|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Off-Topic » The Sony PS3: The End of Modern Civilization As We Know It

Default The Sony PS3: The End of Modern Civilization As We Know It

November 17th, 2006, 21:53
Oh dear.

"How to Create Mass Chaos" by Sony Corp.
LordRac is offline

LordRac

LordRac's Avatar
Watcher

#1

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NorthEast USA
Posts: 46

Default 

November 17th, 2006, 22:04
Yeah it's pretty freakin ridiculous!

laughed at the Vederman stunt tho ='.'=
xSamhainx is offline

xSamhainx

xSamhainx's Avatar
Paws of Doom

#2

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 4,702

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 02:23
That is a big deal up in our area - and there were issues because 1 Best Buy near Fenway in Boston failed to get a Midnight license, and had a couple hundred people outside that the police had to chase away … and stuff in Cambridge where a shop inside the mall was going to allow camping out but no one - not the mall or the city - had approved …

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#3

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 05:43
I got one. Its awesome. I love it. Rpgs are gay.
roqua is offline

roqua

roqua's Avatar
Sentinel

#4

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 474

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 08:37
Eh?

Why are consoles and RPGs mutually exclusive?
Dr. A is offline

Dr. A

Dr. A's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#5

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 801

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 09:13
uh oh.

Category Five Nerdstorm incoming, Cap'n
xSamhainx is offline

xSamhainx

xSamhainx's Avatar
Paws of Doom

#6

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 4,702

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 14:52
Originally Posted by Dr. A View Post
Eh?

Why are consoles and RPGs mutually exclusive?
I dont think they have to be, but they are. I pretty much think crpgs and PCs are mutually eclusive now for the most part. The saving grace of pc rpgs being indie titles.

I don't blame game makers, console makers, or anyone making money off of video games. I blame the buyers. Game players want next gen graphics, high quaility voice acting, and other crap that adds no real value to the game play aspects of a game. Devs and publishers give them what they want. But what the game player wants costs a lot of money and sucks the resources from other areas of devlopment, like gameplay. And publishers won't finance a game that doesn't look like it will have a return. Games with a large return=fancy graphic, dumbed down games that appeal to the broadest demeographic possible.

If I had a game company I would have a fiscal rsposibility to the owners, employees, and others with a stake in the company, as well as a resposibility to the people I recioeved debt from to finance a game. That equals me making a game I wouldn't want to play but would sell well and have a chance of return, or at least not risk maximizing return.

The game buyer, and only the game buyer, is resposible for what types of games are to be made. As the more they buy of this game, or a game with feature x, the more types of those will be made. Its simple economics.

It all comes down to "you reap what you sow." If everyone bought troika's games, troika would be in business and we would have some spectacular AAA rpgs on the PC to look forward to. As it is now, the only AAA tiutle I plan on buying is Drakensang. And I feel that game is far less than what it could have been because of market demands set forth by game buyers.

And who knows, after NWN 2 being critisised by everyone for being too complicated, they might switch to twitch combat and "streamline" character creation and devlopment just so the game doesn't flop.

Since there is no way for indy devs to make a 100% original game on any of the consoles I know about, and the future of real crpgs (console or PC) lies in the hands of indie devs catering to the niche real crpg market, I argue that the game buyer has made console as well as PC's, and rpgs mutually exclusive.
roqua is offline

roqua

roqua's Avatar
Sentinel

#7

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 474

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 19:58
Not nice story, I don't undestand those people waiting in long queues overnight. Actually I hate queues. We have long tradition of queues over here. We had to queu for oranges and bananas before christmas, for car (if you really wanted one), for washing machine. Well there was long queu almost for everything before 1989.
Danicek is offline

Danicek

Danicek's Avatar
Sentinel

#8

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic
Posts: 418

Default 

November 18th, 2006, 23:02
There are more tragic case, bout 8 - 9 years ago, queues were forming as early as 4 or 5 in the morning so that people could buy bread!
Arma is offline

Arma

Arma's Avatar
Sentinel

#9

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 394

Default 

November 19th, 2006, 17:39
Originally Posted by roqua View Post
I don't blame game makers, console makers, or anyone making money off of video games. I blame the buyers.
I blame the publishers. And they are looking at the money first, not at all at the fun.

As long as games provide fun so that they will generate profits, then it is good from their point of view. If not, then …

They are 1000 % (and I mean that !) profit-driven. And exploit the developers into making crappy games, imho.
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#10

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 16,057

Default 

November 19th, 2006, 19:01
Devs don't have to go through publishers, look at the McCarthy from Troika. He wants to make his game the way he wants to make it, so he is found a way to do it without pub lishers taking away his creative control. Every indie dev does this.

The publishers finance games that the analysis says will sell. The analysis come from game sales. Game sales are generated by game buyers. To blaim the publishers is silly and childish, as it skips over the reason publishers are financing the games they finance (the game buyer).

Devs don't have to make the best graphic, fancy game they can. They don't have to pitch a game that will allow them to get the highest debt from a pub (which will be a pitch that has a safe return). They can pitch a game that doesn't sound that appealing to a publisher and get less debt, such as Troka did with ToEE. You just end up getting not a good deal. So the next time a dev blaims anything on a publisher, remember they agreed to every term and condition before debt issuance.

And the next time you blaim publishers for the crappy state of gaming, remember your, and your friends buying habbits. If everyone buys games with crap gameplay but has fancy graphcis and super voice acting, thats what publishers will finance. Its not their fault the safe bets are the ones that sell well. Its not their fault NWN 2 is getting slammed in reviews for being too complicated. Its not their fault game buyers have piss poor taste.
roqua is offline

roqua

roqua's Avatar
Sentinel

#11

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 474

Default 

November 19th, 2006, 19:01
But if all the games were considered crappy by all potential buyers and not only the hardcore or niche players, they wouldnt buy them. Is it the publishers who decide what players should play and like, or is it the gamers who decide what sort of games should be made ? To me it's obvious that a consensus exists between buyers and publishers and sellers (retail stories, etc.). And apparently the majority is happy.
Cormac is offline

Cormac

Sentinel

#12

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 405

Default 

November 20th, 2006, 02:09
Exactly. The majority are happy. Its called tyrrany of the center, or tyranny of the masses. Its the thing that controls what songs hit the top 10 list. What shows get what ratings, etc. Its the reason Oprah is a billionare, even though her show is unwatchable by any sane minded individual.

I don't blaim the TV producers or the channel Oprah is on because Oprah gets good ratings and it sucks. If no one wtached it, it wouldn't generate money, and wouldn't be on the air to suck at all.

Now, when it comes to movies, tyranny of the center works for me. I like most movies I see, even B movies. I have very easy taste when it comes to movies. If it isn't all lovey dovey, kissy huggy, gay gay I'll probably like it, or at least be entertained by it. More crappy movies are made because of me, and people with questionable movie taste like me, because we spend money on them. The critics or people with good movie tatse shouldn't be mad that hollywood won't make another fancy, artsy movie. They should be mad that people like me make crappy, mindless nonsesne movies profitable.

So, I'm with the masses when it comes to movies, against them when it comes to games. Either way, the relationship between the publisher, developer, and game buyer is reciprical. The gamers buy this type of game, the publisher wants to finance this type of game, so developers that picth this type of game get the debt.

Its how the system is supposed to work. Its working correctly. But it all starts and ends where the money is, and thats in the hands of the consumer (game buyer). Just because I consider Oprah crappy doesn't mean my opinion matters, as she is a billionare, and Bethesda has a cash cow with Oblivion, and Teenage girls control whats on the music top 10.

My whole point is, blaim the consumer, not the producer. Its supply and demand.
roqua is offline

roqua

roqua's Avatar
Sentinel

#13

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 474
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Off-Topic » The Sony PS3: The End of Modern Civilization As We Know It
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:36.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch