Do we actually know if Rime or Shadow of the Beast will get a full retail release or are digital only? I thought we just know that they exist. The fact that they didn't specifically call them digital only games (to my knowledge) when so many of the rest of the games during the conference where unashamedly labeled just that makes me think they have bigger plans for them.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but I was under the impression they were. Apologies if I misrepresented those games. You're right though, we barely got any info so it's hard to say.
That said, even if they are digital releases, does that change their importance? Some digital games are now going on to sell millions. Last of Us charted 3 million so far or something (i don't know), and Minecraft sits pretty at 20 million. Certain people have started to say they don't even think Minecraft counts as indie anymore due to that
In short: Why are we placing any inherent value on a retail game versus a digital game in an era when digital only can often sell a shit ton more than retail games? And hell, why does that matter at all?
It kinda does change the importance. That's not to take away anything from Minecraft, but that's more of a unique situation rather than the norm. It would be like pointing out Angry Birds as an example of why everyone should instead be focusing on mobile games. Sure there can be some big success, but what's the typical situation like?
We are still unfortunately, at this time, have a market that plays much bigger emphasis on a regular major release over a digital indie release. It even showed at that conference where they would point out games and names, and there was very little reaction because those people didn't really know who they were. So the importance really comes from who does it speak out to, how many people does it speak out to, and what is to be gained from it. Focusing on the bigger picture, Sony needs to be constantly talking to the larger number of people and not just the niche. Certainly still focus on the niche to some degree, but not at the expense of the larger audience.
It has been said that individual sales are often the most important metric of all when determining a "killer app" or a "system seller." This certainly has elements of truth to it, but I think there is often something people neglect to consider in such a discussion. Sometimes a game by itself may not be enough, but the preponderance of quality and varied gameplay types suggests a healthy ecosystem. And it may be that healthy ecosystem that itself is the killer app - the idea that no matter what type of game you're into, you know the system will be offering something for your tastes.
To me I haven't been more excited about a gen transition than this one due to the emphasis on indies. To me it's a Renaissance in this industry. And that IS my killer app, the healthy ecosystem.
I think a variety of games is a good thing. I think it's healthy and helps attract the widest audience possible. My feeling with the Gamescom announcement is it felt too much like it focused on Indie games which meant it talked to a smaller audience and somewhat ignored the bigger one.
I think it's great that Indie devs are getting some of the spotlight. God knows many of them deserve it. I just think from a strategic standpoint, too much focus is not a good thing for the bigger picture.
I said this somewhere in another thread, but another problem with the focus on these other games is often, they don't warrant a new system. They could easily be done on the current gen and at this time, especially with the talk that consoles might be on their way out, you need good reason to get people excited about justifying the upgrade to a new hardware platform. That's another reason why something that shows off the system is beneficial at this point in time.
Yeah, but that's another thing that has me excited about this gen (despite Microsoft's issues). It seems Microsoft has invested heavily in new studio development and first party enhancement, and that can only mean great things for potential games output this gen. Can you imagine an industry with THREE dominant first parties vying for superiority? I *shudder* with the possibilities
I think it's great that Microsoft finally woke up to do it but the problem is that stuff takes time to establish, to get a team working well together, to build technology, and so forth. So despite Microsoft doing it, they are still behind Sony on this front and I think Sony's focus on first party development toward the end of the PS2 and throughout the PS3 is going to be a great advantage over Microsoft for the near future at least.
Well yeah, but what I mean is that even though technically Sony may have one or two less first party offerings, the effective result is not much different: both are supply constrained for the holidays, both are selling to a small audience, and those one or two extra games are going to mean little by the time the systems have enough units after the holidays to go around, and by that time Sony and Microsoft will both be having new games that garner the headlines.
Let me be clear: It's a good thing Microsoft is trying to come out swinging at the game, and it's a good thing they have that retail game advantage, no matter how minor or major. But the
effective result of having those games is going to be the largely the same whether Sony and MS had the exact same amount of games, or if they both had only one first party selection available at launch.
Well I think the thing is, since third parties are on both platforms, it really is the first party and exclusives that stand out as people look for reasons to get one platform or the other. So I think those one or two games, even if the audience getting them at launch is limited, can go quite a ways when the pickings are sparse over the course of the next year and when more systems are plentiful and stocked after the holiday season. The lack of titles makes the exclusives that much more meaningful I think.
Oh, me too. Oh god, me too. The shit I've heard about that is coming for PS4 has me basically #dead from anticipation. But... I understand strategically, I have to grit my teeth, and appreciate the other element this strategy has allowed: indies to take the stage and bow. I really appreciate this
Don't get me wrong, I think your OP is great and getting people excited about Indie games is a good thing. I just think from a bigger picture and business strategic standpoint, unfortunately Indie games still cater to a niche and small market so I find it questionable that they would focus on them without at the same time at least teasing something or giving something for the bigger picture and at least reassuring that there is something beyond launch.
Right. If your argument is that Resogun isn't gonna sell 10 million copies and move PS4s my reply is "yeah, no shit." That's not the point. The point is that Sony has all the same shit that MS has. The biggest games this fall on both platforms will be FIFA/Madden/CoD/Watchdogs/AC4/BF4. Forza will do well for MS and Killzone will do well for Sony. So we are basically at a wash at this point. Now you add in the indie games *on top* of this and I fail how anyone can possibly see it as a negative. I can see being indifferent to it if there's never been an indie game in your life you've enjoyed - but how is it negative?
I only said it was a negative in how they strategically convey the message to the masses. I wouldn't call it a complete wash either since I feel the launch line up favors Microsoft, but even ignoring that, it still is about the message which has been obviously a big deal with how Microsoft dropped the ball early on in that regard. But things change quick and Sony needs to keep the advantage for as long as they can.
