The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It's not easy being a developer these days. It takes time and money to develop these games, and if they're not making money, then it could well be the end for that particular developer.
Is it any surprise then that the smaller developers are not so willing to take huge risks, and why there are so many licensed games out there?
Perhaps this could be one of the reasons that so many developers are finding the Gamecube so appealing.
It's easy to program for, with utilities that make creating top quatily graphics a synch, meaning developers can devote a little more time to working on innovative new features in the game.
Rogue Leader, for instance, was completed in just 9 months. Considering some recent games have taken a couple of years, this is quite some achievement.
It's quite apparent that the PS2 has a lot of power, but it IS taking developers a long time to come up with the goods. Wasn't GT3 supposed to come soon after the launch of the PS2? Considering the game is a much prettier version of GT2, and most of the time was taken sticking all of those pretty cars into the game, you can't help but worry that developers aren't going to be able to afford to develop for the PS2.
Thankfully, the PS2 has sold like pornography in an all male boarding school, so developers know that they can still make a profit, because of the volume of sales that the game will receive.
But will developers start to think differently by the time the Gamecube is in full flight? If the console manages to shift a healthy amount of units in it's first year, then games too will be selling well for the console. If that is the case it may be that the Gamecube could be a more profitable console than the PS2. Yes they might not sell as many units, and not have as large a turnover, but they would have spent less than half of the time, (and less than half of the money) developing the game. With lower overheads, they could well turn in higher profits.
Of course, with developers these days it's not always one console or another, they're more than likely to develop for multiple platforms, but again, if it's taking 18 months to produce a PS2 game, and the same game could be produced on the Gamecube in 9 months, then by the time it comes to the PS2, some gamers may see it as old hat.
I guess that's why after the exclusivity contracts, the next major thing that could be offered to a developer would be a deal to ensure that there games debut on your console.
Sony have deals with a number of developers, such as the developers of GTA3 that mean that they get the game first, and it won't appear anywhere else for a given period of time. Big games will be welcomed to any system, whenever they come, but would anyone really be interested in buying a second rate game on the Gamecube, that seemed alright 6 months ago when it appeared on the PS2? It's hardly going to fly off the shelves in the same way as it would if it had a universal launch on all consoles.
Developers are only producing games for one reason, to make money, and it's pretty graphics that sell games in large numbers, not innovative gameplay, so they can't be blamed for placing there emphasis on the wrong areas, but the really big decisions for them will be who gets their games. Do they give the Xbox these exclusive games? Let them debut on the Gamecube then appear elsewhere later, or get them out on all consoles at around the same time?
Is it any surprise then that the smaller developers are not so willing to take huge risks, and why there are so many licensed games out there?
Perhaps this could be one of the reasons that so many developers are finding the Gamecube so appealing.
It's easy to program for, with utilities that make creating top quatily graphics a synch, meaning developers can devote a little more time to working on innovative new features in the game.
Rogue Leader, for instance, was completed in just 9 months. Considering some recent games have taken a couple of years, this is quite some achievement.
It's quite apparent that the PS2 has a lot of power, but it IS taking developers a long time to come up with the goods. Wasn't GT3 supposed to come soon after the launch of the PS2? Considering the game is a much prettier version of GT2, and most of the time was taken sticking all of those pretty cars into the game, you can't help but worry that developers aren't going to be able to afford to develop for the PS2.
Thankfully, the PS2 has sold like pornography in an all male boarding school, so developers know that they can still make a profit, because of the volume of sales that the game will receive.
But will developers start to think differently by the time the Gamecube is in full flight? If the console manages to shift a healthy amount of units in it's first year, then games too will be selling well for the console. If that is the case it may be that the Gamecube could be a more profitable console than the PS2. Yes they might not sell as many units, and not have as large a turnover, but they would have spent less than half of the time, (and less than half of the money) developing the game. With lower overheads, they could well turn in higher profits.
Of course, with developers these days it's not always one console or another, they're more than likely to develop for multiple platforms, but again, if it's taking 18 months to produce a PS2 game, and the same game could be produced on the Gamecube in 9 months, then by the time it comes to the PS2, some gamers may see it as old hat.
I guess that's why after the exclusivity contracts, the next major thing that could be offered to a developer would be a deal to ensure that there games debut on your console.
Sony have deals with a number of developers, such as the developers of GTA3 that mean that they get the game first, and it won't appear anywhere else for a given period of time. Big games will be welcomed to any system, whenever they come, but would anyone really be interested in buying a second rate game on the Gamecube, that seemed alright 6 months ago when it appeared on the PS2? It's hardly going to fly off the shelves in the same way as it would if it had a universal launch on all consoles.
Developers are only producing games for one reason, to make money, and it's pretty graphics that sell games in large numbers, not innovative gameplay, so they can't be blamed for placing there emphasis on the wrong areas, but the really big decisions for them will be who gets their games. Do they give the Xbox these exclusive games? Let them debut on the Gamecube then appear elsewhere later, or get them out on all consoles at around the same time?
Apparently it will be easy for developers to make a game for the X-Box and then convert it to the PC since the X-Box will use Direct X and other software that is similar to PC versions. If this is true then it will give developers a very good reason to make games for the X-Box since a success on the X-Box could be expanded to a success on the PC with little effort and larger profit. The same will of course apply for turning popular PC games into popular X-Box games so developers for both PC and X-Box will benefit. Could compatibility of future consoles be a bigger influence on who developers make games for?
One of the PS2s biggest advantages was the fact that it was backwards compatible with the original Playstation. Had this not been the case the PS2 would probably have less fans than it does today. The biggest advantage for developers was that they could continue developing a PS game after the PS2 had been released and still be able to sell to PS2 owners. Usually a new console replaces the old one totally, with any owners of the new console wanting to concentrate on getting the newest games for it and so they would leave their previous console behind. The biggest advantage for PS and PS2 owners was that they could still play their old favorites from the original machine as well as the new games all on the same console. Is backwards compatibility an entirely good thing though? Developers continue to make PS games after the release of the PS2 and as a result they are not using the full potential the PS2 can provide. If this is the case then are PS2 owners who spent their funds on upgrading not being a little cheated since they could still play some of the newest games on their older and cheaper PS? Backwards compatibility could also give developers an excuse to release games late, since there is already such a big selection of titles from the previous console there is no rush to increase the choice. This could be especially sneaky at the release of a new console when people will buy the console only to find that it can't yet do anything that it's predecessor couldn't. These people will have paid good money for something new and they may not get their money's worth for some time. Of course most consoles start off in a similar position, with very few games to choose from but on a backwards compatible machine you may get good choice but you might not get games of as high quality as you could have had there been no excuse for delay of releases. Backwards compatibility is something that has been thoroughly successful on the PC and perhaps more consoles than just Sony's PS2 will take on this lesson. The biggest problem with backwards compatibility is that a new media type on the new console would stop it from being able to use games from the old media. It is likely that because of this few consoles will have backwards compatibility but all that means is that we can look forward to constant development and advances in gaming technology.
Is compatibility the thing of the future, and if it is will the distinctions between consoles blur as the same games are available on them all. I doubt it, I expect that all the consoles would prefer to try and stay unique and one step ahead of the competition. It is, after all, the only way to make money.
One of the PS2s biggest advantages was the fact that it was backwards compatible with the original Playstation. Had this not been the case the PS2 would probably have less fans than it does today. The biggest advantage for developers was that they could continue developing a PS game after the PS2 had been released and still be able to sell to PS2 owners. Usually a new console replaces the old one totally, with any owners of the new console wanting to concentrate on getting the newest games for it and so they would leave their previous console behind. The biggest advantage for PS and PS2 owners was that they could still play their old favorites from the original machine as well as the new games all on the same console. Is backwards compatibility an entirely good thing though? Developers continue to make PS games after the release of the PS2 and as a result they are not using the full potential the PS2 can provide. If this is the case then are PS2 owners who spent their funds on upgrading not being a little cheated since they could still play some of the newest games on their older and cheaper PS? Backwards compatibility could also give developers an excuse to release games late, since there is already such a big selection of titles from the previous console there is no rush to increase the choice. This could be especially sneaky at the release of a new console when people will buy the console only to find that it can't yet do anything that it's predecessor couldn't. These people will have paid good money for something new and they may not get their money's worth for some time. Of course most consoles start off in a similar position, with very few games to choose from but on a backwards compatible machine you may get good choice but you might not get games of as high quality as you could have had there been no excuse for delay of releases. Backwards compatibility is something that has been thoroughly successful on the PC and perhaps more consoles than just Sony's PS2 will take on this lesson. The biggest problem with backwards compatibility is that a new media type on the new console would stop it from being able to use games from the old media. It is likely that because of this few consoles will have backwards compatibility but all that means is that we can look forward to constant development and advances in gaming technology.
Is compatibility the thing of the future, and if it is will the distinctions between consoles blur as the same games are available on them all. I doubt it, I expect that all the consoles would prefer to try and stay unique and one step ahead of the competition. It is, after all, the only way to make money.
It's not easy being a developer these days. It takes time and money to develop these games, and if they're not making money, then it could well be the end for that particular developer.
Is it any surprise then that the smaller developers are not so willing to take huge risks, and why there are so many licensed games out there?
Perhaps this could be one of the reasons that so many developers are finding the Gamecube so appealing.
It's easy to program for, with utilities that make creating top quatily graphics a synch, meaning developers can devote a little more time to working on innovative new features in the game.
Rogue Leader, for instance, was completed in just 9 months. Considering some recent games have taken a couple of years, this is quite some achievement.
It's quite apparent that the PS2 has a lot of power, but it IS taking developers a long time to come up with the goods. Wasn't GT3 supposed to come soon after the launch of the PS2? Considering the game is a much prettier version of GT2, and most of the time was taken sticking all of those pretty cars into the game, you can't help but worry that developers aren't going to be able to afford to develop for the PS2.
Thankfully, the PS2 has sold like pornography in an all male boarding school, so developers know that they can still make a profit, because of the volume of sales that the game will receive.
But will developers start to think differently by the time the Gamecube is in full flight? If the console manages to shift a healthy amount of units in it's first year, then games too will be selling well for the console. If that is the case it may be that the Gamecube could be a more profitable console than the PS2. Yes they might not sell as many units, and not have as large a turnover, but they would have spent less than half of the time, (and less than half of the money) developing the game. With lower overheads, they could well turn in higher profits.
Of course, with developers these days it's not always one console or another, they're more than likely to develop for multiple platforms, but again, if it's taking 18 months to produce a PS2 game, and the same game could be produced on the Gamecube in 9 months, then by the time it comes to the PS2, some gamers may see it as old hat.
I guess that's why after the exclusivity contracts, the next major thing that could be offered to a developer would be a deal to ensure that there games debut on your console.
Sony have deals with a number of developers, such as the developers of GTA3 that mean that they get the game first, and it won't appear anywhere else for a given period of time. Big games will be welcomed to any system, whenever they come, but would anyone really be interested in buying a second rate game on the Gamecube, that seemed alright 6 months ago when it appeared on the PS2? It's hardly going to fly off the shelves in the same way as it would if it had a universal launch on all consoles.
Developers are only producing games for one reason, to make money, and it's pretty graphics that sell games in large numbers, not innovative gameplay, so they can't be blamed for placing there emphasis on the wrong areas, but the really big decisions for them will be who gets their games. Do they give the Xbox these exclusive games? Let them debut on the Gamecube then appear elsewhere later, or get them out on all consoles at around the same time?
Is it any surprise then that the smaller developers are not so willing to take huge risks, and why there are so many licensed games out there?
Perhaps this could be one of the reasons that so many developers are finding the Gamecube so appealing.
It's easy to program for, with utilities that make creating top quatily graphics a synch, meaning developers can devote a little more time to working on innovative new features in the game.
Rogue Leader, for instance, was completed in just 9 months. Considering some recent games have taken a couple of years, this is quite some achievement.
It's quite apparent that the PS2 has a lot of power, but it IS taking developers a long time to come up with the goods. Wasn't GT3 supposed to come soon after the launch of the PS2? Considering the game is a much prettier version of GT2, and most of the time was taken sticking all of those pretty cars into the game, you can't help but worry that developers aren't going to be able to afford to develop for the PS2.
Thankfully, the PS2 has sold like pornography in an all male boarding school, so developers know that they can still make a profit, because of the volume of sales that the game will receive.
But will developers start to think differently by the time the Gamecube is in full flight? If the console manages to shift a healthy amount of units in it's first year, then games too will be selling well for the console. If that is the case it may be that the Gamecube could be a more profitable console than the PS2. Yes they might not sell as many units, and not have as large a turnover, but they would have spent less than half of the time, (and less than half of the money) developing the game. With lower overheads, they could well turn in higher profits.
Of course, with developers these days it's not always one console or another, they're more than likely to develop for multiple platforms, but again, if it's taking 18 months to produce a PS2 game, and the same game could be produced on the Gamecube in 9 months, then by the time it comes to the PS2, some gamers may see it as old hat.
I guess that's why after the exclusivity contracts, the next major thing that could be offered to a developer would be a deal to ensure that there games debut on your console.
Sony have deals with a number of developers, such as the developers of GTA3 that mean that they get the game first, and it won't appear anywhere else for a given period of time. Big games will be welcomed to any system, whenever they come, but would anyone really be interested in buying a second rate game on the Gamecube, that seemed alright 6 months ago when it appeared on the PS2? It's hardly going to fly off the shelves in the same way as it would if it had a universal launch on all consoles.
Developers are only producing games for one reason, to make money, and it's pretty graphics that sell games in large numbers, not innovative gameplay, so they can't be blamed for placing there emphasis on the wrong areas, but the really big decisions for them will be who gets their games. Do they give the Xbox these exclusive games? Let them debut on the Gamecube then appear elsewhere later, or get them out on all consoles at around the same time?