By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 on 13 April 2009
Edit Thread
Kenny said:
noname2200 said:
JGarret said:
"And I'll be quite surprised if this era ends as acrimoniously as it began."

noname, but if it does end as it began, what are the advantages and disadvantages for ___________ (fill in the blank, it could be Nintendo, the industry as a whole, etc..)?

To be honest, I haven't given that enough thought. I'm confident this particular divide will (mostly) heal by the time the generation ends. We went through something eerily similar with the DS just a few years ago, for instance (check out articles and forums from 2004-5, for instance), and that's pretty much worked itself out.

Moreover, my reading of the situation is that the hostility directed towards the console newcomers is right around Step 4 in the healing process right now: all but the most devout developer, for instance, at least gives accessibility and the expanded audience lip service (see, e.g., CliffyB's comments about Gears of War 2, and how he hoped it would also hold some appeal for the expanded audience). By contrast, many of those same developers were dismissive, if not outright hostile, towards the new values back in 2006 (classic examples: the duct-tape speech, "non-gamers").

If you're still interested in hearing my thoughts, I'll be happy to give them, but let me tell you upfront that I haven't thought this through all the way.

But lip service is all it is.  They have to find some way to appease their own stockholders, but actions speak louder than words, and there's been no indication that any action is being taken.  Consider, for example, Valve's repeated comments on developing for the Wii, with the first dating back to January 2007.  So far, the score is still PS3 1, Wii nothing as far as their games are concerned.

Fully granted, but even the lip service is a step in the right direction, a step that a 2006 observer likely would not have anticipated. That so many developers and CEOs are publically admitting that they "bet on the wrong horse," or that they were incorrect in their initial assumption, is something I can never recall hearing before.

Moreover, I believe you're understating the importance of that lip service: where not too long ago it was not only widely accepted, but almost applauded to express hostility towards the expanded audience, now there are only a few people in the industry who are willing to be so open about their prejudices. Granted that some of this is likely due to pressure from the top, rather than any heartfelt change in sentiment, but the fact that such behavior is now (mostly) frowned upon is indicative that things are getting better.

Plus, isn't this the pattern many groups undergo when experiencing a paradigm shift? Individuals may continue to feel the pull of the old ways at first, but as time passes they mostly adjust their behavior and accept what the rest of the group is doing. It's only been one year since the Wii stopped being a "fad" and already things have changed dramatically; how much more will they in four years?

Plus, it's tough to fault Valve there: with just a bit of effort the PS3 can handle their games. The Wii, on the other hand, would need radical changes to run Left 4 Dead, etc. Valve already works at the speed of mollases on their core projects; expecting them to spin off a team to make a Wii game would be detrimental to my Half-Life 2 Episode 3 dreams, so I'm okay with them as-is. Plus, I believe that while Newell did say that he was interested in making a Wii game, Valve wouldn't be able to start doing so for several years. He's not being dishonest, he's just being realistic.