MS to buy Bioware?

[taloony]

I think Negitoro's correct about the games Bioware makes not translating well to console. I couldn't imagine playing IWD, BG, Fallout, or my fav. Planescape, with a pad. Other than that... well, this won't make me decide to suddenly buy a Xbox, especially as no new games are on the horizon from Bioware that I want to buy.

[negitoro]

Originally posted by Ammadeau
Sega is a system seller? What alternate reality are you from? O_o

Truth is some people are buying an xbox just for KOTOR, even though it is also coming out on PC, so while Bioware isn't a huge system seller they can obviously sell an xbox or two without even a true exclusive. If the game was locked to the xbox, I bet the sales numbers would jump noticably. There's a lot of SW fans out there.

Yes, I'm well aware that Sega games are not necessarily always the biggest sellers... but truth remains that the have a vast number of well recognized, respected franchises and a well known brand name. Not all Sega games are flops and Sega games have always had potential to sell well even if the reality differs.

Virtua Fighter, Sonic, Sega Sports franchises, etc all sell reasonably well. Sakura Taisen alone would boost Japanese sales.

A purchase of Sega, will provide franchises, some semblance of credibility and at least make the mainstream public take notice. The company reinforces the system's library overall with a series of high profile titles in a variety of genres.

And in true competitive sense, this move hurts Nintendo and Sony far more than the purchase or either Rare or Bioware.

I certainly know there are some people highly anticipating KOTOR. But from what I see, that group is limited to hardcore SW fans and hardcore gamers... a great majority of the mainstream are not necessarily rushing to buy this title. The fact is, if you're a SW fan, it may not make a difference to you between this and say, Bounty Hunter or Rebel Assault... particularly kids and young teens who merely covet the SW franchise tag...

In this sense, Bioware's games have always held a niche appeal, rather than mainstream draw.

[AaronChance]

We'll see soon how well VF: Evo sells, but Sakura Taisen PS2 was beaten in sales by Star Ocean 3 (2x the sales) and Dynasty Warriors 4 (like 4x the sales). Probably would have done only about half sales wise on xbox, though there's no way to be sure.

Obviously MS should be trying to snatch Koei instead.

[negitoro]

Regardless of how it was beaten, it's pretty evident that Xbox would've settled for half that sales figure in Japan. VF Evo will sell reasonably well whether or not it's a runaway million seller or not.

The fact is Xbox has next to no titles of this caliber in the Japanese market besides the DOA stuff Tecmo is churning out. Maybe MS should buy Tecmo just to make SURE they don't jump ship. As it is, if Tecmo runs, Xbox Japan is screwed forever.

[GameHED]

I still think most japanese companies are better off third party. (as opposed to second party ie owned and controlled by manufacturer forever) They are too proud to be bought anyway. I bet MS have been trying to buy them but MS just don't have the proper respect or the right attitude in dealing with them so we are seeing companies like konami practically ignore them with regards to releases (with the exception of a few titles) and become sony whores. I'd be quite happy buying all my japanese rpgs and stuff for ps2 or cube and leave the rest of the euro, UK and US stuff on the xbox (seeing as those kinds of developers are more familiar with the windows/pc/directX platforms while japan devs seem more comfortable with closed, proprietory architecture with engines custom designed by themselves.)

And again some of the best and more original stuff imo comes from the pc platform and I don't see what's so wrong with normally-pc-like titles heading down to console platforms. (the masses cared about gta3 did they not? Is this not just a continuation of the series that started on pc? DMA design were very little known by even so called hardcore gamers before gta3, that includes most people on this forum. And what of the Tony Hawks, Tomb Raiders, Resident Evils, Silent Hills, Soul Caliburs, Soul Reavers and MGSs? These are as mainstream as much as the FF games imo and some aren't developed by japanese companies, showing that there is big potential for the US game market in not relying soley on Japan for decent games. )

The role of traditional console game has changed and the pc games and console games markets will converge. Trust me most of the pc developers will see the merits of releasing games on console and start adapting them to the unique needs of the console market to make them work well and be "console-gamer friendly". Heck look at blizzard with thier console StarCraft game. That's bound to attract mainstream followers of the starcraft, warcraft, diablo games and they aren't japanese and this company has a history of pretty good consistancy. Enough that Sega would be inspired to create a diablo-esqe Phantasy star game with the same kind of play mechanics and achieve enough critical success to hook people.

The biggest japanese companies have made thier decision to stick with japan consoles and so, in the end, it may be better that they stay with what they are happy with, rather than forced to work on a single platform. (note I said biggest. That doesn't mean some of the smaller ones can't benefit from the niche appeal of the xbox market where you have smart japanese gamefans buying a machine not from the popularity of the system and market share, but more because of the quality of games and the options the platform offers. eg capcom releasing an online CVS2)

If all the big companies just start moving to 1 console, the industry is in danger of going into another monopoly like nintendo had in the 80s. I'd much rather enjoy the benefits of 3 harware competitors level with each other in terms of quality titles on offer than to have all the best stuff under 1 platform. (although sony has the lions share now, we are slowly seeing developers spread themselves out because lets face it, in the long term they will benefit from being constantly in demand by the manufacturers to make games for thier platform. They love the attention they are getting from manufacturers and how it drives up demand and value for thier franchises. Once demand dries up for thier title on one platform, they'll always milk the other platform to gain extra profit from an old title that would normally not get a second chance had there not been such a split in the console market between the 3)

I actually think, although from a marketing viewpoint, sony are dominating, alot of the mindshare (bar japan) is split 3 ways (globally) and the titles in terms of quality are about even. The DC had a much better quality software lineup than ps2 and was still ignored by the masses and by the developers who were scared, (some of sega's and capcom's best stuff as well as one of the best namco fighters ever appeared on this platform so to me the masses shouldnt be seen as a means to an end. And all these companies were japanese devs too) so I doubt wasting money on buying companies that don't want to be bought by MS is going to make many gamers happy beyond attracting masses towards a 'forced xbox' purchase and another monopoly. If people ignore quality so what? Better that a developer will make a niche title and attract a hardcore following (with the risk of not making gigantic profits) than to make mediocre titles that show little passion whilst making heaps of money out of them from the masses (and falling into sequel trap) imo.

And even when great and talented companies DO have lots of money to spend (SEGA) that doesn't automatically garauntee both critical and commercial success. (the ambitious shenmue which is going to be cut short) The developers have to be happy making it, (for it to be good and apreciated by a fan base) the risks taken have to be bold (to stand out and have some feature setting it apart from every other game in the crowd - especially now when originality is avoided and publishers hate risks) and it has to have a signature appeal that makes the thing cool enough. (the design, aesthetics, detailed planning and presentation of the whole game right from the begining rather than as individual seperate parts glued together) To me the money thing should be seperate in a developers mind. Rather than basing what types of game they'll make based on sales and what the market says, it should be based on those 3 above things and not some scientific formula.

You can pretty much blame the slow pace of wholly-original quality nintendo GBA titles on the monopoly of the handheld market that nintendo holds. (licensed crap to attract masses, and zero competition from the lack of enough passion-driven developers working on it. But sales are good and from a business point of view that's the means to an end, but gamers and devlopers probably aren't too happy which means quality of games is compromised. Of course, forced development will eventually see some good games released, since there is no choice when there is 1 dominant platform, but for the most part the masses will forever be the main target with each new release and that usually mean 1 less release of a wholly original title which a company would consider too 'risky')

[negitoro]

Originally posted by GameHED
I still think most japanese companies are better off third party. (as opposed to second party ie owned and controlled by manufacturer forever) They are too proud to be bought anyway.

I do agree with this to a point. The stigma attached to being run by 'gaijin' is perhaps a huge problem, especially in such a proud and culture oriented industry. However, whether they are better off or not is a iffy question, since their longstanding closed mentality gives us very few industry examples to work with. It would be better for Xbox as a brand... if not for the developer.

I bet MS have been trying to buy them but MS just don't have the proper respect or the right attitude in dealing with them so we are seeing companies like konami practically ignore them with regards to releases

Perhaps. I do agree that MS is probably exuding the wrong 'vibe' in the Japanese market. However, I'm not sure that the main reason that anyone is ignoring them is their respect. As far as I can tell, Xbox hasn't shown anything to lead us to believe transgressions on their part. A lot of developers aren't particularly hostile to Xbox but a lot are limiting their exposure, in good part, due to sales and user base.

And again some of the best and more original stuff imo comes from the pc platform and I don't see what's so wrong with normally-pc-like titles heading down to console platforms. (the masses cared about gta3 did they not?

I do believe the two markets are rather distinct. The biggest genres of the PC market - FPS, RTS, Simulations, RPGs and the MMORPGs - don't necessarily translate well to the console. Even the most successful genre - FPS - has recieved a lot of flak from their established fanbases due to the dual sticks vs mouse/keyboard debate. Certainly there are exceptions. The PC market is definitely capable of generating console worthy material. However, I do believe that a game has to be built for a console first and a PC second for it to be seriously considered. GTA3 is such a game... (and to be fair, GTA has never been a very "PC-like" game franchise)

Of course, this all does absolutely nothing to gain the hearts of the Japanese market (who think the Xbox is too PC like already) and those who cling to the notion of the Xbox=PC-in-a-box...

In any case, the company in debate, Bioware, has but a scant one console game under their belt, of which was recieved with lackluster enthusiasm at retail. The rest of their games have been absolutely PC oriented to the point of stereotype. KOTOR may change this but I still get the unfortunate 'PC-vibe' from the game... regardless of how it will eventually play.

Of course, I cannot know for sure whether Bioware will end up blowing up and producing GTA-like hits. I'm just saying their current projects and track record don't show any inidication that it can or will.

the Tony Hawks, Tomb Raiders, Resident Evils, Silent Hills, Soul Caliburs, Soul Reavers and MGSs? These are as mainstream as much as the FF games imo and some aren't developed by japanese companies, showing that there is big potential for the US game market in not relying soley on Japan for decent games.

I agree. Japan is not absolutely necessary to have great games. But any system's library is negatively impacted when it's being limited. Without Japanese games, the system's library becomes less "console-like"... face it... the great console experiences of the past 2 decades have been Japanese biased, without a doubt. Even in your list, you have listed more than half games which are developed by Japanese companies.

I'm arguing for diversity here. I'm not bashing American developers. I don't want them to 'solely depend on'... I want a rich gaming experience. And to achieve that I don't think Bioware acquisition is quite the answer.

[quote]Heck look at blizzard with thier console StarCraft game. That's bound to attract mainstream followers of the starcraft, warcraft, diablo games and they aren't japanese and this company has a history of pretty good consistancy.[quote]I agree... Starcraft Ghost is on my list of anticipated games too... but realize... does Bioware have that power ? Blizzard has the fanbase to pull in... Bioware may or may not... particularly, the strength of the franchise name is lacking... However, I'm not even convinced the hardcore SC, WCIII and Diablo crowd are ready to follow Blizzard anywhere they go... the game is a huge departure from their track record and their audience remains unknown.

Again though, not all companies have the clout to achieve this. In fact, I could argue the American developers have very few internationally recognizable game franchises capable of drawing an audience like the Japanese do. Especially in the Japanese market, our lackluster American franchises just don't cut it.

The biggest japanese companies have made thier decision to stick with japan consoles and so, in the end, it may be better that they stay with what they are happy with, rather than forced to work on a single platform.

Again, my real debate isn't from the angle of a developer standpoint but rather Xbox and it's questionable acquisition strategy and lack of Japanese appeal. Whether they are forced or not, cannot change the fact that Bioware's KOTOR will have nil impact in Japan.

If all the big companies just start moving to 1 console, the industry is in danger of going into another monopoly like nintendo had in the 80s. I'd much rather enjoy the benefits of 3 harware competitors level with each other in terms of quality titles on offer than to have all the best stuff under 1 platform.

Actually competition is a reason why MS SHOULD buy a major Japanese publisher. Sony having the monopoly as it does right now, does nothing to competition... what competition ? Regardless of how good your game is, if you develop for Xbox or GC from scratch, you are nearly guaranteed to sell less than a PS2 release. The only way to build competition is if you have more than one entity of equal or similar power. The brand is just not measuring up.

Xbox needs to gain ground fast in order to be even with Sony for the next generation. Niche titles can only get you so far. In the end, the system with 10 million sellers will beat out the system with 1000 games that sell 10k. The strategy at this point should killer apps and system sellers. The Xbox is keeping pace in making an impressive rookie console library... but their strategy limits how much they can build without an absolute way to level out with Sony.

Would developers spread the love ? Realistically, no. Money hats can only persuade you so much. Developing for a flailing console hurts your franchises value and thus Xbox is not getting some of the biggest franchises in Japan and lacking some of the big names in US. Especially, if one party is so dominant, as Sony is now, the difference in sales can exceed a viability point where they cost more to port a franchise than to stay put in one place.

The DC had a much better quality software lineup than ps2 and was still ignored by the masses and by the developers who were scared

This is a point that could be argued to kingdom come. Remember DC's competitor wasn't really PS2 as much as the tail end of PSOne development. A lot of DC's death was the difference in frachise drawing power. Just having Square and Enix on their side was a huge trump card in Sony's deck.

japanese devs too) so I doubt wasting money on buying companies that don't want to be bought by MS is going to make many gamers happy beyond attracting masses towards a 'forced xbox' purchase and another monopoly.

Again, the way the market looks now, Xbox need brand name developers just to draw EVEN. Competition cannot be supplied by one company and 2 huge underdogs. In any case, wanting to develop for a system is a vicious cycle -- you develop and you do a good job and sell systems then user base increase, and then revenues increase and that 'want' goes up. Do nothing, and the spiral just keeps spinning downwards.

If people ignore quality so what? Better that a developer will make a niche title and attract a hardcore following than to make mediocre titles that show little passion whilst making heaps of money out of them from the masses (and falling into sequel trap) imo.

No way. There has to be a balance in everything. Look at PS2's library. It has a good mesh of sequels and system selling franchises to it's innovation and original titles (like Rez). Xbox is doing a GREAT job accumulating niche titles and quality ORIGNAL games. So thus, I am arguing their emphasis now needs to be to complement what they're doing with moves that SELL SYSTEMS.

And even when great and talented companies DO have lots of money to spend (SEGA) that doesn't automatically garauntee both critical and commercial success.

Of course not. No company has a perfect track record. But appreciate the difference say between Sega and Bioware. Sega has a track record of producing some of the greatest hits and best games in the HISTORY of gaming. They have some of the most respected and revered franchise EVER. They have a NAME, one well known, even by the most mainstream of gamers.

Just having their NAME in a news conference provides a stir in the market. Bioware ? No such impact, no such mass appeal. So is the purchase worthwhile ? Who knows. But regardless, we KNOW it's not going to cause lines to appear in Akihabara and people to start jack up KOTOR's prices on ebay.

But say for VF:Evo or a new Sakura Taisen ? Who knows how it will do ? I can't for sure. But is it POSSIBLE it could be a game them Japanese will lineup for ? It's potentially there. That's all Xbox needs right now. Some way to stir up the hype. Stem the bleeding and start building up towards Sony.

rather than as individual seperate parts glued together) To me the money thing should be seperate in a developers mind. Rather than basing what types of game they'll make based on sales and what the market says, it should be based on those 3 above things not some formula.

Too naive. Developers are in the business not to entertain you for their pleasure, nor to provide a piece of gaming history... it's to make money. Money should always be there. And quite frankly, the way to do it is to get them to buy a game. Is it fun and stands out ? Certianly helps its case. To ignore the market, you end up like Sega -- you produce a slew of titles that are fun and great but no one buys them and you dig yourself a neat little financial hole.

If you truly want them to ignore the money factor you should be in FAVOR of acquisitions. Say if Xbox bought Sega, Sega no longer needs to worry about making a hit to recoup funding. MS pumps cash into it and they build whatever they want. Only 10 people buy Shenmue ? No problem!

[GameHED]

To ignore the market, you end up like Sega -- you produce a slew of titles that are fun and great but no one buys them and you dig yourself a neat little financial hole.

Yeah but it takes time for people to slowly realise good quality. Although they got trounced by EA they should have expected it and continued on (maybe sega need to focus on soccer or something like Konami ) to keep up the good work as more and more people realise what great games thay make. (and it can't happen overnight)
If you keep thinking in the short term, selling out to another company, you only lose your identity even more and prove to the pissed-off fans that buying your products is a risk since the quality won't be consistant like the Nintendos, capcom, konami's etc.

For a long time during early ps1 days Konami had ignored making a castlvania game before SOTN because it was just easier not to focus on the old fans anymore until people came to them to ask for more games of the type even though doing it was risky.) Now fans can't get enough and the niches of 2d platforming is in demand again because nobody is contributing to an empty market in the wake of 3d. (good to see Metal Slug 3 get ported to home since now, with the death of SNK there is an awareness for fans to play 2d neo stuff. Perhaps people are awakening.)

The difference with sega and the others is everyone liked thier arcade games so they had something to fall back on in the past and people would flock to the console if it had an arcade perfect port of a well-known arcade game using the cutting edge tech at the time. The death of the arcades is merely an obstacle to them not a death sentence, but people need to realise it takes time to adapt. (have they had a long enough chance yet? They've barely gotten through thier "porting old games and remaking old franchises" phase yet and people prophecising thier doom if not sold to somebody. If they could survive for long enough and stick to what they are good at doing regardless, in time people will start respecting the sega brand) But thier identity will split up if owned forever by another company and they will become less recognisable. eg. Psygnosis we're pretty well known in the earlier ps1 days but eventually the quality of the games went down and they lost thier old identity and respect. Things may have been better had they not been eaten up. By no means am I saying that MS shouldn't buy sega but that sega should sell out only if they want to be bought out and absolutely sure they can't make it on thier own.

Too naive. Developers are in the business not to entertain you for their pleasure, nor to provide a piece of gaming history... it's to make money. Money should always be there. And quite frankly, the way to do it is to get them to buy a game. Is it fun and stands out ? Certianly helps its case. To ignore the market, you end up like Sega -- you produce a slew of titles that are fun and great but no one buys them and you dig yourself a neat little financial hole.

You're right, money itself is important but I don't think it's impossible to make money without also opening up the market for more niche markets. We are an expanding industry and it is getting really really crowded when everyone competes to do the exact same thing as each other and more and more new developers do what's already been done. (all that does is increase the competition even more, raise the bar, and make it harder for small companies to compete, and the cycle repeats itself as they are bought by the bigger guys. Check Rockstar's GTA vs Sony's Getaway. Smaller developers shouldn't try competing doing the same thing now.) If anything, had you stuck independant of the bigger companies, in the long term it will make you more money, if not make you a focus of the media for your bold moves and willingness to move in new directions. Look at the sims. It's an original title that enjoys commericial success. (usually in the top ten because it forgets about existing types of gamers) You never see that kind of thing on the consoles because its all controlled by what the polls and marketing people say should be made. And this is all based on existing things so it must be right, right? Not in entertainment. People will get bored, spend more money on other things and move on if there is no noticable change or anything new to offer them.

True creativity is doing something not yet done before, that you haven't seen elswhere. It's the things that set the molyneuxs, miyamotos, kojimas, spectors of the world because it starts out as a vision not just $.

If you look at the history of all the well-known titles today, you will see they started with humble beginnings not with the intention by the developer that they'd be such a great success by looking into the numbers of $$$ being made by other developers,.. or gazing into the crystal ball to see if ahead of time, it would be game of the year and hyped by all the media, ..but instead by an idea, or vision and a passion to make the thing work from the beginning.

Would capcom have become well known for survival horror games if they had rejected the early resident evil games on ps1 (hey capcom were much more well known for 2d-only so this was indeed a risk) if the developers did not believe in what they were doing?

Would GTA exist if DMA didn't like the philosophy of playing with toys as a gameplay concept and trying to branch away from too much seriousness (looking at games like body harvest and lemmings you can see the concepts were fun just by descriptions in what you do in them) in games when they could have made say, traditional shoot em ups, beat em ups, rpgs, rts, FPS or any other well known genre?

Even the first final fantasy game was made with the intention it would be the last ever game made so it had to be something good or different. If it didn't succeed square was gone. Again: humble beginings with the pressure of having to succeed because there is no safety net. To quote a gamespot article: "All of Square's resources, dreams, and hopes were placed on this single game."

Metal Gear broke ground from other games and added something to the genre (tension) of games where you actually had to care about your actions rather than high scores or whatever in many other action games where the object is to just kill hordes of enemy over and over again. There is a stereotype by some people that console games sum up no-brainer action, while the PC game always have to be cerebral and slow, menu-driven affairs. And if you dare go against the grain, you are taking some huge risk.

..and there are probably many other examples (Tomb Raider maybe? before it was hyped by the masses for the sexy image of the heroine it was just a great escapist adventure with a Prince of Persia style story) of games that are well-known today but started out completely original, uncertain and undecided by market forces, and whose success is really owed by whatever the visions of the people/person involved and not soley the money they were going to make. To me money != quality, it is more like a helper. (depends on the type of game)

And already we are seeing people tired of the crash bandicoot, tomb raider, Final Fantasy, tony hawk even, and (some on this board) Zelda games of all things. (for some reason I'm not as excited by many of the updates to many namco games like Ridge Racer, Ace Combat, Time Crisis because I know what to expect from them. Constrast that to when games like that were completely new, and these had something to offer before that the hundred other titles weren't offering) Who's to say in the long term that the masses won't eventually get sick of playing the same stuff and stop buying games? In the long term the market is just a reflection of what's happening now, not what is going to happen a few generations ahead. So the developers that are struggling today could be the key to opening up new markets for tommorow. One of the wise reasons for getting smaller-but-skilled devs cheaply when you see thier potential, onto your side. (Nintendo with Rare before GE for eg?)

Once in a while I look forward to surprises like the Ico, Ape Escapes, Rez, Pikmins, Monkey Balls, Animal Crossings, Shenmues etc (where you have to literally learn how to play the game as much as become good at the game) just as much as those big-name titles (with an established history behind them and a dollar amount of what these names are worth) because I want a rounded-out videogame choice. It's not just me but I think all gamers do too.

[Diff-chan]

negitoro, before DMA Design made GTA3, they made games like GTA1 and GTA2 (some here prefer those, but they were pretty much nonsense, and great-but-unheralded games like Body Harvest and Space Station Silicon Valley. Nobody could have predicted GTA3 would become what it has become. Perhaps Microsoft is trying to build a solid base and *hope* that one of these companies does something similar. Its definitely feasible, but you need a solid base first. Which is what Bioware and Rare would be.

[Drewbacca]

Originally posted by Jeremy
Bioware's a much better buy for MS than Rare. Bioware= low cost for buyout and a high potential to make that money back, and then some. Rare= high cost for buyout, lower chance of making that money back.

Rare titles sell on average 1.5 million copies a piece. That's not low risk. That added with the with the "crippling Nintendo lineup abit" instantly makes them a hotter commodity. Especially since most of Biowares games are for PC or Xbox anyway...

Originally posted by GameHED
I still think most japanese companies are better off third party. (as opposed to second party ie owned and controlled by manufacturer forever) They are too proud to be bought anyway. I bet MS have been trying to buy them but MS just don't have the proper respect or the right attitude in dealing with them so we are seeing companies like konami practically ignore them with regards to releases (with the exception of a few titles) and become sony whores. I'd be quite happy buying all my japanese rpgs and stuff for ps2 or cube and leave the rest of the euro, UK and US stuff on the xbox (seeing as those kinds of developers are more familiar with the windows/pc/directX platforms while japan devs seem more comfortable with closed, proprietory architecture with engines custom designed by themselves.)

And again some of the best and more original stuff imo comes from the pc platform and I don't see what's so wrong with normally-pc-like titles heading down to console platforms. (the masses cared about gta3 did they not? Is this not just a continuation of the series that started on pc? DMA design were very little known by even so called hardcore gamers before gta3, that includes most people on this forum. And what of the Tony Hawks, Tomb Raiders, Resident Evils, Silent Hills, Soul Caliburs, Soul Reavers and MGSs? These are as mainstream as much as the FF games imo and some aren't developed by japanese companies, showing that there is big potential for the US game market in not relying soley on Japan for decent games. )

The role of traditional console game has changed and the pc games and console games markets will converge. Trust me most of the pc developers will see the merits of releasing games on console and start adapting them to the unique needs of the console market to make them work well and be "console-gamer friendly". Heck look at blizzard with thier console StarCraft game. That's bound to attract mainstream followers of the starcraft, warcraft, diablo games and they aren't japanese and this company has a history of pretty good consistancy. Enough that Sega would be inspired to create a diablo-esqe Phantasy star game with the same kind of play mechanics and achieve enough critical success to hook people.

The biggest japanese companies have made thier decision to stick with japan consoles and so, in the end, it may be better that they stay with what they are happy with, rather than forced to work on a single platform. (note I said biggest. That doesn't mean some of the smaller ones can't benefit from the niche appeal of the xbox market where you have smart japanese gamefans buying a machine not from the popularity of the system and market share, but more because of the quality of games and the options the platform offers. eg capcom releasing an online CVS2)

If all the big companies just start moving to 1 console, the industry is in danger of going into another monopoly like nintendo had in the 80s. I'd much rather enjoy the benefits of 3 harware competitors level with each other in terms of quality titles on offer than to have all the best stuff under 1 platform. (although sony has the lions share now, we are slowly seeing developers spread themselves out because lets face it, in the long term they will benefit from being constantly in demand by the manufacturers to make games for thier platform. They love the attention they are getting from manufacturers and how it drives up demand and value for thier franchises. Once demand dries up for thier title on one platform, they'll always milk the other platform to gain extra profit from an old title that would normally not get a second chance had there not been such a split in the console market between the 3)

I actually think, although from a marketing viewpoint, sony are dominating, alot of the mindshare (bar japan) is split 3 ways (globally) and the titles in terms of quality are about even. The DC had a much better quality software lineup than ps2 and was still ignored by the masses and by the developers who were scared, (some of sega's and capcom's best stuff as well as one of the best namco fighters ever appeared on this platform so to me the masses shouldnt be seen as a means to an end. And all these companies were japanese devs too) so I doubt wasting money on buying companies that don't want to be bought by MS is going to make many gamers happy beyond attracting masses towards a 'forced xbox' purchase and another monopoly. If people ignore quality so what? Better that a developer will make a niche title and attract a hardcore following (with the risk of not making gigantic profits) than to make mediocre titles that show little passion whilst making heaps of money out of them from the masses (and falling into sequel trap) imo.

And even when great and talented companies DO have lots of money to spend (SEGA) that doesn't automatically garauntee both critical and commercial success. (the ambitious shenmue which is going to be cut short) The developers have to be happy making it, (for it to be good and apreciated by a fan base) the risks taken have to be bold (to stand out and have some feature setting it apart from every other game in the crowd - especially now when originality is avoided and publishers hate risks) and it has to have a signature appeal that makes the thing cool enough. (the design, aesthetics, detailed planning and presentation of the whole game right from the begining rather than as individual seperate parts glued together) To me the money thing should be seperate in a developers mind. Rather than basing what types of game they'll make based on sales and what the market says, it should be based on those 3 above things and not some scientific formula.

You can pretty much blame the slow pace of wholly-original quality nintendo GBA titles on the monopoly of the handheld market that nintendo holds. (licensed crap to attract masses, and zero competition from the lack of enough passion-driven developers working on it. But sales are good and from a business point of view that's the means to an end, but gamers and devlopers probably aren't too happy which means quality of games is compromised. Of course, forced development will eventually see some good games released, since there is no choice when there is 1 dominant platform, but for the most part the masses will forever be the main target with each new release and that usually mean 1 less release of a wholly original title which a company would consider too 'risky')

You're totally right. But I don't think Negitoro meant what was best for the industry but rather Xbox itself. I thought he was just pointing out that if Microsoft is going to make purchases, they should do it big and hard.

I really like this post. If I could put it in my signature and it would make sense (people not knowing what you're talking about in response to negitoros post), I would.

Originally posted by negitoro
Too naive. Developers are in the business not to entertain you for their pleasure, nor to provide a piece of gaming history... it's to make money. Money should always be there. And quite frankly, the way to do it is to get them to buy a game. Is it fun and stands out ? Certianly helps its case. To ignore the market, you end up like Sega -- you produce a slew of titles that are fun and great but no one buys them and you dig yourself a neat little financial hole.

It's moreso the publisher who wants to make the big bucks and not the developer. Usually developers have artistic or technical visions and goals they try to set. They then have to persuade a publisher that it will make them money, etc.

Just to clarify. It doesn't change anything you've said.

[Jeremy]

Andrew, I never said they were low-risk... Oh, and I doubt chipping away at Nintendo in bits (or whatever it was you were trying to say) is going to cripple them. Nothing short of the GameBoy brand name suddenly becoming unmarketable will cripple Nintendo.