PS3----A console before it's time......

I don't understand your sense of entitlement and your agnst towards "casual" gamers. The concept or even the belief that hardcore is better than "casual" is truly misguided. But if you believe that companies are placing their efforts in these gamers for no real financial gain then you are mistaken.

Besides that, the need for new hardware is currently not there. Most of the desire comes from wanting better graphics and not necessarily for making better games. This idealogy that better graphics equals better games have been crippling the advancement of gaming. Too much time is spent on cinematics and slowly;in some cases drasticaly, games are moving away from being actual games. So before we go jumping or "needing" better hardware developers should at least demonstrate that there is an actual benefit to this upgrade besides graphics.

Pedro

It should be easy to understand my sense of entitlement, actually. I spend more money than anyone I know who plays games casually. And each month, month in and out, I see there are many more people like me that buy conventional console titles than there are those who play casual console titles. We are truly better consumers, the sales numbers bear this out -- at least on consoles, and that is precisely the reason Nintendo is running the hell away from the Wii. I base my rationale on sales numbers, so which one of us is truly misguided, Pedro?

And as for new hardware facilitating custscenes, well that is where YOU are misguided, because people like ME, who would've enjoyed Ninja Gaiden II without the f***ed framerate, or the people who bought Rage and couldn't stand the fugly-ass textures up close, or those who bought GT5 to find only half the cars were in HD. Not to mention all the improvements developers likely WANT to implement but CAN'T because of aging hardware. Well, WE think differently, Pedro. :)

Im glad i got Rage on PC, it looks absolutely eye meltingly good on PC. :P

I never played Rage, but I own GT5 and owned Skyrim, and in my opinion both of those game's problems are due not to hardware limitations, but the developer's tendency to frantically throw stuff into the games up until they moment they ship and then patch them once they are in gamers' hands. GT5 boasted a lot more content than Forza 4 (or any other three racing games not named GT), but much of the content lack the polish of Forza not due to hardware limitations, but because the designers lacks the time to properly implement all of the cars (I remember the GT team boasting that the cars were so detailed each took hundreds of man hours to model). And Bethesda has long been in the habit of shipping games incomplete, with the problem getting worse as they have grown more successful (if gamers don't care, why spend the money to polish?).

I had my issues with KZ3 (didn't like how they made the handling more like the standard recoiless jumpy boy type one normally sees in first person shooters) but there were a lot of scenes which were way beyond KZ2 in terms of tech perfomance (lots of big battlefields with sharp AI, massive enemies like the MAWLR, battlefields set in snow, admist junkyards and exploding computers, etc). I think most of the games you mentioned improved upon their predecessors in meaningful ways, but I concede that they are linear improvements rather than radical improvements. Late in a system's life linear improvements are all one can reaslistically expect (God of War 2's Colossus of Rhodes was kickbutt, but he was merely a linear improvement on the Colossi of Shadows of the Colossus).

Casual games cost a fraction of what core games cost, so Kinect Sports 7 doesn't need to put up Halo numbers in order for it to be profitable for MS. Also, I don't think casual games crowd out core ones. The Wii had(has?) roughly as much core support as the GC and the advent of the Kinect certainly hasn't lessened the amount of quality core games on the X360 (inbetween Bastion, Dark Souls, Mortal Kombat, Gears of War and Rayman, there was a lot of core stuff on the X360 worth playing in 2011).

CarnageHeart

If you want to buy the "hundreds of man hours thing" regarding GT5, then knock yourself out. Perhaps they could've held off on GT Prologue and put a few more "hundred hours" into some of the GT5 content, no? As for Skyrim, well, I don't think there is any disputing that the game is massive. And I also don't think there is any disputing that the PC version runs the best, and trust me, it does also for Rage. And that's where we agree -- lateral improvements are all you're going to see from here on out. Is there ANYTHING that looks to just blow away what we've seen in the last two years coming out this year from a technical standpoint? Keep in mind, I'm not advocating turning this into the PC cycle, which just got f***ing STUPID for a while where they released new cards every two years or something like that. But come on, it's been SIX to SEVEN YEARS now, and the console cycle has always dictated new hardware historically because the oomph goes away in the latter years. By the time new hardware hits and developers really get cooking on it, this generation will be blown out and tired.

As for Kinect Sports 7, I don't care about how profitable it is. For all I know the Jaguar was profitable, and I know the Wii was -- look how that s*** turned out. I am talking about dueling markets, because just as the consumer draws from the same pool of disposable funds for entertainment, so too do publishers for making it. I don't know what Kinect Sports cost to make, but I DO know it took money away from games that I like to play, and that pisses me off, because I think Kinect is s***, and I think most of its audience is. And that's why I don't want Microsoft throwing good money away on it. The argument that Kinect gaming isn't taking anything away from core gaming is disingenuous and false. The money all comes from the same pool. Money spent on Kinect is money that could be spent on core games. It's that simple.

The Wii had as much core support as the Cube, and the Cube was a failure too. It also had more core titles than the Jaguar. So I guess casual gaming neither hinders core development nor compares unfavorably, so long as we are comparing it to a failed conventional platform. How does the Wii compare against the NES or SNES?

Don't worry though, folks. You can now get tattoos for your virtual doll...

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/AvatarMarketplace?Brand=14344

Another little turd fished out of the Wii toilet bowl, albeit with a slight VelocityGirl-ish edge that Microsoft has gotten SO good at.

A game like Assassin's Creed could've never been done on last gen hardware. For example, compare the PSP versions of AC with the console versions, the PSP simply cant handle it. AC games are massive, tracking dozens if not hundreds of interactive A.I NPCs at once. Mass Effect allows you to controls three fully upgradable characters at once. I dont remember playing anything like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed or Infamous last gen. Infamous controls like a dream and for an open world game that allows you to climb and fly over anything, it's a phenomenal achievement. And let's not forget coop and advancement in online integration this gen. 256 player battles in MAG etc.

Dont mean to be harsh, but you and I aren't exactly game developers. I bet there are a million things developers want to implement in their games, but cant due of hardware limitations. We just dont know what they have under their sleeves. If you think next gen consoles will bring just prettier graphics then you probably dont have a good imagination (which is fine considering we aren't game developers butting our heads against the hardware day in, day out).

S0lidSnake

Let me make this as clear as possible. I am not saying that a newer console or newer technology does introduce newer features and capabilities that were impractical in the previous generation. My point is that the cry for newer hardware is heavily entrenched in this "need" for better looking graphics. However, graphics are reaching their limits independent of the hardware. There is little that cannot be achieve graphically in games nowadays and the difference in the upcoming years would be marginal.

As for the AI in AC, well its not complex. NPC are programmed to move from point A to B. There is also a range in which the NPCs are activated and deactivated in relation to the player. So when it comes to AI and good AI, AC is not a particularly good example. It may have numerous NPCs but they don't have any advance AI. Mass Effect ability to control three characters is nothing special. The graphics is more of a high point than the ability to control three characters. Open world is not new,it existed in the last gen games like GTA and Morrowind. So Infamous is not much of an achievement in the advancemeof the open world formula. As for MAG, well lets just say you are not going to see these 256 players all at once and their locations and positions are most likely tracked by the server and not the PS3, making it have MMO like mechanics and we all know that MMOs weren't invented in this generation.

As for developers wanting to implement things but can't because of hardware limitations, I find that argument very unlikely. The reality is that for most game devs remaking currently successfull games is more on their to do list than to create a new game that is potentially outside the scope of the current systems. Very few game devs are willing or financial secure to experiment or make games outside the cliche formula. And the ones that do, find meagre to massive success through indie gaming. Beyond that, there is always going to be hardware limitations and its the game dev job to work within these limitations. My imagination is independent of reality. You and I can imagine to our hearts content but the reality and history has shown that prettier graphics is generally what is brought to the table with every new system. Very very few games bring something new to the table. And the belief that there isn't anything new that can be done is severly shortsighted and its because graphics are the main draw with innovation in gameplay being a distant second.

It should be easy to understand my sense of entitlement, actually. I spend more money than anyone I know who plays games casually. And each month, month in and out, I see there are many more people like me that buy conventional console titles than there are those who play casual console titles. We are truly better consumers, the sales numbers bear this out -- at least on consoles, and that is precisely the reason Nintendo is running the hell away from the Wii. I base my rationale on sales numbers, so which one of us is truly misguided, Pedro?

And as for new hardware facilitating custscenes, well that is where YOU are misguided, because people like ME, who would've enjoyed Ninja Gaiden II without the f***ed framerate, or the people who bought Rage and couldn't stand the fugly-ass textures up close, or those who bought GT5 to find only half the cars were in HD. Not to mention all the improvements developers likely WANT to implement but CAN'T because of aging hardware. Well, WE think differently, Pedro. :)

Shame-usBlackley

For one the game makers whether it be Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Sony etc don't owe you anything. So this entitlement you have that they do is silly at best. Also your disdain to people who play casually is equally humerous because of this silly notion of being the "hardcore" gamer. It wouldn't be long before you start complaining that company X does not care about gamers blah blah. I am sorry but such behaviour is foolishness. But if you genuinely believe that you are somewhat special in the eyes of these major companies than the awful,cancerous "casual" gamers then knock yourself out buddy. :)

Ninja Gaiden 2:- Framerate issues are generally a sign of poor optimization and believe it or not optimization is ALWAYS needed INDEPENDENT of the systems specs.

Rage:-The complaint about Rage textures is downright silly and overstated but since the internet facilated bandwagon jumping it is easy for folks to get carried away. Independent of that, the problems weren't because of hardware limitations due to the FACT that the problem was worse on the PC which can be equip with superior hardware.

GT5:- Not sure what you mean by only half the cars were in HD. Do you mean on the track in real-time or are you talking about the cars in general. If it is the cars in general then it sounds more like laziness than hardware limitation.

Again, I am all for advancement of gaming hardware but the notion of getting newer hardware just cause seems rather ritual than practical.

For one the game makers whether it be Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Sony etc don't owe you anything. So this entitlement you have that they do is silly at best. Also your disdain to people who play casually is equally humerous because of this silly notion of being the "hardcore" gamer. It wouldn't be long before you start complaining that company X does not care about gamers blah blah. I am sorry but such behaviour is foolishness. But if you genuinely believe that you are somewhat special in the eyes of these major companies than the awful,cancerous "casual" gamers then knock yourself out buddy. :)

Ninja Gaiden 2:- Framerate issues are generally a sign of poor optimization and believe it or not optimization is ALWAYS needed INDEPENDENT of the systems specs.

Rage:-The complaint about Rage textures is downright silly and overstated but since the internet facilated bandwagon jumping it is easy for folks to get carried away. Independent of that, the problems weren't because of hardware limitations due to the FACT that the problem was worse on the PC which can be equip with superior hardware.

GT5:- Not sure what you mean by only half the cars were in HD. Do you mean on the track in real-time or are you talking about the cars in general. If it is the cars in general then it sounds more like laziness than hardware limitation.

Again, I am all for advancement of gaming hardware but the notion of getting newer hardware just cause seems rather ritual than practical.

Pedro

The "they don't owe you anything so quit yer **** argument is a lame and tired one. "Owe" is such a nebulous word. Technically, no company "owes" a customer anything, but if they're smart, they'll give them what they want. This is simple business. I treat certain clients who buy more inventory differently than I do those who do not, and in an effort to find more customers like those who spend a bunch, I market to these types of people heavily. There are other customers who buy something once and I never see them again, and if I do, they are a pain in the ass to deal with. Do you see where I'm going with this? Not all customers are created equal. It would be nice if they were, but they are not. The flail fad has caused companies to falsely believe that a viable market exists where there is no evidence of one, and they are robbing resources from the pool that originally fed the market that DOES buy to go after this new false god.

Look, a few years ago, I had no disdain for the casual audience, and in the non-console space, I still don't. But the Wii Effect has been a net negative for the industry. It has taken it to bad places. They tried to market to a group of people who bought a system with no intention of ever buying software again. That is unhealthy for the industry for many reasons, chief among them being the fact that it sent mixed signals to the market, and caused previously smart, shrewd companies (like Microsoft) to put their heads up their butts and chase the same market, even while Nintendo ran away from it. This industry survived and flourished -- sold more systems than it ever had just a generation ago -- all with traditional hardware and conventional experiences. What I have seen over five or so years of the Wii has been a nucleus of really good games awash in a sea of silicon swill. The ratio of great:s*** was just awful. Is that where the industry should go? Is this the new hot market -- the "blue ocean" that Nintendo promised? Similarly, now with Kinect, we're seeing similar results. A few well-made attempts at flail gaming, sticking out of a bunch of garbage. In the meanwhile, Microsoft has lost nearly all of its internal studios, and has almost NO first-party content any longer. It would be one thing if everything was totally cool in MSLAND, but it is not... far from it. The focus on flail gaming, the avatards, the abysmal Kinect library... this is all happening on a system that was sold and marketed (and very successful) as a conventional machine. Let me ask you -- when was the last truly great Microsoft Studios game you played? When was it released? Can you even remember? Framed in that context, the 360 doesn't seem quite so healthy, does it? And that (aside from the fact that we've seen Nintendo try and fail with it) is why I don't like seeing them focus on flail gaming when the sales charts show them, each and every month, lit up like a goddamn Christmas tree, exactly who spends money and who doesn't.

It's not about being hardcore. It's about knowing which market butters your bread, and spending those precious finite resources on those who are actually going to pony up and BUY SOMETHING, hopefully CONSISTENTLY. Call that market what you will, just don't call it the motion control market. The motion control market is a threat to conventional gaming, not because it will replace it, but because it could crap it up so awfully terribly that it could take generations to recover. Case in point? The "winner" of this generation is consistently absent from sales charts nearly every month, and has arguably the weakest library of titles of any generational leader ever. What did Nintendo "win" exactly? Numbers on paper, yes... but were they truly good for the industry? Is the industry better off having had the Wii lead the market? Those are much tougher questions to answer. That is why it is so perplexing to see other companies pushing it so damn hard.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

A game like Assassin's Creed could've never been done on last gen hardware. For example, compare the PSP versions of AC with the console versions, the PSP simply cant handle it. AC games are massive, tracking dozens if not hundreds of interactive A.I NPCs at once. Mass Effect allows you to controls three fully upgradable characters at once. I dont remember playing anything like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed or Infamous last gen. Infamous controls like a dream and for an open world game that allows you to climb and fly over anything, it's a phenomenal achievement. And let's not forget coop and advancement in online integration this gen. 256 player battles in MAG etc.

Dont mean to be harsh, but you and I aren't exactly game developers. I bet there are a million things developers want to implement in their games, but cant due of hardware limitations. We just dont know what they have under their sleeves. If you think next gen consoles will bring just prettier graphics then you probably dont have a good imagination (which is fine considering we aren't game developers butting our heads against the hardware day in, day out).

Pedro

Let me make this as clear as possible. I am not saying that a newer console or newer technology does introduce newer features and capabilities that were impractical in the previous generation. My point is that the cry for newer hardware is heavily entrenched in this "need" for better looking graphics. However, graphics are reaching their limits independent of the hardware. There is little that cannot be achieve graphically in games nowadays and the difference in the upcoming years would be marginal.

I agree that graphics seem to get the most attention during the transition to next gen, but to say graphics are reaching their zenith is a being a little shortsighted. Let's not forget most people thought the same last gen. They claimed that since we already have fully polygonal characters, the improvements in graphics would be minor. Compare the Kratos model from GoW2 to GoW3 and you'll see the difference is anything but minor. Let's have this discussion again in five years, and we will compare the PS3 Kratos, Nathan Drake and Marcus Fenix to their next gen counterparts.

And lol, you need to give developers more credit here, you are selling these games short. The streets in AC are densily populated with hundreds of NPCs that react to your every move. There are lots of physics calculations taking place everytime Ezio bumps into a group of people or hell even when he doesn't. The open world GTA games barely had any people on the streets compared to how many people AC manages to cram in each small area.

Same with Mass Effect, there are three characters with various physics based moves all attacking at the same time. It isn't just a shooter that let's you control your squad like Socom last gen. All those physics based moves require precious processing time. Sure, seeing all that with fancy textures and post processing effects makes it look even better but no way those were possible on a 700Mhz Xbox processor.

MAG does indeed render the entire map with 256 characters at once. You can go from one end to the other in a vehicle or on foot even. The 256 player matches end in a final assault where 128 players from the defending side all spawn together and run to their respective bases in a 50 yard radius. And the other 128 attacking players all rush this relatively small area. Hell, you can even glide to a different base when you get parachuted in. The game usually runs pretty smooth during the 32-64-128 player skirmishes but it has noticable framerate issues during these final assualts, and it's not lag. The fact that it's playable is a huge achievement and a testament to the power of current gen consoles.

Here is a short 5 second clip of that amazing one shot sequence from The Adventures of TinTin. This is what next gen games will look like a few years down the line.

Youtube

The "they don't owe you anything so quit yer **** argument is a lame and tired one. "Owe" is such a nebulous word. Technically, no company "owes" a customer anything, but if they're smart, they'll give them what they want. This is simple business. I treat certain clients who buy more inventory differently than I do those who do not, and in an effort to find more customers like those who spend a bunch, I market to these types of people heavily. There are other customers who buy something once and I never see them again, and if I do, they are a pain in the ass to deal with. Do you see where I'm going with this? Not all customers are created equal. It would be nice if they were, but they are not. The flail fad has caused companies to falsely believe that a viable market exists where there is no evidence of one, and they are robbing resources from the pool that originally fed the market that DOES buy to go after this new false god.

Look, a few years ago, I had no disdain for the casual audience, and in the non-console space, I still don't. But the Wii Effect has been a net negative for the industry. It has taken it to bad places. They tried to market to a group of people who bought a system with no intention of ever buying software again. That is unhealthy for the industry for many reasons, chief among them being the fact that it sent mixed signals to the market, and caused previously smart, shrewd companies (like Microsoft) to put their heads up their butts and chase the same market, even while Nintendo ran away from it. This industry survived and flourished -- sold more systems than it ever had just a generation ago -- all with traditional hardware and conventional experiences. What I have seen over five or so years of the Wii has been a nucleus of really good games awash in a sea of silicon swill. The ratio of great:s*** was just awful. Is that where the industry should go? Is this the new hot market -- the "blue ocean" that Nintendo promised? Similarly, now with Kinect, we're seeing similar results. A few well-made attempts at flail gaming, sticking out of a bunch of garbage. In the meanwhile, Microsoft has lost nearly all of its internal studios, and has almost NO first-party content any longer. It would be one thing if everything was totally cool in MSLAND, but it is not... far from it. The focus on flail gaming, the avatards, the abysmal Kinect library... this is all happening on a system that was sold and marketed (and very successful) as a conventional machine. Let me ask you -- when was the last truly great Microsoft Studios game you played? When was it released? Can you even remember? Framed in that context, the 360 doesn't seem quite so healthy, does it? And that (aside from the fact that we've seen Nintendo try and fail with it) is why I don't like seeing them focus on flail gaming when the sales charts show them, each and every month, lit up like a goddamn Christmas tree, exactly who spends money and who doesn't.

It's not about being hardcore. It's about knowing which market butters your bread, and spending those precious finite resources on those who are actually going to pony up and BUY SOMETHING, hopefully CONSISTENTLY. Call that market what you will, just don't call it the motion control market. The motion control market is a threat to conventional gaming, not because it will replace it, but because it could crap it up so awfully terribly that it could take generations to recover. Case in point? The "winner" of this generation is consistently absent from sales charts nearly every month, and has arguably the weakest library of titles of any generational leader ever. What did Nintendo "win" exactly? Numbers on paper, yes... but were they truly good for the industry? Is the industry better off having had the Wii lead the market? Those are much tougher questions to answer. That is why it is so perplexing to see other companies pushing it so damn hard.

Shame-usBlackley

I now understand your point. Your previous post did not effectively convey the point your were trying to make. In fact I agree that the industry is being misdirected with gimmicks etc and that this misdirection would have adverse effects on the industry. And I can really disagree with your overall assertion.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I never played Rage, but I own GT5 and owned Skyrim, and in my opinion both of those game's problems are due not to hardware limitations, but the developer's tendency to frantically throw stuff into the games up until they moment they ship and then patch them once they are in gamers' hands. GT5 boasted a lot more content than Forza 4 (or any other three racing games not named GT), but much of the content lack the polish of Forza not due to hardware limitations, but because the designers lacks the time to properly implement all of the cars (I remember the GT team boasting that the cars were so detailed each took hundreds of man hours to model). And Bethesda has long been in the habit of shipping games incomplete, with the problem getting worse as they have grown more successful (if gamers don't care, why spend the money to polish?).

I had my issues with KZ3 (didn't like how they made the handling more like the standard recoiless jumpy boy type one normally sees in first person shooters) but there were a lot of scenes which were way beyond KZ2 in terms of tech perfomance (lots of big battlefields with sharp AI, massive enemies like the MAWLR, battlefields set in snow, admist junkyards and exploding computers, etc). I think most of the games you mentioned improved upon their predecessors in meaningful ways, but I concede that they are linear improvements rather than radical improvements. Late in a system's life linear improvements are all one can reaslistically expect (God of War 2's Colossus of Rhodes was kickbutt, but he was merely a linear improvement on the Colossi of Shadows of the Colossus).

Casual games cost a fraction of what core games cost, so Kinect Sports 7 doesn't need to put up Halo numbers in order for it to be profitable for MS. Also, I don't think casual games crowd out core ones. The Wii had(has?) roughly as much core support as the GC and the advent of the Kinect certainly hasn't lessened the amount of quality core games on the X360 (inbetween Bastion, Dark Souls, Mortal Kombat, Gears of War and Rayman, there was a lot of core stuff on the X360 worth playing in 2011).

Shame-usBlackley

If you want to buy the "hundreds of man hours thing" regarding GT5, then knock yourself out. Perhaps they could've held off on GT Prologue and put a few more "hundred hours" into some of the GT5 content, no? As for Skyrim, well, I don't think there is any disputing that the game is massive. And I also don't think there is any disputing that the PC version runs the best, and trust me, it does also for Rage. And that's where we agree -- lateral improvements are all you're going to see from here on out. Is there ANYTHING that looks to just blow away what we've seen in the last two years coming out this year from a technical standpoint? Keep in mind, I'm not advocating turning this into the PC cycle, which just got f***ing STUPID for a while where they released new cards every two years or something like that. But come on, it's been SIX to SEVEN YEARS now, and the console cycle has always dictated new hardware historically because the oomph goes away in the latter years. By the time new hardware hits and developers really get cooking on it, this generation will be blown out and tired.

As for Kinect Sports 7, I don't care about how profitable it is. For all I know the Jaguar was profitable, and I know the Wii was -- look how that s*** turned out. I am talking about dueling markets, because just as the consumer draws from the same pool of disposable funds for entertainment, so too do publishers for making it. I don't know what Kinect Sports cost to make, but I DO know it took money away from games that I like to play, and that pisses me off, because I think Kinect is s***, and I think most of its audience is. And that's why I don't want Microsoft throwing good money away on it. The argument that Kinect gaming isn't taking anything away from core gaming is disingenuous and false. The money all comes from the same pool. Money spent on Kinect is money that could be spent on core games. It's that simple.

The Wii had as much core support as the Cube, and the Cube was a failure too. It also had more core titles than the Jaguar. So I guess casual gaming neither hinders core development nor compares unfavorably, so long as we are comparing it to a failed conventional platform. How does the Wii compare against the NES or SNES?

I don't dispute that Skyrim is massive, but my problem with Bethesda is they tend to frantically throw stuff into their game up until it ships, without worrying about bugtesting or balancing. The PC version of Skyrim isn't as utterly broken as the PS3 version, but it still shipped extremely buggy (and some of the patches created new bugs). Until hardware becomes sentient and is able to find and fix bugs on its own, Bethesda will keep shipping massive, sloppy games. I agree that declining sales/interest trigger new hardware, but its worth noting that both the X360 and the PS3 just had their strongest years ever.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/17895-skyrim-patch-sends-dragons-flying-backwards-removes-magic-resistance/

As for Kinect's impact on MS's first party development, I think its been negligible. MS like Nintendo has become extremely risk adverse in the core arena. They will happily fund Halo, Forza and Fable, but they don't want to make anything else (Bungie's determination to make a non-Halo game is why they got the boot). In addition to funding the handful of franchises I mentioned, MS uses its money to buy windows of exclusivity for third party games (and DLC).

I think you know me well enough to know that I think very, very little of the Wii.

It's not about being hardcore. It's about knowing which market butters your bread, and spending those precious finite resources on those who are actually going to pony up and BUY SOMETHING, hopefully CONSISTENTLY.

Shame-usBlackley

http://www.vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php

Have you figured out who butters their bread yet?

Do you see Modern Warfare, Rage or Skyrim on that chart?

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

It's not about being hardcore. It's about knowing which market butters your bread, and spending those precious finite resources on those who are actually going to pony up and BUY SOMETHING, hopefully CONSISTENTLY.

ZombieKiller7

http://www.vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php

Have you figured out who butters their bread yet?

Do you see Modern Warfare, Rage or Skyrim on that chart?

First of all, VGChartz is the National Enquirer of sales numbers. It is so because it is missing key market segment information.

Regardless, I see a pack in Wii game, a pack in Wii game that camefree with a controller purchase, and a pack in Kinect game that came with the purchase of Kinect hardware. These "sold" really well (if you want to call pack-in games sold), followed by a bunch of Nintendo first-party stuff that sells well whether it has motion control nonsense in it or not. I also see that the largest market far and away is the US market, and the NPD numbers each month reflect poorly on the state of motion control gaming.

First of all, VGChartz is the National Enquirer of sales numbers. It is so because it is missing key market segment information.

Regardless, I see a pack in Wii game, a pack in Wii game that camefree with a controller purchase, and a pack in Kinect game that came with the purchase of Kinect hardware. These "sold" really well (if you want to call pack-in games sold), followed by a bunch of Nintendo first-party stuff that sells well whether it has motion control nonsense in it or not. I also see that the largest market far and away is the US market, and the NPD numbers each month reflect poorly on the state of motion control gaming.

Shame-usBlackley

Regardless I don't think we can deny that "casuals" are a far, far bigger market than people like you.

Witcher 2 only got 1 million sales.

You're asking hardware/software devs to push the bleeding edge, when the market isn't there to support it.

And I think to an extent pushing bleeding edge graphics is just as harmful to good gameplay as "casual" stick waggling crap.

Look at all the most graphically intense games.

Their gameplay is garbage.

Crysis 1/2

Gears 3

Witcher 2

UC

God of War 3

The gameplay is ass, you are playing in a fish bowl, and %100 emotionally detached from the game.

Compare that what got you INTO gaming in the first place.

Pacman

Donkey kong

Pitfall

Duck Hunt

Sonic

These are all-time classic games that got us interested in gaming in the first place.

Now people like you want every game to be visual blockbusters like boring ass crysis 2.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

First of all, VGChartz is the National Enquirer of sales numbers. It is so because it is missing key market segment information.

Regardless, I see a pack in Wii game, a pack in Wii game that camefree with a controller purchase, and a pack in Kinect game that came with the purchase of Kinect hardware. These "sold" really well (if you want to call pack-in games sold), followed by a bunch of Nintendo first-party stuff that sells well whether it has motion control nonsense in it or not. I also see that the largest market far and away is the US market, and the NPD numbers each month reflect poorly on the state of motion control gaming.

ZombieKiller7

Regardless I don't think we can deny that "casuals" are a far, far bigger market than people like you.

Witcher 2 only got 1 million sales.

You're asking hardware/software devs to push the bleeding edge, when the market isn't there to support it.

And I think to an extent pushing bleeding edge graphics is just as harmful to good gameplay as "casual" stick waggling crap.

Look at all the most graphically intense games.

Their gameplay is garbage.

Crysis 1/2

Gears 3

Witcher 2

UC

God of War 3

The gameplay is ass, you are playing in a fish bowl, and %100 emotionally detached from the game.

Compare that what got you INTO gaming in the first place.

Pacman

Donkey kong

Pitfall

Duck Hunt

Sonic

These are all-time classic games that got us interested in gaming in the first place.

Now people like you want every game to be visual blockbusters like boring ass crysis 2.

I never even played Crysis 2. I'm not saying every game has to be bleeding edge graphically. I am saying that foisting motion/flail controls on a market that has been relatively unresponsive to it is STUPID. I am a huge proponent of the indie game and arcade sections of Live Arcade, and they are decidedly retro in presentation most times. Still, technology has always driven this market, I don't think that will change.

There is a large market of casuals, but you haven't presented any evidence of it. The large casual market exists on phones and tablets and buys games that cost a few bucks, you were trying to deceptively make one out of pack-in titles. There has been little/no correlative evidence suggesting that a comparable market exists on home consoles. That's a wholly different argument and discussion, however.

[

Look at all the most graphically intense games.

Their gameplay is garbage.

Crysis 1/2

Gears 3

Witcher 2

UC

God of War 3

The gameplay is ass, you are playing in a fish bowl, and %100 emotionally detached from the game.

ZombieKiller7

Wait, what the f***!

Compare that what got you INTO gaming in the first place.

Pacman

Donkey kong

Pitfall

Duck Hunt

Sonic

These are all-time classic games that got us interested in gaming in the first place.

Now people like you want every game to be visual blockbusters like boring ass crysis 2.

ZombieKiller7

ahahahaaha

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[

Look at all the most graphically intense games.

Their gameplay is garbage.

Crysis 1/2

Gears 3

Witcher 2

UC

God of War 3

The gameplay is ass, you are playing in a fish bowl, and %100 emotionally detached from the game.

S0lidSnake

Wait, what the f***!

Compare that what got you INTO gaming in the first place.

Pacman

Donkey kong

Pitfall

Duck Hunt

Sonic

These are all-time classic games that got us interested in gaming in the first place.

Now people like you want every game to be visual blockbusters like boring ass crysis 2.

ZombieKiller7

ahahahaaha

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

First of all, VGChartz is the National Enquirer of sales numbers. It is so because it is missing key market segment information.

Regardless, I see a pack in Wii game, a pack in Wii game that camefree with a controller purchase, and a pack in Kinect game that came with the purchase of Kinect hardware. These "sold" really well (if you want to call pack-in games sold), followed by a bunch of Nintendo first-party stuff that sells well whether it has motion control nonsense in it or not. I also see that the largest market far and away is the US market, and the NPD numbers each month reflect poorly on the state of motion control gaming.

ZombieKiller7

Regardless I don't think we can deny that "casuals" are a far, far bigger market than people like you.

Witcher 2 only got 1 million sales.

You're asking hardware/software devs to push the bleeding edge, when the market isn't there to support it.

And I think to an extent pushing bleeding edge graphics is just as harmful to good gameplay as "casual" stick waggling crap.

Look at all the most graphically intense games.

Their gameplay is garbage.

Crysis 1/2

Gears 3

Witcher 2

UC

God of War 3

The gameplay is ass, you are playing in a fish bowl, and %100 emotionally detached from the game.

Compare that what got you INTO gaming in the first place.

Pacman

Donkey kong

Pitfall

Duck Hunt

Sonic

These are all-time classic games that got us interested in gaming in the first place.

Now people like you want every game to be visual blockbusters like boring ass crysis 2.

Man, I thought I was the one who preferred the emotional viscerality of Duck Hunt to that pitiful excuse for a videogame known as God Of War 3...

I am a huge proponent of the indie game and arcade sections of Live Arcade, and they are decidedly retro in presentation most times.

Shame-usBlackley

Agree

There is a large market of casuals, but you haven't presented any evidence of it. The large casual market exists on phones and tablets and buys games that cost a few bucks, you were trying to deceptively make one out of pack-in titles. There has been little/no correlative evidence suggesting that a comparable market exists on home consoles. That's a wholly different argument and discussion, however.

Shame-usBlackley

Disagree.

Wii is proof.

Tens of millions sales of Kinect is proof.

Sales of "Dance Central" and "Kinectimals" is proof.

Of course MS/Sony want to keep people like you.

And there is no shortage of games for you.

But you focus more on what other people are getting, rather than what you are getting.

Just because there is Nikelodeon on cable doesn't mean cable tv is suddenly not for you. There is also discovery channel, scifi channel and Spike TV.

Disagree.

Wii is proof.

Tens of millions sales of Kinect is proof.

Sales of "Dance Central" and "Kinectimals" is proof.

Of course MS/Sony want to keep people like you.

And there is no shortage of games for you.

But you focus more on what other people are getting, rather than what you are getting.

Just because there is Nikelodeon on cable doesn't mean cable tv is suddenly not for you. There is also discovery channel, scifi channel and Spike TV.

ZombieKiller7

If your standard is hardware sold and not games, then yeah, motion gaming is f***ing awesome. I guess we just have varying metrics for what constitutes success, because I've always believed that putting a piece of hardware in someone's house doesn't mean dick if they don't buy anything for it, especially since most times, hardware is a break-even proposition at best, and a huge loss at worst.

Your TV analogy is busted. As a consumer, I want 200 channels of what I want if there are 200 channels available. Especially if the viewership for (let's just correlate motion gaming to the Oprah Winfrey Network and Lifetime Channel for analogy's sake) isn't blowing anyone's skirt up and I watch TV like a mofo. There's nothing wrong with that. Those who spend the money often get catered to. It's the reason why high rollers get their rooms comped when they go to Vegas, while some dick from Des Moines who plans on dropping a few twenties in the nickel slots pays for his room. It's no different, really. I've already made my case as to why I am a better consumer than 99.9 percent of the flail gaming crowd. I am consistent, and I buy early and often. As do others who are like me. I have plenty of disposable income, and I invest heavily in my chosen hobby. There is simply no way to compare me to someone who buys a Wii for Wii Sports and never buys anything again, or someone who buys a Kinect and never puts another disc in besides Kinect Adventures, and based on your own sales figures cited, there are a LOT more of those people than there are people actually buying games repeatedly for that piece of s***.

And come on, the chart you brought up didn't have Kinectimals or Dance Central anywhere on it.