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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Rushed Video Game Platform Launches

High price tag isn't a sign of rushed product but sure could be a signal of not fully mature product, but that maturity only really comes with experience in producing it that is a rule of production.
And other cases like Virtua Boy it isn't a rushed product but simply the technology not really existing to fully bring the product out.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network

PS3 was not rushed at first but ended up being rushed in the end. Ken wanted to use a second CELL instead of putting a GPU in the system. They planned to have a unified 512MB of Ram. However, with the plans for a second cell were dropped had to scramble for something from Nvidia, and had to split the memory. I will always see the PS3 as what if some of the same problems as SEGA Saturn but had the money and name power to overcome it.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

While this could change, and its definitely time for their predecessors to be replaced, PS5 and Xbox Series X feel rushed at this point, in that so much of what they had to show in terms of games was just CGI/cinematics, with little actual gameplay. Feels like the hardware is ready but the games are not.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 03 August 2020

curl-6 said:

While this could change, and its definitely time for their predecessors to be replaced, PS5 and Xbox Series X feel rushed at this point, in that so much of what they had to show in terms of games was just CGI/cinematics, with little actual gameplay. Feels like the hardware is ready but the games are not.

Well the most relevant launch title for Switch was a game that should have been released for WiiU and they just hold out.

Sony could have done it and put TLOU2 and GoT to launch on PS5 as crossgen instead of earlier in the year, MS could also hold some of the smaller titles release in this year plus Gears 5, besides Halo Infinite that is already on the plan.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

While this could change, and its definitely time for their predecessors to be replaced, PS5 and Xbox Series X feel rushed at this point, in that so much of what they had to show in terms of games was just CGI/cinematics, with little actual gameplay. Feels like the hardware is ready but the games are not.

Well the most relevant launch title for Switch was a game that should have been released for WiiU and they just hold out.

Sony could have done it and put TLOU2 and GoT to launch on PS5 as crossgen instead of earlier in the year, MS could also hold some of the smaller titles release in this year plus Gears 5, besides Halo Infinite that is already on the plan.

Switch's launch also felt like the games weren't ready; it's lineup for the first couple of months was pretty threadbare with Zelda being the only significant new title.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 04 August 2020

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

Switch's launch also felt like the games weren't ready; it's lineup for the first couple of months was pretty threadbare with Zelda being the only significant new title.

I thought we put this behind us?

The Switch's launch was almost perfectly orchastrated.  Not because all the games came in at once, but because it had a steady drip from March until December.

March: Breath of the Wild, 1-2, Switch
April: Mario Kart 8: Deluxe
May: None
June: Arms
July: Splatoon 2
August: Mario + Rabbids
September: Pokken Tournament
October: Fire Emblem Warriors
November: Mario Odyssey
December: Xenoblade 2

The only way to consider it to be "not ready" is if you wanted it to be totally frontloaded.  I mean, within 5 months of launch, the library would already have one game that will likely end up selling over 30 million, a second game that will end up over 20 million, a 3rd game that will probably plateau around 12-13 million, a new IP, and a solid 3rd party side project using the Nintendo IPs.

Far from being, "not ready" I would mark the Nintendo Switch's launch as perhaps the best ever executed.

Having Zelda as the only worthwhile new game for the first few months just felt to me like not enough games were ready for the launch window. May have worked sales wise, but as someone who had a Wii U I had no reason to buy a Switch til the likes of Splatoon 2 started arriving a bit later.

Luckily that was just the first three months, after that it kicked into gear and 2017 was overall fantastic.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 August 2020

3DS definitley felt barebones at launch, that's the only one that really stands out in my memory.



NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

Having Zelda as the only worthwhile new game for the first few months just felt to me like not enough games were ready for the launch window. May have worked sales wise, but as someone who had a Wii U I had no reason to buy a Switch til the likes of Splatoon 2 started arriving a bit later.

Luckily that was just the first three months, after that it kicked into gear and 2017 was overall fantastic.

The system came out with a massive game and it had a constant flow in the months afterwards.  That's plenty prepared by any normal standard.

Like the whole system failure myth when the system first launched because a few Switch's were faulty (normal), this complaint rightly died in 2017 when reality caught up and players were consistently satiated.  I'm surprised it's ever been brought up again after Nintendo's strategy worked so well.

One significant new game for the first three months isn't what I consider a "constant flow".

We'll just have to agree to disagree.



I feel like the DS launched at the perfect time, before the touchscreen phones took over. They probably wouldn't have happend that early without the DS.
The Jaguar had a bad launch because IBM only shipped 5000 consoles instead of 1 million and thus they didn't have the money to save the company. Delaying the console would have closed their doors and IBM failing meant they shut down anyway. This failure led to the rushing of the CD addon and the lack of an updated controller and the loss of Rayman as an exclusive mascot.



NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

One significant new game for the first three months isn't what I consider a "constant flow".

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

At least one game in 9 out of 10 months for the launch year qualifies as a consistent flow by any reasonable measure.  This includes a system seller at launch and then another only a month later, so it's hard to make a case for a dry spell to start either as the two biggest hitters were released the earliest.

At minimum, I believe the concept that Nintendo's launch was rushed and somehow not ready has been thoroughly disproven.  Nintendo was very much ready for launch.  You're just complaining that their strategy wasn't for a frontloaded release schedule, when said strategy worked out extremely well.

I simply cannot agree, one significant new game in three months is not a "constant flow". The constant flow of new games started in June, three months after launch.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 August 2020