The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why was the Playstation so successful?
Well, that’s an easy one. It was by far the easiest and cheapest console to develop for and Sony offered great commercial benefits for developers to develop on their console. With this large library of games and big advertising budget, it was bound to outsell the competition.
Now, why is the PS2 so successful?
I think we can all agree that a large amount of the PS2’s success was simply due to that of the Playstation- consumers wanted “the next PS” and developers knew the console would get a big market share.
However, I think it’s fair to say the console has not lived up to everything it promised. Developers have found that game development costs are far higher than they would have been on other machines, but will stick to the console simply because they have invested so much money in it. Many developers even said that they didn’t support the Dreamcast simply because they had too much money invested in the PS2.
Of course, all this means that the PS2 will have a high consumer base and a great library of games… it isn’t the PS2 I’m concerned with…
What I’m concerned with is the next Sony console- let’s call it the “PS3”.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox will sell well- it certainly won’t sell more units than the PS2, but it’ll have a fairly sizeable portion of the market. And the console seems to offer developers everything they want- cheap development costs thanks to the PC architecture, good support and a good audience.
Now, what will happen when the next generation of consoles begins to be produced… who will developers turn to?
Well, in all honesty, I think that if the PS2 had been released as Sony’s first console it would have flopped- the “revolutionary” architecture allows you to get more into games, but also raises development costs above an acceptable level. Seeing this, if the PS3 follows suite, you could easily see developers not wanting to continue developing for the console.
One of the problems with the PS2 is that Sony made so many false promises… if you see the original demos, they show photo-realistic graphics and superbly complex graphics.
Unlike the PSX age, developers will have another console to chose to develop for (the N64 wasn’t really a true competitor), and unlike the PS2 age, developers can no longer be blinded by fake demos, or indeed, by the simple fact the the console will have the largest user base. In fact, the “Ybox” and PS3 will both have an equal chance of getting the biggest user base.
If Microsoft continues to offer huge marketting budgets, low development costs and great support, and Sony still use the “revolutionary” architecture in the PS3, then Sony could be in trouble. If the consoles launch at about the same time, then Sony really would have a struggle…. For the first time in several generations of consoles, developers would have a choice.
Sonic
Well, that’s an easy one. It was by far the easiest and cheapest console to develop for and Sony offered great commercial benefits for developers to develop on their console. With this large library of games and big advertising budget, it was bound to outsell the competition.
Now, why is the PS2 so successful?
I think we can all agree that a large amount of the PS2’s success was simply due to that of the Playstation- consumers wanted “the next PS” and developers knew the console would get a big market share.
However, I think it’s fair to say the console has not lived up to everything it promised. Developers have found that game development costs are far higher than they would have been on other machines, but will stick to the console simply because they have invested so much money in it. Many developers even said that they didn’t support the Dreamcast simply because they had too much money invested in the PS2.
Of course, all this means that the PS2 will have a high consumer base and a great library of games… it isn’t the PS2 I’m concerned with…
What I’m concerned with is the next Sony console- let’s call it the “PS3”.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox will sell well- it certainly won’t sell more units than the PS2, but it’ll have a fairly sizeable portion of the market. And the console seems to offer developers everything they want- cheap development costs thanks to the PC architecture, good support and a good audience.
Now, what will happen when the next generation of consoles begins to be produced… who will developers turn to?
Well, in all honesty, I think that if the PS2 had been released as Sony’s first console it would have flopped- the “revolutionary” architecture allows you to get more into games, but also raises development costs above an acceptable level. Seeing this, if the PS3 follows suite, you could easily see developers not wanting to continue developing for the console.
One of the problems with the PS2 is that Sony made so many false promises… if you see the original demos, they show photo-realistic graphics and superbly complex graphics.
Unlike the PSX age, developers will have another console to chose to develop for (the N64 wasn’t really a true competitor), and unlike the PS2 age, developers can no longer be blinded by fake demos, or indeed, by the simple fact the the console will have the largest user base. In fact, the “Ybox” and PS3 will both have an equal chance of getting the biggest user base.
If Microsoft continues to offer huge marketting budgets, low development costs and great support, and Sony still use the “revolutionary” architecture in the PS3, then Sony could be in trouble. If the consoles launch at about the same time, then Sony really would have a struggle…. For the first time in several generations of consoles, developers would have a choice.
Sonic
Page:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> But where is there risk? There's a large user base with (generally, according
> to the usual target audience surveys) lots of spare cash burning a hole in their
> pocket. If a game is good, it will sell.
Ah! But you miss my point... The PS2 WILL be successful for the points you make, however, what about the PS3? The plain fact is that had the PS2 and Xbox been launched as Sony and MS's first consoles, the Xbox would get far more development. The reason this isn't the case is because developers jumped onto the PS2 bandwagon, and that there wasn't any competition! In the next generation of consoles there will be rife competition.
At least three titles I've bought recently use
> Criterion's Renderware development system - which will have greatly reduced
> development costs and times for the developers concerned.
Not at all! Middleware is JUST as expensive as making a game from scratch! Check out the prices for middleware software (if you want I'll quote some for you). Anyway, middleware does lower production times, but nothing more. Oh, and if you use the same middleware for 2 games, you have to pay for twice the rights!
So, over time,
> development costs fall. PS2 may well have been expensive to develop for
> initially, but we're now a year on, developers have their libraries, and
> development costs are unlikely to be much higher than any of the other
> systems.
Again, you miss the point! All this is very true, BUT would developers rather go with a console that was cheap to develop for throughout the life (xbox), OR go for a console that was expensive at the beginning, and cheaper later (PS2). Like I said, had the consoles been the first for each company, and gone head-to-head, the Xbox would have had far more developers.
With (over) 20 million PS2's sold,
> if only 1% of owners buy a copy of the game, that's 200,000 copies - and at an
> average price of £40, that's a cool £8,000,000 they earn, and few
> games cost anywhere near that to develop. If any developer wants to turn
> completely away from that kind of income to make a quick buck elsewhere simply
> because it's a little less difficult, then I say good riddance to them. If
> they're not willing to put in a little extra effort it takes to make a game
> worth buying, then I don't want their games, whichever platform they're
> on.
Ummm... but I said I'm not talking about the PS2 at ALL! It's the next generation, where Sony will not have as big a proportion of the market to start with that this topic is ALL about!
Just to make sure everyone gets this... here is my argument:
If the Xbox and PS2 had gone head to head, and been MS's and Sony's first consoles, then more developers would have gone to the Xbox. The PS2 was harder and more expensive to develop for at the start, and would have no market lead on the Xbox to begin with.
However, in reality, the PS2 launched well in advance of the Xbox, with Sony already having a huge market share... so this is where most developers went...
Now, what will ahppen in the next "console war"? No longer will Sony have a massively huge market share... analysts predict 45% for Sony and 30% for MS. If the PS3 and Ybox are launched head-to-head, AND Sony continue to use "revolutionary" architecture that is more expensive to develop for (at the start) then clearly many developers may sway to the easy-to-develop-for Ybox.
And that's what I'm talking about... not the current generation... Sony has clearly "won" that...
Sonic
> But where is there risk? There's a large user base with (generally, according
> to the usual target audience surveys) lots of spare cash burning a hole in their
> pocket. If a game is good, it will sell.
Ah! But you miss my point... The PS2 WILL be successful for the points you make, however, what about the PS3? The plain fact is that had the PS2 and Xbox been launched as Sony and MS's first consoles, the Xbox would get far more development. The reason this isn't the case is because developers jumped onto the PS2 bandwagon, and that there wasn't any competition! In the next generation of consoles there will be rife competition.
At least three titles I've bought recently use
> Criterion's Renderware development system - which will have greatly reduced
> development costs and times for the developers concerned.
Not at all! Middleware is JUST as expensive as making a game from scratch! Check out the prices for middleware software (if you want I'll quote some for you). Anyway, middleware does lower production times, but nothing more. Oh, and if you use the same middleware for 2 games, you have to pay for twice the rights!
So, over time,
> development costs fall. PS2 may well have been expensive to develop for
> initially, but we're now a year on, developers have their libraries, and
> development costs are unlikely to be much higher than any of the other
> systems.
Again, you miss the point! All this is very true, BUT would developers rather go with a console that was cheap to develop for throughout the life (xbox), OR go for a console that was expensive at the beginning, and cheaper later (PS2). Like I said, had the consoles been the first for each company, and gone head-to-head, the Xbox would have had far more developers.
With (over) 20 million PS2's sold,
> if only 1% of owners buy a copy of the game, that's 200,000 copies - and at an
> average price of £40, that's a cool £8,000,000 they earn, and few
> games cost anywhere near that to develop. If any developer wants to turn
> completely away from that kind of income to make a quick buck elsewhere simply
> because it's a little less difficult, then I say good riddance to them. If
> they're not willing to put in a little extra effort it takes to make a game
> worth buying, then I don't want their games, whichever platform they're
> on.
Ummm... but I said I'm not talking about the PS2 at ALL! It's the next generation, where Sony will not have as big a proportion of the market to start with that this topic is ALL about!
Just to make sure everyone gets this... here is my argument:
If the Xbox and PS2 had gone head to head, and been MS's and Sony's first consoles, then more developers would have gone to the Xbox. The PS2 was harder and more expensive to develop for at the start, and would have no market lead on the Xbox to begin with.
However, in reality, the PS2 launched well in advance of the Xbox, with Sony already having a huge market share... so this is where most developers went...
Now, what will ahppen in the next "console war"? No longer will Sony have a massively huge market share... analysts predict 45% for Sony and 30% for MS. If the PS3 and Ybox are launched head-to-head, AND Sony continue to use "revolutionary" architecture that is more expensive to develop for (at the start) then clearly many developers may sway to the easy-to-develop-for Ybox.
And that's what I'm talking about... not the current generation... Sony has clearly "won" that...
Sonic
Going back a little, who really cares if someone who owns a console is a 'casual gamer' (I'm wondering if you can spot 'casual gamers' by their Alan Partridge style attire?)? PS owners are a mix of people. Some like the odd game of something 'mainstream'. Others search out all the great games, and hammer them to death. The first non handheld machine I played a 'game' (cough) on was a Commodore Pet. So I'm definitely not a Johnny come lately who suddenly latched on to the 'hip' world of PS in the mid 90s, as I'm sure a lot of other PS/PS2 owners aren't.
MrMatrix wrote:
> Well put adrian, every console has its share of good and bad game but
> unfortunately it will never come down to the point where there is only ONE
> console you can buy!
MM
One console maybe good as you only need the one console instead of 3. But the owner of that console would be hold total control over the industry. Look at Microsoft and windows. Alot of computer experts hate windows due to its interface and the fact that its well behind with other OS's. The whole internet is run by UNIX systems, telephone system is run by UNIX systems. Without UNIX we wouldnt be able to access this site. What about the Apple Mac's they are good and are used in alot of professional places like for magazines to do all the art work e.t.c. But why is windows the only OS you ever use, the answer is Microsoft.
So if one company owned the only console it could make what ever games it likes, it wouldnt need to bother about making the truly epic games that make a console stand out, as there is no competition. You could find that the standards in games slip due to no competition, if the game is rubbish they wont really care as you cant buy any other system.
With 3 consoles on the market each has to have the best games to have a chance of selling systems. The developers need to make the games for each console the best they can. PS2 has MGS2, FFX, GT3 e.t.c while GC has Smash Brothers, Luigis Mansion e.t.c and X-Box has Halo, Dead Or Alive 3, Project Gothem e.t.c Each console has a nice variety of good games to play that are exclusive to that system. They need to make good games as otherwise the person could easily get there rivals console.
> Well put adrian, every console has its share of good and bad game but
> unfortunately it will never come down to the point where there is only ONE
> console you can buy!
MM
One console maybe good as you only need the one console instead of 3. But the owner of that console would be hold total control over the industry. Look at Microsoft and windows. Alot of computer experts hate windows due to its interface and the fact that its well behind with other OS's. The whole internet is run by UNIX systems, telephone system is run by UNIX systems. Without UNIX we wouldnt be able to access this site. What about the Apple Mac's they are good and are used in alot of professional places like for magazines to do all the art work e.t.c. But why is windows the only OS you ever use, the answer is Microsoft.
So if one company owned the only console it could make what ever games it likes, it wouldnt need to bother about making the truly epic games that make a console stand out, as there is no competition. You could find that the standards in games slip due to no competition, if the game is rubbish they wont really care as you cant buy any other system.
With 3 consoles on the market each has to have the best games to have a chance of selling systems. The developers need to make the games for each console the best they can. PS2 has MGS2, FFX, GT3 e.t.c while GC has Smash Brothers, Luigis Mansion e.t.c and X-Box has Halo, Dead Or Alive 3, Project Gothem e.t.c Each console has a nice variety of good games to play that are exclusive to that system. They need to make good games as otherwise the person could easily get there rivals console.
Well put adrian, every console has its share of good and bad game but unfortunately it will never come down to the point where there is only ONE console you can buy!
MM
MM
Well said by the Wookieemonster. I agree with all of your points. Quite a few people have associated Sony with casual gamers. I remember back to earlier this year a PC guy came on here saying Sony killed the video game market by introducing casual gamers, he said PC gamers are hardcore gamers because the PC mag he reads said so. But as you said Wookiee alot of us have been playing games well before Sony was heard of. Iam 19 and started playing games on an Atari ST and then moved on to a Master System, SNES, PS1, N64, DC, PS2 and the X-Box and GC in the future.
Console wars is a pointless idea in my view. Why do people only like one type of system, and hate everything else. In my view owning mor than one console is great. When all the Sony fans where hating the N64 and saying how rubbish it was, but secretly wishing Goldeneye was released on the PS1, I was playing Goldeneye aswell as all of the PS1 games. I have pre-ordered my X-Box and will be able to play Halo, Dead Or Alive 3, Jet Set Radio Future e.t.c. There was a topic in here saying which games do you want for the PS2 and quite a few of the suggestions were for X-Box games. Anyways degressing from the point of the whole thread.
PS2 has hidden capabilities that will become apparent to the developers as they become more familiar with the PS2. The power of the PS2 will allow developers to make games that dont need to load e.g. Jak And Daxter.
Console wars is a pointless idea in my view. Why do people only like one type of system, and hate everything else. In my view owning mor than one console is great. When all the Sony fans where hating the N64 and saying how rubbish it was, but secretly wishing Goldeneye was released on the PS1, I was playing Goldeneye aswell as all of the PS1 games. I have pre-ordered my X-Box and will be able to play Halo, Dead Or Alive 3, Jet Set Radio Future e.t.c. There was a topic in here saying which games do you want for the PS2 and quite a few of the suggestions were for X-Box games. Anyways degressing from the point of the whole thread.
PS2 has hidden capabilities that will become apparent to the developers as they become more familiar with the PS2. The power of the PS2 will allow developers to make games that dont need to load e.g. Jak And Daxter.
I try not to think about the GADs, and I don't write deliberately for them - which I think is reflected by the fact I've only had 6!
Still, who knows, eh? It would be just my luck to win now that I just pre-ordered my next wanted game' yesterday! :-)
Still, who knows, eh? It would be just my luck to win now that I just pre-ordered my next wanted game' yesterday! :-)
I've got no problem with it personally. I have quite a considerable vocabulary of swear words :-). And I know you didn't do it for a GAD, but I wonder if it will affect your chances of winning one?
I agree totally, why can't people just play the games, enjoy them if they're good, and not bother about the grass on the other side of the fence?
I agree totally, why can't people just play the games, enjoy them if they're good, and not bother about the grass on the other side of the fence?
pro devo soccer wrote:
> Even with the testicle reference ;-).
Yes, I do apologise for that - but if it can be said on TV before the "watershed", it should be okay - I hope! Anyway, I doubt there's anyone here that hasn't heard or use it before.
I just get sssooooooo ticked off with that "casual" and "hardcore" crud. I hope no-one's too offended, but hopefully SR will simply edit the word rather than delete the post, because I think there's a lot of valid stuff in there. I'd edit the word myself, if I could!
> Even with the testicle reference ;-).
Yes, I do apologise for that - but if it can be said on TV before the "watershed", it should be okay - I hope! Anyway, I doubt there's anyone here that hasn't heard or use it before.
I just get sssooooooo ticked off with that "casual" and "hardcore" crud. I hope no-one's too offended, but hopefully SR will simply edit the word rather than delete the post, because I think there's a lot of valid stuff in there. I'd edit the word myself, if I could!
Sibs wrote:
> but this kind of links to Sonics other topic 'Middleware
> killing originality'
Which I personally think is nonsense. A lot of games for PC have been written in C, which has libraries and can also be classed as 'middleware', yet no-one ever claims that it makes games unoriginal. Burnout and Airblade use Renderware and look similar, but they are both Criterion's own games. On the other hand, Rockstar/DMA used Renderware for GTA3, and that looks nothing like Burnout or Airblade.
Other Renderware titles include Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire, THPS3 and Pro Evo Soccer - all of which have their own look.
> But if developers use the middleware, then they won't
> push the PS2s hardware, because much of the code
> they will be using for the game will already be done for them, so they'll never
> (or certainly take much longer) unlock the vector units potential.
No, what I'm saying is that there is an 'easy option' for creating PS2 games if developers wish to take it, so there is no need for them to desert the PS2.
Again, it's an argument being twisted to suit the situation (not specifically by you, Sibs, I hasten to add). On the one hand everyone is praising Microsoft and Nintendo for their SDK's making programming "so much easier than the PS2", but mention a similar system on PS2 and it makes games 'samey' and 'unoriginal'! Every console system is released with a set of libraries for developers, so - in theory - every machine's first batch of games are 'samey' and 'unoriginal'.
To quote the Renderware website:
"Why do you need RenderWare Graphics when Microsoft provides an XDK for Xbox™, the PC has DirectX and Nintendo provides libraries for the NINTENDO GAMECUBE™? Because these libraries only solve 20% of your middleware needs as a game developer."
Yes, Renderware exists for the Xbox and Gamecube and PC too - so *maybe* they're not that easy to develop for after all? No, of course not. Middleware is there as an *option*. There will always be developers who want to create completely original titles and will strive to create their own routines.
Contrary to popular belief, there are actually many developers who ENJOY working with PS2's hardware (the one that always springs to mind is Volition), simply because it IS different, powerful, and gives them the freedom to create their own software.
> Equally, if they don't use the middleware, or their previous game engines, they will unlock
> the vector units much quicker, but games WILL cost more, and WILL take
> longer.
Maybe, when they do it for the first time - but we're a year into PS2's life now - almost 2 years in Japan - so this is hardly an issue for most established developers. And of course, middleware doesn't do everything for you, so while it does speed up game development, it doesn't stop you learning about the machines hardware; it's not black and white, one or the other.
It took Acclaim a matter of months to port an exact copy of Crazy Taxi to the PS2 from the Dreamcast - if they'd put in the standard 18 months/2 years of development time they could have produced a far better version.
A lot of the problem, in my view, stems simply from lazy developers. Whether it be the lack of a 60Hz option or just shoddy PAL conversions, it all comes down to what they can be bothered to do. There is no reason whatsoever why EVERY PS2 title shouldn't have a 60Hz option, as the machine can handle it just fine.
As much as I love their games, Capcom are one of the worst offenders when it comes to laziness; there was no reason whatsoever that PS2 Code Veronica couldn't have looked like the re-vamped Gamecube version of the original Resident Evil - they just didn't put the effort in. And there's no reason that Devil May Cry or Onimusha should have the large borders on the PAL version; Sony/Polyphony managed minimal borders on GT3 even without a 60Hz mode.
And don't mention 'the cost of PS2 development' as a reason - that simply is not true: Capcom never bothered optimising their European PSone titles either, and that is widely accepted to be one of the easiest and cheapest platforms ever to develop games on. As I said, as much as I love Capcom and the games I've mentioned, they have always been lazy with PAL conversions.
> but one thing remains. A large proportion of the
> PS2s userbase (probably the majority, but I can't tell) are casual gamers.
No, no, no. I'm sorry, I mean no personal offence, but this "PlayStation owners are casual gamers" business is absolute b******s. (I'm very sorry, SR!)
PlayStation owners are gamers just like the owners of every other platform. They buy games they enjoy, and they play them as much as they want to. There is no difference between gamers. This "casual" junk is simply an attempt by p*****-off Sega and Nintendo fans who can't handle the fact that someone else's machine sold more units and had a bigger and better selection of games available.
Thinking that you are in some way a better gamer because you own a Nintendo or Sega console is not only complete rubbish, it is also ignorant and arrogant in the extreme. As I've said many times, I've been playing videogames for longer than most of the "hardcore" Nintendo and Sega zealots on these forums have been on the planet. And they think I'm a "casual" gamer simply because I own a PlayStation? They need to grow up, and quick. In fact, there's a great line in a recent issue of Edge which they could all do with reading; I'm at work now, but I'll quote it tonight if I remember.
> Casual gamers are unpredictable. They will often buy established franchise
> titles, but apart from that can be very unpredictable.
Okay, so how does an established franchise come about? Someone makes an original game. It's a good game. Lots of people buy it. The company makes a lot of money. The company makes a sequel. See my point? It takes a lot people buying an original game to make an established franchise. Any game with at least one sequel can be considered an established franchise.
How many Sega fans bought all the Sonic games? How many Nintendo fans buy every Donkey Kong/Pokemon/Mario game? How did Mario, Donkey Kong, Sonic and Pokemon franchises start? They made a new game, it sold, and just like all the PlayStation 3rd-party developers, they thought "that sold well - let's milk it for all it's worth!" So they released the second games, and people thought, "Oh! The last Sonic/Mario game was good... I'll buy this one, too."
Ah, I hear the old "but they're different *styles* of game" argument approaching. Fair enough, but all that means is that they thought "Well, people seem to love Sonic/Mario. We'll stick him in that 3D platformer we were thinking of making and they'll all buy that, too!"
No. Difference. At. All.
If you buy a game because it appeals to you, then it can never be a 'bad' game, no matter what anyone else says. If you buy a game simply because "it's by Sony/EA/Nintendo/Sega/Shigsy/Kojima" or "it's Tomb Raider/Sonic/Mario/Metal Gear so it must be good" then, quite frankly, you're an idiot.
You should buy a console because it has games that appeal to you. If you like Mario/Zelda/Pokemon or just Nintendo's style of games, then you should buy a Gamecube. If you like Tomb Raider/Gran Turismo/Metal Gear and such games you should buy a PS2. And so on. But to say "Well, I like the look of GT3 and MGS2 and several other games... but I refuse to buy a PS2 because I'm a Nintendo fan and I'm better than that" has got to be the height of blinkered stupidity.
> I mean 'The Weakest Link' and 'Who wants to be a
> Millionnaire?' did well, but I don't think 'Big Brother'
> sold at all well, even though it was described as 'a nationwide phenomenom'
Weakest Link and WWTBAM will sell well because they are popular TV shows which are good to play with friends after a night out, or family gatherings etc. Big Brother - I'm not sure of the content of the game, but I can't see the show translating to a game very well - so I'm not surprised it didn't sell well. There's little wrong with the other two titles though, if you're a fan of the shows; they emulate the show very well, and the only real drawbacks are that the questions will eventually be repeated, and - of course - you don't get any money!
> Well I hope the future isn't developers making games on
> the most popular system out there just because they
> can get bigger profit margins. I hope developers will
> develop for the games machine they think they can create
> the best games for.
The future? It's already like that, and probably always will be. They will always make games for machines which make them money. They make games to make money, that's why it's an industry and not a charity.
> but this kind of links to Sonics other topic 'Middleware
> killing originality'
Which I personally think is nonsense. A lot of games for PC have been written in C, which has libraries and can also be classed as 'middleware', yet no-one ever claims that it makes games unoriginal. Burnout and Airblade use Renderware and look similar, but they are both Criterion's own games. On the other hand, Rockstar/DMA used Renderware for GTA3, and that looks nothing like Burnout or Airblade.
Other Renderware titles include Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire, THPS3 and Pro Evo Soccer - all of which have their own look.
> But if developers use the middleware, then they won't
> push the PS2s hardware, because much of the code
> they will be using for the game will already be done for them, so they'll never
> (or certainly take much longer) unlock the vector units potential.
No, what I'm saying is that there is an 'easy option' for creating PS2 games if developers wish to take it, so there is no need for them to desert the PS2.
Again, it's an argument being twisted to suit the situation (not specifically by you, Sibs, I hasten to add). On the one hand everyone is praising Microsoft and Nintendo for their SDK's making programming "so much easier than the PS2", but mention a similar system on PS2 and it makes games 'samey' and 'unoriginal'! Every console system is released with a set of libraries for developers, so - in theory - every machine's first batch of games are 'samey' and 'unoriginal'.
To quote the Renderware website:
"Why do you need RenderWare Graphics when Microsoft provides an XDK for Xbox™, the PC has DirectX and Nintendo provides libraries for the NINTENDO GAMECUBE™? Because these libraries only solve 20% of your middleware needs as a game developer."
Yes, Renderware exists for the Xbox and Gamecube and PC too - so *maybe* they're not that easy to develop for after all? No, of course not. Middleware is there as an *option*. There will always be developers who want to create completely original titles and will strive to create their own routines.
Contrary to popular belief, there are actually many developers who ENJOY working with PS2's hardware (the one that always springs to mind is Volition), simply because it IS different, powerful, and gives them the freedom to create their own software.
> Equally, if they don't use the middleware, or their previous game engines, they will unlock
> the vector units much quicker, but games WILL cost more, and WILL take
> longer.
Maybe, when they do it for the first time - but we're a year into PS2's life now - almost 2 years in Japan - so this is hardly an issue for most established developers. And of course, middleware doesn't do everything for you, so while it does speed up game development, it doesn't stop you learning about the machines hardware; it's not black and white, one or the other.
It took Acclaim a matter of months to port an exact copy of Crazy Taxi to the PS2 from the Dreamcast - if they'd put in the standard 18 months/2 years of development time they could have produced a far better version.
A lot of the problem, in my view, stems simply from lazy developers. Whether it be the lack of a 60Hz option or just shoddy PAL conversions, it all comes down to what they can be bothered to do. There is no reason whatsoever why EVERY PS2 title shouldn't have a 60Hz option, as the machine can handle it just fine.
As much as I love their games, Capcom are one of the worst offenders when it comes to laziness; there was no reason whatsoever that PS2 Code Veronica couldn't have looked like the re-vamped Gamecube version of the original Resident Evil - they just didn't put the effort in. And there's no reason that Devil May Cry or Onimusha should have the large borders on the PAL version; Sony/Polyphony managed minimal borders on GT3 even without a 60Hz mode.
And don't mention 'the cost of PS2 development' as a reason - that simply is not true: Capcom never bothered optimising their European PSone titles either, and that is widely accepted to be one of the easiest and cheapest platforms ever to develop games on. As I said, as much as I love Capcom and the games I've mentioned, they have always been lazy with PAL conversions.
> but one thing remains. A large proportion of the
> PS2s userbase (probably the majority, but I can't tell) are casual gamers.
No, no, no. I'm sorry, I mean no personal offence, but this "PlayStation owners are casual gamers" business is absolute b******s. (I'm very sorry, SR!)
PlayStation owners are gamers just like the owners of every other platform. They buy games they enjoy, and they play them as much as they want to. There is no difference between gamers. This "casual" junk is simply an attempt by p*****-off Sega and Nintendo fans who can't handle the fact that someone else's machine sold more units and had a bigger and better selection of games available.
Thinking that you are in some way a better gamer because you own a Nintendo or Sega console is not only complete rubbish, it is also ignorant and arrogant in the extreme. As I've said many times, I've been playing videogames for longer than most of the "hardcore" Nintendo and Sega zealots on these forums have been on the planet. And they think I'm a "casual" gamer simply because I own a PlayStation? They need to grow up, and quick. In fact, there's a great line in a recent issue of Edge which they could all do with reading; I'm at work now, but I'll quote it tonight if I remember.
> Casual gamers are unpredictable. They will often buy established franchise
> titles, but apart from that can be very unpredictable.
Okay, so how does an established franchise come about? Someone makes an original game. It's a good game. Lots of people buy it. The company makes a lot of money. The company makes a sequel. See my point? It takes a lot people buying an original game to make an established franchise. Any game with at least one sequel can be considered an established franchise.
How many Sega fans bought all the Sonic games? How many Nintendo fans buy every Donkey Kong/Pokemon/Mario game? How did Mario, Donkey Kong, Sonic and Pokemon franchises start? They made a new game, it sold, and just like all the PlayStation 3rd-party developers, they thought "that sold well - let's milk it for all it's worth!" So they released the second games, and people thought, "Oh! The last Sonic/Mario game was good... I'll buy this one, too."
Ah, I hear the old "but they're different *styles* of game" argument approaching. Fair enough, but all that means is that they thought "Well, people seem to love Sonic/Mario. We'll stick him in that 3D platformer we were thinking of making and they'll all buy that, too!"
No. Difference. At. All.
If you buy a game because it appeals to you, then it can never be a 'bad' game, no matter what anyone else says. If you buy a game simply because "it's by Sony/EA/Nintendo/Sega/Shigsy/Kojima" or "it's Tomb Raider/Sonic/Mario/Metal Gear so it must be good" then, quite frankly, you're an idiot.
You should buy a console because it has games that appeal to you. If you like Mario/Zelda/Pokemon or just Nintendo's style of games, then you should buy a Gamecube. If you like Tomb Raider/Gran Turismo/Metal Gear and such games you should buy a PS2. And so on. But to say "Well, I like the look of GT3 and MGS2 and several other games... but I refuse to buy a PS2 because I'm a Nintendo fan and I'm better than that" has got to be the height of blinkered stupidity.
> I mean 'The Weakest Link' and 'Who wants to be a
> Millionnaire?' did well, but I don't think 'Big Brother'
> sold at all well, even though it was described as 'a nationwide phenomenom'
Weakest Link and WWTBAM will sell well because they are popular TV shows which are good to play with friends after a night out, or family gatherings etc. Big Brother - I'm not sure of the content of the game, but I can't see the show translating to a game very well - so I'm not surprised it didn't sell well. There's little wrong with the other two titles though, if you're a fan of the shows; they emulate the show very well, and the only real drawbacks are that the questions will eventually be repeated, and - of course - you don't get any money!
> Well I hope the future isn't developers making games on
> the most popular system out there just because they
> can get bigger profit margins. I hope developers will
> develop for the games machine they think they can create
> the best games for.
The future? It's already like that, and probably always will be. They will always make games for machines which make them money. They make games to make money, that's why it's an industry and not a charity.
Page: