Good riddance. They should have developed more games that weren't terrible like Haze.
Fixed.
A paycheck is no match for the desire to troll the one shooter that Cube fans could like
The couldn't get a publisher for Timesplitters? Really? I'd understand EA not picking it up but Atari and SEGA wouldn't bite either?
It's a shame considering Haze was their first bad gametoo right man.
Another bulletpoint in my anti-hd gaming agenda. Whats the point of getting into this industry if one flop is going to kill your company? I doubt if haze was any good things would have turned out differently. Although if Haze was critically celebrated I could see them not having their contracts with LucasArts suspended.
Another bulletpoint in my anti-hd gaming agenda. Whats the point of getting into this industry if one flop is going to kill your company? I doubt if haze was any good things would have turned out differently. Although if Haze was critically celebrated I could see them not having their contracts with LucasArts suspended.
The couldn't get a publisher for Timesplitters? Really? I'd understand EA not picking it up but Atari and SEGA wouldn't bite either?
The last Timesplitters game sold about 60k copies across all three platforms its first month.
Would you be willing to bankroll a sequel to that, especially after seeing Haze crash and burn?
Timesplitters 2 sold great though and made it to Player's Choice on GCN and Greatest Hits on PS2. TS3 was just released in the wrong time with virtually no marketing behind it.
Another bulletpoint in my anti-hd gaming agenda. Whats the point of getting into this industry if one flop is going to kill your company? I doubt if haze was any good things would have turned out differently. Although if Haze was critically celebrated I could see them not having their contracts with LucasArts suspended.
Why the fuck would you have an anti-hd gaming agenda
Let me tell you about my anti-Blu-ray agenda...DVD for life
Seriously, dude, what the fuck?
IF ONLY FREE RADICAL HAD RELEASED THEIR OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE GAME ON WII THEY'D STILL BE ALIVE!
But UBISOFT paid for their shit game. The problem is that they suck and have sucked for 3 games now so no one wants them and their shit bomba IP.
Why is gaming being "niche" necessarily bad?
But UBISOFT paid for their shit game. The problem is that they suck and have sucked for 3 games now so no one wants them and their shit bomba IP.
what were the 3 games
i'm not up on what they have produced other than the timesplitters stuff, and as i said i enjoyed the silliness of the last timesplitters
gaming has its mainstream console now with the wii
i will happily fling my arms around with my friends playing silly mainstream minigame collections, and i will happily play my niche real games on pc, 360, and on the rare occasion ps3
But UBISOFT paid for their shit game. The problem is that they suck and have sucked for 3 games now so no one wants them and their shit bomba IP.
Because gaming would only benefit from consoles launching at an affordable price, cheaper games and lower dev costs. Gaming is going to remain niche until they can heavily promote new games at a 20-30 dollar pricetag. The arms race over tech is very shortsighted. Could you imagine how many more people couldve bought (insert popular game) if the dev costs didnt require them to charge $60 for a new copy?
Because gaming would only benefit from consoles launching at an affordable price, cheaper games and lower dev costs. Gaming is going to remain niche until they can heavily promote new games at a 20-30 dollar pricetag. The arms race over tech is very shortsighted. Could you imagine how many more people couldve bought (insert popular game) if the dev costs didnt require them to charge $60 for a new copy?
It's like you started gaming 3 years ago. Where in the hell do I start?!?
* Game consoles have always launched at higher prices that were quickly lowered to more "affordable" prices, where most of the sales take place. The PS2 launched at $299, but the vast majority of its sales came at $199 and below. The problem this generation is that Microsoft was in such a hurry to make a splash that they launched before they were ready, which made Sony launch a year early. If they had launched when they probably should have, the 360 would've been $300-350, and the PS3 would've been $399, which are much more reasonable prices for what you're getting. With that said, I'm not sure why you're focused on what happened 2-3 years ago because all that matters is the here and now, and depending on the SKU, the 360 is either $50 cheaper or $50 more than the Wii (and it even comes with two full games). Speaking of being affordable, why in the hell is the Wii still $250? Oh yeah, it's because Nintendo can. They're sure as hell not interested in making their system any more affordable.
* Gaming hasn't been niche since the NES launched and have you not paying attention the last few generations? The Wii is just following the same path as the PS2 (though it's getting there more quickly). The majority of households in this country have some kind of gaming system. How is that niche, again?
* We've been in an arms race since console gaming started. That's how technology works. It should always improve. You might argue that it advanced too fast before the market was ready, but with the continued proliferation of HDTVs, it's ridiculous to argue that Sony and Microsoft were wrong to make systems that take advantage of what is quickly becoming THE standard, especially among the type of consumers that typically spend the most money on this hobby.
* You act like $60 is a new thing and is really THAT much different from $50. How quickly we forget that most mid-to-late SNES and all N64 games were $60 or more. Adjusted for inflation, that $60 N64 game is nearly $80 today. The move to $60 was long overdue. And don't forget that some of the most popular Wii games cost $80-100 (or more for the full band bundles).
* You act like development costs haven't been skyrocketing every generation. It's not a new trend. Companies just have to be smarter with how and where they spend their money and what type of game they make. If you spend millions on a sub-par shooter that doesn't compete with Halo 3, then I don't feel sorry for you. You knew what you were going up against. Instead, spend less and/or go after a specific genre or niche. Be smart. And despite some success stories like Carnival Games, most of the Wii games that you want to play still have moderately high budgets. You're kidding yourself if you think that the core Nintendo games and big-name 3rd party games don't also have high budgets.
Why are you putting a premium on how others enjoy this generation? Why don't you just worry about your own enjoyment? This new trend of Nintendo fans thriving on the fact that their grandma can play Wii Sports is absolutely baffling to me. Your own enjoyment should trump Nintendo's agenda. You never cared about your grandma before, so don't act like you do now just because Nintendo wants you to.
You know, I don't necessarily agree about game prices. Sony came onto the scene with like 40 dollar games. Saying something like "the move to 60 was long overdue" strikes me as remarkably anti-consumer. Why can't MC just turn around and say, "The end of the arms race was long overdue"?
You know, I don't necessarily agree about game prices. Sony came onto the scene with like 40 dollar games. Saying something like "the move to 60 was long overdue" strikes me as remarkably anti-consumer. Why can't MC just turn around and say, "The end of the arms race was long overdue"?
You know, I don't necessarily agree about game prices. Sony came onto the scene with like 40 dollar games. Saying something like "the move to 60 was long overdue" strikes me as remarkably anti-consumer. Why can't MC just turn around and say, "The end of the arms race was long overdue"?
Unless I'm mis-remembering, $40 games didn't hit until midway into the PSOne's lifecycle, and even then, it was only first party games at first. You really, really can't ignore inflation. EVERYTHING got more expensive, but games stayed fairly flat. That $40 game in 1997 is $53 today. Combine that with much larger development teams and (generally) bigger, better, and more polished games, and you can see why they bumped it up to $60.
I'm not necessarily happy about it, but I understand it. I was saying it was long overdue as a business move. As a consumer, I have more money than I did in 1997 AND I have many more avenues in which to try games without buying (demos, Gamefly, etc.), so the move doesn't bother me. After all, gaming still generally has more bang for the buck than pretty much any other form of entertainment.
Everyone wants everything to be cheaper, but sometimes you just have to be realistic.
You're assuming alot of what I think and know. Please dont put words in my mouth. And yes, gaming is niche.
I kind of agree but there were still some large budget heavy hitters on the PS1. Wasn't FF7's budget $40 million? Maybe I was off by a decimal place or something. I don't know.
I also agree that is budgets are going to increase, then its expected to see a price increase. Not only that but you got all the costs of marketing, transportation, retailer's cut, etc. Its the games that have no reason to be more expensive (like the Square Enix premium on the DS) that bother me.
U mad?
I never said you were a "simpleton"
Gaming is niche to old people scared to upgrade their technology
Reminds me of Wii owners
Do you think people whose main gaming time is playing solitaire when the should be working or snake on their cell would spend money on standalone games?
If no, would it be more likely if games were priced more inline with dvds, books, and cds?
and now to actually read the nielsen link!
edit: I cant read a .pdf file now....
:[
edit 2: Regarding the 40ish adoption rate number. How much of this userbase is active. Does it consider multiple purchases for replacing hardware and console revisions? As a for instance, the humongous ds ltd is misleading because its gone through 3 iterations.
That shit is expensive. Us dirty and numerous poors wont be buying into hd for a few years.
IF ONLY FREE RADICAL HAD RELEASED THEIR OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE GAME ON WII THEY'D STILL BE ALIVE!
this fucking sucks. It sounds like losing their deal with Lucasarts is what killed them dead. They already put two years into Battlefront and Lucasarts just pulled the plug on them, WTF? Not that I needed any, but this gives me another reason to hate on George Lucas.
A good size 1080p tv to use with said hd console is 2000ish. I was referring to that.
My 1080p cost me 1300 - Not sure if 37" is considered a good size though, to a Wii owner
Nintendo fans love to be told lies and perpetuate those lies.
When the N64 was out and nobody was making games for it, Nintendo fans were absolutely convinced that developers were forced to be tight lipped under heavy NDAs that would get them thrown into Siberian gulags if they were to speak up. Turns out, the games were never there in the first place.
A good size 1080p tv to use with said hd console is 2000ish. I was referring to that.My 50" 720p Samsung Plasma only cost $800
Nintendo fans love to be told lies and perpetuate those lies.
When the N64 was out and nobody was making games for it, Nintendo fans were absolutely convinced that developers were forced to be tight lipped under heavy NDAs that would get them thrown into Siberian gulags if they were to speak up. Turns out, the games were never there in the first place.
i never really paid attention to the n64 era but if true then :lol