Rev's innovation alone may not guarantee success.

steviep said:
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/694/694524p1.html
http://www.revolutionreport.com/articles/read/333
QUOTE]

The links steviep provided are what everyone believes the reason for the Revmote's existence. What developers (excluding 1st party and exclusive developers) are doing lately is porting their games across multiple consoles (PS2, XBOX) in order to maximize their return. Sony and Microsoft went out of their way to complicate their hardware structure on their new systems to make this as difficult as possible in order to create pseudo exclusive titles, but this will not deter developers who spend movie studio like budgets on their games. They want to maximize their returns like the movies studios do (DVD, UMD currently; HDDVD, Blu-Ray in future). For these games, the Revmote might be pretty much moot.

The Revmote is an attempt to upate current genres and create new ones. To stand out, to say, "Hey, we got cool new games that everyone wants to play and the only way to play these games is with our Revmote". This would be akin to something like Dance Dance pads or Karoke microphones only being available on the PS2 (no knock-offs available due to patent restrictions). Yes you can play on your gamepad or sing into your Live mic, but why would you want to?

Many of you continue to say, "why would I play on a machine with "subpar" graphics?" This line of thinking did not work for Microsoft. Games created/ported to the XBox were "superior" graphically to that of their PS2 counterparts. Then why was the XBox not as succesful as the PS2? Exclusive titles, first release priveledges, more innovative games.

I am not in anyway saying the Revolution will "pwned n00bz" but if they update their strategy to go after an older audience then they did on the Gamecube and also create truly new, fun, exciting games. Then who am I to count them out?
Click to expand...
 
steviep said:
Why would you play a port of a game on the X360/PS3 when you can play the graphically superior and control-superior version no the PC (i.e. let's say, oh... UT2007, Oblivion...Gears of War?) That's not a flaming comment, it's just an illustration that statements as such can go multiple ways.
Click to expand...

This doesnt apply to me, but I assume the typical answers a console gamer would probably tell you are A) PS3/360 is leaps and bounds cheaper, B) They are more at home with the gamepad as opposed to the keyboard and mouse, C) Ease of use of the console vs. the PC, D) their PC doesnt have the horsepower to do the games justice.

With my example I am saying if I am given Game X, and game X wasnt made to take advantage of the rev's controller and plays like as if it was a regular contorller / uses the shell, what advantage do I get over playing that exact same game on the PS3/360? With the PS3/360 I will have that graphical edge over rev, what edge will rev have over the PS3/360 if control isnt a factor?

You're going on the assumption that all developers will be lazy porters. And I'm telling you that yes, that will be the case with some developers. But many more are indeed making their games work with the Rev controller. EA has said yes. THQ/Square/etc are saying hell yes. Ubisoft has exclusives. I'm saying that some devs are actually making games that use the controller the way it's supposed to be used, and this for launch! Let's take shooters for example... Why would you play a graphically superior version of Splinter Cell 4, when you could be playing a version that controls much better and more accurately? The gamepad will feel incredibly clunky in comparison.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming that all will be lazy porters, what I am saying is what can the revolution controller really add to a game that wasnt primarily built with it in mind? Sure, instead of using an analog stick to aim, I might be able to aim with the controller, instead of pressing a button to knock a guy out, I might just swing the remote really fast like I'm clubbing him over the head. But after about the 30th time of swinging my controller around to knock a guy out, its not going to be any more exciting than pressing a button, know what I mean? At its core the game is really going to be no different than its counterparts on other systems once that intial "man this is awesome!" feeling wears off.
 
I will own 2 consoles this upcoming gen. The Rev will be my first purchase, and a year or two down the line, I will own a PS3 or X360... whichever one has the better games. This gen, that was the PS2. Next gen... who knows? But many or most people will be like me... They will own a PS3 OR an X360.... AND a Revolution. That's the key, here ;)

Here's a blog post that I somewhat agree with (though I think he's wrong about the part where X360s are sitting on the shelves... lol yeah right).
Nongamers are actually interested in the idea of the revolution, the blue ocean is a gimmick-try showing and explaining the revolution to your closest nongamer. Then show them the 360/ps3 and see which one they seem more interested in. Time magazine even named it as one of the top 5 coolest inventions last year along with an oil that doesnt soak into food and a jet plane that uses only 1/3 the fuel.

Nintendo wifi will probably be free-"all access gaming" and ds system model, there is no way sony's offering will be free and the 360 already costs money

Microsoft has failed in Japan and follow up interest has dwindled to paltry levels for potential consumers here in the us. 360s are sitting in the shelves of many many suppliers here in the US now. Maybe if some must have games are released that have wide appeal(think sims or wow) then it will move some more systems, but the only games coming out are fanbase games like Gears of War, ect. While they may be good games they don't have broad appeal.

The ps3 has run into trouble with development to the tune of blue ray liscensing issues

Seasoned gamers are very interested in the idea of the revolution's controllers, we've been around and seen the same old games forever. I'm more likely to boot up daggerfall than morowind because daggerfall was actually a deeper game(dagger fall is the prequel to morrowind). I'm more likely to boot up baldur's gate two before I'll boot up dark alliance two. I buy less and less games as time goes on because they have become shallow experiences, the revolution promises completely new genres and new gaming experiences. This is something that the last generation has struggled to do. Adding high definition to the last generation isn't going to make it any easier.

Most people don't know this but it takes exponentially more horsepower to run a game in high definition. You are talking way more than 8 times the resources to run a game in 1024 as opposed to 480. What this means is that the revolution, by opting out on high definition, can actually run more complex code with much less horsepower. Given what we assume to be true, that the revolution is 2-3 times more powerful than the gamecube, then we can assume that any game running on the 360 or ps3 in high definition will actually have an easier time running on the revolution due to lower resource requirementss of standard and enhanced definition gaming.

What is ultimately the saddest thing about the high definition gaming is that we still can't take advantage of standard definition, all you are getting with high definition is more pixels that aren't being used but still being drawn and colored. We still do not have photo realistic graphics, not even close. That kind of stuff can be done in standard definition, you know, like tv! Instead of pushing those pipelines towards realism, sony and microsoft have decided it was more important to use them to fill up extra unused pixels in order to create a sharper image instead of a more realistic image. Computers have had high definition gaming for years upon years now and still are not taking advantage of it for anything other than sharpness. You aren't getting a dvd quality image, you are getting a straighter line, that's it.
Click to expand...
 
Naldo said:
I'm not assuming that all will be lazy porters, what I am saying is what can the revolution controller really add to a game that wasnt primarily built with it in mind? Sure, instead of using an analog stick to aim, I might be able to aim with the controller, instead of pressing a button to knock a guy out, I might just swing the remote really fast like I'm clubbing him over the head. But after about the 30th time of swinging my controller around to knock a guy out, its not going to be any more exciting than pressing a button, know what I mean? At its core the game is really going to be no different than its counterparts on other systems once that intial "man this is awesome!" feeling wears off.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is... you don't think a game being more immersive is a good thing? Essentially, being more immersed in the experience is a gimmick that will wear off? For instance, like when 3D was first brought to the PC, people said "pfft, it's a gimmick"? Or when analog control was brought via the N64? "pfft... the d-pad on my PS1 stick is better". Or perhaps when the rumble pak came out and force feedback became more common on the PC, people just dismissed it as a gimmick that didn't enhance gameplay? If so, why are these all standards nowadays?
 
chojin_1999 said:
Many of you continue to say, "why would I play on a machine with "subpar" graphics?" This line of thinking did not work for Microsoft. Games created/ported to the XBox were "superior" graphically to that of their PS2 counterparts. Then why was the XBox not as succesful as the PS2? Exclusive titles, first release priveledges, more innovative games.
Click to expand...

I dont get what you are saying, If a game is exclusive or has 1st release privlages then of course it will sell more than a system it doesnt come out on or a system it comes out a year later for (because by then if you really want to play the game you will have bought it for the other system).

And as for the xbox games not selling as many units as the PS2 counterparts, I'm sure the whole 80 million more PS2's being on the market may have had an effect on that.
 
Isn´t the real reason the Xbox titles resembled the PC titles to much? console gamers seem to preferr totally different games then what we PC gamers preferr. Now there is of course people that do both...

Though from where I am from PC Games outsell console games actually...
 
steviep said:
So what you're saying is... you don't think a game being more immersive is a good thing? Essentially, being more immersed in the experience is a gimmick that will wear off? For instance, like when 3D was first brought to the PC, people said "pfft, it's a gimmick"? Or when analog control was brought via the N64? "pfft... the d-pad on my PS1 stick is better". Or perhaps when the rumble pak came out and force feedback became more common on the PC, people just dismissed it as a gimmick that didn't enhance gameplay? If so, why are these all standards nowadays?
Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is if that immersion doesnt really add anything to the game then what good is it?

steviep said:
But many or most people will be like me... They will own a PS3 OR an X360.... AND a Revolution. That's the key, here ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly, and thats what I am getting at. If I'm a developer, and I know that most people have a rev AND a PS3/360, why am I going to put in all that extra effort to make the rev version stand out, knowing that even if I make the rev version exactly the same as the others the people who only have rev will have to take what they can get, and the people who have rev and another system can just play it on another system?
 
Naldo said:
No, what I am saying is if that immersion doesnt really add anything to the game then what good is it?
Click to expand...

But it WILL add to the game... and make it better. More immersion usually = better game... period.


Exactly, and thats what I am getting at. If I'm a developer, and I know that most people have a rev AND a PS3/360, why am I going to put in all that extra effort to make the rev version stand out, knowing that even if I make the rev version exactly the same as the others the people who only have rev will have to take what they can get, and the people who have rev and another system can just play it on another system?
Click to expand...

Why did so many developers make games for the PS2? Because more people had it. Why are developers almost ignoring the PSP or feeding it crappy ports? Because more people have a DS. If most people own a PS3 OR X360 AND a Revolution... more people will own a Revolution. Therefore, there is more money to be made there, and therefore more effort/games/etc will be put there. Conjecture? Currently, yes, but a real possibility. THAT'S the point ;)
 
oqvist said:
Isn´t the real reason the Xbox titles resembled the PC titles to much? console gamers seem to preferr totally different games then what we PC gamers preferr. Now there is of course people that do both...

Though from where I am from PC Games outsell console games actually...
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with the fact that the xbox sold abysmally in Japan. Yeah the US is a bigger market, but Japan is large enough to make a serious difference. The xbox is basically a PC but it's games aren't more like PC games than any other console. Almost every game on the xbox was also available on the ps2.
 
Naldo said:
I dont get what you are saying, If a game is exclusive or has 1st release privlages then of course it will sell more than a system it doesnt come out on or a system it comes out a year later for (because by then if you really want to play the game you will have bought it for the other system).

And as for the xbox games not selling as many units as the PS2 counterparts, I'm sure the whole 80 million more PS2's being on the market may have had an effect on that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you did get my point. Let me explain: "Exclusive titles, first release priveledges, more innovative games" was the answer to why the Xbox didn't sell near as well as the PS2.
 
steviep said:
Why did so many developers make games for the PS2? Because more people had it. Why are developers almost ignoring the PSP or feeding it crappy ports? Because more people have a DS. If most people own a PS3 OR X360 AND a Revolution... more people will own a Revolution. Therefore, there is more money to be made there, and therefore more effort/games/etc will be put there. Conjecture? Currently, yes, but a real possibility. THAT'S the point ;)
Click to expand...

Its a double edge sword though. For every great PS2 game that came out there was a good 30 that were mediocre or complete crap, and with the revs low development cost theres a chance it could be an even worse ratio, but thats speculation on my part.

Nintendo's got an uphill battle for getting the rev into the top spot though, in the US they are coming into it #3 as far as consoles are concerned, microsoft is going to have a decent lead, sony can move units on the playstation name alone, they've let down a few customers with the gamecube (me for instance), and they still have to get passed the entire nintendo is for kids notion which is still quite prevalent (and is one of the reasons it isnt completly sodomizing the PSP here like it is in japan, despite having a much better game lineup DS only leads by a few 100k last time I looked).

I wish them the best of luck though (well, maybe not the best), If they have metroid prime 3 or pikmin 3 at launch, I'll be buying.
 
chojin_1999 said:
Exactly, you did get my point. Let me explain: "Exclusive titles, first release priveledges, more innovative games" was the answer to why the Xbox didn't sell near as well as the PS2.
Click to expand...

My bad
 
Naldo said:
Its a double edge sword though. For every great PS2 game that came out there was a good 30 that were mediocre or complete crap, and with the revs low development cost theres a chance it could be an even worse ratio, but thats speculation on my part.

Nintendo's got an uphill battle for getting the rev into the top spot though, in the US they are coming into it #3 as far as consoles are concerned, microsoft is going to have a decent lead, sony can move units on the playstation name alone, they've let down a few customers with the gamecube (me for instance), and they still have to get passed the entire nintendo is for kids notion which is still quite prevalent (and is one of the reasons it isnt completly sodomizing the PSP here like it is in japan, despite having a much better game lineup DS only leads by a few 100k last time I looked).

I wish them the best of luck though (well, maybe not the best), If they have metroid prime 3 or pikmin 3 at launch, I'll be buying.
Click to expand...

Try a few million, but that's OK. They do indeed have an uphill battle. But if I had the money lying around, I would be investing in them right now. Their blue-ocean strategy, so to speak, has them poised to be able to jump them WAY ahead in sales beyond anything else. Will it happen? Who knows, time will tell. But it damn well can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top