http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3586
Most of this talk could have been made by a Sony guy or gal.
Most of this talk could have been made by a Sony guy or gal.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo Europe MD slams MS... games profitability "is not their key motivation"
- Thread starter cja
- Start date
Chopin Trusty Balls
First casualty in the war on idioticy.
To sum it up:
Blablabla*3do*blabla*Not Profitable*blablabla*We,the Industry must concentrate on making money*the end.
Blablabla*3do*blabla*Not Profitable*blablabla*We,the Industry must concentrate on making money*the end.
MightyHedgehog
Member
To me, it sounds like this guy is just upset that GC isn't so hot outside of Japan. Consumers decide. If MS is making a real mistake by trying to beat Sony to the punch, then they will be punished by the consumers. After all, Nintendo's Iwata has made it clear that the same will hold true for their next system. Just a bunch of crying and whining is all I'm getting out of his tirade. As for MS' current intentions as far as profit is concerned, who cares.
SolidSnakex
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
The entire thing is just a bitter rant about that. Including the weak GTA attack that Nintendo seems to like to do now.
ravingloon
Member
Oh, please, the entire MS empire is built on the principle that you give shit away until the competition quits and then you're able to price things for whatever you want (Able to be done because of the shit house luck monopoly they achieved with their OS.) This is why they have a ton of divisions yet 2 (OS and Business softtware i.e. Office) are the only things in the black. Their balance sheet is a joke.
Neither Sony nor Nintendo are especially motivated to make a hardware transition at the moment. They both make a good amount of money on their current platforms.
Microsoft are rushing since they are struggling to make money on their Xbox project, losing nearly 1 billion dollars each fiscal year is putting a huge pressure on them. Being in third place and having 14 million units on the market without seeing any profits or living room dominance in the horizon forces them to launch new hardware prematurely.
Everyone knows that each software generation outshines the old one on our current systems. Microsoft is showing nothing but deep desperation.
Microsoft will continue to fail since they are launching new hardware during a period when the current generation consoles reaches a mass-market appeal with low price on hardware and a wide range of high prestige budget titles and coming software still continues to greatly excel current offerings.
Launching new hardware during this period will only achieve a limited appeal since most people will still be focused on the current generation of consoles, when they eventually start to get tired of the current hardware the competition will have more appealing hardware around the corner with both backwards capability and strong franchises to back them up.
Microsoft are rushing since they are struggling to make money on their Xbox project, losing nearly 1 billion dollars each fiscal year is putting a huge pressure on them. Being in third place and having 14 million units on the market without seeing any profits or living room dominance in the horizon forces them to launch new hardware prematurely.
Everyone knows that each software generation outshines the old one on our current systems. Microsoft is showing nothing but deep desperation.
Microsoft will continue to fail since they are launching new hardware during a period when the current generation consoles reaches a mass-market appeal with low price on hardware and a wide range of high prestige budget titles and coming software still continues to greatly excel current offerings.
Launching new hardware during this period will only achieve a limited appeal since most people will still be focused on the current generation of consoles, when they eventually start to get tired of the current hardware the competition will have more appealing hardware around the corner with both backwards capability and strong franchises to back them up.
SolidSnakex
Member
nubbe said:
If that's the case then why even worry and complain about a company doing something like MS? Just let them make the decision and sit back and laugh when it backfires on them. It's not like MS is forcing the competition into shortening this generation just as the DC didn't force everyone into shortening last generation.
SolidSnakex:
> It's not like MS is forcing the competition into shortening this generation just as the DC
> didn't force everyone into shortening last generation.
Sega wasn't a threat to anyone due to its fiscal problems. M$ is. Sega didn't pay off developers to support its hardware. M$ does.
> It's not like MS is forcing the competition into shortening this generation just as the DC
> didn't force everyone into shortening last generation.
Sega wasn't a threat to anyone due to its fiscal problems. M$ is. Sega didn't pay off developers to support its hardware. M$ does.
SolidSnakex
Member
cybamerc said:
We all know how well that's went over. I'm sure MS isn't going to be so quick to fund new PS2 games next time around.
MightyHedgehog
Member
cybamerc said:
I disagree. Sega was a threat. It seems to me that its release forced Sony's into releasing the PS2 earlier than they wanted to. As for the whole money hats shit, I think it's a cop out that you mention it at all. Sony has done (and continues to do) this as well. NOt only that, but, in both an indirect and direct way, Sony uses its position to influence publishers and developers to go to their system first and foremost.
Please... Sega fate was sealed due to their own mistakes and it was clear that everyone was waiting for the PS2 anyway.MightyHedgehog said:
Sony is no angel but has at least earned it position through hard work. M$ is just a wannabe with too much money.
SolidSnakex
Member
cybamerc said:
Yah but MS money isn't really getting them into the position they thought it would. It's not getting them the really big exclusives, which are still landing on the PS2. And as good as MS is doing right now, Nintendo should be leading them and they would be if they weren't so incredibly stubborn. They're basically letting MS beat them.
It's not even just being stubborn, it's just being stupid at times. I mean why are you public bashing the biggest franchise in gaming right now for being too violent? Especially when you're supposedly trying to rid yourself of your kiddie image. That's thats going to do it quick.
SolidSnakex:
> Yah but MS money isn't really getting them into the position they thought it would.
This has been a learning experience for M$. You see M$ is one of the few companies than afford to spend $5-6 billion for schooling. Even if the Xbox is a commercial failure and an economical disaster M$ is getting lots of attention from the media and development community which is bound to pay off next gen.
> Yah but MS money isn't really getting them into the position they thought it would.
This has been a learning experience for M$. You see M$ is one of the few companies than afford to spend $5-6 billion for schooling. Even if the Xbox is a commercial failure and an economical disaster M$ is getting lots of attention from the media and development community which is bound to pay off next gen.
Meh, I think the people here are being a bit whiny about what was said. Plus, most of the quotes are dropped in mid-sentence - there's room for things to be taken out of context.
But really, what does he say?
- MS launching early is not about profitability
- Launching early is not necessarily that big of an advantage
- The industry is preoccupied with next gen consoles which doesn't necessarily reflect the interests of the gaming public
- He wouldn't want to defend the industry from the charge of gratuitous violence
- Industry is obsessed with gamers who have grown up - what about new gamers?
- Bundles == suckage
How much do you really disagree with those points?
But really, what does he say?
- MS launching early is not about profitability
- Launching early is not necessarily that big of an advantage
- The industry is preoccupied with next gen consoles which doesn't necessarily reflect the interests of the gaming public
- He wouldn't want to defend the industry from the charge of gratuitous violence
- Industry is obsessed with gamers who have grown up - what about new gamers?
- Bundles == suckage
How much do you really disagree with those points?
Alcibiades
Member
I think this guy is just making some good points, it doesn't really seem bitter... why would they be bitter about running a successful, profitable business...
Sega also wanted the cycle to end early after what happened with the Saturn...
he's also right about the game media not really understanding the environment most gamers live in which is as hobby or entertainment, but not a job or a 24-7 thing...
To draw some paralledl, I think some media seem to be ok taking off points for GBA requirements and/or disagreements with Nintendo's business practices, but when a game like Pandora Tomorrow benefits bigtime from online they have no qualms about not taking off for the extra service needed for full enjoyment...
Sega also wanted the cycle to end early after what happened with the Saturn...
he's also right about the game media not really understanding the environment most gamers live in which is as hobby or entertainment, but not a job or a 24-7 thing...
To draw some paralledl, I think some media seem to be ok taking off points for GBA requirements and/or disagreements with Nintendo's business practices, but when a game like Pandora Tomorrow benefits bigtime from online they have no qualms about not taking off for the extra service needed for full enjoyment...
MightyHedgehog
Member
cybamerc said:
Sounds like all you're doing is purely seeing this from hindsight. DC's ever-growing presence was a factor in the PS2 releasing in the sorry state that it did, software-wise, IMO.
SolidSnakex said:
Just like Nintendo and Sega basically let Sony beat them with their own stupidity and arrogance. Obviously, nothing's in a vaccuum and a large part of anyone's success is dependent on their peers' actions (or inactions).
cybamerc said:
How else is anyone supposed to break into the industry dominated by HUGE Japanese companies? You have to spend and be willing to spend large amounts of money in order to wriggle into the market as it is. This is the same way Sony got into it, after all. They had to spend lots and lots of money to get into a market controlled by two long-standing competitors (Sega and Nintendo). This isn't an open fucking market...it's a duel of competing closed ones.
SFA_AOK said:
Just because someone can say things that cannot be necessarily be argued otherwise, doesn't mean that the reasons for stating those things mean anything but whining. MS' potential early launch of Xenon is about future profitability. Again, Iwata has said that N5 will launch before Sony's machine. Remember that both the current Nintendo and MS machines launched a year later than Sony's. They'd have to acknowledge that a shorter lifespan for these platforms is a strong possibility because of this. Sony is the one forcing MS and Nintendo to do what they are doing, at the moment. MS and Nintendo, both, are trying to reverse that next gen.
As for the whole gratuitous violence comments, who cares. If the industry, as a whole, felt the same way as this guy, then video games wouldn't be as popular or more broadly relevant to people as they are now. It's called change. This guy needs to adapt and deal with it. Consumers, who pay this guy's salary, are the ones who choose and you have to live with that. As a game maker, you aren't playing nanny or, worse yet, God. Game makers are ultimately in the servitude of the consumer. If they take a shine to games that include violence and controversial material, then so be it. To even imply that the reason games like GTA succeed largely on their violent content is ignorant of the fact that there are many more varying types of players in the market. Some want something that isn't all sticky and sugar-coated.
SolidSnakex
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
That's pretty much it. They're very arrogant and stubborn still. If they'd simply matched what Sony and MS were doing this gen (DVD playback and online support), they'd have 2nd easily locked up. But with every newcomer Nintendo seems to just let them get over on them. Maybe now they've been beat enough to know that they can't just live in their own world anymore as they have for this gen and last gen.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Nintendo's refusal to accept that the market changes with the most popular platform is the key thing, IMO. Post PS1, they seemed to not understand that Sony's success was primarily in tapping an older demographic while servicing the traditionally younger one. This is also MS' aim. Nintendo could do the same without negatively impacting their current fans, but they still seem to be in the dark. MS is obviously modeling their practice after Sony's, as XBOX aims for the same broad range that PS2 does.
SolidSnakex
Member
"To draw some paralledl, I think some media seem to be ok taking off points for GBA requirements and/or disagreements with Nintendo's business practices,"
That comparison really doesn't work as the 2 GC games that have used GBA requirement have been very multiplayer oriented to the point that alot of people find the offline modes boring (kinda like with PSO). So that's why there are points taken off for those, because the single player mode just isn't as strong as the multiplayer mode since the game was built with that mode in mind.
That comparison really doesn't work as the 2 GC games that have used GBA requirement have been very multiplayer oriented to the point that alot of people find the offline modes boring (kinda like with PSO). So that's why there are points taken off for those, because the single player mode just isn't as strong as the multiplayer mode since the game was built with that mode in mind.
MightyHedgehog
Member
cybamerc said:
It's not loss...it's investment. Obviously, MS would like for the XBOX to be profitable, but they had to make very costly changes to compete with Nintendo and Sony. While they might not have had a more clearly definite aim of keeping the costs of the platform's business leaner and more conducive to profit, I'll argue that they had to do what they did. Their expeditures toward building their reputation among gamers and the games makers will prove to be more important than any immediate profit. After all, MS, like pre-PS1 Sony, had no street-cred in this market. You have to build that. Spend money to make money.
MS are making money on hardware, because you need to buy an Xbox in order to play the Xbox games you download.
Seriously, I think the design and architecture of the Xbox has led to massive piracy, at least here in Europe. Would be nice to see the numbers on the amount of piracy for Xbox compared to other consoles. Just about everyone I know with an Xbox has got a modchip in it. I've heard of game stores being asked by customers where you can download xbox games. :|
Aren't MS removing the HDD for their next console? They got at least one good reason for that, if my theory is correct.
Seriously, I think the design and architecture of the Xbox has led to massive piracy, at least here in Europe. Would be nice to see the numbers on the amount of piracy for Xbox compared to other consoles. Just about everyone I know with an Xbox has got a modchip in it. I've heard of game stores being asked by customers where you can download xbox games. :|
Aren't MS removing the HDD for their next console? They got at least one good reason for that, if my theory is correct.
Actually, I think that's the very reason it does work, as I've heard almost nothing but complaints about single-player SCSolidSnakex said:
T. By the developer's own admission and marketing, it's a game that is really meant to be played online. Same with RE:Outbreak and the upcoming Godzilla sequel.SolidSnakex
Member
human5892 said:Actually, I think that's the very reason it does work, as I've heard almost nothing but complaints about single-player SC
But REOutbreak did get it's scores pulled down because of the weak single player mode and because it was clearly built for online play. So it's not like online play gets a free ride while they all focus on bashing connectivity.
Alcibiades
Member
SolidSnakex said:
Well, Pandora Tomorrow (from what I get from browsing net forums), was built with the online multiplayer in mind, and in addition, to quote your take on the two connectivity GCN games, PT "single player mode just isn't as strong as the multiplayer mode" comparison can be made...
still, I haven't heard that Four Swords 1p was "boring" much, just that the multiplayer was better...
MightyHedgehog
Member
Fuck this guy. Really. I believe that Sony, in particular, has done more to open up gaming to the female audience than Nintendo has ever done since the advent of the PS1. It's obvious (to me) that more older gamers actively play the XBOX and PS2 than the GC. This guy is fucking insane. Not only this, but the whole ten year-old comment is ridiculous.
SolidSnakex
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
Like I said before, Nintendo is still the most arrogant and stubborn company in gaming today. They only see things their way and think everyone else should see it that way too and if you don't then you're wrong. It's why they aren't ever going to get back on top unless they change the way they think.
Xbox was MS first console, they've learned alot from this generation. Im pretty sure they've taken measures that will see their next console turn profit or atleast not lose as much as Xbox.
If i remember correctly MS loss each quarter on Xbox is decresing due to high software sales.
Edit: That comment about GTA is ridiculous. Hope GTA continues to sell extremly well to piss them off
If i remember correctly MS loss each quarter on Xbox is decresing due to high software sales.
Edit: That comment about GTA is ridiculous. Hope GTA continues to sell extremly well to piss them off
Alcibiades
Member
I don't think Nintendo is pissed off about GTA's high sales, if anything it's the disappointing GCN sales they are pissed off about...
their GTA-related comment was about defending the industry from attacks (and since Nintendo publishes games like Eternal Darkness and showcases Resident Evil 4), I think they know a mature audience exists for games and isn't an attack on that audience...
more likely, they are making a point how the industry seems kind of single-minded in how "mature" games are all the rage right now and it wouldn't be the positive thing to have to defend that many of these games are marketed and targeted at children...
Unlike theatres that don't let in 8 year olds to Rated R movies, retailers don't mind what the 8 year-old buys... (I'm of the mind that it's the parents responsibility anyway, but that's not what Nintendo is addressing)...
they just want to make a point that making games more violent isn't the way they intend to change and innovate...
their GTA-related comment was about defending the industry from attacks (and since Nintendo publishes games like Eternal Darkness and showcases Resident Evil 4), I think they know a mature audience exists for games and isn't an attack on that audience...
more likely, they are making a point how the industry seems kind of single-minded in how "mature" games are all the rage right now and it wouldn't be the positive thing to have to defend that many of these games are marketed and targeted at children...
Unlike theatres that don't let in 8 year olds to Rated R movies, retailers don't mind what the 8 year-old buys... (I'm of the mind that it's the parents responsibility anyway, but that's not what Nintendo is addressing)...
they just want to make a point that making games more violent isn't the way they intend to change and innovate...
I don't see any problem with this guy's comments. His rant on MS might seem harsh, but I agree with his basic point about consumers still jumping into this gen. IMO there still is a lot of currency left in the current consoles. We are just starting to see a wealth of games that seem truly like next-gen titles and not updates to last gen stuff.
As for GTA, the guy didn't even attack it so I don't see the controversy. He is making an interesting point however--it's hard to defend a game like GTA. For every argument about its great gameplay, there are others that can be made that question the neccesity of its violence or its questionable of moral value. If this is the direction that the industry really wants to travel, they'll have to be prepaired for more well reasoned objections to the content of their games. That's why the guy would rather not have to be constantly faced with having to defend something like GTA.
As for GTA, the guy didn't even attack it so I don't see the controversy. He is making an interesting point however--it's hard to defend a game like GTA. For every argument about its great gameplay, there are others that can be made that question the neccesity of its violence or its questionable of moral value. If this is the direction that the industry really wants to travel, they'll have to be prepaired for more well reasoned objections to the content of their games. That's why the guy would rather not have to be constantly faced with having to defend something like GTA.
SolidSnakex
Member
ge-man said:
It's just a weak shot at GTA. The movies that GTA is based around (The Godfather, Goodfellas ect) are considered some of the best movies ever and film fans have no problem defending them. Yet when a game does the samething it's somehow hard to defend it? There's nothing wrong with defending it and it's not very difficult to defend either.
Alot gamers want games to be respected like movies and other formats are, but the second a game takes steps to doing stuff that have been in films for years there's a big uproar about how it's wrong and it should never be done. Mainstream people will never be accepted on the same level as film till gamers can actually accept them on the same level.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Are Microsoft's huge losses mostly attributable to the hardware design? The reason I bought one fairly early was its technological advantage over the PS2 in multiplatform (especially sports games) graphics, load times, and memory. If there is no hard drive and no graphical advantage, what's the point? Nobody's getting Xenon for the new Blinx. (no disrespect to all you Blinx fans out there).
They need to keep the technological advantage (which is their only cachet among casual gamers) but not at such great cost per unit. Perhaps with their experience in the market this will be possible, though if they release much earlier it won't happen.
They need to keep the technological advantage (which is their only cachet among casual gamers) but not at such great cost per unit. Perhaps with their experience in the market this will be possible, though if they release much earlier it won't happen.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Guileless said:
Does that mean Nintendo will have to supply better software to compete? Most everyone I meet, who I assume falls under the rubrik "casual gamer" buys the system that has the games they want. Outside of Japan it seems that Xbox has done that better than GC in the second phase of the console wars.
I knew someone would mention movies. The problem with the comparison is that film as a medium is over a century old and has established its artistic merit long ago. It's easier for a director or film producer to defend a movie in terms of artistry because many people accept film as an art form, which gives it a lot of room in terms of content. But even then, debates still rage on even about what acceptable in a film.
Games are just a few decades old and are still looked at as something largely consumed by a young or juvenille crowd. Just because there is a maturity evolution taking place, that doesn't mean that video games can automatically be defended on artistic value. The way I interpet the guy's comments is that the industry needs to tread lightly before it comes under major fire. Video games are still one of the easiest targets to take a shot at after some sort horribly violent events like Columbine or the DC sniper.
Games are just a few decades old and are still looked at as something largely consumed by a young or juvenille crowd. Just because there is a maturity evolution taking place, that doesn't mean that video games can automatically be defended on artistic value. The way I interpet the guy's comments is that the industry needs to tread lightly before it comes under major fire. Video games are still one of the easiest targets to take a shot at after some sort horribly violent events like Columbine or the DC sniper.
SolidSnakex
Member
ge-man said:
One reason it's an easy target is because gamers won't even defend the games. Movie fans will defend movies over absurd comparisons of them causing violence. Certain game fans and developers will rip into other companies for the violence they show in games when it really just shows the general public or the media that people in the industry think its wrong too which really doesn't happen in film. Film guys generally stick together and will defend each others work no matter how bad it might be. If it's really quality and not them just trying to shove obscene sex scenes or violent scenes to you the they'll defend it. Not so in the game industry.
People just need to remember that once gamers started getting over the "shock" of MK, everyone else did too. People started to realise that as violent as it was, it was still extremely cartoony and not realistic at all (uppercut someone and watch a gallon of blood explode from their head). So it really wasn't even a big deal anymore. MK's get released now and noone even talks about how violent they were because gamers simply stopped making such a big deal out of it. But when you've got developers that can't even accept what some companies are doing then that isn't going to happen for awhile.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Musashi Wins! said:
I agree, and I think that having the games people want goes hand in hand with what they perceive to be the best technology. Obviously this is only anecdotal evidence, but almost all of my casual friends--people in their mid-20s--play FPS games, sports (especially football), and an occasional racing game. The Xbox offers some of the best games (or best multiplatform versions) in those categories partly because of its technological superiority.
So games are the reason, but the superior technology driving the best Xbox games is the proximate cause of its cachet among casual gamers.
I dunno about that, by the time GameCube shipped DVD playback wasn't as big an issue as in 2000 imo. It'd be nice to see figures for the XBox DVD remote...SolidSnakex said:
As far as online, that's as niche as it gets. 3 million online console gamers wordwide in the 2+ years Sony & Microsoft have been agressively pushing doesn't strike as something deal breakingly significant. Had Nintendo delivered online gaming with GameCube, I doubt their userbase figures would be even a million more than what they currently stand at... foregoing a CD add-on didn't hurt Nintendo in the 16bit days and a lack of online really hasn't this generation... it's in the subsequent generations that these issues mattered and will matter...
I agree with this somewhat, aiming at the youth market probably made GameCube a harder sell for consumers who went for GBA and PS1 instead. Really, marketing and image have been Nintendo's biggest hurdle this generation, but essentially competing with themselves wasn't the smartest move either.MightyHedgehog said:
I think in going so hard for the "teen/20 something male" demographic though that PS2 (and XBox in turn) has limited it's overall appeal compared to PS1. I rememebr reading this was actually a significant problem in Japan, where PS1 had nearly a 40% female userbase which has been halved on PS2... indeed one of Sony's recent business goals they laid out was to specifically try and get back their female audience.MightyHedgehog said:
I disagree with several of them, actually.
MS launching early is about trying to find a way to get to profitability. Their 1st approach didn't work well in that regard. If they want to become profitable and they think laucnhing new hardware is important for that, then shouldn't they do that? Besides, they're a johnny-come-lately to the console gaming industry and its not as if they've managed gain anywhere close to the majority of the marketshare. If there was ever anyone in a position to say "Do Over" in the console biz, it's MS.SFA_AOK said:
Agreed
And yet, somehow, I am still bathed in absolute glut of previews, movies, pics, reviews, etc. for software and peripherals related to current gen hardware. The industry seems capable of multitasking and so are most of its customers.
Not to mention that Nintendo of late has been the most forthcoming with actual concrete details regarding their next gen hardware, actually giving date to when it will be shown (next E3) and now some details about its display abilities. This is more than Sony or MS has confirmed - everything we "know" on those fronts is primarily due to sifting through patent filings and trying wring details from the NDA'd mouths of affiliated devs.
He seems awfully willing to sacrifice GTA a little quickly as being strictly an exercise in gratuitous violence. "Gratuitous" violence is a quicksand of subjective definitions. I can understand the desire to avoid such a fight, but have a little backbone and stand up for the industry's right to free expression given that there are rating systems that provide disclosure of content prior to actually experiencing it.
It's easy to stand from the perspective of a hardcore/enthusiast/hobbyist gamer, or as a businessman who primarily services that type of gamer, and say where's the new blood? But the thing is, segments of the industry are doing just fine catering to people outside of the enthusiast demographic. He points out Pogo.com, but they're not alone. Yahoo and MSN also have sizeable followings for their online game services, user populations that actually dwarf the likes of MMORPG populations, for example.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as they say. The casual gamers who like to play hearts online or scrabble or what have you don't have as high demands. You can cater to them with relatively little effort, but then they don't necessarily yield as much of their money either.
Forced bundles for signifcantly higher cost than standalone hardware = suckage but if there's an option to buy the hardware standalone or if the bundle isn't significantly higher priced than the hardware alone, I'm not sure what the problem is.
SolidSnakex
Member
ge-man said:
It is, but the PS2 has the majority of games that are really popular with female gamers which are rhythm games. It also has Eyetoy which is another thing that's really popular with female gamers.
I'm not saying the PS2 doesn't have any appeal for women (the same goes for the Gc and even Xbox). However, young men in their teens and early 20's far outstrip other categories of gamers. I don't see that as neccesarily a good thing when it's possbile to get other kinds of gamers on board.
And yet Sony managed to lose female gamers in significant numbers during this generation... again software's only a part of the equation. Image and marketing are far more important... look at GameCube, it has plenty of mature software, yet it's still thought of a kids machine... see the problem?SolidSnakex said:
SolidSnakex
Member
Yah but they're trying. I think the main problem with the female demographic is no developer really takes the time to find out what type of game they want. So they just keep making rhytmn games. And no developer wants to make stuff that's usually seen as girl friendly since that'll mean that it wouldn't sell to male gamers which is still the majority of the industry. The female demographic will start getting bigger once developers start trying to find out what type of games female gamers want and then try to blend that into the type of game male gamers want so they'll be able to get sales out of both demographics instead of just 1.
Efralope,
The offline mode in Splinter Cell PT is easily as good as the original game. I prefer the offline part of the game over the online. So saying that Splinter Cell PT has weak single player is complete garbage. Considering you haven't even played the game..........that makes what you said even worse.
The offline mode in Splinter Cell PT is easily as good as the original game. I prefer the offline part of the game over the online. So saying that Splinter Cell PT has weak single player is complete garbage. Considering you haven't even played the game..........that makes what you said even worse.