mcj metroid Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 I cant see the benifit for the publisher to do this.I mean for a game like trauma centre and elebits hot are they supposed to sell when they are competing against games like zelda and metroid.i believe games like red steel will have no problem but it makes no sense.Not that im complaining however i just feel that they might blame the console for their failing titles.Are anyway of u going to get elebits or trauma centre straight away?
myster0n Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Trauma center : yes elebits : probably But then again : I have a good job, and not spending much at the moment, so right now I can see myself buying the whole lineup, should I like all the games. Launch games have a greater chance of being bought, regardles of quality. People have less to compare it with.
McMad Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Idiots, why should they have so many titles at launch? I mean the 4 titles at the N64 launch was enough? ................................................................. The reason for my sarcasm is because I believe what you are saying is very very silly (or fucking spacsticated like a suicidal chimpanzee). It is good to have many titles at launch so there is a lot on offer for people with different tastes in games. Say if an FPS fan saw a Red Steel advert on TV but it wasn't enough of an incentive for him to get the console there would also be Metroid Prime 3 so that FPS fan would be convinced to get the console which is good for Nintendo. Also Nintendo probably want to make a bigger impact than the PS3.
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 He does have a point. It makes more sense to spread the releases out. If i remember right, Metroid Prime and Resident Evil: zero were both released on the same day in Europe. This didn't help sales, at all. Although, it does have its advantages and disadvantages. So, either way. :p
McMad Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Yes but if they are still on schedule Excite Truck should be out before Christmas, then there is Project H.A.M.M.E.R. in Winter and hopefully Mario Galaxy by Spring or even earlier. Yes i know i have only said 3 titles. Sonic Wildfire should be out in Spring aswell, and there is also Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Pokemon Revolution Battle may also be out early 2007 if it is due in December in Japan. There will also be the normal onslaught of EA titles i think and apparently in the new ONM at the very bottom of page eleven it says Japanese developers are planning on revealing many more Wii titles at TGS.
david.dakota Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Remember that we need a wide variety at launch to get the attention of a wide range of gamers. Also, bear in mind that a launch game doesn't necessarily mean it'll be available day 1. I beleive the launch period is the first 3 months.
Guest Stefkov Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 its true about the diffferent tastes of games people have, if thers nothing or some they dont like, then thers more to choose from. meaning theyll have a high launch selling figure. If there wasnt a lot at launch then yeah the games would probably sell more, but ithink its good having them outt here straight away so if you want you can at least give it about a wek before you buy another game instead of waiting a couple of months for nintendo to hld back a game and you are dying for it to come out.
ShadowV7 Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 More games at launch = more consoles sold. That pretty much sums it up for me.
Wolf Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 A lot of games will probably be released in the "launch window" though, not exactly on launch day.
Hellfire Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 A lot of games will probably be released in the "launch window" though, not exactly on launch day. Exactly and a launch has to be solid to capture attention, that was one of GC's biggest problems. As long as they don't go overkill I don't care. Oh and launching with the potential best game ever is not so bad either eheh
DCK Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I have to say I wouldn't mind if they spread out this stuff some more. Metroid, Zelda, Red Steel, Call of Duty, Monkey Ball, Need for Speed, Rayman, Prince of Persia and Far Cry are all games I want but I can't possibly afford
Jay Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 A lot of them are classed as launch period/window titles, which usually means the first 3-6 months of the consoles life. It means that we'll have a good amount of titles to keep us going, we won't possibly be able to afford them all but come the Summer drought which fill folow the launch period it'll mean we have plenty to catch up on. The more games the better, although a few will inevitably slip.
Athriller Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I think a lot of people are missing the missing the point. The original post is referring to the point of view of the publisher, and not the consumer.
The fish Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I have to say I wouldn't mind if they spread out this stuff some more. Metroid, Zelda, Red Steel, Call of Duty, Monkey Ball, Need for Speed, Rayman, Prince of Persia and Far Cry are all games I want but I can't possibly afford Rob a bank?:Big grin: I say just buy the ones you want most. For me that's CoD3 , Red Steel, Metroid, Zelda, and Wiisports. If the latter comes packed in I'll get Excite Truck.
Owen Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 No, the more launch games the better. That way when you complete the games you've bought theres a opportunity to go and buy another new one without waiting six months for another game to come out! Say 20 launch games are released. You buy 5. You then have another 15 to choose from when you've had enough of the 5 you first bought. In that time it takes to complete the 5, hopefully more and more games will come out. This was the Gamecubes problem. The lack of new releases and the wait till good games come out made it a console lacking in variety for a very long time and boredom can set in. Also Trauma centre and Elebits have no similarites towards Zelda and Metroid. There all totally different games. Someone may want to be a doctor so they choose Trauma centre. Someone may like the idea of Konamis Elebits so they choose that as it's different. :wink:
nekunando Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 The variety is obviously good for the consumer, not everyone will want Metroid or Zelda on launch. This was the Gamecubes problem. The lack of new releases and the wait till good games come out made it a console lacking in variety for a very long time and boredom can set in. I can see your point and I understand that everyone is different. I'm not sure where I stand on that front. I have a lot of gamecube games and a lot of N64 games and while I do sometimes find myself wanting something new, there are many games that maybe I do not get the full value out of, and many that are nowhere near completion. In the days of the SNES, when obviously I was a lot younger (I'm 19 now), my brother and I didn't get to play games so much and did not have money to be buying games every other week. Instead, in the five years before the Nintendo 64 came out, we bought, on average, one game per year and were able to get the most out of each game. I was able to the odd game off my best friend at primary school, but all in all I was satisfied with the amount of games I got to play. Nowadays, I wouldn't limit myself to one game a year as I 'need' more than that, but I feel that I may try to restrict myself to buying essential games that I can play to the full as opposed to buying those as well as games that are good but I could do without. And as for new releases coming out, the majority of my games are preowned and I have not paid full price for a game in a very long time as I find it too expensive, so i have to wait further anyway in that respect. However, I feel that this gives me the chance to go through my collection and play through games (both on N64 and GC) that maybe I haven't fully explored or finished. Why do I keep rambling on lately.. I'm so sorry!
mariosmentor Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 People need choice, i had to buy ISS soccer for gamecube and it was a load of balls, luckily monkey balls (Haw...sorry) rogue squadron and luigis mansion were good enough but still more diversity would have been good, where wii seems to excel.
system_error Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 The problem here is that the majority of people will get Zelda and the other Nintendo launch games first and then try third party games. So developers try to approach a new console a bit more carefull. Why compete with your best game against Super Mario Galaxy if you can wait a while. The 360 had a big advantage in this case - being the first console around developers did not have to worry because in terms of next-generation consoles there was no variety at all. As a developer I would approach a new console with a good game but not the AAA ones I have in my portfolio - those are reserved until I have a good launch spot and the userbase I want. I would not want to waste my best IP for launch if the userbase is low and I have to compete against a big lineup from Nintendo. The only thing which works if your game is a different genre which is not covered by Nintendo then people will buy it aswell if they are into it. FPS, RPGs, .... those are games which Nintendo lacks.
nekunando Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 My first Gamecube game was also ISS2 (though I did actually rather enjoy that, despite having nowhere near the finesse of Pro Evolution Soccer) My first N64 game was Fifa 64 (thought it was ok for the time but I know better now!) My first SNES game (the first game I ever played) was Super Soccer (STILL love it) Am I finally going to have to get something other than a football game at launch for the Wii? Or will my hopes come true that Konami surprise us (really big massive crazy surprise) with Pro Evolution Soccer so that I can get that first!
James McGeachie Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 you know, this may sound absolutely wierd, but somtimes I've wondered if sometimes publishers release DELIBERATELY bad games that they made in like no time at all, because they want to help a platform fail so they can focus on only one system. That's probably wrong but I honestly wouldn't be surprised when you see all these early PS2/Dreamcast looking titles coming out for Wii, with these lies that they're "truly committed" to the console and what not.
fex Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) There are so many launch titles because Nintendo is scared of the Wii doing a Gamecube. The GC had a poor launch titles and it took ages to get some good games, therefore everyone went PS2/Xbox. Nintendo is living and learning. ________ Marijuana card Edited April 28, 2011 by fex
Fierce_LiNk Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I still don't agree with the argument that the Gamecube had a poor launch line-up. Imo, it was fantastic. Great 3rd party support, and some cracking titles. Star Wars Rogue Leader was a fantastic leading 3rd party title. So was Super Monkey Ball. There were more, as well.
Pyxis Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 How could you possibly complain about too much Wii support, come on! Hopefully they are spread out though, we dont want any droughts. The Wii cant let us down. I'll be getting Zelda, Red Steel, Far Cry, Blazing Angels, Call of Duty 3, Sonic and Super Smash Bros all as soon as they get released. That's 4 Ubisoft titles for me.:awesome: Pokemon and Super Mario are a must too... Let's not forget Resident Evil. I'll end up with more Wii titles than Gamecube ones at this rate.
Recommended Posts