G-pinions

First, the "Name recognition" post. As Dan said, it was probably the most logical and relevant thing that's been written on this site so far. Props, Tom. I do disagree on a couple of things though. I don't think that saying Sony and Microsoft don't have any creative talent is true at all. In terms of developing games, it's arguable, but I don't think we've seen enough internally-developed games from either of them to judge that. Their talents are in marketing, their R&D, the selling of their systems and peripherals and such, and in working with developers and publishers on their games, which is as important as a great game for a company. Also, I don't think that the FF games were mainstream before FFVII, because gaming wasn't mainstream yet, so they couldn't have been, unless you're talking about Japan. As far the N64 being more powerful than the PS (and thus providing fodder for your "power doesn't matter" argument), it was indeed more powerful on paper, but didn't always look or sound that way because of the cartridge format. Many of the games looked cloudy and messy, and the sound was always compressed; many games couldn't have cd-quality music as a result. So graphically and audially it was only sometimes better than the PS. They both had their pros and cons, technologically, but ended up on a very similar level most of the time. I also disagree that most PS games were crap, but that's sheer opinion. I do know that you only owned a couple of games for it though, so I dunno how accurately you can say 'most'. Regardless, good article.

As for the 'what sells a game?' and 'what makes a successful launch' topics, those get a bit more complicated. I'm a bit confused by your statement "it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales", but I think it's definitely better for a system to launch with as many games as possible because it's been shown that people buy an average of five games at launch (not that us po' folk can afford that, but apparently most people can). Once again, I'm speaking just from a business standpoint, not my personal preference. Seeing as I could only afford to buy two max, I'd much prefer those two be top quality. I also strongly disagree that most launch games will be multiplatform. I would actually be shocked if any were, besides sports games. Developers are usually working up to the last minute on launch games, and generally still don't get all the time they'd like to finish them (especially with the coming to terms with new technology aspect). So the chances that they'd have enough time to finish a game completely to their liking and still be able to port it is very slim.

While the debate rages as to how important exclusive games are down the line (nevermind who currently has the best), I will say that they are important for a launch, especially a simultaneous system one. If PS3 ends up having GTA4 (or 6, depending on how you count) for a launch title, I have no doubt it will outsell any other co-launchers on a 2-1 ratio. Besides that, I don't think any one game will help sell a system more than the others, because I figure they'd all launch with the same amount of exclusive, desireable games, as usually happens. They're still important to have though, just to keep pace with the competition. Even if the playing field is level software-wise though, I'm sure PS3 will still be first, X-Box second, and Nintendo third, based on current installed user bases and popularity and such. I don't think much is going to change in the next year or two. And while Nintendo could certainly make a stong attempt at avoiding third place by releasing a new Mario or Zelda title at launch, it's anyone's guess as to whether they actually will. Another Luigi's Mansion isn't gonna do it. And I don't know why you're saying you don't think Sony can succeed without a strong in-house development team. They've never had much of one at all, never mind a strong one, and they have an absolutely massive installed user base. It's all about brand recognition, marketing, and price. I don't see why you think this will all suddenly change when it's been that way for nine years. And why would GTA suddenly be multiplatform, and at the same time? Rockstar hasn't developed or published anything on the Gamecube besides Smuggler's Run 2, and San Andreas is launching on PS2, as usual. I just don't see why these things will all change. You say there's always the chance they could lose the rights, but that rarely happens outside of buyouts even though it's a constant possibility. I'd even argue that there aren't that many more exclusive titles today than there were a couple of years ago. I mean, there are more amount-wise, simply because more games than ever are being released overall, but I don't think there are that many more, ratio-wise. And although the next-gen systems all share processor and graphics chip companies, they'll still be very different beasts to develop for.

So as far as what makes a system successful? Well, it's a trickier market to predict than most industries, because who knows what will catch on next, but there are a couple of things that have been important for a while now, and will probably stay that way at least until a new console company comes along. Graphics, name recognition, marketing, and price point are all major. It's unfortunate that gameplay has taken a backseat to these things in some cases, but I have faith that hardcore gamers will always have more than enough great, original games to play. While the runaway success of the Playstation, even right from the start, is hard to pindown (as Tom discussed), I think price has a lot to do with it. I mean, with so many titles constantly being released prices almost always drop after a few months at most, and since the cd and now dvd formats are so cheap to produce, they can still make money selling a game for a fraction of it's initial release cost. It sucks that publishers have to drop their prices to constantly compete with newer games, but it's a nice bonus for consumers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Nintendo rarely lowers their game prices (Mario Party 3 through 5 all still sell for $50 at many larger retailers). I know that if I could have paid $20 for Wind Waker I would have bought it without a second thought, or SSB:Melee a lot sooner than I did. I saw some footage from the recent D.I.C.E. conference today, where I saw Nintendo state that one of the reasons they're not online is because "charging consumers to play online isn't something the company feels comfortable with right now." But it's ok to ask them to buy a GBA to get the most out of their games or sell two year-old games for their original price? Anyhow, these kinds of decisions force consumers to spend their money elsewhere. Apparently on PS2. It's a shame though, because I'd love to be able to afford all of Nintendo's first party games. They're great.

As I said, graphics are important, but I find it's kind of tricky how that works. A game with great graphics won't necessarily sell any better than a game with marginally worse graphics, but a game with bad graphics is almost surely doomed from release these days. Technology today seems more about keeping up rather than trying to be the best. I guess that's probably caused by the relative unpredictability of the market - companies don't want to risk failed innovation. That's why I give props to Nintendo for having the balls to pimp the DS, even if it is a potential crapbomb (sales-wise, not quality-wise).

Anyhow, I've had enough of this for tonight. I'd like to start on some new topics, but I have the feeling I haven't heard the last word on this from my red-headed cohort. We'll see.