (very slowly), but the number of announced third party wii games that look like weekend-sucking timesinks is pretty small.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
The Sphinx said:
What reality are you living in. The PS2 version was the lowest amount sold in the states. I don't know elsewhere, but it was over 750k on the Xbox alone. Far from bad sales.
Magicpaint
Member
No, the Xbox version was definitely the lowest selling in the States.Agent Icebeezy said:
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Wait, console games ported to the PC don't sell well?Pureauthor said:
I'm pretty sure it already is.Rancid Mildew said:
I mean, even if we don't take the control scheme in account, do you really think you could have Supreme Commander on a console? With the nice graphics I mean. Cause I sure don't, that bastard slaughters anything that doesn't have a 8800, loads of ram and a recent CPU in the box...
The only JP example I can think of last gen is auto modellista (tanked on PS2, got quickie GC/Xbox ports to try and make some scratch). Then again, that one's pretty much the exception to the rule, even just looking at Capcom (Dragon Quarter, Chaos Legion, Clock Tower 3, Okami, God Hand, Shadow of Rome, GioGio, Haunting Ground, SFEX3, etc, etc). Far more often it seems games went in the other direction, from the other machines (Viewtiful Joe, RE4) to PS2.Pureauthor said:
Jimbo's scenario might hold to some degree when it comes to western software houses, but Japan's notoriously platform centric and notoriously concerned with the national market. Wii's going to clean up in terms of console development, the only newly greenlit PS360 products a year from now will be either (A) funded in some form by Microsoft/Sony or (B) come from giant publishers looking at a worldwide multiplatform release. Wii's going to get the rest, or at least what doesn't go to DS.
test_account
XP-39C²
PC gaming will always be ahead of consoles when it comes to visuals. You get Alienware PCs that costs like $5000. If you spend this amount of money on a system you would (or should) be expecting it to be able to do better visuals than 360/PS3.
Yeah, the GC/PS2 versions both passed 900k iirc (GC was close to a million).Magicpaint said:
Actually it was because Sony paid for it. GC & Xbox skus were in development for simultaneous release and a 360 release was in the works... in fact, some staff members working on these versions found out about the PS2 exclusivity after Famitsu announced. :/The Sphinx said:
Pureauthor
Member
skinnyrattler said:
I dunno, you tell me.
I think you're simplifying things a bit too much: PC game makers also have to cater with widely varrying configurations and resolutions, while console gamers have a single, unified userbase (mostly). This simplifies the graphics engine and the creation of resources a lot. To get the kind of graphics a high-end gamer machine (which you don't get via Alienware unless you're very stupid), you need a game that was built towards high-end gamer machines (that didn't even exist when the game dev started, by the way) yet is able to run, and run well enough, on many much gimpier configurations (or it can't sell period).test_account said:
I think possibly the 'real' solution to this porting issue lies in microtransactions. Sure, perhaps it's a struggle to break even on a game that's sold for $60 - but what if you can nudge the pricetag closer to $80 for the full experience? With a hefty portion more revenue involved for the publishers because it doesn't go through retailers?
I suspect that's what some companies will bank on.
I'm also wondering if other companies will plan a reduction of the scale of titles to ensure that a Wii conversion looks feasible - either across all SKUs, or ensuring that their engine can be scaled nicely. Part of me thinks that that would be a shame, because no matter what system is on, I always like to see a product use as much of the capabilities of the system as possible - but if doing so just plain isn't financially viable, I cannot blame the devs one bit.
I suspect that's what some companies will bank on.
I'm also wondering if other companies will plan a reduction of the scale of titles to ensure that a Wii conversion looks feasible - either across all SKUs, or ensuring that their engine can be scaled nicely. Part of me thinks that that would be a shame, because no matter what system is on, I always like to see a product use as much of the capabilities of the system as possible - but if doing so just plain isn't financially viable, I cannot blame the devs one bit.
test_account
XP-39C²
Masklinn said:
What do you mean with cater? Yes, PC games have much more setting when it comes to visuals which is a very good thing since then you dont nesseserally need to buy (insert piece of hardware here) to be able to play it. If you have an older computer you can "tune" the settings so it would work on your computer. If you have a newer computer you are able to have better visuals.
Point is, a machine that costs $5000 is able to produce much better visuals than i.e 360/PS3 that costs 10 times less money. Price does not always tell quality and power of course, but in this case it usually does. Its not about simplyfying things, its just facts. Good thing about consoles tho is that you dont have to worry about hardware upgrades to be able to play a game and the developers are locked to that technology. With PC you have a choice, if you want to run the newest games on top settings you can chose to buy a top-notch PC. If you dont care that much about the visuals you can get a less expencive PC, save some money and still be able to play the game.
What do you mean with Alienware is stupid btw? If you mean you can get the exact same specs they provide to a much cheaper price i would be very interested to know where.
My point is that a PC game doesn't come for free to the devs, and the fact that they have to bake the graphic variability in the game (and cope with more than a dozen GCs, not even taking in account the high variability of CPU performances and stuff) means that the time they have to spend on the graphics and graphics engine highers exponentially with the quality they want to output at max settings.test_account said:
Buy the parts, build the box yourself.test_account said: