Quantcast
Update: Jade Raymond joins Google as Vice President | Rumor: Google's gaming console details leaked, possible controller design revealed via patent

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Update: Jade Raymond joins Google as Vice President | Rumor: Google's gaming console details leaked, possible controller design revealed via patent

RaptorChrist said:
DonFerrari said:

So for your first point you would like us to believe that the reason only Sony uses symmetrical is because all other know it is inferior?

You can consider yourself to be a good judge of character, but that is hardly important or can be verifiable. You may have not seem in his post and others that commented upon it, where he says both are valid and ok to use, he preffers symmetrical and that to say it is inferior is due to bias. Basically you are attacking a point that wasn't made.

Perhaps there is a language barrier here. I checked your profile and saw that you are from Brazil, so I wonder if maybe Spanish is your native language, and English is secondary?

If so, then I want to clarify something, because you are kind of sort of understanding my point (it's a little funny actually because you had the same reaction I did at first regarding the accusation). Offset versus symmetrical is a preference. Neither is definitively superior or inferior. What you just accused me of is exactly the same as what I was accusing the other poster of in the first place.

PS. You are coming off as a little bit rude. If I've said something to bother you, then I apologize.

I could mock you on you thinking we talk Spanish, but most people from USA or even Europe and other places think we talk Spanish and our capital is Buenos Aires =p we talk portuguese (which is close enough for Brazilians and other Latin american people to understand one another).

Well I don't think it is a language barrier on the interpretation of lying. You explicitly said he is a liar, and I implied that you shouldn't accuse others of lying and then added that your comment was equivalent to his so if you think he is lying then you would be lying as well (yes you could say it is a fallacy if you want), but you can appreciate that you can't say someone is lying because he is going to one "extreme" of no friend of his having bought twice while you claim almost all your friends have bought (unless you have hundred of friends you have researched, that would make how many friends that have versus not have and what percentage defines almost all?).

That isn't calling one liar is saying that you have to consider that if one extreme on a continuous source is a lie the other extreme would also likely be a lie. But in fact both is possible.

If you think I'm being rude I'm sorry as that isn't the intention, but texting can give wrong interpretations.

JEMC said:
DonFerrari said:

They can survive with little to no exclusives if they have good power and price, they still don't have a name for anyone to care about new IPS exclusive to them.

As it has been proven several times, power only matters to a certain extent. And given that Sony and Microsoft (Nintendo goes their own route) will have all or almost all the multiplat games plus their own exclusives, to survive and have some success without exclusives, Google's console would have to be a whole lot cheaper.

Not necessarily, if they are near in price and power the exclusives won't be a big barrier. look at the sales of the multiplats versus exclusives (outside of Nintendo of course) and before this gen you would see that usually multiplat was what mattered.

And sure I'm not talking about winning the race, but they can reach 30M with just multiplats (if they don't miss any significant) if price and performance are good.

Baddman said:
lol this thread turned into controller wars. I'll just say the DS4 is the first ps controller I actually didn't hate using (had a ps1,2,and 4)

A lot of people would agree with you =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
konnichiwa said:
Shadow1980 said:
It will fail. Establishing a strong hardware brand in the console market is no easy task. Software is the biggest key, especially exclusives.

Atari had ports of various arcade hits, including Space Invaders, Centipede, Missile Command, and Asteroids.

Nintendo likewise had ports of their own arcade hits for the Famicom's early years in Japan, and Super Mario Bros. put the NES on the map in the West.

Sega didn't have a hit on their hands until Sonic the Hedgehog, the game that exploded the popularity of the Genesis.

The PlayStation had the lion's share of third-party games in Gen 5, most notably Final Fantasy VII, which in the U.S. pushed the system from middling sales to massive success.

The Xbox had Halo: Combat Evolved, which redefined the console FPS and set the standard for everything that came after it, and its sequel single-handedly made online gaming on consoles a mainstream thing.

What does Google have to offer? What is their killer app? What are the big AAA exclusives that will draw tens of millions of gamers to them? Nothing that we've seen. All they have is a concept and an intent, and that means nothing. The console market is littered with the bodies of dead console brands that never went anywhere for various reasons, either because they lacked any significant amount of exclusive software with broad appeal, or because they priced themselves out of contention. Mattel, Coleco, NEC, SNK, Atari (the second version), the 3DO Company, Apple, Philips, Magnavox, Bandai, Pioneer, and assorted other less notable also-rans never amounted to anything in the console market. The TurboGrafx-16/PC Engine was the only console not made by the the five majors to reach 10 million units, and none of the others reached 4 million. What makes Google think they'll be any different?

Whenever someone tries to enter the console market, especially in this day and age, I have to remain incredibly skeptical that they'll have anything approaching a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a success.

Well it is easy to agree with you but that's what they said about Playstation and Xbox.  Let's just wait and see how much money they spent on AAA games.

Playstation appeared at a time when there was huge shift in the consommation of the media (cartridge to CD), only 2 players were on the field playing the game and the European market was mostly left untouch albeit some Sega fanatics there. Meanwhile, the Xbox came when Sega was almost bitting the dust after the evident failure of the Dreamcast and it was clear back then Microsoft was targeting the NA market mainly and it worked for 2 gen as of now and haven't been too shabby with their sales in America this gen either.

The market wasn't in the same place and probably more open back then than it is now for a new competitor. 

And I seriously doubt that spending mindlessly on AAA games will be the miracle solution too. At best, they'll have to prepare preparing themselves to be the third (fourth if you count Nintendo) wheel of the coach for a LONG time before a chance presents itself to grab significant market shares.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

A gift to a special someone ...

Mar1217 said:
konnichiwa said:

 

Playstation appeared at a time when there was huge shift in the consommation of the media (cartridge to CD), only 2 players were on the field playing the game and the European market was mostly left untouch albeit some Sega fanatics there. Meanwhile, the Xbox came when Sega was almost bitting the dust after the evident failure of the Dreamcast and it was clear back then Microsoft was targeting the NA market mainly and it worked for 2 gen as of now and haven't been too shabby with their sales in America this gen either.

The market wasn't in the same place and probably more open back then than it is now for a new competitor. 

And I seriously doubt that spending mindlessly on AAA games will be the miracle solution too. At best, they'll have to prepare preparing themselves to be the third (fourth if you count Nintendo) wheel of the coach for a LONG time before a chance presents itself to grab significant market shares.

And we are now in the middle of a shift to streaming/digital gaming, the gaming market wasn't that open from the start for Playstation/Xbox.  Reading game magazines from 94 it was obvious that gamers didn't see the appeal while the Nintendo/SEGA had popular IP's that gamers wanted to see to make the jump. Honestly Sony spended a lot of money and it worked, at this point we don't know anything gamewise from Google I prefer the wait and see approach.  In a week we will know so much more.






shikamaru317 said: 

This could maybe be a tease of what exclusives they will have. Going through the potential game settings in that teaser:

-Sports stadium (sports game?)

-Concert stage (rhythm game?)

-Military dropship (modern shooter?)

-Garage (Racing game?)

-Sci-fi capital ship hangar (sci-fi RPG or shooter?)

-Mushroom cave (could be either a fantasy game or a sci-fi game potentially)

-Generic modern day cave (modern exploration game like Uncharted?)

-Medieval Fantasy castle (WRPG?)

Google has a much bigger digital store then either Microsoft or Sony. So this looks to me like they will try to sell this(console) as cheap as possible to get there store into everyones homes also I would be surprised if it isn't an always on-line system. I think Sony and Microsoft might have hard time competing price wise, with there next consoles.

If Google can hit it out of park when comes to content, price and hardware design (the aesthetics and tech side) then Google has good chance of breaking into and expanding the gaming market.



Not exited at all. Because I'm afraid they are gonna money hat third parties to try sell their console.



Around the Network
bananaking21 said:
Not exited at all. Because I'm afraid they are gonna money hat third parties to try sell their console.

Worked for Microsoft!

Ohh wait...



DonFerrari said:
JEMC said:

As it has been proven several times, power only matters to a certain extent. And given that Sony and Microsoft (Nintendo goes their own route) will have all or almost all the multiplat games plus their own exclusives, to survive and have some success without exclusives, Google's console would have to be a whole lot cheaper.

Not necessarily, if they are near in price and power the exclusives won't be a big barrier. look at the sales of the multiplats versus exclusives (outside of Nintendo of course) and before this gen you would see that usually multiplat was what mattered.

And sure I'm not talking about winning the race, but they can reach 30M with just multiplats (if they don't miss any significant) if price and performance are good.

I have to disagree there. If Google's console is in the same ballpark of the PS5/X2 in terms of power and price, and features the same multiplats, then consumers will choose based on brand and exclusivities. And in that scenario, Sony and MSoft have a clear advantage over them.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

potato_hamster said:
bananaking21 said:
Not exited at all. Because I'm afraid they are gonna money hat third parties to try sell their console.

Worked for Microsoft!

Ohh wait...

It did work for Microsoft, they moneyhatted several 3rd party exclusives for both the original Xbox and the 360, and while it had limited effect on selling the original Xbox, largely due to OG Xbox releasing so late into the generation, the strategy worked quite well for the 360.

People forget, Sony also relied on moneyhats when they first entered the console business. For instance, the first Tomb Raider was on Sega Saturn and PS1, but the sequel was PS1 exclusive because Sony and Eidos signed a 3 year console exclusivity agreement for the Tomb Raider series. 



JEMC said:
DonFerrari said:

Not necessarily, if they are near in price and power the exclusives won't be a big barrier. look at the sales of the multiplats versus exclusives (outside of Nintendo of course) and before this gen you would see that usually multiplat was what mattered.

And sure I'm not talking about winning the race, but they can reach 30M with just multiplats (if they don't miss any significant) if price and performance are good.

I have to disagree there. If Google's console is in the same ballpark of the PS5/X2 in terms of power and price, and features the same multiplats, then consumers will choose based on brand and exclusivities. And in that scenario, Sony and MSoft have a clear advantage over them.

Unless they are dumb they will sell for cheaper at similar performance.

Because even if they have a lot of exclusives they are creating, they don't have recognition so "no one" would chose their exclusives.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
JEMC said:

I have to disagree there. If Google's console is in the same ballpark of the PS5/X2 in terms of power and price, and features the same multiplats, then consumers will choose based on brand and exclusivities. And in that scenario, Sony and MSoft have a clear advantage over them.

Unless they are dumb they will sell for cheaper at similar performance.

Because even if they have a lot of exclusives they are creating, they don't have recognition so "no one" would chose their exclusives.

And then we're coming to the "how cheap can they sell it" point of all this venture. How much are they willing to lose with the hardware to break in the market with as many units as possible while trying to recoup some of those loses with the software? I mean, Sony and Msoft have the Live and PSN subscriptions to help them lowe their price if they find it necessary, but Google doesn't have any of that either... at least yet.

In any case, time will tell.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.