Author Topic: What microsoft thinks of the virtual console. (Read 14667 times)

Zach · « **on:** February 04, 2006, 08:46:58 PM »

Its not really a big surprise but their going with the NINTENDO IS TEH tiku tiku tiku! approach

A _ _ HOLE

this is the best part

Quote
a lot of those games are fun in your head when you think, 'Oh, yeah when I was 12, this was really fun,' and you have these great nostalgic reasons to play them. Then you do play them, and they're just not very fun anymore. But, there are some games like Joust or Gauntlet or Pac-Man that are as fun today as they were back then.

Wow that is hyppocritical, he is saying that retro games suck, but our retro games are good

Edit: but what do you expect, he obviously cant go out there and say that nintendo's old games are actually good, even though if it werent for those games he wouldnt have that great job of his.

TrueNerd · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2006, 09:07:36 PM »

How's that backwards compatibility coming, Microsoft?

KDR_11k · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2006, 09:22:58 PM »

Well, Joust or Metroid really haven't stood the test of time but games like Zelda or Super Mario Bros aren't much different from their newest incarnations and still a lot of fun.

Deguello · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2006, 10:10:15 PM »

Is this some kind of roundabout insult to Rare from MS? I mean, ok Perfect Dark is for 12-year-olds and Perfect Dark Zero isn't?

wandering · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2006, 10:33:50 PM »

ahaha, pac-man and Joust hold up better than Mario?

Oh, and I loved this part:

Quote
I think it was interesting to see Nintendo's announcement for the Revolution downloadable games service which, of course, came over a year after we launched our initiative internally and around nine months after we already launched the first generation of Arcade for Xbox. I think it was a responsive move.

Still, they do bring up one good point: they're offering new games from indy developers and Nintendo might not be. Nintendo would do well to offer cheap, new, downloadable games that utlize the revmote.

ruby_onix · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2006, 12:38:22 AM »

Quote
Still, they do bring up one good point: they're offering new games from indy developers and Nintendo might not be.

Nintendo has reportedly been telling developers that they can't make "new old games". If they want to make something original, but low-tech, then they should just make it for the Rev/Cube/DS/GBA (whichever one they'd like).

Deguello · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2006, 12:57:06 AM »

Nintendo had been offering downloadable games as early as the SNES with the Satelliview.

It's funny, the only way Microsoft can assault this feature is to say that they thought of it first or some such nonsense. They know they can't really compete against it because nobody can. Just the Nintendo-published games make it unassailable really. What, is he sayng that Super Metroid "just can't hold up?" That Rare's efforts before MS ownership are just a big pile of crap? And if most of the third parties jump abord the download service train, is there any denying that the Rev's service is by far superior?

See, what he doesn't realize is that while some people might d/l some of their old favorites, most will be getting games that they have lost or sold, and some, like myself, wil be getting games that I never got a chance to play to begin with. Pop Quiz. Anybody here have Kirby's Dreamland 3? Released in 1997, during the N64's rise, not many people bought it and it continues to be a rarity. With the Rev, I can have a "copy" of it, of the European release of Terranigma, the Japan Only N64 shooter Sin and Punishment, and maybe uniracers or something. This is superior to Joust and Pacman and Gauntlet.

BTW that statement is just so hypocritical LOL

wandering · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:54:02 AM »

Quote
Nintendo has reportedly been telling developers that they can't make "new old games". If they want to make something original, but low-tech, then they should just make it for the Rev/Cube/DS/GBA (whichever one they'd like).

Oh.

It took me a bit to figure out why: Nintendo wants to sell simple games that rely heavily on the novelty of the control for 20+ dollars. Offering 5 dollar new games for download, even really short/simple ones, could undermine that.

Still, I hope they at least reconsider offering new games over the virtual console for full price. I'd pay 30 dollars for niche, non-graphic-intensive games like Cubivore.

King of Twitch · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2006, 10:15:17 AM »

"I think it was interesting to see Nintendo's announcement for the Revolution downloadable games service which, of course, came over a year after we launched our initiative internally and around nine months after we already launched the first generation of Arcade for Xbox.

It's interesting to see the completely unique 360 controller. I've never seen anything like it since the Dreamcast.

Look at Geometry Wars; it's our Halo. That's not a 10-year-old retro title that you're running on some sort of emulator.

No, that's your Asteroids clone of a 26 year-old game bonehead.

"A lot of those Nintendo games, you know, aren't gonna hold up."

Neither will Halo once the Revolution comes out in 9 months.

mantidor · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2006, 11:39:24 AM »

hahahaha that is hilarious, no one, and I mean seriously not a single human being who is at least a little sane could say that Joust is better or has "hold up" better than Super Mario Bros, Metroid, Zelda, Kirby, etc, etc, etc. Who knows what the hell does he meant by "a lot of Nintendo games", because honestly 90% of Nintendo first party library of the NES alone surpass in quality most of today's games.

cmoney · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2006, 05:03:01 PM »

That's just embarrassing. Hard to believe people that spout off such nonsense can hold down a decent job.

UncleBob · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2006, 05:41:35 PM »

Hey, Microsoft, how's your live service doing after how many years? I here Nintendo's WiFi Connection is doing pretty good with three games and a few months...

Ian Sane · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2006, 06:45:57 AM »

"Well, Joust or Metroid really haven't stood the test of time"

I'll agree that Metroid is pretty archaic these days but don't you be badmouthing Joust! That game still kicks ass!

This is a pretty weak statement from MS and they would have been better off not saying anything. The truth is some games get dated and some don't. I've played games less then five years old that seem unplayable now while something like Super Metroid could be released today on the DS or GBA and not seem dated at all. In fact I'd say a lot of classic games benefit from not comforming to annoying modern trends like hand holding hint systems and low difficulty.

And they made a big mistake of saying Gauntlet still holds up. That's like number one on my list of classic games that now suck. What a horribly tedious waste of time that game is.

JonLeung · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2006, 08:27:05 AM »

I'm not really into the arcade games where the purpose is mostly just to get a high score. With more cinematic and story-based games now being the norm, I don't see how any Xbox gamer would agree with that guy's sentiment and love Joust more than other Nintendo games that at least had a story. I can enjoy Joust for like, three stages. If I was playing Super Mario Bros. or Metroid I'd be more inclined to play to the end, or at least default out of it with a Game Over sooner than choosing to give up out of boredom.

mantidor · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2006, 09:32:35 AM »

Balloon fighter > Joust, I dont care of its a rip off, it was better

JonLeung · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2006, 07:55:32 AM »

If Nintendo's virtual console attracts third parties, wouldn't Joust, Gauntlet, Pac-Man, Smash TV, and Street Fighter II Turbo be available there too?

So he says certain games are better than Nintendo's best, and then ignores the possibility that those games he mentioned could easily come out on Nintendo's side as well.

If he was dissing early NES games which were arcade-style games, well, whatever. Later NES games could be epic. Maybe an oversight. But ignoring the Super NES Squaresoft RPGs and N64 Rareware platformers? Puh-lease.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:24:07 AM »

"If Nintendo's virtual console attracts third parties, wouldn't Joust, Gauntlet, Pac-Man, Smash TV, and Street Fighter II Turbo be available there too?"

I believe every game in that list at some point was ported to the NES or SNES so yeah. Though Namco would probably go lazy on us and give us the crappy NES version of Pac-Man but still.

mantidor · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:30:06 AM »

I thought loose-mouthed ex Nintendo employee Merrick confirmed that there were third parties on board already. something like "the usual suspects". I assume sega/capcom maybe?

Pale · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:36:07 AM »

I do hope that Nintendo does decide to emulate some of what MS is doing in their Live Arcade.

Check these articles out from the cool guys over at GarageGames...

http://makeitbigingames.com/blog/?p=7
http://makeitbigingames.com/blog/?p=13

If online delivery through both MS's Live Arcade and Nintendo's Virtual Console allow for small teams to create and sell great content, the industry can only benefit. Can you imagine if Sonic or Mario got out sold by a 10 dollar game up for download that was created by two kids in a basement?

I hope Nintendo doesn't miss this boat. Not only would it give Microsoft an obnoxious marketing stance as shown in this guys words, but every time Nintendo talks about the Rev being a developer's system, we'd all have to roll our eyes a bit.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:51:53 AM »

"I assume sega/capcom maybe?"

Well I doubt Sega considering they released, well, zero NES, SNES or N64 games.

I believe Square Enix has already been confirmed.

Regarding small teams making new content for the Virtual Console I think it's a brilliant idea. But Nintendo can be jerks at the best of times and they've never really treated third parties fairly. They tend to regard them more as something to exploit. So I honestly don't see Nintendo being accomodating enough to allow small teams to make money on the service. Nintendo will probably charge high licencing fees or insist on everyone using their official dev kits or some penny-pinching BS that will scare away anyone but established companies. Hell we don't even know what they're going to charge for games. For all we know they'll overcharge and the service won't take off as well as it could. With anything regarding Nintendo's relationship with other companies you can never tell what's going to happen. There's common sense and then there's Nintendo sense and they're rarely the same thing.

JonLeung · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:57:46 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Well I doubt Sega considering they released, well, zero NES, SNES or N64 games.

What about Alien Syndrome and Fantasy Zone on the NES? Alien Syndrome was published by Tengen (I think...and Tengen's publisher status is a weird one) but the game was developed by Sega. Fantasy Zone...maybe that wasn't officially released...or was it?

I keep saying Sega should give up their game library. Monopoly on classic games, blah blah blah. But as a longtime Nintendo fan, while I'd like to play Super Mario Bros. the umpteenth time and willingly pay money for it (I'm serious but I'm sure that borders on satire or irony or someting) it would be nice to play games I missed out on for being a loyal Nintendo fan.

wandering · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:15:28 AM »

New games on the virtual console? I've become convinced it's not happening.

Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
I hope Nintendo doesn't miss this boat. Not only would it give Microsoft an obnoxious marketing stance as shown in this guys words, but every time Nintendo talks about the Rev being a developer's system, we'd all have to roll our eyes a bit.

(I'm quoting myself here) Nintendo wants to sell simple games that rely heavily on the novelty of the control for 20+ dollars. Offering 5 dollar new games for download, even really short/simple ones, could undermine that.

Quote
Originally posted by: IanSane
Regarding small teams making new content for the Virtual Console I think it's a brilliant idea. But Nintendo can be jerks at the best of times and they've never really treated third parties fairly. They tend to regard them more as something to exploit. So I honestly don't see Nintendo being accomodating enough to allow small teams to make money on the service. Nintendo will probably charge high licencing fees or insist on everyone using their official dev kits or some penny-pinching BS that will scare away anyone but established companies.

I don't think Nintendo is anti-small-developer, but I do think they're obsessed with quality. They'd hate the idea of letting just any and everybody make games for their system - and for good reason: wide open game development actually killed the videogame industry in the early 80's. And Nintendo's heavy, top-down quality control is what saved it.

UncleBob · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:23:10 AM »

Where's that quality control now?

Pale · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:28:34 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
New games on the virtual console? I've become convinced it's not happening.

Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
I hope Nintendo doesn't miss this boat. Not only would it give Microsoft an obnoxious marketing stance as shown in this guys words, but every time Nintendo talks about the Rev being a developer's system, we'd all have to roll our eyes a bit.

(I'm quoting myself here) Nintendo wants to sell simple games that rely heavily on the novelty of the control for 20+ dollars. Offering 5 dollar new games for download, even really short/simple ones, could undermine that.

Yeah I read what you said, admittedly after I posted mine

Nintendo's 'simple' games should still have significantly more budget and programmer skill behind them than some of the indie games they would get on a service like that. If Nintendo were to be truly worried about these 5 dollar indie games hurting their sales, there is a bigger issue here. The right mentality would be to think that they would be increasing their systems library at a minimal cost to themselves and promoting the industry as a whole. I don't think a 6 man team could make something in 6 months that made me not want to play Smash Bros. Revolution.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:31:45 AM »

"What about Alien Syndrome and Fantasy Zone on the NES?"

Oh yeah. Forgot about those. They were "illegal" games so I didn't think of them. But I don't see why Nintendo would have a problem with them now.

"I don't think Nintendo is anti-small-developer, but I do think they're obsessed with quality. They'd hate the idea of letting just any and everybody make games for their system - and for good reason: wide open game development actually killed the videogame industry in the early 80's. And Nintendo's heavy, top-down quality control is what saved it."

Anytime anyone brings this up I point to Superman 64. Nintendo used to officially "approve" of every game on their systems yet they had no problem letting that turd though. They probably cared during the NES days since they had rules over how many games a third party could release per year. But in recent times it's clear Nintendo will take anything they can get.

I don't think it's a small developer bias but just the simple fact that Nintendo likes to profit from everything and usually will risk shooting themselves in the foot for short-term profit. They're penny pinchers and they've always treated third parties poorly. They'll want to profit off of all downloaded games and in a big way. So two guys in a garage, even if they make a fantastic game, might not be able to afford to make a game because Nintendo will take too much of the pie or at the very least a much bigger piece than MS will.

IceCold · « **Reply #25 on:** February 07, 2006, 02:19:52 PM »

As ruby said in another thread; Nintendo doesn't want people to make "new old" games for the download service..

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:45:55 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: PaleI don't think a 6 man team could make something in 6 months that made me not want to play Smash Bros. Revolution.

One of the most enjoyable games I ever played was the four player PDA "minigame" on the Alien Hominid game disc. They had like a hundred levels of four player puzzle action where all four players had to work their way through increasingly difficult levels.

It was VASTLY more fun than the main game. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a few 6 man games out there like that.

-SB

KDR_11k · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2006, 07:05:27 PM »

Yeah and since they replaced the GC version of AH with an XBox one here I could get only two players since I'd have to buy it for PS2.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2006, 07:43:47 PM »

"hey Moore, your Live Arcade service sucks!"

[Moore] ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL.

Talon · « **Reply #29 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:40:27 PM »

I find it interesting that

Quote
Quoted by:J.Allard
We're going to take on... The open-source model, if you will, for gaming."
GamesIndustry.biz

yet its so against the rest of microsofts policies regarding there software (ie Windows)!!

Opening up the live arcade in such a way without the proper quality control measures in place could have a negative impact on the industry let alone the live service. If anyone can put up games whats to stop a malicious attack on the live service hidden inside a game? The only other reservations im having with internet services like live is that developers can take advantage of it to push out games prematurely that can be later patched.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #30 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:48:18 PM »

Sup DOA4 patch.

animecyberrat · « **Reply #31 on:** February 08, 2006, 10:59:52 AM »

Yeah Sega also has stated that tehy are NOT going to releases thier Genesis etc games for Rerv BECAUISE they are looking into Xbox live arcade and other means of re-realesing them, like that Game Fly ammong other things.

Sega DID however make acouplce games for the SNES also but I forgot which ones they were Ill have to dig that up.

As for Tengen well they hardly matter anyways, they are a subsidiary of Willams/Midway and those are the games MS is defending yet they likely will be available for REV.

and BITE YOUR TONGUE MISTER, Joust, Pac-man AND Gauntlet are STILL top notch HIGH QUALITY GAMES. They even rival many of Nintendos classics, but that doesnt make them suprerior but they are still good enough on thier own. And besides Midways Arcade Treaures is STILL a GC game which is STILL compatible with REV so theres no need to have those games for DL. And we now know Midways is supporting REV. So I pray for the day that MS has to eat thier own words.

Talon · « **Reply #32 on:** February 08, 2006, 03:42:33 PM »

Just think if SEGA-Sammy struck a deal with my post is a train wreck and put all its old retro titles up on LIVE then potentially we could live through the Nintendo-SEGA Battles again!!

Ah the feeling of nostalgia!

Personally I thinkSEGA-Sammy would be stupid not to sell all their old retro titles on both consoles it would be such a big cash cow for them. Although I dont know how much the big N would charge SEGA-Sammy to utilize its virtual console service.

darknight06 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 08, 2006, 04:17:51 PM »

Pac-Man yes, Gauntlet and especially Joust, no.

TheYoungerPlumber · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:22:17 AM »

I'm sorry...why would Sega put Sonic 3 on Real Arcade, PC (through DirectX), all three current gen systems, and Gametap, and not consider Nintendo's virtual console? I hardly think Nintendo could take a stance of "either us or MS," and if they did they'd be hurting themselves. I suppose Nintendo may take a bigger cut than MS, but I can't imagine they're making tons off of GameTap either.

wandering · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2006, 03:06:51 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Nintendo's 'simple' games should still have significantly more budget and programmer skill behind them than some of the indie games they would get on a service like that. If Nintendo were to be truly worried about these 5 dollar indie games hurting their sales, there is a bigger issue here. The right mentality would be to think that they would be increasing their systems library at a minimal cost to themselves and promoting the industry as a whole. I don't think a 6 man team could make something in 6 months that made me not want to play Smash Bros. Revolution.

well....trouble or no, I think that's the position Nintendo is in right now. There's millions of dollars differnce between the 5$ geometry wars and the 60$ Perfect Dark Zero. But there's much less differnce between the $5 Geometry wars and the $20 Brain Training.

...I don't think Nintendo is ripping anyone off, though, because the unique experiences they're offering and going to be offering through the touch screen and revmote are worth the extra money. But once you open up the possibility of ultra-cheap new virtual console games, suddenly that $50 fishing game doesn't look so hot compared to the $5 one that utlizes the novelty of fishing with the revmote just as well.

Quote
Originally posted by: IanSane
Anytime anyone brings this up I point to Superman 64. Nintendo used to officially "approve" of every game on their systems yet they had no problem letting that turd though. They probably cared during the NES days since they had rules over how many games a third party could release per year. But in recent times it's clear Nintendo will take anything they can get.

Superman 64 is one game among thousands. For a better comparison, look at the recent Charlie and the Chocolate Facory game, and compare it to E.T. for the Atari. Opening up development will create a situation where the majority of games released are crap.. just look at Newgrounds.

Quote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumber
I hardly think Nintendo could take a stance of "either us or MS," and if they did they'd be hurting themselves. I suppose Nintendo may take a bigger cut than MS, but I can't imagine they're making tons off of GameTap either.

Nintendo might not be taking a stance of "either us or them"....but MS might be. And MS has tons of cash, and Nintendo doesn't. And MS is desperate for good games for their download service, and Nintendo isn't.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2006, 06:20:10 AM »

"Opening up development will create a situation where the majority of games released are crap"

I agree with that but I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that. What I'm thinking is small devs that don't have publishers releasing games through the download service using the standard third party licencing model Nintendo invented. And I think it would benefit Nintendo to offer lower licencing fees for third parties that exclusively make download games. That allows for the creation of "indie" games but at the same time has some creative control.

And the funny thing about E.T. is that Atari made it so even if third parties had never made anything for the 2600 that game still would have been released. A lot of people point to the open development of third party games as a major factor regarding the videogame crash yet E.T. and the 2600 port of Pac-Man are widely credited as playing a huge part in the crash and both of them were first party titles.

Ages · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2006, 10:59:32 AM »

"..I don't think Nintendo is ripping anyone off, though, because the unique experiences they're offering and going to be offering through the touch screen and revmote are worth the extra money. But once you open up the possibility of ultra-cheap new virtual console games, suddenly that $50 fishing game doesn't look so hot compared to the $5 one that utlizes the novelty of fishing with the revmote just as well"

I'd imagine any studio using the revmote for anything other than pressing buttons would have to go through the rigors of a typical development house. I figure (probably wrongly) that indie developers wouldnt have the resources to fully integrate the revmote into their games. If they did, they would definetely demand more than a mere $5 for their efforts

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #38 on:** February 09, 2006, 11:13:40 AM »

Quote
Superman 64 is one game among thousands. For a better comparison, look at the recent Charlie and the Chocolate Facory game, and compare it to E.T. for the Atari. Opening up development will create a situation where the majority of games released are crap.. just look at Newgrounds.

Since when does quality matter when you have quantity?

I'm sure that roughly 75% of the games on the PS2 are pure and utter garbage, yet saying the PS2 has "X,000" games is persuasive no matter how badly those games suck.

A lot of developers will develop for the console with the most games simply because they see it as the safest financial decision when it comes to developing for only one console.

Nintendo could use that edge...

–SB

JonLeung · « **Reply #39 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:25:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

A lot of developers will develop for the console with the most games simply because they see it as the safest financial decision when it comes to developing for only one console.

Playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't developing for a single console and choosing the one with the most games mean that it will get lost in the flood of all the other games? You could also make the case that by developing for the one with the least games, your title would stand out more and be picked up by a greater percentage of that console's gamers.

If one in twenty people bought a game out of 1000 total users of that console, and one in fifty people bought a game out of 2000 total users, the first case is more sales. 5% of 1000 people (50 sales) is larger than 2% of 2000 people (40 sales).

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:21:42 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't developing for a single console and choosing the one with the most games mean that it will get lost in the flood of all the other games? You could also make the case that by developing for the one with the least games, your title would stand out more and be picked up by a greater percentage of that console's gamers.

If one in twenty people bought a game out of 1000 total users of that console, and one in fifty people bought a game out of 2000 total users, the first case is more sales. 5% of 1000 people (50 sales) is larger than 2% of 2000 people (40 sales).

I know what you're saying, but it worked for Sony in obscene ways (almost literally).

The more games, the more people will buy your console because it has more games. The more consoles sold, the more developers will feel safe developing for it. Of course, you have to kickstart one to get the other moving.

I guess I technically have it backwards: developers made games for the PS2 because it had the most consoles sold which in turn gave it the most games, which does dilute the number of games likely to sell (because there are so many out there) but my guess is that, after enough players are out there who have the console, there are enough to "go around", so to speak.

In any case, more games = better for the console, regardless of quality. That's not to say that quality games are unnecessary, but having a plethora of titles available is one more selling point to lure customers to your platform when it comes time to make a choice between you or your competition.

–SB

Ian Sane · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2006, 01:40:38 PM »

"Playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't developing for a single console and choosing the one with the most games mean that it will get lost in the flood of all the other games? You could also make the case that by developing for the one with the least games, your title would stand out more and be picked up by a greater percentage of that console's gamers."

This idea makes tons of sense but third parties rarely use it because they get distracted by the big userbase. One company that does use this strategy is Tecmo. All Team Ninja games were exclusive to the Xbox and it paid off big time. On the Xbox there was no Virtua Fighter or Tekken so DOA stood out as the premier fighting game because there wasn't really anything else. On the PS2 there's Devil May Cry and Shinobi. On the Xbox there is only Ninja Gaiden so it stands out more. Tecmo was also one of the only major Japanese devs on the Xbox so their games sold way better in Japan than anything else. DOA is a major franchise now and it wasn't on the Dreamcast or Playstation 2 because it had competition from other popular fighting games.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2006, 04:27:04 PM »

Indisputable proof that, sometimes, beggars CAN be choosers!

ThePerm · « **Reply #43 on:** February 10, 2006, 05:16:15 AM »

its better to be a big fish in a small pond then an average size fish in an ocean.

Acclaim used to be a decent company, around the n64 era they supported Nintendo hevilly and profited heavily, however towards the end of the generation..they didnt anticipate N64 would come to an end. Following alot o f other devlopers they blamed Nintendo. The next generation came and there were no exclusives from Acclaim. They became a generic multiplatform company. I could argue that if they released Turok 4 eclusively for gamecube they would have had alot more time to work on it(instead of splitting the time between consoles),getting great reviews, and Nintendo fans would have bought it up. It would have sold great and Acclaim wouldnt be out of business(or whatever the hell its doing now that the names been bought).

Revolution is a chance for smaller developers to become big developers by taking advantage of a pond with plenty of food. Even if Nintendo sold only like 8 million consoles. If your game is good the majority of t hose people will buy it.
Multi-console development is an illusion that leads to bankruptcy.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #44 on:** February 10, 2006, 05:32:46 AM »

Turok Evolution was so bad it defied description. Minute-thirty loading times on the GC?!

As for the discussion, you'd think that developers would notice the trend of multi-console games doing horribly because the development resources are spread across three consoles, but that's seldom what winds up happening. You have the rarities like Prince of Persia (the first one, anyway) and SCII, but you also have Sonic Heroes, Turok Evolution and countless others which go down in flames when the developer tries to push them to three consoles instead of wisely focusing on one.

Don't even get me started about Akklaim, who tried to be the "shock-jock" of the gaming industry with their asshattery time and time again ("Name your baby Turok!", advertise Akklaim on your gravestone, etc.).

I was so glad to see them burn...

Ian Sane · « **Reply #45 on:** February 10, 2006, 06:16:01 AM »

Acclaim is a good example. Midway is pretty similar too. They were a big deal on the N64 so games like the Rush series were big hits. This last gen they went multiplatform and they're a pretty minor dev right now. On the Playstation you have to compete with companies like Square Enix, Capcom, Rockstar and Konami. Those are big names. You have to be the BEST to stick out on the Playstation. On a "smaller" console you just have to be good.

EA is the biggest third party in the world but they actually didn't get where they were from being multiplatform. During the 16-bit days EA favoured the Genesis despite the fact that most devs favoured the SNES. EA stood out more as a result and it helped them become a big name.

King of Twitch · « **Reply #46 on:** February 10, 2006, 09:21:56 AM »

Capcom 5 :: Never forget

JonLeung · « **Reply #47 on:** February 10, 2006, 09:54:08 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
Capcom 5 :: Never forget

What were those 5 exclusives again?

Resident Evil 4...oh, wait, that's also on the PS2 but with more content and will also be for the PC...
Viewtiful Joe...oh, wait, that's also on the PS2 but with another character...
Killer7...oh, wait, that's also on the PS2...
Dead Phoenix...oh, wait, that's totally dead...
P.N.03... okay, that's exclusive, and while I liked it, it was repetitive and I could see how many people would be less forgiving than I was...

Sheesh. They should've lumped Mega Man: Network Transmission in there. Because at least that was exclusive, as far as I know. Like P.N.03, though, I think my enjoyment of it isn't shared by many.

Capcom's weird that way. I generally like their games, even if they made "Mega Man XZ 9 & Bass: Battle & Power Fighters" and "Super Street Fighter IV Turbo EX: Hyper Fighting Grand Master Challenge Alpha 4 Max Upper (And A Little Higher) Versus SNK Versus Every Comic Character That Ever Existed: Fourth Impact", but I wonder about their ties with Nintendo sometimes.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #48 on:** February 10, 2006, 12:38:00 PM »

i have 5 out of 6 =D

RE4... better realized on GameCube. (extras don't make up for technical shortcomings which degrade the immersion factor)
VJ... better realized on GameCube. (an extra character that doesn't speak english doesn't make up for technical annoyances on what seems to be a straighforward game, graphics- and sound-wise)
Killer7... better realized on GameCube. (more technical annoyances like VJ/RE, plus it feels nicer on the GC controller)
P.N.03... Love it. Focusing on defensive movements rather than constant, too-common-in-our-industry offense (same reason I stopped caring for fighting games) was refreshing.
Dead Phoenix... what I had the last time I ate at a Chinese restaurant.
Mega Man Network Transmission... THIS GAME FLAT-OUT ROCKS.

nitsu niflheim · « **Reply #49 on:** February 11, 2006, 03:51:00 AM »

I going to say this, Microsoft said that the old Nintendo games don't hold up, then please tell me why so many Japanese buyers bought so many copies of the Famicom Classic games on the GBA? Nintendo took a risk, and it paid off. It will again because of just old NES games on the GBA, a whole multitude of games will be availabel on the REV.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #50 on:** February 13, 2006, 06:28:52 AM »

Well, we all know this guy at Microsoft opened his mouth and barfed a big pile of balogna all over the table. He's just doing his job but he's obviously totally wrong. There are a couple of other interesting topics, here, though:

Opening game development up: I personally like this idea although I'd want to see quality control done somehow. Someone was discussing not trusting Nintendo's approval system due to Superman 64...there's always some crud slipping through the cracks. The NES had games that were easily as bad as Superman 64, and I bet the Super NES did too. Superman 64 just somehow became an icon for bad games everywhere, maybe because the N64 didn't have a lot of games and Superman is such a popular figure, it was easy for his misadventure to earn a lot of publicity compared to, say, Tag Team Wrestling or Amagon, my two most-hated NES games.

Developing for less-popular systems: Yeah, I agree that this can be a good strategy for a lot of companies. However, I think your product needs to stand out for the strategy to really work - for example GameCube owners will be all over an exclusive that is of good quality (Viewtiful Joe, Tales of Symphonia) but lower-quality games don't do as well (Geist and Batallion Wars). If you're going to release junk, PS2 is still a great place to do it.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #51 on:** February 13, 2006, 09:01:26 AM »

Correction. Battalion Wars is a decent game. Geist falls short of worthy, but it's still significant; its ideas will show up in future games (aka stolen?).

I'll group them with Killer 7: their DISMAL sales have a lot to do with how their publisher marketed them. All 3 of them weren't made by internal teams (or teams with a healthy, established history with the publisher). Interestingly enough, Capcom and Nintendo "forgot" to advertise them! Sure, a magazine article here, an IGN review there, one in-store prop, but they didn't push them in a way to make us care. It was just "ok, here it is, no this isn't another E3, you're not dreaming". There was also little hands-on opportunities for the press between their trade-show appearances and releases, and we only really heard more once they were about to launch.

I love all 3 of them, but I also expect sales/marketing for Chibi-Robo to experience the same deal, despite some of our peers expressing enjoyment from the game.

NINTENBO IS TEH SUKK

animecyberrat · « **Reply #52 on:** February 13, 2006, 10:30:03 AM »

The thing with Sega is the Revolutiond DOESNT ALLOW emulation of the systems AND Sega has already stated that its NOT IN THIER BEST INTEREST. They said they would LIKE to support REV VC BUT its not feesable.

Also BECAUSE thier games are on every other platform IS reason not to put them on REV, theres no need to, SEGA had MANY compilations that never made it to GC. Sonic is different story but SEGA is so muc MORE than SONIC! Sonic tehy alraedy agreed will be on REV, first a new games, second Sonic Mega Collection. Thier other old games arent on GC at all. Sega has barely suported GC and they barely suport GBA and DS so theres reason to beleive they will still focus on itehr systems taht make them profit. Sega is far more profitable now than they have been in YEARS and they arent stupid enouigh to screw that up.

goto Sega.com and do some lookng around Sega has already said trhey are more interested in 360 than ANYTHING else right now, thats were their suport is going, Segas alwasy been a Technology company and 360 offers new technology for them to toy with.

And the bottum line is the REV will not have GENESIS,SMS, Satrun, and Sega CD EMULATORS BUILT IN, so in order for it to play thos egames they have to do a lto of extra work or something.

JonLeung · « **Reply #53 on:** February 13, 2006, 11:55:42 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: animecyberrat
The thing with Sega is the Revolutiond DOESNT ALLOW emulation of the systems AND Sega has already stated that its NOT IN THIER BEST INTEREST. They said they would LIKE to support REV VC BUT its not feesable.
...
And the bottum line is the REV will not have GENESIS,SMS, Satrun, and Sega CD EMULATORS BUILT IN, so in order for it to play thos egames they have to do a lto of extra work or something.

Oh, please. You're telling me the Revolution wouldn't be able to do "blast processing"?

If they wanted to emulate them, they could. It's a business issue, much more than any technical one.

And for goodness sakes, slow down when you type!

Artimus · « **Reply #54 on:** February 13, 2006, 12:36:24 PM »

SEGA sucks, they have no idea how to make good names and they consistantly make THE worst business decisions ever. I hope they never release another game again.

Now excuse me while I go play REAL games.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #55 on:** February 13, 2006, 12:43:26 PM »

I, for one, refuse to believe that Sega would pass up the opportunity to resell the roms for all of their old games yet again.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #56 on:** February 13, 2006, 12:57:43 PM »

Correction to my last post:
When I said "lower" quality, I didn't mean the games are low-quality, I just meant they aren't as good as Viewtiful Joe or Tales of Symphonia. And also, I meant to say Killer 7 rather than Battalion Wars, since my impression is that BT is actually a very good game.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #57 on:** February 13, 2006, 08:36:03 PM »

Yep, Sega loves supporting the XBox, the console whose userbase doesn't like Sega's approach to games and shows it by not buying what Sega makes. I don't know what kind of insanity is driving Sega but they're more suicidal than lemmings. Their XBox exclusives would have sold big on any other platform. Maybe they have a grudge against Sony and Nintendo because those two companies did 10% of Sega's sinking (Sega itself was 90%) and MS hasn't hurt Sega yet or something stupid like that. But then again Sega did give sizeable support to the PS2 and GC...

Ages · « **Reply #58 on:** February 14, 2006, 08:34:22 AM »

I think it would have to do with hats...made of money heh. Probably had more to do with idea that Microsoft had no franchises on the system. If Sega had (smartly) seen what kind of gamer MS was attracting, they would've seen they could have sold many more games on the Cube, as they had similar fanbases. Also, remember how close Microsoft and Sega were back in the DC days. The DC ran off a version of Windows CE and the DC controller was completely "borrowed" for the Xbox.

wandering · « **Reply #59 on:** February 14, 2006, 06:55:04 PM »

Quote
SEGA sucks, they have no idea how to make good names and they consistantly make THE worst business decisions ever. I hope they never release another game again.

Now excuse me while I go play REAL games.

YOU suck, and have no idea what good games are and you consistantly show THE worst taste in games ever. I hope you never release your opinion on another game again.

Now excuse me while I go play Super Monkey Ball.

Artimus · « **Reply #60 on:** February 14, 2006, 09:05:53 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Quote
SEGA sucks, they have no idea how to make good names and they consistantly make THE worst business decisions ever. I hope they never release another game again.

Now excuse me while I go play REAL games.

YOU suck, and have no idea what good games are and you consistantly show THE worst taste in games ever. I hope you never release your opinion on another game again.

Now excuse me while I go play Super Monkey Ball.

Oh yes, SMB. That's out for the PS2 isn't it? You know, it's one of their major flops on the PS2.

wandering · « **Reply #61 on:** February 14, 2006, 09:43:03 PM »

Bad business decision? Yes. Bad game? No.

So, several parts of your argument still don't hold water. Namely: the 'sega sucks' part, the 'sega makes bad games part' and the 'sega doesn't make real games' part.

...or wait. Did you say 'they don't know how to make real names'? As in, you don't like the name 'sonic' for some reason? That changes everything!

KDR_11k · « **Reply #62 on:** February 15, 2006, 01:59:45 AM »

Bad business decision? If SMB were a bad decision it wouldn't have been Sega's biggest seller this gen (okay, so I'm not sure that it's Sega's biggest seller but I don't think they have any other big sellers except for Sonic and Sonic is a turd with spikes).

JonLeung · « **Reply #63 on:** February 15, 2006, 04:01:47 AM »

Maybe my taste is a little off, but Sonic, even as a "turd with spikes", as you say, I still find enjoyable.

Yes, I liked Sonic Heroes. Shoot me.

I used to say "Sega sucks!" when I was a Nintendo fanboy. (Now I'm a fan, there's a difference.) But that was back in the NES/Master System and Super NES/Genesis days when my preference was for the Nintendo console and the versions of the games for them. Sega themselves...well, their own games are as good or better than many other developers'.

Sega may make bad decisions now and then but I think they're still enough of a force and I would rather see as many Sega games appear on Nintendo consoles as possible than on the others.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #64 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:52:31 AM »

I liked Sonic Adventure 2, quite a bit actually. However, I admit the games are flawed and Sega doesn't seem to ever address the flaws...that's the big issue.

News:

Author Topic: What microsoft thinks of the virtual console. (Read 14667 times)