The Shrine

This sounds great and may actually trump the Xbox Live

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157797

Imagine Phantasy Star Online mixed with Facebook mixed with Xbox Live. If they do it properly, it would be really neat....although not enough to warrant the price of the system

That actually looks pretty hot. I hope they don't fuck it up...might save their ridiculous butts.

It does look to have quite a bit of potential. I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt though, something about sony and over-promising while under-delivering.

Now, bovine, that's nonsense. Everyone knows that Sony is known for reliable hardware and solid experiences in all of their doings.

For instance, take my new slimline Playstation 2 that burned out after two months. What would you have to say about something like that?

(...stops in his tracks, thinks a bit, and begins looking for pitchfork and gasoline can and a map to Sony headquarters)

Hey I think it is cool, looks like the Mii channel on steroids =P

Though I guess you don't actually get to use that stuff in any games.

Nintendo claims that this is a Mii-ripoff and that they thought of, and rejected, a similar idea with the Miis. I know it's ridiculous PR war stuff, but I think it would be fun to have a meeting place online for Miis. It would be easily done and if they actually allowed for more customization of the Miis, should rule. May not be as good as this Home thing if Sony gets it right, but it would be pretty neat

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/gdc07-cl ... 242341.php

Sony needs to stop fucking with me because they're giving me hope AND IT'S DRIVING ME CRAZY!!!!!!!

Could it be that Sony rushed the PS3 out the door. In a year or so it should have good games and good features... and hopefully a small price drop.

Flip wrote:Could it be that Sony rushed the PS3 out the door. In a year or so it should have good games and good features... and hopefully a small price drop.

Of course, but no worse than Nintendo and Microsoft.

And they would need a significant price drop for me. It's insanely expensive

Fuck this shit...you guys need to see LittleBigPlanet. Penny Arcade talked about it today, and it looks FANFUCKINGTASTIC. Droolworthy.

It's a 2D-gameplay 3D-graphic platformer with BUILD TOOLS. Built into the game. That are designed to be part of the gameplay. In other words, if I read the review right, the first part of the game is actually designing the game to a certain extent - the second is playing that game against your friends. You make your own models, choose gameplay characteristics...

Dear CHRIST, I need this game. That could be the fucking PS3 killer app, 'cause I now want one badly.

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

Nev wrote:Fuck this shit...you guys need to see LittleBigPlanet. Penny Arcade talked about it today, and it looks FANFUCKINGTASTIC. Droolworthy.

It's a 2D-gameplay 3D-graphic platformer with BUILD TOOLS. Built into the game. That are designed to be part of the gameplay. In other words, if I read the review right, the first part of the game is actually designing the game to a certain extent - the second is playing that game against your friends. You make your own models, choose gameplay characteristics...

Dear CHRIST, I need this game. That could be the fucking PS3 killer app, 'cause I now want one badly.

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

Well, what the game is doing is not anything new, there were games like this on PC, Commodore 64, NES, Master System, and Genesis, the Load Runner series comes to mind, though they kind of dissappeared. If this is to that genre what Phoenix Wright is to graphical adventure games, then I say it will be good.

I am also getting drawn in a bit. There was nothing really on the system to create any sort of draw to it, but the possibility of LocoRoco and LittleBigPlanet are making me think about maybe getting it whenever these titles and (hopefully) more like them start coming out. Interestingly enough I have found that I buy these fancy dancy game consoles to play games..... or so it would seem.

The Seeker wrote:Well, what the game is doing is not anything new, there were games like this on PC, Commodore 64, NES, Master System, and Genesis, the Load Runner series comes to mind, though they kind of dissappeared. If this is to that genre what Phoenix Wright is to graphical adventure games, then I say it will be good.

Lode Runner's build tools were never designed to be part of the in-game engine - that's not even comparable to this in any way, if I understand the concept right. In this game, building is actually part of the gaming process.

Build tools are nothing new, but build tools that can be reasonably used *in realtime* are rare, and build tools where the build functions are *integrated* with gameplay essentially don't exist - Second Life is the only other game I know about where that's part of the idea.

Second Life might have a shot on being placed in the "same genre", but due to the fact that but I don't feel like wandering through stores that sell endless rows of pictures of genitalia, I don't play it anymore. I would argue (and I think a lot of others would too) that this sort of thing is fairly new.

Zeus wrote:

Flip wrote:Could it be that Sony rushed the PS3 out the door. In a year or so it should have good games and good features... and hopefully a small price drop.

Of course, but no worse than Nintendo and Microsoft.

And they would need a significant price drop for me. It's insanely expensive

I think it is not comparable. Sony has always had great launches, and this one, well, stunk. They werent prepared at all. Nintendo and Microsoft were to a much higher degree. I think waiting for the PS3 to become kickass is a good move, because it will eventually be.

I am not sure how Zeus is arguing against Flip's point here =P

It's obvious with the controller, the pack-in deals, and everything that Nintendo set themselves up for a very excellent launch; which turned into a surprising record shattering launch.

Sony had a fairly bad launch this time around because they were trying a new strategy which, well...... sucked. With the PSX, Sony managed to do very well largely in part due to their prices, cheaper games and cheaper consoles than the compeititon. The PS2 also launched with the same price point, and while Microsoft was the first to go over the $300 mark, Sony stepped WAY over and doubled the launch price of the PS3 from previous consoles. It is a lot harder to sell a videogame system priced at 600 then it is to sell one at 300. Not to mention that the PS3 has had numerous other issues that they are fixing. Home seems to be a good fix for something that a next gen Playstation was missing. Another thing that they are on their way to fixing as well is the rumble feature since the situation with the other company was very recently settled, and they're currently co-operating with them on something. Though we'll see on home, it might turn out to be messed up, and actually more of a hassle to use than a good feature.

The major hurtle, in my opinion, is the price; it is well out of an acceptable range for the vast majority of the gaming market; even the Xbox 360 has suffered due to its own pricing (not nearly as much, but it is still millions of sales behind Microsoft's schedule which caused them to drop shipment forecasts from 5 million down to 1.6 million for the first two quarters of this year). Though there are people who will pay $599 for a game console, those people are very many.

The videogame market can be sort of looked at like a pyramid, there are those at the top who will pay the launch price. Every price drop opens the console up to a larger audience. PS3 launched at a price that was too high up on the pyramid. You can bet that Sony is looking to lower price as soon as they can; even so, they're going to deny that until shortly before the reduction as it would hurt sales. SCE has to worry about the Blu-Ray department, as those drives are too expensive right now.

You can bet Sony is not going to repeat this strategy again with the PS4.

It's good for a company like Sony to go through this.

When you're at the top of the food chain you feel like you can do no wrong. When you finally fuck up you learn not to do the same bonehead shit over again.

And yes, I agree, until there's a nice solid price drop you're gonna see Sony trailing behind for a while. I personally like the games the system has coming out later, but that price is the main thing keeping me away.

Eric wrote:It's good for a company like Sony to go through this.

When you're at the top of the food chain you feel like you can do no wrong. When you finally fuck up you learn not to do the same bonehead shit over again.

Kinda sounds like Nintendo's story after the 'Cube, no?

Like Nintendo's story in the late days of the NES, too. They were getting known for being bastards with their third-party developers, which is part of why the Genesis was able to do well...I think, anyway.

Zeus wrote:

Eric wrote:It's good for a company like Sony to go through this.

When you're at the top of the food chain you feel like you can do no wrong. When you finally fuck up you learn not to do the same bonehead shit over again.

Kinda sounds like Nintendo's story after the 'Cube, no?

After the Cube? O_o

You mean after the SNES?

After the NES would be the money shot =)

Aside from a period in the mid 90's, Nintendo had been in decline since the end of the 80's. One of the reasons as to why was as Nev stated.

Though I think Zeus was talking about Nintendo learning their lesson after the Cube.

The Seeker wrote:
Though I think Zeus was talking about Nintendo learning their lesson after the Cube.

They haven't learned their lesson - they are the EXACT same as always.

kali o. wrote:

The Seeker wrote:
Though I think Zeus was talking about Nintendo learning their lesson after the Cube.

They haven't learned their lesson - they are the EXACT same as always.

Eiji Anouma: "To make the new Zelda, we made it for Western audiences 'cause that's who likes it. We did it the way they wanted it"

Yep, sounds like Nintendo of old.

Zeus wrote:

kali o. wrote:

The Seeker wrote:
Though I think Zeus was talking about Nintendo learning their lesson after the Cube.

They haven't learned their lesson - they are the EXACT same as always.

Eiji Anouma: "To make the new Zelda, we made it for Western audiences 'cause that's who likes it. We did it the way they wanted it"

Yep, sounds like Nintendo of old.

Haha, speaking of which, he (Or Miyamoto, I forget which one now) announced that the next Zelda in line is going to take full advantage of the Wii hardware; Twilight Princess did not. He also stated that it will have orchestrated music. On voice acting, the decision had not been made at that point. They seem to release a Zelda every 2-3 years (98, 00, 03, 06), so I expect this one in 2008-09.

They'll never budge on voice acting in zelda NEVER.

The american animated series with "Excussssssssssssse me princess" ruined any chance we ever had for that =o

I'd love to see a Zelda game with voice acting.

As far as Nintendo goes, I don't work in that sector of the industry, so I don't know if they have "changed" or not. No one I've heard of really complains about their policies these days, unlike the way it was back in, say, 1988 or 1989, when they were particularly known for charging licensees huge fees and being ridiculously aloof in terms of aiding their developers. I wasn't around, obviously, but I understand they were...hated.

These days, they just don't leak info...they're probably the hardest console manufacturer to find out any information on, or to get a development contract with. My perception is that they're known for requiring a LOT of developer competence to even get in the door. But I think they do take care of you once you get there - not sure about that, though.

Eric wrote:They'll never budge on voice acting in zelda NEVER.

The american animated series with "Excussssssssssssse me princess" ruined any chance we ever had for that =o

Hehe, well, I do understand the reasoning for it. Link is a mute character, can you imagine how that would translate into the world of voice acting? I personally don't mind mute characters, a lot of my favourite games ever have them (Chrono Trigger and Earthbound come to mind). The reason the Japanese have them is because they feel the player can relate better to those types, because essentially the player imagines what kind of dialogue the main character is saying rather than some author saying it for the character. Think on it, people only dislike main characters who talk =)

Nev wrote:These days, they just don't leak info...they're probably the hardest console manufacturer to find out any information on, or to get a development contract with. My perception is that they're known for requiring a LOT of developer competence to even get in the door. But I think they do take care of you once you get there - not sure about that, though.

Through my discussions with my bud at Warppipe, apparently you have to have two PUBLISHED games - somewhere - before they'll even look at you. It's not like you can create a kick-ass game on the quality of Gears of War in your basement and expect them to even consider looking at it.

Once you get in and especially if you have their mascot in your game, I think it's more control than "taking care", although you do get their point of view on it. It was different with Retro 'cause they were a second-party.

Nintendo was prevented by Japanese law to reveal any significant information at GDC this year due to a very large stock sale which is taking place shortly. They can't reveal any new information until that has taken place.

Zeus wrote:Through my discussions with my bud at Warppipe, apparently you have to have two PUBLISHED games - somewhere - before they'll even look at you. It's not like you can create a kick-ass game on the quality of Gears of War in your basement and expect them to even consider looking at it.

Once you get in and especially if you have their mascot in your game, I think it's more control than "taking care", although you do get their point of view on it. It was different with Retro 'cause they were a second-party.

That sounds about right. Microsoft requires one published game before they'll let you join the XBox program...

I was actually wondering about Retro. Were they some kind of in-house team originally?

Nev wrote:That sounds about right. Microsoft requires one published game before they'll let you join the XBox program...

I was actually wondering about Retro. Were they some kind of in-house team originally?

Retro is essentially the old Iguana Entertainment. They made games like NBA jam, Aero the Acrobat, and Turok 1 & 2. They parted with Acclaim and became a Nintendo first party development house once Nintendo bought them out completely. They seem to have been well taken-care of and developed one of the most highly acclaimed titles of the generation (Metroid Prime).

The Seeker wrote:

Nev wrote:That sounds about right. Microsoft requires one published game before they'll let you join the XBox program...

I was actually wondering about Retro. Were they some kind of in-house team originally?

Retro is essentially the old Iguana Entertainment. They made games like NBA jam, Aero the Acrobat, and Turok 1 & 2. They parted with Acclaim and became a Nintendo first party development house once Nintendo bought them out completely. They seem to have been well taken-care of and developed one of the most highly acclaimed titles of the generation (Metroid Prime).

Retro is a Nintendo second-party in the same way Rare was. Incidentally, they were given Metroid during the late stages of the 64, right around the time they started seriously lookin' at the North American market. The game was developed basically for us since the Japs don't like the Metroid series. That game itself is proof of Nintendo's shifting mentality due to the ass-kicking it received in two consecutive generations and due to Iwata taking over.

And to add to your point about the stock offering for Nintendo, it's 'cause it's the government that's selling its shares in Nintendo (yes, the government there owns shares in the company) that it's under extra scrunity and secrecy

Zeus wrote:Retro is a Nintendo second-party in the same way Rare was.

They're first party: http://www.retrostudios.com/ click on company.


Nintendo's biggest screw ups in dealing with development houses (in recent times) has to do with the UK market. Rare, Nintendo was offered the opportunity to buy the remaining 51% of the Rareware stock, and they declined, and Microsoft bought them, after a few court proceedings, Nintendo essentially was forced to sell their 49% share; though this was also a screwup for Microsoft, the company has not been able to develop a major title since being purchased; this can be mainly attributed to the departure of key figures such as Doak and Hollis who headed up Rare's major titles under Nintendo. It was a real shame to lose Rare, they were one of the most progressive game designers in the history of the industry.

The other screwup was the handleing of a company called DMA which had a hit SNES title called Uniracers (which is fucking awesome). DMA was another member of the Nintendo Dream Team and they were developing a very unique new gaming concept, one which involved free roaming characters who went from vehicle to vehicle and could do many quests. Nintendo essentially could have had this company as their own but ended up tearing up the second party status contract. The first game which was unveiled in 95 was one called Body Harvest, Nintendo had been frustrated that the game did not have enough elements in it (they wanted much more roleplaying and puzzle elements for the Japanese audience), it ended up being released years later than it was supposed to be. The second game using this concept was one called Space Station Silicon Valley which instead had robotic animals as the vehicles, and a microchip as a player (I will note this game is among the most underated titles for the N64). The third game using this concept didn't feature graphics as advanced as the other two, but would end up being by far their most popular series: Grand Theft Auto.

Seek, subsidiary is second party. Internal development house is first party. Silicon Knights was a second party and they were owned only 25% by Nintendo but were considered a non-controlling subsidiary

Zeus wrote:Seek, subsidiary is second party. Internal development house is first party. Silicon Knights was a second party and they were owned only 25% by Nintendo but were considered a non-controlling subsidiary

Since when is a subsidary considered a second party?

Second Party Developers are essentially Third Party Developers who are tied to developing for a single console manufacturer. The term is used for convenience in the videogame development world. First party developers are houses that are owned by another company (Rare and SK were not owned by Nintendo, Nintendo owned 49% of Rare). For an example of a first party house if EA was a console manufacturer: Maxis would be considered a first party house, they are not internal.

A company like Brownie Brown is also wholly owned by Nintendo, and doesn't always work with Nintendo (they often work with Square since the team is essentially the old Seiken Densetsu team that worked on Secret of Mana and Final Fantasy Adventure). They are considered a first party. A company like Hal Laboratories which is responsible for some of Nintendo's most important games, like Super Smash Brothers and Kirby, are tied to Nintendo (Iwata was former president there, or something), but not wholly owned; they are a second party.

From what I know, a second party is a company that has a very close relationship with the manufacturer that often invovles ownership of some kind but is autonomous. It doesn't have to be wholly-owned (Silicon Knights was only 25% owned if I'm not mistaken) or even owned at all. It's an exclusive relationship where resources are shared. A first party is in-house, reliant on the manufacturer completely. A third-party has no ties to the manufacturer, just a working relationship.

Here is a list of Nintendo first and second party developers:

http://www.answers.com/topic/nintendo-d ... -divisions

Nintendo Developers In-house & first-party : Integrated R&D | R&D 1 | R&D 2 | EAD | Intelligent Systems | EAD Tokyo | NST | Retro Studios | Brownie Brown

Second-party: HAL Laboratory | Camelot | Genius Sonority | Creatures Inc. | AlphaDream | Game Freak | NOISE

http://www.reboom.info/article/Nintendo.html A very detailed overview of the entire company of Nintendo, which also lists their first and second party software development assets.

OK, so I was close. Wholly owned = first party:

"Retro Studios is an American video game developer based in Austin, Texas, USA. It was founded in 1998 by Jeff Spangenberg as a second-party developer to Japan-based video game company Nintendo. It is currently wholly owned by Nintendo (and is thus a first-party developer, rather than a second-party one as it once was), with over 50 employees."

Seek, there's a difference between being a "subsidiary" and being "wholly-owned". Retro was a second-party from the beginning according to this as Nintendo had some ownership but not all (they bought the shares from the founder when he left) but only recently were wholly-owned turning it into a first-party.

And it looks like you were closer to the other part of it. They don't have to have any kind of ownership at all, just exclusitivity:

http://www.answers.com/topic/second-party-developer

It's not a requirement, but it seems to be there's usually some sort of ownership. Score one for Seek :-)