My definition of big budget is more or less a physical $60 release. Neither of those games, unless I'm mistaken, are of that scope. They're going to be digitally distributed and probably $20 titles. The problem is the mainstream often ignores those and heck for many, they don't bother with digital distributed titles. It's hard to say if those games will turn out good or not, especially since nothing was really shown either. But I'm not going to deny that those games can't be fantastic gems. Flower and Journey are two of my favorite digital games this generation.
Do we actually know if Rime or Shadow of the Beast will get a full retail release or are digital only? I thought we just know that they exist. The fact that they didn't specifically call them digital only games (to my knowledge) when so many of the rest of the games during the conference where unashamedly labeled just that makes me think they have bigger plans for them.
That said, even if they are digital releases, does that change their importance? Some digital games are now going on to sell millions. Last of Us charted 3 million so far or something (i don't know), and Minecraft sits pretty at 20 million. Certain people have started to say they don't even think Minecraft counts as indie anymore due to that
We don't know what will be a hit or not. We don't know what the mainstream wants. Technically, we don't know the exact budgets of any game on any of these lists, whether it's Microsoft or Sony. We don't know the marketing pushes that will be behind them, the way the markets will be trending at the time they're released, or pretty much anything at all.
In short: Why are we placing any inherent value on a retail game versus a digital game in an era when digital only can often sell a shit ton more than retail games? And hell, why does that matter at all?
It has been said that individual sales are often the most important metric of all when determining a "killer app" or a "system seller." This certainly has elements of truth to it, but I think there is often something people neglect to consider in such a discussion. Sometimes a game by itself may not be enough, but the preponderance of quality and varied gameplay types suggests a healthy ecosystem. And it may be that healthy ecosystem that itself is the killer app - the idea that no matter what type of game you're into, you know the system will be offering something for your tastes.
To me I haven't been more excited about a gen transition than this one due to the emphasis on indies. To me it's a Renaissance in this industry. And that IS my killer app, the healthy ecosystem.
Sony has been way beyond Microsoft in first party development for some time and it's really paying off at this launch. It's always been amazing how Microsoft never really invested more into it when some of the biggest games they have are a result of them. I still think they could have had a least a tease of something to come.
Yeah, but that's another thing that has me excited about this gen (despite Microsoft's issues). It seems Microsoft has invested heavily in new studio development and first party enhancement, and that can only mean great things for potential games output this gen. Can you imagine an industry with THREE dominant first parties vying for superiority? I *shudder* with the possibilities
I didn't say the line up was night and day difference, but I do think Microsoft is edging out Sony at launch in their line up. You seem to agree with that. Throwing out all the negative shit Microsoft did, if you look just at the games, on paper, Microsoft is likely out ahead. I think we both agree on that. Taking it a bit further, if we use Forza to cancel out Drive Club instead of Ryse, Ryse can still be an advantage even if it's shit. It's more about the perception than the reality. Unfortunately we still deal with people who will take fluff over substance. All Microsoft really needs is the perception that it has better games right now and that will further eat into the buffer that Sony has built. I think and want Sony to take full advantage of what they've built and not give Microsoft chances to get back into it.
Well yeah, but what I mean is that even though technically Sony may have one or two less first party offerings, the effective result is not much different: both are supply constrained for the holidays, both are selling to a small audience, and those one or two extra games are going to mean little by the time the systems have enough units after the holidays to go around, and by that time Sony and Microsoft will both be having new games that garner the headlines.
Let me be clear: It's a good thing Microsoft is trying to come out swinging at the game, and it's a good thing they have that retail game advantage, no matter how minor or major. But the
effective result of having those games is going to be the largely the same whether Sony and MS had the exact same amount of games, or if they both had only one first party selection available at launch.
This is true, but as an early adopter, I honestly would like to see a new game at least every couple of months. We have Infamous in Feb, so that means I would like to see some other major game in say May or June and then another by August. Having a series of releases spread out over the course of the year rather than having a big drought would be more ideal. Again we don't know what will happen after February, but Sony could have told me what to expect to some degree at Gamescom. It doesn't have to be the best of the best, but even a teaser would go a long way to know that there will be a continuous flow of solid major exclusive games coming through the first year rather than the Wii U software situation.
Oh, me too. Oh god, me too. The shit I've heard about that is coming for PS4 has me basically #dead from anticipation. But... I understand strategically, I have to grit my teeth, and appreciate the other element this strategy has allowed: indies to take the stage and bow. I really appreciate this
