By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
happydolphin on 21 January 2012
Edit Thread
S.T.A.G.E. said:
happydolphin said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
happydolphin said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Nope...its not embarrassing. The $60 retails are the games which are generationally used to sway the console wars are the ones who count and provide the face of a console. XBLA doesn't have to lose a year to PSN. PSN and XBLA are just additions with lower budget titles or old classics (thats all).They ARE pretty much even NOW, backlog or no backlog. 

Respectfully, I starkly disagree. For one I don't remember any support for downloadable games in the pre-Wii-HD era.

Since the whole WIiware/XBLA/PSN program is a new phenomenon in the industry, it's time we recognize it. 

Thirdly, if you fail to follow the times, what will you do when all software becomes DLable? Segregate by price? No way...

The metrics are quality and enjoyment. If a game is of high quality but provides little excitement, it still fails to satisfy the industry as you seem to advocate for.

Wait...you mean to tell me that you believe XBLA and PSN are console sellers?

As a whole, yes. They are life support in a sense and satisfy a portion of diet like Jay said. If I were to tell you two consoles have respectable exclusives, but one also offers more interesting dl'able games, without deeper knowledge, which would you go for? Also, if I were not a fan of Sony's games, I'd certainly rather a 360 for the alternate kinect/XBLA diet, easy. It's what you would call value-add.

 

And what of the day when all becomes software-only? What then?

If you stated XBLA and PSN titles are value adders, then they are only secondary treats or values as you say. They are of no concern in a primary conversation because when you buy an Xbox its usually with Halo, Fable, Forza, Gears, or COD on it. Casual titles are primary on the 360 because it has penetrated Nintendos casual market. The only console who treats casual games a secondary is Sony. 

There will always be a difference between a generational game an indy game and the time that changes, the company will most likely have found an investor and made a bigger, better game. Older titles on PSN are slotted under older titles like PS1, PS2 downloadable games, DLC, Add-ons, Disc based Add-ons and more. They are not pitted together in reality.

I understand what you're saying. So you're saying that even if MS is offering the value-add in full, they are lacking in their primary due to a poor business decision, one which Sony hasn't taken. I for one am still okay with it, but maybe you're a more dedicated gamer than I am. I tend to content myself with a few good games (exclusive or not), and am happy with a solid value-add, since my tastes are picky. I will enjoy the team ico games, but as incredibly awesome as GoOW3 is, it isn't a game I enjoy. When that happens too often, I prefer the alternative, if you know what I mean. Also though their 1st party offerings may not be enough for some, the totality of their primary (1st+2nd+3rd party exclusives + multiplats) might still be enough for many a buyer.

And since OP is about new IPs, I agree that Sony is the leader in that regard, and that is something unique in the industry, I hope they can carry the torch forward for much more time, but if I had my say I would like if their games stayed cool, but were in general less violent. My tastes you know?

Bottom line, for my tastes, I think MS is offering an acceptable amount of new IPs alongside their 1st/3rd party exclusives, their multiplats, and their value-adds. Acceptable in terms of the industry, and acceptable in terms of a sound client purchase. However it's undeniable that Sony is one upping them on the IP front so, though MS is safe, when their market will be established, they should consider boosting their new IP offerings. Sony is doing good to the industry, but not to themselves. Money drives money, the market isn't a charity either.