By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Should Multiplats At E3 Conferences Be Consider A Good Thing Or Bad Thing?

 

Is Multiplats At First Party Conferences A Good Thing

Yes 62 50.00%
 
No 62 50.00%
 
Total:124
Pristine20 on 14 June 2014
Xenostar said:
Pristine20 said:


Note that the thread is not specific to big/small devs. It's calling the practice bad period. I've never seen Warner Bros studios have a conference at E3. Who was going to show Mortal Combat X/ Batman? What of MGS?


I never said it was bad either, i just said it was bad for platform holders to be saying *THEY* had so much to show that they were struggling to fit it in, when so much of it was not *Their* stuff.

 

Batman and MGS will be top of every gaming site without being part of a first party conference, you dont need to worry about them.  MK X was probably good to have a bit more exposure. 


I don't know man. I think this whole thread is much ado  about nothing to begin with. IMO, a platformholder is free to show off anything on their system regardless of whether it appears elsewhere and I honestly think it's the console war mentality that spurs threads like this.  Most regular folks tune to see what a platform is offering and in that sense E3 delivered.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
Xenostar on 14 June 2014
Pristine20 said:
Xenostar said:
Pristine20 said:


Note that the thread is not specific to big/small devs. It's calling the practice bad period. I've never seen Warner Bros studios have a conference at E3. Who was going to show Mortal Combat X/ Batman? What of MGS?


I never said it was bad either, i just said it was bad for platform holders to be saying *THEY* had so much to show that they were struggling to fit it in, when so much of it was not *Their* stuff.

 

Batman and MGS will be top of every gaming site without being part of a first party conference, you dont need to worry about them.  MK X was probably good to have a bit more exposure. 


I don't know man. I think this whole thread is much ado  about nothing to begin with. IMO, a platformholder is free to show off anything on their system regardless of whether it appears elsewhere and I honestly think it's the console war mentality that spurs threads like this.  Most regular folks tune to see what a platform is offering and in that sense E3 delivered.

Yeah id agree with that.



Pristine20 on 15 June 2014
mZuzek said:
pokoko said:
mZuzek said:
I think it's bad because it loses the focus. What's the point in showing off a game for your console if everyone knows it's also going to be in the competition's hardware?

The way I see it, if Microsoft is having a conference to show off the Xbox One, their objective is to make people want to buy an Xbox One, especially in this early stage of a new generation. If I watch a conference where they mostly show stuff that the PlayStation 4 also has - and more importantly, even last-gen systems and PC have -, it won't get me interested at all.

Third parties also have their conferences and places to show off what they're doing, that's where multiplatforms belong. The console manufacturers need to focus on what they have that others don't.

Not at all.  Especially early in a generation, the goal is to make people want to upgrade.  To accomplish that, you give them as many reasons as possible.  

This is partially why the Wii U is failing.  People are looking at what it has to offer and saying, "not enough."  Showing off multi-plats just adds to the reasons why someone would want to buy a new console, then the exclusives reel them in to your console.  Otherwise, you just get people thinking that they'd like to get one but it's just not worth the money.  That's the space the Wii U has lived in almost since launch.


I don't see how any PS3/360 owner would want to pay $400 to get a console that runs enhanced versions of the game they're already playing. Every single multiplatform coming out for both PS4/Xbone is also being released on the previous gen consoles (barring the Wii obviously) and PC. The Wii U is not failing because of a lack of multi-platforms, it's failing because it appealed to a market that's not interested in consoles anymore and because of it received a very bad image. It's got nothing to do with games at all.

The Xbox One and ESPECIALLY the PlayStation 4 are selling purely because of word of mouth and hype. PS3/360 owners don't buy the successors because of games, it's simply because they want to upgrade. Most Wii owners, on the other hand, were casuals who have moved to mobiles.

You sure about that? Why then did Watch Dogs on PS4 far outperform it's PS3 counterpart? Also, the next Assasins Creed is only on next gen consoles so there goes your bolded



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

roboplato on 15 June 2014
Pristine20 said:
mZuzek said:
pokoko said:
mZuzek said:
I think it's bad because it loses the focus. What's the point in showing off a game for your console if everyone knows it's also going to be in the competition's hardware?

The way I see it, if Microsoft is having a conference to show off the Xbox One, their objective is to make people want to buy an Xbox One, especially in this early stage of a new generation. If I watch a conference where they mostly show stuff that the PlayStation 4 also has - and more importantly, even last-gen systems and PC have -, it won't get me interested at all.

Third parties also have their conferences and places to show off what they're doing, that's where multiplatforms belong. The console manufacturers need to focus on what they have that others don't.

Not at all.  Especially early in a generation, the goal is to make people want to upgrade.  To accomplish that, you give them as many reasons as possible.  

This is partially why the Wii U is failing.  People are looking at what it has to offer and saying, "not enough."  Showing off multi-plats just adds to the reasons why someone would want to buy a new console, then the exclusives reel them in to your console.  Otherwise, you just get people thinking that they'd like to get one but it's just not worth the money.  That's the space the Wii U has lived in almost since launch.


I don't see how any PS3/360 owner would want to pay $400 to get a console that runs enhanced versions of the game they're already playing. Every single multiplatform coming out for both PS4/Xbone is also being released on the previous gen consoles (barring the Wii obviously) and PC. The Wii U is not failing because of a lack of multi-platforms, it's failing because it appealed to a market that's not interested in consoles anymore and because of it received a very bad image. It's got nothing to do with games at all.

The Xbox One and ESPECIALLY the PlayStation 4 are selling purely because of word of mouth and hype. PS3/360 owners don't buy the successors because of games, it's simply because they want to upgrade. Most Wii owners, on the other hand, were casuals who have moved to mobiles.

You sure about that? Why then did Watch Dogs on PS4 far outperform it's PS3 counterpart? Also, the next Assasins Creed is only on next gen consoles so there goes your bolded


you can add batman, the division, rainbow 6, and witcher 3 to that list, all have the potential to sell a huge amount of consoles if marketed properly.



roboplato on 15 June 2014
mZuzek said:
Well, clearly a lot of PS3/360 owners (especially those filthy Sony fans (ironic)) actually want to spend $400 just to play a graphically enhanced version of an average third party game. I still can't seem to understand HOW.

As for saying every single one was coming out on last-gen systems, sure it's wrong, but I didn't really mean it was EVERY SINGLE ONE, more like "most".


it's easy to understand people are buying the ps4 because it's the best upgrade after 8 years interms of hardware, and then they know the games are coming from both sony and third party's. so why wait, we know every single huge gaming franshise thats not owned by nintendo microsoft will be on ps4, so whould they wanna wait?



Around the Network
endimion on 15 June 2014
bananaking21 said:
certainly a good thing. whoever says its a bad thing is looking at it in a console war point of view. who ever actually cares about playing many good and diverse games, then they would consider it a good thing.

this

 

but I like console wars too lol... it's like an IRL game :D

 

anyway

@OP

not sure about Sony but there are plenty of exclusive coming to XBO and I'm interested in all of them.... we have Quantum Break, KI season 2, Phantom Dust, Sunset Overdrive, HAlO MCC, HALO 5, FH2, Crackdown, Gears of War, Fable legend, scalebound etc. and all the unanounced project from 1st party studio like RARE since they are done with KSR now...

but all in all multiplats are great heck they should do cross platform multiplayer too that would be even better



bananaking21 on 15 June 2014
endimion said:

but all in all multiplats are great heck they should do cross platform multiplayer too that would be even better


yeah i would love that. playing with other people who have an XB1. communties would be much larger and more active. sadly, i dont think that would ever be a reality. 



Pristine20 on 15 June 2014
mZuzek said:
Well, clearly a lot of PS3/360 owners (especially those filthy Sony fans (ironic)) actually want to spend $400 just to play a graphically enhanced version of an average third party game. I still can't seem to understand HOW.

As for saying every single one was coming out on last-gen systems, sure it's wrong, but I didn't really mean it was EVERY SINGLE ONE, more like "most".

I don't understand how nintendo fans can keep buying their consoles for the same games spanning generations. Did you like that? See why gross generalizations always fail? 

Many people didn't necessarily buy ps4 (I know I didn't) for enhanced versions. They bought for Killzone (Me), Infamous, FFXV, etc, but when you already have the console, why buy an inferior version for the same price? 

Lastly, I know only Mario and Zelda qualify as good games to you but IMO, if those were my only options, I'd have given up gaming after the SNES.




"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

bananaking21 on 15 June 2014
mZuzek said:
Well, clearly a lot of PS3/360 owners (especially those filthy Sony fans (ironic)) actually want to spend $400 just to play a graphically enhanced version of an average third party game. I still can't seem to understand HOW.

As for saying every single one was coming out on last-gen systems, sure it's wrong, but I didn't really mean it was EVERY SINGLE ONE, more like "most".


easy. we work two jobs, never see our family because of that. then we go to a sony store, give them our wallets, phones and clothes that we are are wearing. bend over and wait until they give us a shiny new console. 



Mystro-Sama on 15 June 2014

Yes. Some publishers can't afford a conference for themselves.