Support NeoGAF

[demi]

There's not enough people excited about Tenacious D being in GH2. >=O

Tenacious D is in GH2? Eugh.

 

[GitarooMan]

Another great podcast, although I wish they would actually get somewhere in Psychonauts so that we can hear them talk about something other than the first two levels. I love how they point out that the PR don't like them talking about how high the prices on microtransactions because they want mindless consumers to just swallow it down with no criticism.

And they're right on point about MS not having any first party releases from November to Fall, very poor planning.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

And they're right on point about MS not having any first party releases from November to Fall, very poor planning.

I don't get this mentality. Isn't MS better served by saving their own games to be released when more games are bought? It's kind of like complaining that there aren't more movies like "Superman Returns" released in the Winter, Spring, and Fall. All of the first party MS games are, at least in their attempt, AAA games. It's not like their averse to the idea of releasing during the year (UNO is first party), it's just Forza and Gears are pretty must Must-Holiday games that have to be fresh when the competition is at its fiercest and Viva Pinata has to wait for the TV Show to drop. (And, wait, is Gears first party anyway?)

I would personally be fine if MS only released their first party stuff in the fall if they kept making games like PGR3, which I am STILL playing and working my way through today, like eight months later. And if 3rd Party is delivering games like Oblivion and GRAW and Dead Rising, what exactly is the problem here? What's the big difference between 3rd and 1st Party? Ubi and Bethesda have shown themselves to be plenty competent in development for the platform.

If it's a question of making the most of the system in development, then I'd say XNA probably has a lot to do with making this a smaller issue than usual.

 

[gofreak]

I don't get this mentality. Isn't MS better served by saving their own games to be released when more games are bought?

To a degree a first party should lead by example, and make up for the shortcomings of third parties. Third parties are always motivated around the fourth quarter and sales and while a first party also obviously needs to keep an eye on that, I think there's also a responsibility there - creatively and so on - to do things even if it wouldn't necessarily make the fullest sense for a third party, or from a business POV. But even third parties are not letting the system down like MS has from a content supply perspective. If all third parties put games out like MS is..

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

To a degree a first party should lead by example, and make up for the shortcomings of third parties. Third parties are always motivated around the fourth quarter and sales and while a first party also obviously needs to keep an eye on that, I think there's also a responsibility there - creatively and so on - to do things even if it wouldn't necessarily make the fullest sense for a third party, or from a business POV. But even third parties are not letting the system down like MS has from a content supply perspective. If all third parties put games out like MS is..

But that "If" is being refuted pretty much monthly by third parties as games continue to be released. I'm sure MS could easily flood the market, force games out the door, and have a first party game every quarter, but as it stands aren't there only four or five first parties being released this year? And to be honest, I think every single one of them has tremendous potential. I think in terms of quality, they are absolutely leading by example and that's why, by and large, people were most impressed with their E3 showing from a games perspective.

MS' only real quality misstep in 1st Party has been, arguably, Rare's opening salvo, and that looks to be completely turned around, arguably, with Viva Pinata.

The fact of the matter is, simply, I've been able to buy great 360 games all year and will continue to do so until the fall, at which point the schedule seems to point to about a dozen fantastic first parties between then and March (Crackdown, Viva, Gears, Alan Wake, Forza, you all know the list, not to mention PGR3 getting ANOTHER shot in the arm with the FF Wheel). And if they stop then until November 2007, I'm sure I'll still be playing those.

Also, first party has seen its share of extra content throughout the year for die hard fans.

 

[gofreak]

But that "If" is being refuted pretty much monthly by third parties as games continue to be released.

Of course, but my point is, third parties with even perhaps greater business concerns aren't adopting the approach MS is. Your point was "why should MS release anything until the busiest season?", but Q4 is busiest for everyone, but the others haven't dropped the ball in the meantime. If they did, the system would be up a creek. MS isn't exactly setting a good example here, and they should be trying to lead with their publishing effort on the system.

I'm sure MS could easily flood the market, force games out the door, and have a first party game every quarter

That'd hardly be a flood now.. One per quarter ought to be the bare minimum! One per month even!

I think in terms of quality, they are absolutely leading by example and that's why, by and large, people were most impressed with their E3 showing from a games perspective.

I think people are talking about the distribution of content across the year. To date in terms of releases, I don't think they've been leading in terms of quality on the platform. Oblivion and GRAW - third party games - were the first stand-outs IMO. There's certainly reason to be hopeful that Q3/Q4 this year will be better than Q4 was last year, but I think that they're going basically nearly a year releasing hardly anything til then (is it just one game?) is where the complaint arises. That's really crazy.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

talking about the distribution of content across the year. To date in terms of releases, I don't think they've been leading in terms of quality on the platform. Oblivion and GRAW - third party games - were the first stand-outs IMO. There's certainly reason to be hopeful that Q3/Q4 this year will be better than Q4 was last year, but I think that they're going basically nearly a year releasing hardly anything til then (is it just one game?) is where the complaint arises. That's really crazy.

I definitely understand where people are coming from, I just disagree that it's a big deal. And this whole "One Per Quarter should be a bare minimum" sounds like crazy talk to me. Considering the state of the games that are coming out in the fall, this would've been disasterous for at least three of the games being released at that point, as they would've been forced into rushdom. Or it would've been disasterous for games, as some other rushed job was added to the schedule.

I think, really, this is probably one of the most unique year for any particular console and its first party developer. The truth is, we all know why MS is holding off on these titles, but that also speaks to my point. They are, quality wise, developing excellent looking titles. If they were churning out crap no one was excited about, we'd all have played Gears Of War already in April and forgotten about it in May. But MS is developing, instead, a TON of really great games that people are legitimately excited about. And it only makes sense for them to hold out and wait to release them when they can do the most good in their pitched battle against Wii3 (Just realised I've been missing out on the PERFECT Grant Morrison reference for months now! Dang!).

I think in 2007 and beyond, their 1st party stuff will be much more evenly distributed (Mass Effect is a Spring title, no?) but a combination of acclimating themselves to the system and waiting for the Wii3 launch has caused this anomaly.

 

[Mrbob]

Yeah I do agree that MS has been planning a bunch of first party content for timespan of when the PS3 and Wii launch and after.

 

[gofreak]

And this whole "One Per Quarter should be a bare minimum" sounds like crazy talk to me. Considering the state of the games that are coming out in the fall, this would've been disasterous for at least three of the games being released at that point, as they would've been forced into rushdom. Or it would've been disasterous for games, as some other rushed job was added to the schedule.

You're assuming that because you have more games in development, suddenly they become rushed? I'm not saying games should be tied to a specific quarter, just that there should be enough in development such that on average you get them out far more regularly than MS is. It's an issue of resources, not rushing games.

Certain other platform holders put out multiple games per month (on average), just to put things in perspective. Now obviously there's a warming up period when you launch a new system, but I just think MS is going too far with the "quality not quantity" thing. And I'm all for quality, but you can have both.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

You're assuming that because you have more games in development, suddenly they become rushed? I'm not saying games should be tied to a specific quarter, just that there should be enough in development such that on average you get them out far more regularly than MS is. It's an issue of resources, not rushing games.

Certain other platform holders put out multiple games per month, just to put things in perspective. Now obviously there's a warming up period when you launch a new system, but I just think MS is going too far with the "quality not quantity" thing. And I'm all for quality, but you can have both.

Certain other platform holders seems to have about an 80%/20% Crap/Quality Ratio, just to put things in perspective.



And the longevity of their quality launch titles shows, to me at least, that you can never go too far with "Quality Over Quantity", seriously. It's probably not the best for the publisher but it's certainly nice for the gamer in terms of how they look at their investment. When the PSP launched a lot of people were making the same kinds of complaints. I was too busy playing Wipeout Pure, a spectacular game with tons of longevity and a regular support system of updates. If nothing but PGR3 had come out for the 360, I'd've been in the same situation.

Perhaps, then, I am simply too easily placated by fantastic games.

 

[gofreak]

Certain other platform holders seems to have about an 80%/20% Crap/Quality Ratio, just to put things in perspective.

Which depending on how far you go with your "quality over quantity" mantra would net you far more quality titles than the alternative strategy, and a broader range for those corners of the market that still value choice and see quality where others may not (and I think that can be seen in the sales of some less critically cherished titles). I knew you'd pull the quality card, but it rings very hollow given the range of quality titles that are there, despite the plethora of mediocre titles that accompany them.

And the longevity of their quality launch titles shows, to me at least, that you can never go too far with "Quality Over Quantity", seriously.

Pretty obviously nonsense. Of course you can. One of the most common complaints of the N64 era was Nintendo's policy in this regard. I really think they'll need to start stepping things up more consistently.

Sorry to harp, I'm usually more of a "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all" type of person. But this is one thing that's stood out to me.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Which depending on how far you go with your "quality over quantity" mantra would net you far more quality titles than the alternative strategy, and a broader range for those corners of the market that still value choice and see quality where others may not (and I think that can be seen in the sales of some less critically cherished titles). I knew you'd pull the quality card, but it rings very hollow given the range of quality titles that are there, despite the plethora of mediocre titles that accompany them.



Pretty obviously nonsense. Of course you can. One of the most common complaints of the N64 era was Nintendo's policy in this regard. I really think they'll need to start stepping things up more consistently.

Sorry to harp, I'm usually more of a "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all" type of person. But this is one thing that's stood out to me.

Jeez Louise, man. Did you not see the part where I said, "This is most likely an anomaly that will be rectified by this time next year?"

I used to like talking PS3/360 with you. We were the WWI, Grand Illusion guys. At war, sure, but of that bygone age of chivalry and mutual respect. Before it all went to shit.

Don't let them drag you down with them, gofreak. It would be a terrible injustice.

 

[gofreak]

Did I offend? Maybe "nonsense" was blunt, but it wasn't meant as a slight at you! I think the rest of what I said was fair.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Did I offend? Maybe "nonsense" was blunt, but it wasn't meant as a slight at you! I think the rest of what I said was fair.

Yeah, it was fair. Like I said, I think in these circumstances it makes sense for them and I think it will all shake out by this time next year. And their competitors, last gen, also had the luxury of making like 70% more than them, if hardware sales are any indication. If MS strengthens its marketshare, I can see them having more resources to put out more first party games. As it stands, I doubt any first party MS developer is standing around, looking for something to do. Now that developers are getting a greater handle on the machine, I think MS can make a more balanced schedule. But they at least seem to be erring on the side of When The Game Is Ready than When They Want The Game To Come Out, although Gears and Forza are most probably the latter, Mass Effect would be an example of the former. And it seems that they have enough of a handle on their development teams that something like Gears or Forza seems to be progressing quite nicely, with teams that work well under that kind of mandate. I think a team like Rare is probably an example of a team that would like to develop under the Former and were forced, at launch, to develop for the Latter. Viva seems to have a much more comfortable timetable, and it shows in the final product.

 

[Amir0x]

hahahaha i won one of them keychains from the 1up yours podcast

now i will annoy all my friends.

 

[Akia]

hahahaha i won one of them keychains from the 1up yours podcast

now i will annoy all my friends.

no way, that's awesome. which one did you win?

Spoiler

what was the answer anyways? November 6, 1889?

 

[GitarooMan]

hahahaha i won one of them keychains from the 1up yours podcast

now i will annoy all my friends.

Nice, I liked the one with the death sound they kept playing to make fun of Luke.

 

[Amir0x]

no way, that's awesome. which one did you win?

Spoiler

what was the answer anyways? November 6, 1889?

i don't know, they didn't say which one. I definitely hope it's the death sound one too though, that one was awesome.

probably the one with the jump sound or the regular mario level music sound though since the death sound one is too awesome

and yeah, the answer was 1889

 

[MrPing1000]

Americans talking about football always amusing.