26 replies to this topic

[LinkKennedy]

Hence the gameplay making or breaking a game so in essence I agree with you that gameplay/design is key into making a game great. Still I'm one of those that want great stories in games and dialogue for better immersion like for example Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword I felt those were the best cinematic Zelda games ever and TP had the best writing making me the Zelda lore all the more real and to top it all of it had that great Zelda gameplay. But of course I think most of us don't want hours of cut scenes and mins of gameplay *cough* Metal Gear 4*cough* lol that's why films exist.

[Azure-Edge]

I obviously enjoy good va over bad va, so if given a choice between the exact same game with either good or bad va, the choice id make is obvious.... But thats not even remotely close to being a scenario.

Good va wont make a bad, broken game better. It will just make cut scenes, that arent even part of the game, that you dont even control better... At which point you ultimately walk down this road:

http://m.neogaf.com/...ad.php?t=736867

Where one has been so brainwashed by publisher marketing you demand to skip gameplay to watch videos, instead of demanding better gameplay you dont want to skip. At which point I not so kindly ask all who actually agree with this to gtfo out of my hobby before they completely destroy it.

Conversely, REMOVING va, actually CAN make a game better, being that the cost of va actually ECLIPSES the cost of making the actual video game, often now even several times over, money that could be spent on making a better game, by say, hiring a level designer, or entire team of designers for the money youll have spare.... to design a world that doesnt suck, or gameplay mechanics that arent crap.

The only part of a games production that is more vulgarly priced and less related to the game today is the ADVERTISING BUDGET, which actually completely eclipses THE ENTIRE COST of making an actual game (Game programming, asset creation, voice acting, music recording etc). Its disgusting,

So, no, I do NOT factor va into the worth of a game, as what was once a nice bonus that enhanced the immersion of great games, has been twisted into a link in a chain thats part of a disgusting shackle imprisoning the industry, caging originality, pioneering, exploration, and any attempts at anything new or fresh, and as a result progress of the industry as a whole has screeched to a halt, as we are stuck playing the same handful of games from the same handful of suspects over and over and over, with only the thinnest coat of paint applied to change them.

 

There are good posts, there are great posts, but then there's this post.

 

Anyways, if third parties would actually make good games on the Wii U then they would sell. What do I mean by good games? Good games that aren't glitchy, sloppily rushed ports, or multiplats that are gimped and missing content. Would they sell as much as on systems that already have a 60+ million install base? No.

 

Put in a little bit of effort devs, it will pay off.

[GAMER1984]

thanks to everyone that responded. Another example is Resident Evil 4. Came out initally as a Gamecube exclusive then got ported to Ps2. gamecube version sold about 1.6 million copies as ps2 version sold about 2.3 million but look at the install base of those console. ps2 at the time was sitting at about 80 million while gamecube wasat about 17 million. No not every exclusive will go down this path there will be some failures but i would take exclusives any day over crappy multiplatfoorm game that Nintendo console gets little effort and budget put into it.

[Nintyfan86]

thanks to everyone that responded. Another example is Resident Evil 4. Came out initally as a Gamecube exclusive then got ported to Ps2. gamecube version sold about 1.6 million copies as ps2 version sold about 2.3 million but look at the install base of those console. ps2 at the time was sitting at about 80 million while gamecube wasat about 17 million. No not every exclusive will go down this path there will be some failures but i would take exclusives any day over crappy multiplatfoorm game that Nintendo console gets little effort and budget put into it.

Absolutely. 

 

However, if we take into account the present value of future cash flows and combine them with the current Wii U audience (that apparently loves Rayman, but Zombi U not so much), you have a situation where 3rd parties have a higher stake in exclusive games that are directly competing against Nintendo (or in a saturated genre). 

 

If we consider that a project must have a higher present value of future cash flows, or rather a higher probability in a scenario base, then it makes sense to consider their current position of throwing low budget ports out there. If Nintendo does well with Bayonetta and X, it will show a market for these games on the system, however, NOA's marketing appears to be directed at segments that would not touch these games (opinion alert).

 

My previous post, where I describe Nintendo alleviating risk for third parties, is a description of how to 'repair' the current environment while leveraging the assets of partners. However, this would only work from one perspective, and does not consider other factors.

 

Thoughts?   

[GAMER1984]

Absolutely. 

 

However, if we take into account the present value of future cash flows and combine them with the current Wii U audience (that apparently loves Rayman, but Zombi U not so much), you have a situation where 3rd parties have a higher stake in exclusive games that are directly competing against Nintendo (or in a saturated genre). 

 

If we consider that a project must have a higher present value of future cash flows, or rather a higher probability in a scenario base, then it makes sense to consider their current position of throwing low budget ports out there. If Nintendo does well with Bayonetta and X, it will show a market for these games on the system, however, NOA's marketing appears to be directed at segments that would not touch these games (opinion alert).

 

My previous post, where I describe Nintendo alleviating risk for third parties, is a description of how to 'repair' the current environment while leveraging the assets of partners. However, this would only work from one perspective, and does not consider other factors.

 

Thoughts?   

 

I agree with some of your earlier statements. I think Nintendo should look for some key franchises to help with or make sure they are on their console. Seriously we didn't get not one sports game for Wii U this year... THAT CAN'T HAPPEN! But IMO leaving a franchise exclusive you take the same risk as going multiplat. look at Rayman legends.... an exclusive game that so many was excited about and used gamepad in useful ways. Then dumb ubisoft had to make it multiplatform what was the result? the game barely sold over a million units and early result showed the majority of those number were sold on Wii U. So was it worth pulling it from exclusive Wii U?

[Nintyfan86]

I agree with some of your earlier statements. I think Nintendo should look for some key franchises to help with or make sure they are on their console. Seriously we didn't get not one sports game for Wii U this year... THAT CAN'T HAPPEN! But IMO leaving a franchise exclusive you take the same risk as going multiplat. look at Rayman legends.... an exclusive game that so many was excited about and used gamepad in useful ways. Then dumb ubisoft had to make it multiplatform what was the result? the game barely sold over a million units and early result showed the majority of those number were sold on Wii U. So was it worth pulling it from exclusive Wii U?

 

Yes, removing Rayman from the Wii U, or rather, delaying it, was not smart from the perspective of losing 6 months or so worth of income. From what I understand, one of the other platforms demands a date on date (the 360?) release, thus releasing it then required removing a platform. I am sure there were ways around this. However, if you look at the gains in the S&P 500, the Wii U would have needed to have accounted for somewhere around 77% of the sales for the income to be reinvested in the market to make up for the exclusivity. However, if we look at capital gains tax rates, the firm's WACC, and the required IRR, Ubisoft would, in January, be weighing the decision differently than we are in hindsight.

 

Keep in mind, this is not a for or against argument, just a theoretical guess as to why they did what they did (I would place Nintendo's delays, Wii U's declining sales, and third party software sales as the basis behind this decision. I would also speculate that a short term investment portfolio is not really something Ubisoft would utilize to generate income for shareholders).

 

So, it is a complicated answer to, "Was it worth pulling exclusivity?". I don't think it ever was, as they could have done the same thing by renaming and repackaging the game if it bombed. Plus, Rayman has a different audience and quality level than the games that bombed during launch. It also had a long period to itself. I do not believe it was worth it.

 

I do believe that Nintendo needs to do a better job cultivating the audience that plays third party software, but in a unique fashion. In my prior post, I describe this process through risk aversion. In a sports game scenario, Nintendo would work with whatever second tier Port team they had, and make sure the game was of higher quality than the 360 counterpart. The game would also have gamepad integration beyond the obvious. Call of Duty would be the other logical place to start. The end result would hopefully be a game that takes advantage of the hardware, and in return, the arguably identical versions would be on Nintendo's platform. If these were successful, expand the program for the third parties, or better yet, use the experience to enhance development tools to make this easier once the base is built.

[GAMER1984]

Yes, removing Rayman from the Wii U, or rather, delaying it, was not smart from the perspective of losing 6 months or so worth of income. From what I understand, one of the other platforms demands a date on date (the 360?) release, thus releasing it then required removing a platform. I am sure there were ways around this. However, if you look at the gains in the S&P 500, the Wii U would have needed to have accounted for somewhere around 77% of the sales for the income to be reinvested in the market to make up for the exclusivity. However, if we look at capital gains tax rates, the firm's WACC, and the required IRR, Ubisoft would, in January, be weighing the decision differently than we are in hindsight.

Keep in mind, this is not a for or against argument, just a theoretical guess as to why they did what they did (I would place Nintendo's delays, Wii U's declining sales, and third party software sales as the basis behind this decision. I would also speculate that a short term investment portfolio is not really something Ubisoft would utilize to generate income for shareholders).

So, it is a complicated answer to, "Was it worth pulling exclusivity?". I don't think it ever was, as they could have done the same thing by renaming and repackaging the game if it bombed. Plus, Rayman has a different audience and quality level than the games that bombed during launch. It also had a long period to itself. I do not believe it was worth it.

I do believe that Nintendo needs to do a better job cultivating the audience that plays third party software, but in a unique fashion. In my prior post, I describe this process through risk aversion. In a sports game scenario, Nintendo would work with whatever second tier Port team they had, and make sure the game was of higher quality than the 360 counterpart. The game would also have gamepad integration beyond the obvious. Call of Duty would be the other logical place to start. The end result would hopefully be a game that takes advantage of the hardware, and in return, the arguably identical versions would be on Nintendo's platform. If these were successful, expand the program for the third parties, or better yet, use the experience to enhance development tools to make this easier once the base is built.

Exactly agree! Nintendo needs to create a third party quality team that their only jobis to go and ensure ports are of HIGH quality. I am talking team of tech nerds that know the WiiU in and out. I mean I keep hearing about how great the Wii U design is we know it has things that make is much better than 7th gen... I just want to see results. People are not going to buy crappy ports. I was so expecting to get a good 2k14 port this year after last year but they didn't release one. I hope 2014 WiiU isn't left out of those next gen sports games.

Edited by GAMER1984, 31 December 2013 - 11:54 AM.