http://ps3.ign.com/articles/716/716890p1.html
Do they honestly think we are all going to cheer "kalu kale!" at the thought of them saving a few bucks on not doing full bug testing until AFTER the game is released and then patching it? Do they think we actually WANT to buy a game in small pieces?
Why are they so HAPPY about these prospects? ALL of them?!
It is as though at this point if a console had the potential to release custom designed diseases into the atmosphere, designers would all be foaming at the mouth about how great it would be because they could "bring the game world to a new level of involvement with the players".
Say, do you guys remember the days in which I was a hardcore Sony fanboy?
I have never felt so sorry for that as I do these days, let me tell you.
I remember that. I didn't see the problem when you showed up talking about Xenogears (loved it then and love it now). I just thought you should play Zelda :D.
But really, while Sony is making some pretty boneheaded mistakes (the HUBRIS), these particular issues may very well start affecting the other companies. MS for example has something to worry about. Nintendo does too. It all depends on the company it seems. I for one would want to get all the content in my game out all at once and fully tested so I NEVER had to touch that project again and could move on. From interviews I've seen, the general consensus is that programmers LIKE to move on to new things themselves. Why then, this strange compulsion to make games with a miilion little add-ons tossed in later? The occasional add-on you can download every now and then? Sure I'd love that. The game that's fully online with content added by a dedicated team who loves developing that little world? Sure thing. What could compel them into doing something as stupid as intentially removing already completed content and then tossing it in as a seperate download to be incorporated? Sounds like extra work for no decent reason, except money. This HAS to be a marketting department overrulling the developer thing...
By the way, the stuff Sony is doing? There are similarities to how Nintendo was behaving. Nintendo too thought they were in charge and despite any attraction developers and gamers alike had to other systems, people would buy Nintendo's system. They were never worried it seems, then they were pushed into a distant 2nd place, holding on only because their hubris didn't extend into making terrible games and the system actually was decently designed.
Sony is in a position similar to that one. They think that things are good, and will continue that way, FOREVER. They ARE video games. Nintendo was too, so was frickin' ATARI. I fear they are making mistakes which, although of a different nature, still have enough precedents regarding each one to at least give people pause. Super expensive, no "must have" ultra hyped games at launch, only two must haves in the forseeable future AFTER launch, untested format that is also very expensive to produce (due to the fact that they have to first pay for all that infrastructure they need to put in place) and competing with a more "open" format anyway, two systems to divide the market, though fortunatly not so much as gameplay affecting, and a lack of any real innovation.
What are they doing right? Well the system is still fully backwards compatible playing PS2 and PS1 games, but the PS2 people already own does that too :D.
I've been studying history of gaming, as various links I've put up here may have indicated, and let's just say there is good cause to think Sony isn't going to be top dog this time around.
I might even go as far as to say they could drop into irrelevence in the console side of things, at least next generation... They may end up just nursing their wounds with going back to full support on the PS2.
I'll tell you one thing. If the predictions end up accurate, look for ultra cheap PS3's as stores clear up shelf space. That'll be the only time I'd get mine. Other than that, I think I'll wait for the two must haves to get ported to one of the other systems and just buy a visually inferior version.
Sad though... The PS1 was a great system that taught Nintendo an important lesson, and the PS2 and the XBox taught Nintendo a few more lessons. Now this... Sucks, because I like my not so little PS2.
Ryan Wrote:Say, do you guys remember the days in which I was a hardcore Sony fanboy?
I have never felt so sorry for that as I do these days, let me tell you.
WHAT! that was like 3 days ago... Are you now not going to poke fun at the XBOX vender, has the world gone crazy!?!??!?!
AM I IN BEZARO WORLD?
Tell me now! and now of this backwards meaning crap!
Oh, no. Xbox is always fair game.
It means I won't be consciously irritating Nintendo Lady as often.
Patching isn't a bad thing... while some console games do manage to ship without major bugs, more than enough do for me to say that patches would be just fine. I just don't want to have to pay for them... *looks at Xbox Live*
Quote:What could compel them into doing something as stupid as intentially removing already completed content and then tossing it in as a seperate download to be incorporated?
Usually it's not removed content but added content, made after the game was finished and released.
Quote:By the way, the stuff Sony is doing? There are similarities to how Nintendo was behaving. Nintendo too thought they were in charge and despite any attraction developers and gamers alike had to other systems, people would buy Nintendo's system. They were never worried it seems, then they were pushed into a distant 2nd place, holding on only because their hubris didn't extend into making terrible games and the system actually was decently designed.
Yes, I've definitely noticed this...I thought for a while that the fact that Sony isn't a totally stupid company and can see public sentiment as well as anyone should mean that they would realize how much bad press they are getting and take some steps to mitigate their concerns, but they haven't done that... they have just repeated the same old points again, expecting to win in the end. And while I certainly will admit that it might work -- Sony won two generations in a row, they could again, and the PS3 will surely sell very well at launch among the people willing to pay any price -- I'm really starting to wonder if they're putting far too much faith on the concept that since they are Sony and are the leaders they will just continue to be the leaders, no matter what. That overconfidence helped bring down previous industry leaders, and it could well happen again now if Sony doesn't do something...
Of course, then the question is "but what can they do?" and it is a good one. Sony has stuck itsself with their current policy and changing things would mean retreats on issues that they do not want to admit that they might be wrong on... so they continue to fail to adapt to the changes in public sentiment against them. It's far too early to say what the result will be, but at this rate...
(Of course, I would love to see Sony go down, and hope they do, but after how successful they've been for two generations, seeing them miscalculate so badly is surprising...)
Quote:What are they doing right? Well the system is still fully backwards compatible playing PS2 and PS1 games, but the PS2 people already own does that too .
If all the games are region-free as advertised that will also be seriously awesome... SNES/N64/GC/Dreamcast may be easy to play import games on, requiring at most a converter cart/CD, but the PS1/PS2 are quite a pain from what I've read...
Quote:I might even go as far as to say they could drop into irrelevence in the console side of things, at least next generation... They may end up just nursing their wounds with going back to full support on the PS2.
I'll tell you one thing. If the predictions end up accurate, look for ultra cheap PS3's as stores clear up shelf space. That'll be the only time I'd get mine. Other than that, I think I'll wait for the two must haves to get ported to one of the other systems and just buy a visually inferior version.
Sad though... The PS1 was a great system that taught Nintendo an important lesson, and the PS2 and the XBox taught Nintendo a few more lessons. Now this... Sucks, because I like my not so little PS2.
The PS2 will be a viable console for probably the next couple of years, I'll say that much... I wasn't so sure about that a year ago, but now? Yeah, the PS2 isn't going anywhere.
Well Atari was in charge for two generations (if you, like Wikipedia, see the generation of "single game consoles" like Pong as the first console generation), and Nintendo was in charge for two more. Sony's been in charge for two as well. That is HARDLY any evidence that this is the last one. This is only evidence that being in charge for two generations is not a guarantee.
Quote:(if you, like Wikipedia, see the generation of "single game consoles" like Pong as the first console generation)
I don't, I'd consider those a separate category -- just like those single-game Tiger handheld LCD games, or Game & Watch games (I know IGN lists G&W as a "console platform", but I really wouldn't call it one)... a video game console to me means one with changable games. A one-game console, or a system with all the games built in, is a different (lesser) category.
That said, in some ways Atari was in charge for two generations, given that the 2600 was still very strong all the way until the crash, despite competition from a new generation of consoles... (1979's Intellivision, 1982's Colecovision, etc) though it was Atari's eventual collapse (and attempted move over to becoming a PC company) that helped cause the crash, but still. :)
Quote:This is only evidence that being in charge for two generations is not a guarantee.
Nintendo also had just two, of course.
To be honest I don't see single game systems, including the portable variaty, as a seperate generation either. But, there really wasn't anything else to compare it to, except the Fairchild Channel F which was only out for a short time before the 2600 (and which, by all accounts, had terrible games), so they did at least dominate "home game systems" before the 2600 even came out.
Oh, I also think it's important to remember that Sega did temporarily take over the industry for a while until the SNES really came into it's own. After Nintendo once again took over, it seems Sega had a hard time getting exclusive games, as I notice trying to find decent titles I want to actually get for my old Genesis at used game stores.
Quote:To be honest I don't see single game systems, including the portable variaty, as a seperate generation either. But, there really wasn't anything else to compare it to, except the Fairchild Channel F which was only out for a short time before the 2600 (and which, by all accounts, had terrible games), so they did at least dominate "home game systems" before the 2600 even came out.
Hey, you forgot the Odyssey 2... follow-up to the world's first videogame console, the Magnavox Odyssey... sure, it wasn't a success, but it was another second-generation videogame console. :)
Wikipedia has generation 1 being the Odyssey and the early Pong clones, 2 being from the 2600 to the Colecovision, and 3 being the NES... I don't agree with that. I still say that Wikipedia's "third" and "fourth" generations of consoles are one and the same... looking at it from a hardware standpoint, it's obvious.
(naming arguable first consoles of a generation)
Generation 1: 1972: Magnavox Odyssey
Generation 2: 1976: Fairchild Channel F
Generation 2/3?:1980: Intellivision (late gen.2 or early gen.3? ?)
Generation 2/3?:1982: Colecovision, Atari 5200
Generation 3?: 1983: Nintendo Famicom (1985 US release, but Japan in 1983... one year after the Colecovision came out and it's a whole new console generation?)
Then there's the 5200 (1982) and the 7800 (released in 1986 but developed and built in 1984)... two separate generations? Same generation? Whether the 7800 was actually more powerful is and arguable point, I think...
Quote:Oh, I also think it's important to remember that Sega did temporarily take over the industry for a while until the SNES really came into it's own. After Nintendo once again took over, it seems Sega had a hard time getting exclusive games, as I notice trying to find decent titles I want to actually get for my old Genesis at used game stores.
It sure helped that Sega kind of destroyed itsself with moves like the 32X, trying to support too many systems at once (Genesis, 32X, Saturn, etc) and then dumping them all for just the Saturn (big mistake... stopping development for your best system in the hopes that your next one will do as well? Backfired badly...), etc... Sega was ahead for a while, but they sabotaged themselves, and Nintendo did very well.
Of course in Japan the Megadrive was a minimal player and the Super Famicom had 80-90 percent of the market (with the PC Engine(TurboGrafx-16) doing better than Megadrive too...), which is why despite the close race in the US (with the SNES just pulling off a victory in the later years) the SNES crushed the Genesis worldwide. So really Sega just took over the US industry... but back then the US's interest in games was less overtly Japanese (just look at stuff like the US Kid Chameleon cover vs. its anime-styled Japanese cover...), and Sega did really well in Europe too (crushing Nintendo all along).
Ryan Wrote:Say, do you guys remember the days in which I was a hardcore Sony fanboy?
I have never felt so sorry for that as I do these days, let me tell you.
I've been waiting 7 years for you to say that :D.
EdenMaster Wrote:I've been waiting 7 years for you to say that :D.
It's been coming for awhile, really. In the end, I feel the PS2 to be a disappointment. There are only a handful of games I really liked for the machine (Silent Hill 2 primary among them all, it's my second-favorite game ever), but sequels to my favorite PS1 games (Xenogears, Star Ocean) were massive letdowns.
My PS2 broke completely about six months ago, and if it weren't for the Silent Hill games, I would feel absolutely no compunction to replace it.
I on the other hand have a different opinion and the PS2 is a strong part of my console lineup. I just couldn't survive without stuff like Kingdom Hearts or Katamari. I did get the Xbox versions of SH2 and SH4, but since SH3 was never ported, it's PS2 all the way for that one. Devil May Cry is also fun if you like being ASSAILED by your gaming experience.
But yeah, Xenosaga was a let down.
On the OTHER hand, my friends are all into these Tensei Nagami (whatever) games where you are this half demon thing wandering through the various circles of hell and can recruit pretty much every single mythical beast of whatever culture's mythology you want (except for thetans...). Also, Dante, from Devil May Cry, is hunting you down for some reason. I really don't know much about it because I've only watched my friends dungeon crawling. Looks fun though, so that could be a good RPG series to play (more than one game in this series it seems). I'm also interested in Valkyrie whatever 2.
Quote:Tensei Nagami (whatever)
Shin Megami Tensei. :) The series dates back to the NES or SNES in Japan, but the games didn't start coming out here until the PS1 or PS2, I don't know exactly when... (excepting the GBC game 'Revelations: The Demon Slayer' I think) the Persona series (PS1) is a spinoff of it as well. But it's Atlus Japan's big internal RPG series, I'd say.
Quote:It's been coming for awhile, really. In the end, I feel the PS2 to be a disappointment. There are only a handful of games I really liked for the machine (Silent Hill 2 primary among them all, it's my second-favorite game ever), but sequels to my favorite PS1 games (Xenogears, Star Ocean) were massive letdowns.
My PS2 broke completely about six months ago, and if it weren't for the Silent Hill games, I would feel absolutely no compunction to replace it.
I've heard people say this, and I'm not sure what they're comparing the PS2 to... with its lineup, shouldn't it be considered a pretty good console? Or was the PS1 really THAT much better...
Quote:I did get the Xbox versions of SH2 and SH4, but since SH3 was never ported,
Well, they all came out on PC, but I don't think that's what you meant... :)
[/QUOTE] Star Ocean[QUOTE]
Star Ocean 2 (or rather, playing my cousin's copy...) is one of the reasons I got a PS1 back in January, actually (and then borrowed the game, since I haven't seen any for sale :D)... so good...
going back to this whole patching games thing. i'm not exactly sure how the PS3's internet works, but if it's the same wireless connection that my computer uses, this could cause big problems for people who don't have access to wireless internet in their homes (i.e. poor people like me). i would hate to have a buggy game that has fixes for it out there for me to download but not have the capacity to download said fixes. i know the internet is taken for granted these days, but i have lived without a connection in my home for the past year and i'm sure other people have as well. my apartment is simply nowhere near a wifi hotspot and i can't afford to pay for any connection that is run into my apartment. i'm sure i'm not alone in this boat.
to me, the fact that bugs CAN be fixed post release is a good thing, but companies should try to iron them out in advance for those people who don't have access to the internet in the place where they'll be playing their home console.
PS3 has an ethernet port... not sure about wireless. Does it have built in wireless too?
As for the Wii, it doesn't have an ethernet port, but fortunately I think I've heard that one might be available as a USB addon.
big guy Wrote:but companies should try to iron them out in advance for those people who don't have access to the internet in the place where they'll be playing their home console.
But that makes too much sense. I'm having more and more reasons not to get a PS3.