30th April 2005, 11:55 PM
Quote:Your opinion on this is irrelevant. I'm talking about the reasons behind such actions and why they make sense to all of the publishers. The opinions of some hardcore gamers doesn't matter in the reality of this situation. There are dozens of things that we as hardcore gamers see as foolish, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. In this case, it may seem ridiculous but there is logic behind it if you know all of the facts.
I stated said logic myself, you know. I said that it's stupid logic done just to sell more units. Sure, it's my opinion. But what's wrong with stating my opinion? I mean, it's obviously pretty silly to say a game is exclusive when it isn't. Attempting to fool people into thinking it is -- that is, to increase game sales and make more cash -- is the obvious reason why it's done. Sure, they use flimsy excuses like "stuff was added so it's "new", but they're about as weak as they sound...
Quote:There's nothing about "belief" here. The market is decided by two things, like I said: the target audience and the actual buying audience. We, as consumers, are the reason why the markets are separated like this. The general consumer public. You're confusing the terms I'm using with advertising for some reason.
Advertising is the main way that you target your market (to tell them what your product is and who it's best for). Well, of course first comes game design (and some other factors), and tailoring your game for the audience you are intending it for, but that's just as sales-oriented as marketing is (that is, they do what they think will sell the most units / make the most money), so the difference isn't that large.
That is, you design the product with some market in mind, do your best to make sure that market will like it, and then advertise in a way to attract that market to buy your product...
Quote:That is when those two things I mentioned are not in unison. Nintendo wants to target a specific audience and think one way, but then their expectations are not met. Nintendo is definitely the biggest risk-taker out of all the big publishers though, which is why they aren't on target as often.
Because Nintendo often doesn't do what the gaming audience wants, and it causes them problems... they think instead that they know better than gamers what gamers want. In recent times, they've been more off target than on, but it's led to some innovations too, so overall it's a good thing... and it makes them unique, at least. They're in it for the money as much as anyone but because of their approach at least they're unique in the way they go about it. But yes, it's problematic for their overall success.
Quote:What does that have to do with what I said...
I said that hardcore PC gamers take up a tiny fraction of the home console market.
Ah, I misinterpreted it a bit. But hardcore CONSOLE gamers make up a tiny fraction of the console market (number-of-people wise, money-wise it's more for both platforms), so that's not really saying anything... sure, there are pc gamers who don't play console games and console gamers who don't play pc games. But among the hardcore market, I'd think that most would play at least some games on PC. Perhaps they wouldn't buy lots of pc games, but something with mass popularity like Halo 1 (considering that it does have an additional feature in online play)? Much more likely (than some hardcore pc game).
Quote:Right now that is for the most part true, yes. And like I said above, that's the who parts not agreeing with each other.
But from everything that I've been hearing, Nintendo will show off products at E3 that will make it much more possible for the DS to be a true third-pillar, and co-exist with even a new Gameboy. Games like Nintendogs are supposed to attract an audience that rarely plays games, like women and non-gamers.
You mean aim more for the older audience, like PSP is? Stuff like the DS dictionary, pda-like utilities, etc that they've got in Japan? Nintendo can try, but it's a console... the DS can't escape that fact. And as a console the vast majority of its market is squarely in the traditional handheld market -- though perhaps it is expanding it a bit, I wouldn't think it'd be very significantly.
Quote:For me, and for DJ, Splinter Cell can be played on any system. We can choose from any of the versions of the game because we own all of the consoles as well as a powerful-enough PC. Basically, we are buyers in just about all the gaming markets. But that's irrelevant. And the reason for that is because not every consumer is a consumer of all of the gaming markets. If they were then there would be only one market! Think about it! This topic was about the merits of the X-Box, if the system has any worth or not. I said yes, because of all the exclusives and best multiconsole ports. DJ said not as much, because much of these multiconsole ports are better on the PC. This is true!!---however, they are in completely separate markets! To 95% of the buying public out there (that is, the people who don't have a powerful PC and all of the consoles), only one or two options are available. A person is not going to buy an X-Box instead of a PC or vice versa. This is one of the ways these markets are separated. If you still don't get this, then I'm not even going to bother replying to you. I've wasted enough time trying to teach you something.
Oh, I see what you're trying to say, OB1. I quite well understand your point. As I said, though, I just don't think it tells the whole story.
I guess the question is if we're talking about us or in general. If we're talking about us (the people here), DJ's point is completely valid and correct. And I'd expect that that's who we'd be talking about... I mean, DJ has an X-Box and a PC. So how is it possibly wrong to say that it's wrong to say that an inferior version of a game is a selling point for a system? Your point is only correct in a sphere that is irrelevant to the people involved in the discussion.
Oh yeah, and really, as I said, there is only one market... it's just broken up into categories. But it's really all one thing, of course. Yes, most people won't buy a console for one game, but some will, and they'll be taking money away from the other systems that they own... is there any more direct way that systems compete? Not likely. Sure, PCs are much more expensive, and gaming pcs especially, and that's probably one of the biggest reasons that pc games sell worse. But many of the games are the same, and many of the gamers buying those games are the same... The console and PC markets have differences, but they are not completely seperate. As I've been saying, there's a lot of overlap. Yes, most people won't buy that X-Box just for Halo. Or that new graphics card for their PC just to get Halo and play it online (even if they already own the X-Box version). But the ones that do prove that there is overlap.