@luminalace: No, it doesn't need to match current top-end PCs (and they absolutely couldn't sell a console that did - cutting edge graphics cards can cost as much as $1000 alone) but it could be comparable to a mid range PC. I can build myself a computer (including monitor and peripherals) for about $800 that would run almost any game out there, and run it well. That's with running a full OS and many other programs at the same time. Account for the fact that I'm paying retail prices for all the components, and a console can run games more efficiently than a PC, and I think Nintendo (or any of the console manufacturers) could make a pretty decent console for around $400.
@ChosenOne25: Because power isn't just about graphics.
More power means more processing time can be given over to physics, artificial intelligence, even things like procedural animation etc.
The more devs have to work with, the less they have to compromise in order to get their game running smoothly. Granted, more power doesn't NECESSARILY equal better games, but making it available to developers allows amazing things to happen.
It's always hard to gauge what people mean about power without quantification. Is it powerful compared to the 360 and PS3? If so, that's not saying much.
If it's more on par with current gaming PCs, then that's something to sit up and take notice of. I guess we'll find out more at E3!
@Kinioka: Yes, I have donated to charity and no I didn't need to see the results - I pick charities carefully, and donate to ones that I trust will use the money to benefit people less fortunate than I.
What I'm trying to get at is that the projects people are pledging to on Kickstarter often promise to give something back to people who donate. You were arguing as though people were throwing money at someone just to give that person a leg up. Sure, that's part of it, but there's also some self-interest on the donator's part - if I donate, I'm not donating just to help someone get a job. I'm donating because I think they have the credentials and ability to produce something that will give me enjoyment.
I don't think I can say much else to get my point across. Sure, some people are rightfully wary of donating to any and all projects on Kickstarter, but it still seems that some people don't realise that people are donating with the expectation that the recipients will provide some service or product to either them or the public at large. That's a completely different scenario to me giving you money for your house.
You also mention accountability, and that admittedly is a potential problem with the crowdfunding model. There's always a risk that the money won't be used properly, the project will never be completed or a bunch of other things. That's a given with Kickstarter, and means people have to be prudent when choosing if they want to donate money to a particular project.
@Kinioka: I meant independent in terms of not operating under the guidance/oversight of a parent publisher or developer.
As for your second point, if I donate to you to pay for your house, do I get to enjoy the benefits of that? I think not.
The idea is generally for people to donate to a project because they want, or want other members of the public, to enjoy the results of that project. That's entirely different to just giving someone money for their personal enjoyment. If people want to do that, that's fine, but it's not what Kickstarter is about.
I'm OK with people not liking the funding model of Kickstarter. Honestly, I can understand their concerns with it. It's just that some people seem to be either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the aim behind Kickstarter is.
@Metabble: I agree that that's a large sum of money, but it's up to the fans to hold Double Fine accountable for that (and that is one of the dangers of contributing to a project that is just a few ideas, as @Mercury9 pointed out). Ultimately, if people had decided that they didn't deserve the money, they wouldn't have donated.
I think the Double Fine case is an extremely interesting story. The major publishers have, for years, shied away from point and click adventures because they did not think there was a market for them. This proves them very, very wrong. That is where I think crowdfunding becomes great for fans, as they can help get the things they want to see/play/hear made.
@Kinioka: I'm interested to know why that's worse? If a developer wishes to make a game that their current employer won't let them make, why shouldn't they try to do it independently?
(That's not a rhetorical question by the way, I'm genuinely interested in finding out why you think that).
The thing one needs to keep in mind with Kickstarter is that it's a real litmus test for ideas. If your idea isn't up to scratch, people won't donate and you won't get any money (Kickstarter is an all-or-nothing deal). The majority of projects don't end up getting funded, either because the idea is crap or it isn't pitched well.
@Mercury9: The popularity bit was just an expression. You seemed to be lamenting being lambasted, I was pointing out that occasionally you seem to write things that don't seem particularly well thought out
@Mercury9: I don't see what your problem is with the model. People aren't forced to pay for projects - they pick ones they personally want to see happen, and help out. Making a game/movie/album can be very, very expensive, and it's not always easy to earn the thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to get that off the ground. Kickstarter provides an alternative way of raising that money.
Take board games for example. Board games are pretty niche, and aren't huge sellers by any stretch of the imagination (Monopoly and a few other exceptions aside). Normally, a bank would be crazy to loan a company tens of thousands of dollars to get a board game printed, pieces made etc. for a game that may end up sitting on dusty store shelves and never made known to its audience. However, through Kickstarter, board game makers can pitch an idea directly to their target demographic. If the audience thinks it's worthwhile, and they want to see the project succeed so they can see the game get to market and possibly play it themselves, they can help out.
It's not that the developers can't be bothered raising the money (in a lot of cases). It's the difference between a project happening or not.
I also don't even see what point you're trying to make with the famine thing. That's not on the same level - hell, it's not even on the same city block - as Kickstarter.
As for your painting example, that doesn't apply either. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the materials required for you to paint a painting are probably within reach of you purchasing with your own money, and so you can paint a painting whether or not people contribute to it. That's a lot different to someone taking on $100,000 in debt to record a studio album, say.
@Mercury9: What are you on about? I think you're completely missing the point of Kickstarter.
People sometimes have an idea for something that they think is pretty neat and want to share with people. Quite often, there is a prohibitive start up capital involved, and traditionally those things would never get made.
Enter Kickstarter. People can pitch their ideas to the public, and request donations to help them get started. Occasionally, those donations may come with a reward if the idea is successful. For the most part, though, people freely donate their money to ideas that they, too, would like to come to fruition.
That way, a project only gets funded if enough people think it is worthwhile and are willing to hand over their cash to make it happen. I don't see what's wrong with that process.
There's a misconception about Kickstarter. You don't pre-order anything, as there is no guarantee that you will receive any rewards for any project. Instead, you choose to donate to projects you think are worthwhile. In some cases, you may be rewarded with a gift if the project succeeds.
There's a (subtle) difference there, but it's important. Also, there are some projects where you don't get a 'thing', and instead just get to feel good about helping someone out with getting their project off the ground.
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Molyneux's games, but I think he's a bit hypocritical to be talking about others delivering underwhelming products...
I think this would be a good idea - as you say, more choice is always good.
This would particularly benefit people looking to play games that had low print runs (I'm looking at you, Atlus) where the games can be extremely expensive. However, that would require Nintendo to negotiate distribution with 3rd party companies, and that may or may not work out.
@Flowerlark: You only get charged on your credit card if the project is fully funded. Basically, you go through Amazon's payment system, and authorize a future transaction of the amount you pledge. That amount is only debited on the closing date of the kickstarter project if it reaches 100% funding; if not, you simply don't get charged.
There are other problems in that you can pledge money for a project that doesn't turn out the way it was proposed, or that development gets cancelled halfway through for whatever reason. I'm not sure what happens then (I'm not sure anybody really is at this stage, I don't know if there have been reported cases of this happening). That's another whole can of worms though.
It's about time the price dropped. Nintendo constantly bangs on about the perception of value from the consumer's point of view, and having the XL as the same price as the superior 3DS was a bit strange and potentially confusing for people looking to purchase a console.
I can imagine someone using one of those plastic golf club extensions, accidentally whacking the Wii U tablet and have it fly across the room and break.
I think something like this would work better than some other RPGs as an MMO. The problem with MMORPGs is that you're no longer the sole saviour of the world - there are millions of other people doing the same thing as you.
As a result it can be tough to make players feel important or like they're making a difference. Something like Inazuma Eleven, where you have a team of your own to manage - without requiring a "save the world" story to feel important - could nicely sidestep that problem.
Well, I'd define a 'rip off' as something that replicates, with little or no modification, gameplay mechanics (and perhaps aesthetics) from another game. I'd say that's a pretty standard definition. There is a difference between ripping off something, and being influenced by it.
In that regard, at least the main series of BF is entirely different to my knowledge of what MoH is (BF is focused on multiplayer, with little or no single player to speak of. I don't know about the spinoffs though.)
As I said, I haven't played any MoH games. I've only played BF1942, BF:Vietnam and BF2. It's entirely different from any CoD game I've ever played (1, 2, MW, MW2).
@Chrono_Cross: I haven't played any of the Medal of Honour games, but again, from my understanding I don't believe BF is a MoH ripoff. Isn't MoH a linear, infantry based, mainly single player experience? (i.e. the complete opposite of BF).
It's a bit disappointing to see some of the comments here. This article is raising a good point about the prospects of the Wii U, and all people do is bitch and moan about how they don't like Call of Duty.
Whether you like the game or not (I personally got tired of it a few games ago), it's undeniably a force in modern gaming. Considering its impact on the Wii U if it does/doesn't come to the new console is an extremely relevant point, but many of the comments are simply people voicing their dislike of the series.
How about engaging in some discussion? I know it's cool to hate CoD, but come on.
I think the Wii U needs games such as COD, and needs them to be equal to or better than the versions being put out on the 360 and PS3.
The Wii did well without COD because, for the most part, the people buying the Wii weren't the same demographic that plays COD. I don't think they can rely on that for the Wii U.
While I don't have any numbers, I imagine that the vast majority of Wii owners are people who will not be upgrading - one game console is enough, and an upgrade simply does not appeal. If this is the case, then Nintendo needs to attract people with high-profile, mainstream games. COD, among others, is exactly what is needed.
If Nintendo can get its foot in the door with the 'core' gaming demographic, who invest time and money in the Wii U before the next generation MS and Sony consoles come out, then Nintendo may have a better chance of maintaining a lead through the next console generation.
However, if they can't entice people to move across from their Xbox or PS3, then they'll have a much smaller demographic buying the console. It won't be all doom and gloom, but the fact is that a large fraction of today's gamers simply aren't interested in the Marios and Zeldas, and that's where Nintendo needs help from other franchises.
Currently, it sounds like they didn't do a particularly good job of QA in-house (if the bugs are "that bad", shouldn't they have found them themselves?) but I hope that will be elaborated upon in the full interview.
@TrueWiiMaster: Plenty of people share their physical copies of games, and have done since video games were a thing. Sure, I can understand game companies wanting to curtail the practice, but it's a huge cost to convenience from the point of view of the consumer.
Sharing account details is risky and, although I can't prove it, I'd imagine the people who do are by far the minority. I don't think that account-based digital distribution in any way exacerbates the problem. If anything I think it would enhance sales, as people can no longer trade in used games or rent games.
(Although I have to admit that not being able to buy/sell used games would be seen by many as a huge inconvenience. Hmm.)
In my opinion, Nintendo will never understand digital distribution until they move to an account-based system rather than locking games to a single console. Also, they will need to look at pricing.
From the viewpoint of the consumer, the big advantage digital distribution has is convenience. It's easy to buy games and they don't take up storage space.
Now, a lot of that convenience is lost if games are locked to a single system. That doesn't happen with cartridges. Purchasing issues aside, if Nintendo wants to charge the same amount for retail and digital games, they need to make them as attractive as each other. Digital games are arguably 'worse' due to being locked to a single system, and that is a disincentive to buy them.
If you talk to people about services like Steam, they are willing to trade physical packaging for a cheaper price and extra convenience. I don't see that equation holding with the current state of Nintendo's distribution. If I can get the same game as a digital or retail copy for exactly the same price, I'm going to go retail every time if the issues mentioned above are still present.
It will be interesting to see how the Wii and DS will finish off. I'm not upgrading to either a 3DS or Wii U, so I'll be able to finish off my collections for the current consoles.
With games still being announced for the Wii and DS (Kirby Collection, Pokemon B&W2) there's still life in the older systems yet but I don't see a rush of releases any time soon. However, there are occasionally some real gems that get released at the end of a console's life, so I'll have to keep my eye out.
As for Nintendo's finances, it would be interesting to see what would have happened if Nintendo had decided to engage a bit more with their audience. From my perspective, at least, them holding their cards so close to their chest does damage. No word of upcoming games makes people lose interest, which can lead them to jump ship. Some more timely translations may have helped them out (but then again they may not have).
@Mickeymac: What exactly do you mean? I rarely found that I was punished for exploration - it was usually pretty obvious what would get you killed and what wouldn't.
The couple of improvements I would like to see are to do with the scoring and the secrets.
I felt that, especially in the more difficult levels, it was very difficult or impossible to get a perfect score on the first run. There was some trial and error involved with some of the puzzles, and you would have to just give it a go to see what happened. That resulted in a lower score, and you would have to replay the level to get things correct the first time around. Not a huge deal, but getting the best score generally involved little skill and just required a second play through of the level.
My other gripe was due to the controls.
**** NOTE - SPOILERS!!! ****
Occasionally with the secret treasures, some actions were required that were made difficult due to inadequate sensing of motion controls. One of the later levels almost had me throwing the remote at the wall - the treasure was right at the end of a 10 or 15 minute level, and I ended up having to replay it many, many times due to the dodgy motion controls of one puzzle meaning that I was rendered unable to get the treasure.
** END SPOILERS! **
Having said that, I enjoyed the game immensely and was motivated to finish it 100%. A sequel would be good to get the IP more exposure, but I'm unlikely to play it as I won't be getting any next-gen systems.
As MickeyMac said, Feel the Magic is incredibly cheap (I got it for $5 including shipping, brand new, from eBay). There are plenty of other bargains around the place, particularly on eBay.
I've got a few more DS games I'd like to get if I can, but I've got nearly all of the ones that I'm interested in. In a way it'll be nice once games stop coming out for the DS - then I'll feel a sense of closure in terms of collecting!
How well would a new F-Zero game sell? I know there's a vocal group of fans who want a new game, but would it have the broad appeal that Nintendo seems to want to aim for these days?
@Advancedcaveman: Well, thank goodness we have you here to save us from our delusional ways... Sure, there's a lot of hype surrounding Angry Birds, but it's not a bad game. Sure, it's not everybody's thing, but it has a lot going for it (extremely polished, likeable characters etc).
@Mickeymac: Did you play the second game? (Crush the Castle) It's much better than the first one edhe linked. (Although I'm still of the opinion that Angry Birds is better)
If only Rovio had thought of it first... (its a carbon copy of many other games, just with a different coat of paint. Sincerely, good on them though - I'd certainly like that kind of success!)
I quite like Angry Birds - it's a good game to pick up and play for a couple of minutes while waiting around - but I really think it would have lost something in the translation to the DS. A big part of the Angry Birds charm is the distinctive graphical style, with high-resolution cartoon graphics. The DS simply could not pull that off, and I think that would be disappointing.
@shadowkaby: Oh no, they're going to make you listen to British accents! The horror!
Seriously, be thankful you got a release. Plus, a little variety in accents is probably good - the amount of people in the USA who just stare at me when I talk (I'm Australian) is a little ridiculous.
I'm sympathetic for the employees - let's hope they can find work quickly. I see other stores going in a similar direction though, especially in Australia. The traditional retail model simply can't hold up to the cheaper online stores, and so chains like EB Games and GAME (who I believe operate independently of the UK branches) will have to adapt or be rendered irrelevant.
Also, I hold no value in going to those game stores any more. I used to shop at local computer game stores (i.e. not branches) which I enjoyed, but I find that the big chain stores are not really worth my time. The games are never 'new' (if not played, they have at least been taken out of their shrink wrap), the prices are way too high and can't really ever recall coming across any exceptional customer service.
When there are cheaper and arguably better services available online, many people (myself included) are going to make that their first stop.
Hopefully the game ends up being great. From what I've seen, the gameplay is reminiscent of the Prince of Persia Sands of Time trilogy, which definitely isn't a bad thing.
While I don't have anything against digital distribution per se, I do have a problem with the way many publishers go about protecting their IP (which is fair enough).
While I gather most console gamers do not have a lot of experience with DRM (from what I can tell, it mainly exists behind the scenes on consoles), I've come across more than I'd like on PC.
My biggest problem is when games have limited or no functionality unless they can connect to an internet server. Someday, that server is going to go down, and if the game hasn't been patched, you can no longer play it.
I've heard several companies promise to patch out the DRM 'later' (EA, 2KGames come to mind) but let's face it - doing that costs money, and what developer is going to do that when they stand to make little or no profit from it?
Personally, I'm more inclined to skip a game than buy it if I'm not sure whether or not I'll be able to play it in 5 or 10 years time. I know it's not a concern of everybody's, but it worries me a lot.
On the other hand, I've bought several games online (mainly indie ones) that I can just install and play, with no problems. I'm more than happy with that, but unfortunately the prevalence of piracy means that the prospect of releasing a DRM-free game isn't all that attractive to publishers (even if DRM does little to curb piracy).
@ChocoGoldfish: I agree with you that the DRM wouldn't be there if people didn't pirate, but I think DLC would have come sooner or later, regardless of people's buying habits. DLC=extra money, and devs/publishers would have figured it out sooner or later. I think the recent explosion in DLC has more to do with the ability to easily distribute DLC to people than offsetting the loss due to second hand game sales and the like (although I'm sure that was even more impetus to bring about DLC).
Before the internet was so ubiquitous, expansion packs were readily available for popular games. Same idea: make more money after the initial purchase.
Excellent, I'll pick this up as soon as it comes out! (For some reason I'm really pumped for it - I own the first one but haven't actually played it yet...)
I wouldn't get my hopes up on making much money on the misprint - go for it if you want, but I have a feeling that it won't be worth it.
Video games are pretty hard to make money from, even though the collector's market is pretty crazy, and the print run is likely to have been too large for it to be truly rare.
@James - actually, the 'US' and 'UK' billions are, officially, exactly the same and equal to 10^9. The use of billion=10^12 is a hangover from an old system that has now been officially phased out of the UK.
Comments 492
Re: Nintendo Shares More on Pokémon Conquest
I'm not so sure about this one. I'll have to wait for some reviews before I drop money on it, I think!
Re: Gearbox: "Wii U is a Powerful, Powerful Machine"
@luminalace: No, it doesn't need to match current top-end PCs (and they absolutely couldn't sell a console that did - cutting edge graphics cards can cost as much as $1000 alone) but it could be comparable to a mid range PC. I can build myself a computer (including monitor and peripherals) for about $800 that would run almost any game out there, and run it well. That's with running a full OS and many other programs at the same time. Account for the fact that I'm paying retail prices for all the components, and a console can run games more efficiently than a PC, and I think Nintendo (or any of the console manufacturers) could make a pretty decent console for around $400.
Re: Gearbox: "Wii U is a Powerful, Powerful Machine"
@ChosenOne25: Because power isn't just about graphics.
More power means more processing time can be given over to physics, artificial intelligence, even things like procedural animation etc.
The more devs have to work with, the less they have to compromise in order to get their game running smoothly. Granted, more power doesn't NECESSARILY equal better games, but making it available to developers allows amazing things to happen.
Re: Gearbox: "Wii U is a Powerful, Powerful Machine"
It's always hard to gauge what people mean about power without quantification. Is it powerful compared to the 360 and PS3? If so, that's not saying much.
If it's more on par with current gaming PCs, then that's something to sit up and take notice of. I guess we'll find out more at E3!
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Kinioka: Yes, I have donated to charity and no I didn't need to see the results - I pick charities carefully, and donate to ones that I trust will use the money to benefit people less fortunate than I.
What I'm trying to get at is that the projects people are pledging to on Kickstarter often promise to give something back to people who donate. You were arguing as though people were throwing money at someone just to give that person a leg up. Sure, that's part of it, but there's also some self-interest on the donator's part - if I donate, I'm not donating just to help someone get a job. I'm donating because I think they have the credentials and ability to produce something that will give me enjoyment.
I don't think I can say much else to get my point across. Sure, some people are rightfully wary of donating to any and all projects on Kickstarter, but it still seems that some people don't realise that people are donating with the expectation that the recipients will provide some service or product to either them or the public at large. That's a completely different scenario to me giving you money for your house.
You also mention accountability, and that admittedly is a potential problem with the crowdfunding model. There's always a risk that the money won't be used properly, the project will never be completed or a bunch of other things. That's a given with Kickstarter, and means people have to be prudent when choosing if they want to donate money to a particular project.
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Kinioka: I meant independent in terms of not operating under the guidance/oversight of a parent publisher or developer.
As for your second point, if I donate to you to pay for your house, do I get to enjoy the benefits of that? I think not.
The idea is generally for people to donate to a project because they want, or want other members of the public, to enjoy the results of that project. That's entirely different to just giving someone money for their personal enjoyment. If people want to do that, that's fine, but it's not what Kickstarter is about.
I'm OK with people not liking the funding model of Kickstarter. Honestly, I can understand their concerns with it. It's just that some people seem to be either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the aim behind Kickstarter is.
@Metabble: I agree that that's a large sum of money, but it's up to the fans to hold Double Fine accountable for that (and that is one of the dangers of contributing to a project that is just a few ideas, as @Mercury9 pointed out). Ultimately, if people had decided that they didn't deserve the money, they wouldn't have donated.
I think the Double Fine case is an extremely interesting story. The major publishers have, for years, shied away from point and click adventures because they did not think there was a market for them. This proves them very, very wrong. That is where I think crowdfunding becomes great for fans, as they can help get the things they want to see/play/hear made.
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Aviator: Also, props for the Parks and Rec reference!
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Kinioka: I'm interested to know why that's worse? If a developer wishes to make a game that their current employer won't let them make, why shouldn't they try to do it independently?
(That's not a rhetorical question by the way, I'm genuinely interested in finding out why you think that).
The thing one needs to keep in mind with Kickstarter is that it's a real litmus test for ideas. If your idea isn't up to scratch, people won't donate and you won't get any money (Kickstarter is an all-or-nothing deal). The majority of projects don't end up getting funded, either because the idea is crap or it isn't pitched well.
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Mercury9: The popularity bit was just an expression. You seemed to be lamenting being lambasted, I was pointing out that occasionally you seem to write things that don't seem particularly well thought out
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Mercury9: Don't take this the wrong way (consider it constructive criticism) as I enjoy debating things with you here, but...
Comparing international aid efforts to Kickstarter isn't exactly the fast lane to winning popularity contests.
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Mercury9: That's pretty harsh!
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Mercury9: There's nothing wrong with accepting help from people if it's offered willingly.
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Mercury9: I don't see what your problem is with the model. People aren't forced to pay for projects - they pick ones they personally want to see happen, and help out. Making a game/movie/album can be very, very expensive, and it's not always easy to earn the thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to get that off the ground. Kickstarter provides an alternative way of raising that money.
Take board games for example. Board games are pretty niche, and aren't huge sellers by any stretch of the imagination (Monopoly and a few other exceptions aside). Normally, a bank would be crazy to loan a company tens of thousands of dollars to get a board game printed, pieces made etc. for a game that may end up sitting on dusty store shelves and never made known to its audience. However, through Kickstarter, board game makers can pitch an idea directly to their target demographic. If the audience thinks it's worthwhile, and they want to see the project succeed so they can see the game get to market and possibly play it themselves, they can help out.
It's not that the developers can't be bothered raising the money (in a lot of cases). It's the difference between a project happening or not.
I also don't even see what point you're trying to make with the famine thing. That's not on the same level - hell, it's not even on the same city block - as Kickstarter.
As for your painting example, that doesn't apply either. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the materials required for you to paint a painting are probably within reach of you purchasing with your own money, and so you can paint a painting whether or not people contribute to it. That's a lot different to someone taking on $100,000 in debt to record a studio album, say.
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
@Mercury9: What are you on about? I think you're completely missing the point of Kickstarter.
People sometimes have an idea for something that they think is pretty neat and want to share with people. Quite often, there is a prohibitive start up capital involved, and traditionally those things would never get made.
Enter Kickstarter. People can pitch their ideas to the public, and request donations to help them get started. Occasionally, those donations may come with a reward if the idea is successful. For the most part, though, people freely donate their money to ideas that they, too, would like to come to fruition.
That way, a project only gets funded if enough people think it is worthwhile and are willing to hand over their cash to make it happen. I don't see what's wrong with that process.
Bratty child? What the hell?
Re: Pledge to Cloudberry Kingdom, Get It Free on Wii U
What Aviator said.
There's a misconception about Kickstarter. You don't pre-order anything, as there is no guarantee that you will receive any rewards for any project. Instead, you choose to donate to projects you think are worthwhile. In some cases, you may be rewarded with a gift if the project succeeds.
There's a (subtle) difference there, but it's important. Also, there are some projects where you don't get a 'thing', and instead just get to feel good about helping someone out with getting their project off the ground.
Re: Peter Molyneux Wants More From 'Lacklustre Wii U'
Yeah, this is a little hilarious coming from him.
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Molyneux's games, but I think he's a bit hypocritical to be talking about others delivering underwhelming products...
Re: Talking Point: DS Games Deserve Digital Distribution on 3DS
I think this would be a good idea - as you say, more choice is always good.
This would particularly benefit people looking to play games that had low print runs (I'm looking at you, Atlus) where the games can be extremely expensive. However, that would require Nintendo to negotiate distribution with 3rd party companies, and that may or may not work out.
Re: Pledge to Diamond Trust of London's Kickstarter Campaign
@Flowerlark: You only get charged on your credit card if the project is fully funded. Basically, you go through Amazon's payment system, and authorize a future transaction of the amount you pledge. That amount is only debited on the closing date of the kickstarter project if it reaches 100% funding; if not, you simply don't get charged.
There are other problems in that you can pledge money for a project that doesn't turn out the way it was proposed, or that development gets cancelled halfway through for whatever reason. I'm not sure what happens then (I'm not sure anybody really is at this stage, I don't know if there have been reported cases of this happening). That's another whole can of worms though.
Re: Pledge to Diamond Trust of London's Kickstarter Campaign
Interesting - I might pledge enough for the limited edition. Be part of (DS) history, kids!
Also, thanks for alerting us!
Re: DSi and DSi XL Price Drops Announced for North America
It's about time the price dropped. Nintendo constantly bangs on about the perception of value from the consumer's point of view, and having the XL as the same price as the superior 3DS was a bit strange and potentially confusing for people looking to purchase a console.
Re: Nintendo Applies for Patent on Wii U Golf Tech
I can imagine someone using one of those plastic golf club extensions, accidentally whacking the Wii U tablet and have it fly across the room and break.
It's inevitable!
Re: 2D Platformer on 3DS Web Browser Hops Jumps Into View
I guess it's an alternative to homebrew development? Maybe?
Re: Level-5 CEO Raises Possibility of Inazuma Eleven MMORPG
I think something like this would work better than some other RPGs as an MMO. The problem with MMORPGs is that you're no longer the sole saviour of the world - there are millions of other people doing the same thing as you.
As a result it can be tough to make players feel important or like they're making a difference. Something like Inazuma Eleven, where you have a team of your own to manage - without requiring a "save the world" story to feel important - could nicely sidestep that problem.
Re: Talking Point: The Critical Importance of Black Ops 2
Well, I'd define a 'rip off' as something that replicates, with little or no modification, gameplay mechanics (and perhaps aesthetics) from another game. I'd say that's a pretty standard definition. There is a difference between ripping off something, and being influenced by it.
In that regard, at least the main series of BF is entirely different to my knowledge of what MoH is (BF is focused on multiplayer, with little or no single player to speak of. I don't know about the spinoffs though.)
As I said, I haven't played any MoH games. I've only played BF1942, BF:Vietnam and BF2. It's entirely different from any CoD game I've ever played (1, 2, MW, MW2).
Re: Talking Point: The Critical Importance of Black Ops 2
@Chrono_Cross: I haven't played any of the Medal of Honour games, but again, from my understanding I don't believe BF is a MoH ripoff. Isn't MoH a linear, infantry based, mainly single player experience? (i.e. the complete opposite of BF).
Re: Talking Point: The Critical Importance of Black Ops 2
@Retro_Hype: How did CoD rip of Battlefield? Apart from both being WWII shooters, there is little similarity.
Re: Talking Point: The Critical Importance of Black Ops 2
It's a bit disappointing to see some of the comments here. This article is raising a good point about the prospects of the Wii U, and all people do is bitch and moan about how they don't like Call of Duty.
Whether you like the game or not (I personally got tired of it a few games ago), it's undeniably a force in modern gaming. Considering its impact on the Wii U if it does/doesn't come to the new console is an extremely relevant point, but many of the comments are simply people voicing their dislike of the series.
How about engaging in some discussion? I know it's cool to hate CoD, but come on.
(It's been a long day at work and I'm grumpy.)
Re: Talking Point: The Critical Importance of Black Ops 2
I think the Wii U needs games such as COD, and needs them to be equal to or better than the versions being put out on the 360 and PS3.
The Wii did well without COD because, for the most part, the people buying the Wii weren't the same demographic that plays COD. I don't think they can rely on that for the Wii U.
While I don't have any numbers, I imagine that the vast majority of Wii owners are people who will not be upgrading - one game console is enough, and an upgrade simply does not appeal. If this is the case, then Nintendo needs to attract people with high-profile, mainstream games. COD, among others, is exactly what is needed.
If Nintendo can get its foot in the door with the 'core' gaming demographic, who invest time and money in the Wii U before the next generation MS and Sony consoles come out, then Nintendo may have a better chance of maintaining a lead through the next console generation.
However, if they can't entice people to move across from their Xbox or PS3, then they'll have a much smaller demographic buying the console. It won't be all doom and gloom, but the fact is that a large fraction of today's gamers simply aren't interested in the Marios and Zeldas, and that's where Nintendo needs help from other franchises.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Re: Oster Lays Out WiiWare Criticisms
I agree - should be an interesting read.
Currently, it sounds like they didn't do a particularly good job of QA in-house (if the bugs are "that bad", shouldn't they have found them themselves?) but I hope that will be elaborated upon in the full interview.
Re: Mario's Presence in UK is 'Smallest in the World'
@DeMoN-13ruce: Well, yes. Mainstream games are defined so because they're popular.
Plus, I've never thought of BF3 as a 'noob' game.
Re: Talking Point: Does Nintendo Finally 'Get' Digital?
@TrueWiiMaster: Plenty of people share their physical copies of games, and have done since video games were a thing. Sure, I can understand game companies wanting to curtail the practice, but it's a huge cost to convenience from the point of view of the consumer.
Sharing account details is risky and, although I can't prove it, I'd imagine the people who do are by far the minority. I don't think that account-based digital distribution in any way exacerbates the problem. If anything I think it would enhance sales, as people can no longer trade in used games or rent games.
(Although I have to admit that not being able to buy/sell used games would be seen by many as a huge inconvenience. Hmm.)
Re: Talking Point: Does Nintendo Finally 'Get' Digital?
In my opinion, Nintendo will never understand digital distribution until they move to an account-based system rather than locking games to a single console. Also, they will need to look at pricing.
From the viewpoint of the consumer, the big advantage digital distribution has is convenience. It's easy to buy games and they don't take up storage space.
Now, a lot of that convenience is lost if games are locked to a single system. That doesn't happen with cartridges. Purchasing issues aside, if Nintendo wants to charge the same amount for retail and digital games, they need to make them as attractive as each other. Digital games are arguably 'worse' due to being locked to a single system, and that is a disincentive to buy them.
If you talk to people about services like Steam, they are willing to trade physical packaging for a cheaper price and extra convenience. I don't see that equation holding with the current state of Nintendo's distribution. If I can get the same game as a digital or retail copy for exactly the same price, I'm going to go retail every time if the issues mentioned above are still present.
Re: Talking Point: A Big Year for Nintendo
It will be interesting to see how the Wii and DS will finish off. I'm not upgrading to either a 3DS or Wii U, so I'll be able to finish off my collections for the current consoles.
With games still being announced for the Wii and DS (Kirby Collection, Pokemon B&W2) there's still life in the older systems yet but I don't see a rush of releases any time soon. However, there are occasionally some real gems that get released at the end of a console's life, so I'll have to keep my eye out.
As for Nintendo's finances, it would be interesting to see what would have happened if Nintendo had decided to engage a bit more with their audience. From my perspective, at least, them holding their cards so close to their chest does damage. No word of upcoming games makes people lose interest, which can lead them to jump ship. Some more timely translations may have helped them out (but then again they may not have).
Re: Zack & Wiki Producer Interested in Sequel
@Mickeymac: What exactly do you mean? I rarely found that I was punished for exploration - it was usually pretty obvious what would get you killed and what wouldn't.
The couple of improvements I would like to see are to do with the scoring and the secrets.
I felt that, especially in the more difficult levels, it was very difficult or impossible to get a perfect score on the first run. There was some trial and error involved with some of the puzzles, and you would have to just give it a go to see what happened. That resulted in a lower score, and you would have to replay the level to get things correct the first time around. Not a huge deal, but getting the best score generally involved little skill and just required a second play through of the level.
My other gripe was due to the controls.
**** NOTE - SPOILERS!!! ****
Occasionally with the secret treasures, some actions were required that were made difficult due to inadequate sensing of motion controls. One of the later levels almost had me throwing the remote at the wall - the treasure was right at the end of a 10 or 15 minute level, and I ended up having to replay it many, many times due to the dodgy motion controls of one puzzle meaning that I was rendered unable to get the treasure.
** END SPOILERS! **
Having said that, I enjoyed the game immensely and was motivated to finish it 100%. A sequel would be good to get the IP more exposure, but I'm unlikely to play it as I won't be getting any next-gen systems.
Re: Feature: Bargain Bin DS Games
As MickeyMac said, Feel the Magic is incredibly cheap (I got it for $5 including shipping, brand new, from eBay). There are plenty of other bargains around the place, particularly on eBay.
I've got a few more DS games I'd like to get if I can, but I've got nearly all of the ones that I'm interested in. In a way it'll be nice once games stop coming out for the DS - then I'll feel a sense of closure in terms of collecting!
Re: Check Out This Fan-Made Portable GameCube
Errm, there are FAR better portable GC mods around. For example:
http://www.hardwaresphere.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/portable-gamecube-console-mod.jpg
The one in this video is terrible.
EDIT: Apparently that site doesn't like direct linking. Anyone, take a look at the above link.
Re: Miyamoto: "F-Zero Could Work on Wii U"
How well would a new F-Zero game sell? I know there's a vocal group of fans who want a new game, but would it have the broad appeal that Nintendo seems to want to aim for these days?
Re: Miyamoto: "Angry Birds Would Have Been Better on DS"
@Advancedcaveman: Well, thank goodness we have you here to save us from our delusional ways... Sure, there's a lot of hype surrounding Angry Birds, but it's not a bad game. Sure, it's not everybody's thing, but it has a lot going for it (extremely polished, likeable characters etc).
@Mickeymac: Did you play the second game? (Crush the Castle) It's much better than the first one edhe linked. (Although I'm still of the opinion that Angry Birds is better)
Re: New Trainers and Town in Pokémon Black & White 2
Hmm, I'll wait to hear more but so far this doesn't sound different enough to be worth me picking up.
You never know though - it might turn out to be great. I'll have to read some reviews!
Re: Miyamoto: "Angry Birds Would Have Been Better on DS"
If only Rovio had thought of it first... (its a carbon copy of many other games, just with a different coat of paint. Sincerely, good on them though - I'd certainly like that kind of success!)
I quite like Angry Birds - it's a good game to pick up and play for a couple of minutes while waiting around - but I really think it would have lost something in the translation to the DS. A big part of the Angry Birds charm is the distinctive graphical style, with high-resolution cartoon graphics. The DS simply could not pull that off, and I think that would be disappointing.
Re: Out Today: Xenoblade Chronicles (North America)
@shadowkaby: Oh no, they're going to make you listen to British accents! The horror!
Seriously, be thankful you got a release. Plus, a little variety in accents is probably good - the amount of people in the USA who just stare at me when I talk (I'm Australian) is a little ridiculous.
Re: Pokémon Conquest Heading to DS in June
Cool, I'll be interested in checking it out.
Re: GAME Enters Administration, Closes 277 Stores
I'm sympathetic for the employees - let's hope they can find work quickly. I see other stores going in a similar direction though, especially in Australia. The traditional retail model simply can't hold up to the cheaper online stores, and so chains like EB Games and GAME (who I believe operate independently of the UK branches) will have to adapt or be rendered irrelevant.
Also, I hold no value in going to those game stores any more. I used to shop at local computer game stores (i.e. not branches) which I enjoyed, but I find that the big chain stores are not really worth my time. The games are never 'new' (if not played, they have at least been taken out of their shrink wrap), the prices are way too high and can't really ever recall coming across any exceptional customer service.
When there are cheaper and arguably better services available online, many people (myself included) are going to make that their first stop.
Re: A New Pandora's Tower Trailer Is Here
Hopefully the game ends up being great. From what I've seen, the gameplay is reminiscent of the Prince of Persia Sands of Time trilogy, which definitely isn't a bad thing.
I'm keenly awaiting some reviews!
Re: Talking Point: The Inevitability of Digital Retail Games
While I don't have anything against digital distribution per se, I do have a problem with the way many publishers go about protecting their IP (which is fair enough).
While I gather most console gamers do not have a lot of experience with DRM (from what I can tell, it mainly exists behind the scenes on consoles), I've come across more than I'd like on PC.
My biggest problem is when games have limited or no functionality unless they can connect to an internet server. Someday, that server is going to go down, and if the game hasn't been patched, you can no longer play it.
I've heard several companies promise to patch out the DRM 'later' (EA, 2KGames come to mind) but let's face it - doing that costs money, and what developer is going to do that when they stand to make little or no profit from it?
Personally, I'm more inclined to skip a game than buy it if I'm not sure whether or not I'll be able to play it in 5 or 10 years time. I know it's not a concern of everybody's, but it worries me a lot.
On the other hand, I've bought several games online (mainly indie ones) that I can just install and play, with no problems. I'm more than happy with that, but unfortunately the prevalence of piracy means that the prospect of releasing a DRM-free game isn't all that attractive to publishers (even if DRM does little to curb piracy).
@ChocoGoldfish: I agree with you that the DRM wouldn't be there if people didn't pirate, but I think DLC would have come sooner or later, regardless of people's buying habits. DLC=extra money, and devs/publishers would have figured it out sooner or later. I think the recent explosion in DLC has more to do with the ability to easily distribute DLC to people than offsetting the loss due to second hand game sales and the like (although I'm sure that was even more impetus to bring about DLC).
Before the internet was so ubiquitous, expansion packs were readily available for popular games. Same idea: make more money after the initial purchase.
Re: Pandora's Tower Limited Edition Laid Bare
Wait, so how does the steelbook work? I figured it was instead of the plastic case, but do you get both?
Re: Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2 Out 28th February
Excellent, I'll pick this up as soon as it comes out! (For some reason I'm really pumped for it - I own the first one but haven't actually played it yet...)
Re: Capcom Will Replace Evil Typo
I wouldn't get my hopes up on making much money on the misprint - go for it if you want, but I have a feeling that it won't be worth it.
Video games are pretty hard to make money from, even though the collector's market is pretty crazy, and the print run is likely to have been too large for it to be truly rare.
Re: North American Resident Evil Packaging is Wrong
That's just poor, poor work.
Re: Nintendo Expects To Make a Loss in FY 2011
@James - actually, the 'US' and 'UK' billions are, officially, exactly the same and equal to 10^9. The use of billion=10^12 is a hangover from an old system that has now been officially phased out of the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_scale