What if you could?

[SteveSpeeze]

Create a new game system to compete with the xbox , ps3 and wii ?
What would you do to improve gaming and system features?

[substantial_snake]

I would go the Neo Geo route, a no compromised consolized arcade machine and I think that the Sega Ring Edge/World system could have potential. I don't think another console could survive competition with the big three on the same level, but with limited distrubition (and overhead costs) a machine that catered to people who already are enthauists could do alright.

[Oobgarm]

two words

pleasure hole

[Bratwurst]

two words

pleasure hole

You win this thread, all other suggestions lose by default.

[Sunnyvale]

I'd like to see the 3D thing revisited. With a rumble pack, great 3D effects, surround sound, HD graphics...

(All this is to make the pleasure hole more realistic. That was the best suggestion.)

[BlastProcessing402]

1. Reliability
2. Durability
3. Doesn't break in a few years
4. No waggle motion camera devices, just gamepads (and pleasure holes)
5. After all that's taken into account, the most power you can fit into a developer friendly device for less than 300 bucks.

[kupomogli]

two words

pleasure hole

Multiplayer on this system would suck.

[Sunnyvale]

Multiplayer on this system would suck.

Gives a whole new meaning to 'XBOX Live', eh?

[SpaceHarrier]

two words

pleasure hole

I am definitely not buying one of these systems used.

I am, however, pre-ordering for day one.

[Sunnyvale]

I am definitely not buying one of these systems used.

I am, however, pre-ordering for day one.

Most pleasure holes are pre-owned :(

[SteveSpeeze]

1. Reliability
2. Durability
3. Doesn't break in a few years
4. No waggle motion camera devices, just gamepads (and pleasure holes)
5. After all that's taken into account, the most power you can fit into a developer friendly device for less than 300 bucks.

yeah and no hidden cost... i hate those.
i felt so special when i downloaded 4 games to the wii and learned i needed an additional controller... nice.

[SteveSpeeze]

two words

pleasure hole

Yeah but you can just pick one of those up in a local bar for the cost of a few drinks...

[Oobgarm]

Yeah but you can just pick one of those up in a local bar for the cost of a few drinks...

Your own personal game console is less likely to be a carrier of hep C or herpes, though

[skaar]

Pleasure holes lose resale value, fast.

The DRM is also iffy. Too easy to exploit.

That being said, DLC can keep the gameplay experience refreshed from time to time - but with additional costs not to mention the download delays... most players won't bother.

And you'll still have 12 year olds talking smack at you.

[dystopian]

Most pleasure holes are pre-owned :(

I lol'd, hard.

[The 1 2 P]

Most pleasure holes are pre-owned :(

This is one of those rare times where it's ok to substitute the word "pre-owned" for "used".

[Edmond Dantes]

Does your pleasure-hole support force-feedback technology?

On a more serious note, I honestly think video games have done basically all they can do technology-wise, which is why they're now repackaging old ideas and pretending they've never been done before.

Surely I'm not the first person to compare the Wiimote/Kinect to the Powerglove/Activator, right?

[Berserker]

We don't need better consoles - we need better games. So if I had the copious amount of money needed to do what you propose, I'd rather make a development/publishing company instead. Try to bring all the best indie developers under one roof, give them teams and resources and financial backing, and see how many great games we could make before going under.

[Cornelius]

two words

pleasure hole

Aren't you leaving out a pretty important and expanding market? I think half the population might not be interested in this feature. Time for an accessory!

[buzz_n64]

I think we reached the end of what we can do with standard gaming and display technology. The next step, real 3d images in 3 dimensions. Technology is already in the works using the Kinect.

HoloDesk - Direct 3D Interactions with a Situated See-Through Display
http://youtu.be/JHL5tJ9ja_w

[Oobgarm]

Aren't you leaving out a pretty important and expanding market? I think half the population might not be interested in this feature. Time for an accessory!

They already have rumble paks. Now it's our turn.

[Sunnyvale]

Aren't you leaving out a pretty important and expanding market? I think half the population might not be interested in this feature. Time for an accessory!


They already have rumble paks. Now it's our turn.

I second Oobgarm, and would point out joysticks have been around since (almost) day one. Sure, the Atari stick is un-offensive, but one look at those NES Quickshots, and well...

I felt inadequate.

[jb143]

HoloDesk - Direct 3D Interactions with a Situated See-Through Display
http://youtu.be/JHL5tJ9ja_w

I'm pretty sure that's just a monitor reflected off a sheet of plexy. Maybe there's a bit more going on like object and head tracking to make it interact with your hands and other objects and appear more 3D, but it still appears to be a simple setup.

[buzz_n64]

I'm pretty sure that's just a monitor reflected off a sheet of plexy. Maybe there's a bit more going on like object and head tracking to make it interact with your hands and other objects and appear more 3D, but it still appears to be a simple setup.

I know this is not true 3D, but it's a step in the right direction.

[jb143]

I know this is not true 3D, but it's a step in the right direction.

It does look cool. It's just that everything I've seen in the past several years that tries to pass itself off as some new high tech 3D imaging system just ends up being the same old repackaged tricks that have been around for a looong time.

[Rob2600]

video games have done basically all they can do technology-wise, which is why they're now repackaging old ideas and pretending they've never been done before.

Surely I'm not the first person to compare the Wiimote/Kinect to the Powerglove/Activator, right?

Repackaging old ideas? Things like the Power Glove, Activator, and U-Force never worked. They were $70 pieces of garbage and if more people had bought them, Mattel, Sega, and Broderbund would've faced class action lawsuits.

The Wii Remote and Kinect are actually used reliably to play games.

[kupomogli]

The Wii Remote and Kinect are actually used reliably to play games.

Kinect maybe, but the Wiimote is just as inoperable as the Power Glove at times.

[jb143]

Kinect maybe, but the Wiimote is just as inoperable as the Power Glove at times.

That means it's time to change the batteries;). No complaints with the Wii Remote here.

[Edmond Dantes]

Repackaging old ideas? Things like the Power Glove, Activator, and U-Force never worked. They were $70 pieces of garbage and if more people had bought them, Mattel, Sega, and Broderbund would've faced class action lawsuits.

The Wii Remote and Kinect are actually used reliably to play games.

They're still essentially the same concept, being more reliable doesn't change that.

And besides usability issues, the other biggest problem with those accessories is that there are very few games out there where they're actually better than the standard controllers of old, and in the Wii's case a lot of games shoehorn in Wiimote functionality when they really don't need it just so Nintendo will feel good about themselves. I get the feeling that the Kinect and the Move are going to either do the same thing, or else have only a small library of games that use them. Companies need to stop trying to wow us with gimmicks and start actually making good games, like a previous poster said.

Actually, if I made a new console, I wouldn't make it any more powerful than the current hardware on the market... I would just make it so that you don't have to sign B.S. licensing agreements with me to make games for it, all you had to do was order a devkit, and let the system foster an indie market. Of course, many great consoles of the past are already going that direction, so it would probably be redundant.

[Sunnyvale]

Actually, if I made a new console, I wouldn't make it any more powerful than the current hardware on the market... I would just make it so that you don't have to sign B.S. licensing agreements with me to make games for it, all you had to do was order a devkit, and let the system foster an indie market. Of course, many great consoles of the past are already going that direction, so it would probably be redundant.

The indie market was a major part of the crash. You'll end up seeing $60 games that aren't worth 2 shits.

[kupomogli]

The indie market was a major part of the crash. You'll end up seeing $60 games that aren't worth 2 shits.

We already see $60 games that aren't worth two shits. Atleast 95% of the released titles for PS3 and 360 aren't worth two shits and almost all of them are released at $60. Then there's 99% of Wii titles which are released at $50 and fall under the same category.

[Edmond Dantes]

The indie market was a major part of the crash. You'll end up seeing $60 games that aren't worth 2 shits.

I don't understand why you believe "$60 games that aren't worth two shits" would be a new development.

And there's no way the Crash could be recreated today.

[Sunnyvale]

We already see $60 games that aren't worth two shits. Atleast 95% of the released titles for PS3 and 360 aren't worth two shits and almost all of them are released at $60. Then there's 99% of Wii titles which are released at $50 and fall under the same category.


I don't understand why you believe "$60 games that aren't worth two shits" would be a new development.

And there's no way the Crash could be recreated today.

Yes, most games don't stand the test of time. However, there were hundreds of 3rd party unliscened games for the 2600 that were barely playable. And they charged the same amount. IMO, a huge part of the success of the NES was it not allowing piles of crap to hit the shelves (I know, lots of those games ain't fun now, but back then...). Most games have always been below par. But licensing the games forces standards, and keeps those who would spend millions on promoting a game that they spent thousands on out of the marketplace.

And the crash could be re-created. People don't like feeling like anywhere they turn in a marketplace, they get screwed. 2 out of 3 7th gen consoles already promote that feeling. Add assholes selling 8-bit games with fancy titles screens to the mix for $60, and the parent's money is out. Leaving you with the hardcore gamers. Like in 83.

[treismac]

And the crash could be re-created. People don't like feeling like anywhere they turn in a marketplace, they get screwed. 2 out of 3 7th gen consoles already promote that feeling. Add assholes selling 8-bit games with fancy titles screens to the mix for $60, and the parent's money is out. Leaving you with the hardcore gamers. Like in 83.

"A" crash could happen. It could. However, there could never be a crash where experts, analysts, or whoever say that video games were just a fad that has ran its course like they did with The Crash. Video games will be here as long as there is no sci-fi technopocalypse of some sort where we devolve to the point where computers dissappear from use. The market could feasibly go to sh*t though, and companies like Nintendo could become historical footnotes. I doubt it, but it is possible.

[treismac]

Companies need to stop trying to wow us with gimmicks and start actually making good games, like a previous poster said.


Amen. Also, can the FPS genre please just be a seasoning in gaming and not the main course?

[Sunnyvale]

"A" crash could happen. It could. However, there could never be a crash where experts, analysts, or whoever say that video games were just a fad that has ran its course like they did with The Crash. Video games will be here as long as there is no sci-fi technopocalypse of some sort where we devolve to the point where computers dissappear from use. The market could feasibly go to sh*t though, and companies like Nintendo could become historical footnotes. I doubt it, but it is possible.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying there's a good reason not to open the market up to any dipshit with a PC. Look at Youtube. Sure, we get some gems, but after how much ass? If we had to pay to view each of those, and then filter...

There'd be no YT.

[Gameguy]

two words

pleasure hole
I think it's already been done, it's another use for a broken 360.


http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/8777/page0448ceef33kw1.jpg

[duffmanth]

two words

pleasure hole

Lol, that's awesome!! But my system would be basically the launch PS3 minus the $600 price tag. Reliable, powerful, and all of the features you could want in a console minus the pleasure hole. Maybe Sony could integrate a pleasure hole with Move somehow?

[Edmond Dantes]

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying there's a good reason not to open the market up to any dipshit with a PC. Look at Youtube. Sure, we get some gems, but after how much ass? If we had to pay to view each of those, and then filter...

There'd be no YT.

By this reasoning, the PC Gaming market should've been dead in the water a long time ago.

Instead it was one of the industries that was still going strong throughout the Crash, and survived until the present day.

The thing is, total chaos has a way of sorting itself out. Any moron with a pen can write a book, but we can still tell the Frankensteins and Hobbits from the run-of-the-mill harlequinn romances, can't we?

And to be honest, there actually *is* a bit of a filter. First of all, the reason "any moron with a PC" was a problem back then was because there simply wasn't much you could put on consoles at the time (PCs were a different matter, which I think is why they survived), so a lot of games wound up being simply other games, but repackaged with different graphics. People expect more out of games nowadays--you can't just reprogram Street Fighter II with different sprites and call it a new game anymore.

The other part of the filter is, "morons" wouldn't know how to code a reasonably complicated game--something like even Super Mario Bros. would take a fair bit of study at least, and I highly doubt your average computer user knows that much C. So only the people who are really dedicated will be making games and those people will probably have more realistic prices and ambitions. We won't have the guys from Kool-Aid thinking that putting their character on the Atari will make them millions--that kind of thinking is in the past.

So really, the only possible harm in "opening it up to any idiot with a PC" would be to the corporations who have a virtual monopoly on the gaming industry and have sole voice over what games are even available to the consumer. And we've all seen how that works. Sony's CEO hates 2D games? Suddenly 2D games are banned from his system. Is that honestly a good thing?

[jb143]

Some people here must think it's really easy to make a game or something. Even crap games still take time and energy to make...most people are simply too lazy to see things like that through to completion. Regardless, the average moron with a PC couldn't afford the multi-thousand dollar dev kits that console manufacturers require you to purchase to develop on their platform.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Gamecube + DIY modification = Pleasure Dome
It lasts forever... Can you?

Keep that handle, you'll need it!

[G-Boobie]

"A" crash could happen. It could. However, there could never be a crash where experts, analysts, or whoever say that video games were just a fad that has ran its course like they did with The Crash. Video games will be here as long as there is no sci-fi technopocalypse of some sort where we devolve to the point where computers dissappear from use. The market could feasibly go to sh*t though, and companies like Nintendo could become historical footnotes. I doubt it, but it is possible.

Agreed. Honestly, I think a mini crash is happening as we speak. Unless your name is Activision right now, chances are your financials don't look so hot if you're a console focused third party developer. And how many big time independent development studios have closed in the last couple of years?

It'll shake out, but the landscape is going to be very different when its done.

[Rob2600]

I think a mini crash is happening as we speak.

Mini-crash? Or is what we're experiencing simply because all three home consoles are in their fifth and sixth years?

Software sales slow down at the end of every console's lifecycle, which traditionally has been five to six years. We're right in the middle of that now (plus we're experiencing a bad economy). It seems like this is just the normal cycle, except no new console is being released this Christmas.

[Sunnyvale]

By this reasoning, the PC Gaming market should've been dead in the water a long time ago.

Instead it was one of the industries that was still going strong throughout the Crash, and survived until the present day.

The thing is, total chaos has a way of sorting itself out. Any moron with a pen can write a book, but we can still tell the Frankensteins and Hobbits from the run-of-the-mill harlequinn romances, can't we?

And to be honest, there actually *is* a bit of a filter. First of all, the reason "any moron with a PC" was a problem back then was because there simply wasn't much you could put on consoles at the time (PCs were a different matter, which I think is why they survived), so a lot of games wound up being simply other games, but repackaged with different graphics. People expect more out of games nowadays--you can't just reprogram Street Fighter II with different sprites and call it a new game anymore.

The other part of the filter is, "morons" wouldn't know how to code a reasonably complicated game--something like even Super Mario Bros. would take a fair bit of study at least, and I highly doubt your average computer user knows that much C. So only the people who are really dedicated will be making games and those people will probably have more realistic prices and ambitions. We won't have the guys from Kool-Aid thinking that putting their character on the Atari will make them millions--that kind of thinking is in the past.

So really, the only possible harm in "opening it up to any idiot with a PC" would be to the corporations who have a virtual monopoly on the gaming industry and have sole voice over what games are even available to the consumer. And we've all seen how that works. Sony's CEO hates 2D games? Suddenly 2D games are banned from his system. Is that honestly a good thing?


First of all, the PC market didn't 'ride out' the crash. It limped through the crash, like many of the console developers. 1983 was the crash, 1985 was the NES release in the States. 2 years of PC 'dominance', and the price precluded most households to use one as a gaming system. However, some did play PC games, but not as much as you imply. PC gaming didn't hit it's stride until the mid 90's, and it tapered off since then.

People making games have often used other programs, or just made a pile of ass and call it $60. Go play some of the official Atari games, then try a couple of the unlisenced games. Some are great, most really suck.

Kool Aid might not try to use video games to sell shit, but I've seen Mario, Link, and Master Chief's face plastered on all kinds of garbage recently. Things haven't changed all that much.

Mario gets repackaged every console, every year almost, complete with a 'new' strategy guide. Your SFII clone statement is inaccurate.

'Sort itself out'?!? Yes, like the 360's reliability issues, the mountains of shovelware we already see, the PS3 online issues...

If I make a console, I have every right to want to protect my system's reputation. Step one is keeping undesirable shit off of it. Yes, I think it's ass that PS3 has no 2D games, but I also like being able to buy a game and know it wont crash, the rating is accurate, and the company that made it. Pirates don't care about any of that at all, usually.


Regardless, the average moron with a PC couldn't afford the multi-thousand dollar dev kits that console manufacturers require you to purchase to develop on their platform.

Then he would be less a pirate than a liscensed programmer, eh?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Mini-crash? Or is what we're experiencing simply because all three home consoles are in their fifth and sixth years?

Software sales slow down at the end of every console's lifecycle, which traditionally has been five to six years. We're right in the middle of that now (plus we're experiencing a bad economy). It seems like this is just the normal cycle, except no new console is being released this Christmas.

I'd say that describes an example of a mini-crash perfectly. The big one was a total demand side collapse. The mini type is a paralyzed supply side. Demand siders rejoice, yet another feather in our caps. LOL

[j_factor]

But licensing the games forces standards, and keeps those who would spend millions on promoting a game that they spent thousands on out of the marketplace.

There are no standards. Licensing just means you've paid a fee. Nintendo had standards against racy content, and each licensee was only allowed to release a limited number of games, but they never had standards on actual quality.


First of all, the PC market didn't 'ride out' the crash. It limped through the crash, like many of the console developers. 1983 was the crash, 1985 was the NES release in the States. 2 years of PC 'dominance', and the price precluded most households to use one as a gaming system. However, some did play PC games, but not as much as you imply. PC gaming didn't hit it's stride until the mid 90's, and it tapered off since then.

I'm sure by PC he meant computers in general. During that time you could get a Commodore 64 or Atari 8-bit computer for a reasonable price. I wouldn't say computer gaming "limped through" the crash. Computer gaming was relatively limited in the beginning of the 80s, and then around the crash it came into its own. Just look at the games.

[Sunnyvale]

There are no standards. Licensing just means you've paid a fee. Nintendo had standards against racy content, and each licensee was only allowed to release a limited number of games, but they never had standards on actual quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_testing

Quality controls are standards. Remember the silly 30 lives code on Contra, or the 'Zelda' name to get to the 2nd quest on Zelda? Didn't see much of that before. Thpse were for game testers, for quality control. Remeber the bootleg Pokemon GBA carts? These are the guys who'd be making games in huge quantities if they could get away with it. Hell, they already did. How was the quality of those carts?


I'm sure by PC he meant computers in general. During that time you could get a Commodore 64 or Atari 8-bit computer for a reasonable price. I wouldn't say computer gaming "limped through" the crash. Computer gaming was relatively limited in the beginning of the 80s, and then around the crash it came into its own. Just look at the games.

http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html

C64's were $400 in 83. That's close to $1500 by today's standards, hardly an easily affordable game system. The computer game craze was limited to affluent. Most of the big games of the early computer days were text only. A niche item.

[G-Boobie]

Mini-crash? Or is what we're experiencing simply because all three home consoles are in their fifth and sixth years?

Software sales slow down at the end of every console's lifecycle, which traditionally has been five to six years. We're right in the middle of that now (plus we're experiencing a bad economy). It seems like this is just the normal cycle, except no new console is being released this Christmas.

Dunno bout that. Square Enix is doing so badly that they released a "don't panic" notice before releasing their financials, Silicon Knights just fired half or more of their staff, there's the whole Nintendo thing where they lost half a billion WITH new hardware, not a month goes by where a publisher doesn't shutter some dev team, Midway died, Pandemic died, Krone and Ensemble died, EA hasn't posted a profit in a couple years... I could go on. Google is depressing under certain search terms.

When consoles are in their later years, its cheaper and easier to make games for them. Engines are optimized, hardware tricks are understood, the install base is huge, etc. Things are changing outside of the established console cycle which is helping to shake things up: Steam, the Apple platforms, Facebook games, and so on. It's evolve or die time, and it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.

[j_factor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_testing

Quality controls are standards. Remember the silly 30 lives code on Contra, or the 'Zelda' name to get to the 2nd quest on Zelda? Didn't see much of that before. Thpse were for game testers, for quality control.

Not sure what your point is. As the article you linked says, game testing became more and more involved as games got more complex. Game testing has gotten lax in PC games in recent years because of the "we'll just patch it" mentality that has become ingrained. But that wasn't always the case. Since you're talking about NES, computer games of the time needed just as much testing, sometimes more. The NES certainly didn't invent, or make any particular contribution to, game testing.


Remeber the bootleg Pokemon GBA carts? These are the guys who'd be making games in huge quantities if they could get away with it. Hell, they already did. How was the quality of those carts?

Not sure what you're getting at here, either. Build quality? Bootleggers do have a tendency to use cheap crap. That has little to do with legitimate game companies. I don't think Tengen NES carts are poor quality.



http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html

C64's were $400 in 83. That's close to $1500 by today's standards, hardly an easily affordable game system.

That's not what your link says:


1983: June - Commodore drops the dealer price of the Commodore 64 to US$200, allowing the retail price to drop to US$200-230.

Plus there was a $100 rebate if you turned in a computer or game console. And while $200 then is a lot more than $200 now, consoles weren't much cheaper. I believe the Colecovision launched for $180 in late '82, and I have read that its launch price was lower than the Intellivision's then-current price, as well as being cheaper than the 5200. The cheapest NES set in 1985-86 was $130. By that time, a Commodore 64 was easily $100 if not less. The Atari 65XE was introduced in early 1985 for $120.


The computer game craze was limited to affluent. Most of the big games of the early computer days were text only. A niche item.

Not true at all. I don't know where you got the idea that most of the big computer games were text only. Maybe that was true for a while in the 70s, but not at all for the time period we're talking about. Infocom had a following with their text-based games but they weren't the norm.

[Edmond Dantes]

First of all, the PC market didn't 'ride out' the crash. It limped through the crash, like many of the console developers. 1983 was the crash, 1985 was the NES release in the States. 2 years of PC 'dominance', and the price precluded most households to use one as a gaming system. However, some did play PC games, but not as much as you imply. PC gaming didn't hit it's stride until the mid 90's, and it tapered off since then.

Sierra On-Line, Origin and EA--some of the biggest PC gaming developers ever--were founded DURING the crash. They seem to have made it out fine.


People making games have often used other programs, or just made a pile of ass and call it $60. Go play some of the official Atari games, then try a couple of the unlisenced games. Some are great, most really suck.

To be honest, when it comes to the Atari 2600 I can't tell the difference between the good games and the shit ones--they all seem the same to me. Shallow one-note stuff that doesn't change much as you go on.


Kool Aid might not try to use video games to sell shit, but I've seen Mario, Link, and Master Chief's face plastered on all kinds of garbage recently. Things haven't changed all that much.

... Surely you can see how established characters breaking out of their established medium, is different from a drink manufacturer making a game just because its the in-thing, right?


Mario gets repackaged every console, every year almost, complete with a 'new' strategy guide. Your SFII clone statement is inaccurate.

Except its not. Super Mario World was not Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64 was not Super Mario World, and Super Mario Galaxy wasn't Super Mario 64.

What I was talking about was games that were literally just graphics hacks of existing games, exact same levels and play mechanics and everything, just with the in-game characters replaced with licenses. The only time you see that nowadays is when a Japanese game has all traces of its heritage removed for the localization, but even then, to anyone who isn't an importer its still an all-new game.

You're trying to say all games in a series are the same game repackaged, which has merit but isn't what I'm talking about.


'Sort itself out'?!? Yes, like the 360's reliability issues, the mountains of shovelware we already see, the PS3 online issues...

If I make a console, I have every right to want to protect my system's reputation. Step one is keeping undesirable shit off of it. Yes, I think it's ass that PS3 has no 2D games, but I also like being able to buy a game and know it wont crash, the rating is accurate, and the company that made it. Pirates don't care about any of that at all, usually.

The thing that catches me is that your argument contradicts itself. You claim that companies need to limit what goes onto their consoles to "protect their reputation" but then you use hardware failures as an argument. Those hardware failures aren't caused by anyone except the very manufacturers who are supposedly "enforcing standards" in the first place, which seems to be a very big hole in your argument.

Also, you're associating indie programmers with piracy. That's just wrong.

[Sunnyvale]

Not sure what your point is. As the article you linked says, game testing became more and more involved as games got more complex. Game testing has gotten lax in PC games in recent years because of the "we'll just patch it" mentality that has become ingrained. But that wasn't always the case. Since you're talking about NES, computer games of the time needed just as much testing, sometimes more. The NES certainly didn't invent, or make any particular contribution to, game testing.

No, Nintendo did not invent testing. However, they did start with the BIOS lock or whatever and that caused the evolution of playtesting to skyrocket. Real competition existed, not just make a quick buck and run.



Not sure what you're getting at here, either. Build quality? Bootleggers do have a tendency to use cheap crap. That has little to do with legitimate game companies. I don't think Tengen NES carts are poor quality.

Not just build quality, but programming, battery life... If you open the doors to indie programmers, you open them to bootleggers. Who do you think will produce the most games?
And Tengen is a unique case. Half licensed, half not.



That's not what your link says:

Actually, that's exactly what my link says. My quote came a few lines before yours. I was only looking for the price in 83, so I didn't read the whole article. You, however, most assuredly did read the part that I quoted, yet claimed the article doesn't say that. :| Not cool. Perhaps because illustrating the C64 had to cut it's price in half in 83 hurts your case?



Plus there was a $100 rebate if you turned in a computer or game console. And while $200 then is a lot more than $200 now, consoles weren't much cheaper. I believe the Colecovision launched for $180 in late '82, and I have read that its launch price was lower than the Intellivision's then-current price, as well as being cheaper than the 5200. The cheapest NES set in 1985-86 was $130. By that time, a Commodore 64 was easily $100 if not less. The Atari 65XE was introduced in early 1985 for $120.

Yes, the C64 not only has it's price slashed in half in 83, but it had to start taking in trades to survive. Does this not sound like desperation tactics to you? THIS is why Commodore survived the crash; they went nuts trying!



Not true at all. I don't know where you got the idea that most of the big computer games were text only. Maybe that was true for a while in the 70s, but not at all for the time period we're talking about. Infocom had a following with their text-based games but they weren't the norm.

Probably got that idea from being around back then. Let's see... the Zork series, Oregon Trail, Odell Lake, Hitchhiker's Guide, Castle, and a whole mess that I can't remember the names of. Other computer games of the day were mostly arcade ports. Not all, of course.


Sierra On-Line, Origin and EA--some of the biggest PC gaming developers ever--were founded DURING the crash. They seem to have made it out fine.

EA started during the heyday, in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts
Sierra in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Entertainment
And you're right on Origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems
Research is important when making claims as fact.


To be honest, when it comes to the Atari 2600 I can't tell the difference between the good games and the shit ones--they all seem the same to me. Shallow one-note stuff that doesn't change much as you go on.

Wow. if you were a wine connisseur, would you so readily admit to your peers you can't tell the difference? I feel for you.



... Surely you can see how established characters breaking out of their established medium, is different from a drink manufacturer making a game just because its the in-thing, right?

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n629/ConneticutLeatherCompany/BiG5V3gBmkKGrHqEOKkEEsmgUWJChBLM5YLmnUQ_35.jpg
:|



Except its not. Super Mario World was not Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64 was not Super Mario World, and Super Mario Galaxy wasn't Super Mario 64.

What I was talking about was games that were literally just graphics hacks of existing games, exact same levels and play mechanics and everything, just with the in-game characters replaced with licenses. The only time you see that nowadays is when a Japanese game has all traces of its heritage removed for the localization, but even then, to anyone who isn't an importer its still an all-new game.

You're trying to say all games in a series are the same game repackaged, which has merit but isn't what I'm talking about.

Super Mario 64 DS, Mario 3 GBA...
But those were the simple examples. How about the EA Sports series'? Same engine, minor graphics tweaks, new roster, $60. Pokemon games? Same game, different tweaks. FPS? C'mon, do the words 'Uses the (whatever) engine' not ring a bell?



The thing that catches me is that your argument contradicts itself. You claim that companies need to limit what goes onto their consoles to "protect their reputation" but then you use hardware failures as an argument. Those hardware failures aren't caused by anyone except the very manufacturers who are supposedly "enforcing standards" in the first place, which seems to be a very big hole in your argument.

This is the real world, shades of grey and all. The companies are trying to compete with each other, and hardware issues hurt them. Has not both manufacturers worked out many of the bugs? Do you think an indie developer could have afforded to repair/replace all of those consoles, let alone would have tried? Every company tries to cut all the corners it can. That's why we have industry standards. In all industry, not just games.


Also, you're associating indie programmers with piracy. That's just wrong.

Not at all. Say you are an indie programmer, and a millionaire, and have a great idea for a game. Say you make one that kicks ass and is hot, but you lack the immediate manufacturing facilities to produce the game. The pirates will make all the money on your game, as they don't lack the money or facilities, and your game will have a bad rap. And it will be legal, cause there's no lisences in your perfect world.

A solid game programmer should be able to sell his game if he tries. If he doesn't want to jump through the hoops, then he can write shareware. It's up to him.

[j_factor]

No, Nintendo did not invent testing. However, they did start with the BIOS lock or whatever and that caused the evolution of playtesting to skyrocket. Real competition existed, not just make a quick buck and run.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing any causal relationship between the lockout and playtesting.


Not just build quality, but programming, battery life... If you open the doors to indie programmers, you open them to bootleggers. Who do you think will produce the most games?

Still not seeing what bootleggers have to do with it. They're there either way.


Actually, that's exactly what my link says. My quote came a few lines before yours. I was only looking for the price in 83, so I didn't read the whole article. You, however, most assuredly did read the part that I quoted, yet claimed the article doesn't say that. :| Not cool.

You didn't quote the article, you paraphrased. I didn't read the whole article either, I just skimmed to find a price for 1983, and found $200. I apologize profusely. If you really want to split hairs, your price is pre-crash. Hard to pinpoint an exact date for the crash, but I doubt it had already occurred by June.


Perhaps because illustrating the C64 had to cut it's price in half in 83 hurts your case?

Hurts my case that it was an affordable product during the crash? I don't think so.


Yes, the C64 not only has it's price slashed in half in 83, but it had to start taking in trades to survive. Does this not sound like desperation tactics to you? THIS is why Commodore survived the crash; they went nuts trying!

I've never seen it characterized that way. Commodore didn't "survive" the crash, they never had a crash. Most sources say that the Commodore 64 price cut was one of the causes of the crash, not a reaction to it.


Probably got that idea from being around back then. Let's see... the Zork series, Oregon Trail, Odell Lake, Hitchhiker's Guide, Castle, and a whole mess that I can't remember the names of. Other computer games of the day were mostly arcade ports. Not all, of course.

Uh, are you serious? Two of those are Infocom, which I noted as the exception, two of those are edutainment titles and aren't even text only, and I've never heard of Castle, which doesn't appear to even be on Moby Games.

When I think big computer games of 1983-85, I think of Lode Runner, Ultima III and IV, King's Quest, Archon, M.U.L.E., Wizardry III, etc. Not just a bunch of text only games and arcade ports (not that those weren't there too). In fact I think of this as a high period for American game developers, and the only time when American games broke through in Japan.