Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
3 Jun 05
Wow, confusing day. It seems Evil Avatar reported on a Gamesradar story covering a Gamespot interview with Nintendo Vice President George Harrison. There was some misunderstanding. Gamesradar and Evil Avatar ended up reporting that Harrison stated first party downloadable games would be available for free. Unfortunately, that's not what he said.
If you go back to the Gamespot article, you'll see he said they hadn't determined what they would do as far as distributing first party Nintendo titles. The free part he was talking about was network access. They wouldn't charge to download bonus content (levels, skins, etc.) nor for first party online play. Those are good moves, but a far cry from releasing the entire Nintendo back library for free download. Like I said before, given Nintendo's charging $20 for NES classics on the GBA, I don't expect downloads to be surprisingly cheap. I'm willing to be amazed however.
Just a reminder, the Xbox version of Conker is coming out next week. It will be interesting to see how the second fruit of the Rare purchase fares for Microsoft. I imagine people will be watching closely as it could be a barometer for interest in Perfect Dark Zero that Microsoft is counting on to be a system seller.
Speaking of releases, the top selling game in Japan is a new release. It's Namco X Capcom, a strategy RPG pulling in characters from the companies respective universes. I'm hoping the hot sales indicate that reviews haven't been scathing. It's a neat idea that I hope succeeds and comes stateside (and to PAL territories).
Finally, speaking about our pals in the PAL world, in one of the Nintendo interviews, they admitted to poor treatment of PAL territories. They also promised another Animal Crossing incident wouldn't happen again. It's nice to see all the big three take a more global view. Once again, I think it benefits gamers.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
2 Jun 05
Yesterday's effort might have seemed a little rambling, but I was going somewhere. Hopefully, today, I'll get there. Where is there? It's the Geek Factor.
It's not to be confused with Fear Factor or the O'Reilly Factor. The Geek Factor is the other side of the mainstream market coin. As an important note, fanboys that have already chosen sides are excluded from the Geek Factor. Also excluded are the early adopters who will buy every system on release.
Who does that leave? It leaves the people who consider themselves gamers who are choosing one console system as their primary at least until major price drops. Most of these people might be leaning one way or another, but haven't made up their minds yet. These are people who play console games and are familiar enough with the games and the market to advise their friends on purchases.
Why are they important? They're the front lines in the console wars. They will choose a system, show it off to their friends. If their friends want to play against them online or swap games with them, they will have to buy the same system. They also advise non gamers giving gifts (parents, grandparents, etc.) which system is the one to get. Their potential reach makes them an attractive target for manufacturers.
With Microsoft and Nintendo both claiming to go after the casual gamer and the non gamer, some questions arise. Perhaps the most important is can you have a successful console launch without winning over a sizeable portion of the Geek Factor? Another is how do you win the Geek Factor?
I'll take the big one first. Technically the answer is no one knows. It's theoretically possible, but I can't recall an example of it happening yet. You could argue that the Nintendo 64 was one. There was a large fanboy base for that system, but it still appealed to large numbers of Geeks. Geeks never turned against it. My advice to Microsoft and Nintendo is don't risk it. Make sure your console and marketing will appeal to the Geek Factor.
That brings us to the next question. How do you win the Geek Factor? On one level that could just be asking how to win the console wars. Nevertheless, I'll try to put forward an answer. It's a combination of direct marketing, a powerful platform, game variety and a killer app.
Direct marketing just means appealing to the geeks where they are (online, on TV or in print) in a way that speaks to them. Note, the Microsoft MTV special was not an example of this. There's no magic bullet here. Continual effort is the big thing.
A powerful platform can mean many things. Obviously, have the most powerful platform in a generation pretty much automatically wins a fraction of the Geek Factor. Having and emphasizing unique features (such as Xbox Live or Nintendo's super controller) can also help here. The Nintendo 64 press push on 'no load times' was an example of this.
Game variety is pretty self explanatory. I'll just add that the sooner your library can achieve it the better. The key to that is widespread third party support. If developers want to develop for you, variety will follow.
Finally we have the killer app. There has to be an early system selling game. Do I need to explain? Halo, Gran Turismo 3, Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII all fit the bill. Note that early means early in the competitive cycle. For instance Halo 3 can still be the Xbox 360's killer app even if it's not around until much after launch. It has to be around in time for its hype to compete with the PS3 and Nintendo Revolution.
That's as simple as I can make it. Big Three, it's a big dance out there. In the heat of the music, don't forget to dance with who brung ya.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
1 Jun 05
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the next generation. My gut tells me Sony will win with Microsoft and Nintendo growing along with the market. There are just too many things that don't make sense.
Microsoft claims they're going to be profitable in the summer of 2007 (and presumably remain that way). It's possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath. After all Microsoft has also claimed they want to reach 1 billion people in the upcoming generation. Is that even worth commenting on?
What happens if Microsoft's gaming division isn't profitable then? I'm guessing that if it's not, that won't be looking to change real soon. Does Microsoft follow through on their implied threat to not produce another generation in the Xbox line? That seems hard to believe as well since they're enjoying their pop celebrity so much. I guess it's possible if they feel the market has turned on them.
Nintendo is even harder to figure out. On the one hand, they're the only one pushing the common hardware solution. They're basically saying that most people don't have High Definition TV's and most don't play online. So they're saying we're making an easy to program box with a cool controller, but we're not demanding huge resource commitments to make everything photo realistic. We just want fun games. I greatly respect that.
Even if their controller has all the rumored features (touch screen, tilt sensors, squeeze control grips, and tons of buttons), Nintendo has made it clear that developers aren't required to use them. They're just giving more tools to create fun and accessible experiences. I think if Nintendo pairs that with reduced licensing fees, it could really take off for them.
Both Nintendo and Microsoft claim to be reaching out to the non gamer. Microsoft's plan seems to involve online options, microtransactions and casual games in the Xbox Live arcade. While they clearly need that demographic to reach their goal, I don't know if theirs is a solid strategy.
Nintendo is going a little simpler. They want to make games that connect to all kinds of people. They have some good examples in Animal Crossing and Nintendogs. I think the most telling thing is that most Nintendo games are fun to watch as well as play. That's probably a better plan if you can get people exposed. The question is will people take notice when Sony and Microsoft have all the hype?
Jason
Read/Post Comments
31 May 05
Man, I'm stupid. I probably don't have to tell any of you that. I saw that Forrester Research has put together a 3 page long "quick take" on Nintendo. They're charging $50 for it. I could pump out one of those a week. I'm tempted to spend the money to get it to see if they really have that much that I couldn't do. Fortunately, I'm a gamer, so that'd be turning down a game to get a report. Not likely. Still, if anyone needs some gaming analysis done cheap, let me know.
Don't worry, I'll still be doing this site. It seems most people and companies like going to reputable professionals for their analytical needs. Go figure.
Anyway, their executive summary implies Nintendo should at least consider dumping the mainline console hardware business. Certainly its reasonable to look at that. It would be a bonus for gamers as that would be one less console they have to buy (and the assorted accessories). The question is would the move actually benefit Nintendo?
It's not as simple as it sounds. Yes, Nintendo would have access to a larger installed base of gamers. It would be easier for most of those gamers to now enjoy Nintendo properties. But Nintendo would give up a lot as well. They would give up all the hardware and accessories sales. They would give up licensing fees for third party games and accessories.
Those might balance out, but there's one thing that's not quite so clear. Sure Zelda would sell big, but would Nintendo be able to hold on to its fan base for smaller titles? Right now Nintendo created games stand out as quality titles on the Gamecube. They also stand out due to the less crowded release schedule on the cube.
It's unclear that Mario Golf would fare as well when competing against Tiger Woods, Ubi Golf, Links, Hot Shots and Outlaw Golf on the PS3. It's not that it wouldn't sell, but would it sell as well or better? Nintendo's hits may be system sellers, but the real money comes from all the other games that perhaps wouldn't appear as AAA titles on the multiplatform market.
Sega fans haven't proven themselves to be overly loyal to Sega as a software company. Arguably Sega quality had gone down, but without the nifty sheen of exclusivity, titles have had to perform more on their merits. Then there's the question of production schedules. Without the steady income streams from other titles and licensing fees, would continual delays be as easy for management to swallow? Usually when schedules are compressed quality suffers.
I may not like Nintendo's strategy (at least as much as they've announced thus far) for the next generation, but I'll probably be one of the last to call for them to go software only. Of course, I might just be trying to back up my assertion that competition is good for gamers.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
30 May 05
It's Memorial Day here in the States. It's when we honor our war dead and remember what they died for. Wars may be political in nature, but the warriors died for the ideals that represent the best of a country. It's the duty of those of us left behind to continue to work for those dreams. Regardless of whether we can get there, we must strive forward one day at a time. God bless their souls.
Sorry, I spent too long in the military not to get choked up on Memorial Day. Fortunately, I don't have any new graves to visit. My friends have all made it home from their tours.
We'll get back to normal tomorrow.
Today we still have the game of the week. Keeping with the tactical theme and today's theme, it's Full Spectrum Warrior 2: Ten Hammers (official site) from Pandemic Studios. Ten Hammers builds on the tactical action of the first game. You still control multiple fire teams to deal with a hectic battlefield. Now Pandemic adds player controlled mechanized vehicles, snipers and Rangers. You'll also experience close quarters combat as interior combat adds to the tactical options. New this time is a adversarial online mode to complement the coop play carried over from the first game. Look for it in the first quarter of 2006.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
© Talk Strategy 2005