Escapist Podcast: 095: Pre-E3 Speculation
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually that's not quite so straightforward. We know that last year Nintendo posted a loss, I believe one of their first ever. A few months ago they did again post a profit, but it was 50% below their expectations. The WiiU has not sold as well as they would like it. Perhaps some of the used games shenanigans going on will turn buyers in their favor, but in general I think the releases of the other two competitors consoles will only hurt them.DRTJR said:
Once again, there's a little more to it than that.DRTJR said:
All the consoles came out roughly in early November give or take a few days, so they have all posted Q3 and then Q4 earnings through the end of March in their respective years. Over the same period of time, the sales for the WiiU were 3.45 million units, Xbox 360 was 3.2 and PS3 was 3.61. The interesting addition to this is the growth, in Q3 360 started at 1.5 and PS3 started at 1.86 and they grew into Q4. The WiiU sold a commanding 3.06 in the first month or so, but a paltry .4 since.
I do agree that the release of some of their bigger titles will certainly help though.
Not sure if this was the right place to poast it, but I think the links to the previous podcast are borked.
Or is that just me?
Or is that just me?
The original X-Box 360 failure rate was 54.2% according to GameInformer.
IMO the best way to incentivise new games is free DLC, like what Id software did with Rage, content that's not necessary to finish the game but still adds to the total package. Outside of Steam, it's difficult to get game publishers to drop their price below $60, even when there's no physical production involved. Look at Australia for example. Their prices are higher because shipping prices are so ridiculous, and yet if a game is purchased digitally, it's the same price as the physical copy.
IMO the best way to incentivise new games is free DLC, like what Id software did with Rage, content that's not necessary to finish the game but still adds to the total package. Outside of Steam, it's difficult to get game publishers to drop their price below $60, even when there's no physical production involved. Look at Australia for example. Their prices are higher because shipping prices are so ridiculous, and yet if a game is purchased digitally, it's the same price as the physical copy.
So, in regards to voting with your wallet vs complaining loudly - Semi-hypothetical question here:
Scenario:
You have a game, it looks good and you want to see more games like it(say, first person shooter with heavy RPG elements and a ton of depth). But, because of publisher pressure, the game is coming mostly gutted with an inordinate amount of day one DLC. You don't want this, so you, and many others, don't buy this game. The publisher says, "Oh, no one wants a first person shooter with heavy RPG elements and tons of depth! Clearly, the next few games we make MUST be [insert popular game type you don't favor]." The flip side is, of course, that had game sales gone well, the publisher could simply say, "Look at our numbers for this game! People clearly LOVE day one DLC!" (This implies you buy the game and its DLC in order to have a more enjoyable experience. You could just buy the game, but not the DLC, however, then you're in possession of a potentially unsatisfactory experience with a possible good game in the future, if people interpret data in the way you'd like.)
Question:
What do you do? Do you buy the game to support the idea of it, but tell potentially complaint-deaf publishers how much you loathe their day one DLC? Do you risk $60 knowing you're getting an incomplete game (not talking about stuff they made after production, I'm talking actual predatory practices, like the game would go from 50 to 85 on Metacritic if you buy the DLC for it), but want to tell publishers that you like these kinds of games? Do you complain without buying it, in the hopes that it won't be ignored and reinterpreted as "we need more Call of Duty!"?
Scenario:
You have a game, it looks good and you want to see more games like it(say, first person shooter with heavy RPG elements and a ton of depth). But, because of publisher pressure, the game is coming mostly gutted with an inordinate amount of day one DLC. You don't want this, so you, and many others, don't buy this game. The publisher says, "Oh, no one wants a first person shooter with heavy RPG elements and tons of depth! Clearly, the next few games we make MUST be [insert popular game type you don't favor]." The flip side is, of course, that had game sales gone well, the publisher could simply say, "Look at our numbers for this game! People clearly LOVE day one DLC!" (This implies you buy the game and its DLC in order to have a more enjoyable experience. You could just buy the game, but not the DLC, however, then you're in possession of a potentially unsatisfactory experience with a possible good game in the future, if people interpret data in the way you'd like.)
Question:
What do you do? Do you buy the game to support the idea of it, but tell potentially complaint-deaf publishers how much you loathe their day one DLC? Do you risk $60 knowing you're getting an incomplete game (not talking about stuff they made after production, I'm talking actual predatory practices, like the game would go from 50 to 85 on Metacritic if you buy the DLC for it), but want to tell publishers that you like these kinds of games? Do you complain without buying it, in the hopes that it won't be ignored and reinterpreted as "we need more Call of Duty!"?