Microsoft exec: XBOX ONE focus is "very much on profitability"

#51NewMoonShadowPosted 9/11/2013 10:07:08 PM(edited)
Sin_Angelus_ posted...
LICKWIDPAlN posted...
I give the Xbone about 2 years as far as the amount of times we will see some pretty good games. After that, same situation as the 360.


360 exclusives have received better ratings over the past 3 years, on average, than PS3 exclusives. Try again.


Yep. All those Kinect-exclusive titles rated better than "The Last Of Us". That is totally a thing that happened.
#52DesperateMonkeyPosted 9/11/2013 11:02:48 PM
Yeah, no. The NES wasn't capable of running modern indie games from a strictly technical hardware perspective. They're not "flashy" by today's standards but they still require more powerful hardware than an NES can provide.


What aspects? The only aspects that seem rather impossible are the graphics. There was absolutely no reason why we could not have had more diversity in gameplay, art style and so forth. Not everything had to look like a ****ing Saturday morning cartoon like 95% of the industry was at the time.

Okay. Let me simplify it. The statement "Games back then were a joke" is full of opinionated bulls***. Clear enough?

They were the best the industry could provide at the time.


LOL what a joke. The industries best were a bunch of garage developers. Game developers weren't taken seriously. It was a joke profession and everyone wanted to make a silly clone and make a quick buck. How is this countering what I am arguing? Lets look at gaming budgets back in the 80's and look at gaming budgets today...

Paying attention fail.


No its just really dumb reasoning. You are childish because you think Capcom wasn't copy/pasting formulas back then for profit, lol... What a great argument, game companies didn't care about money in the past!

So you ARE a bitter old man who assumes the worst at all times. Duly noted.


You are the one assuming the worst for the present. I personally think everything being done now is just fine. This is some pretty heavy projecting.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#53FoppePosted 9/11/2013 11:19:33 PM
They are still releasing Nes homebrews.
On cartridges.
That you can play on your real Nes.
Battle Kid 2 was released less than a year ago.

Just Saiyan.
---
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
#54NewMoonShadowPosted 9/12/2013 8:48:40 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...
What aspects? The only aspects that seem rather impossible are the graphics. There was absolutely no reason why we could not have had more diversity in gameplay, art style and so forth. Not everything had to look like a ****ing Saturday morning cartoon like 95% of the industry was at the time.


There were games that tried to look more realistic. They failed miserably.

LOL what a joke. The industries best were a bunch of garage developers. Game developers weren't taken seriously. It was a joke profession and everyone wanted to make a silly clone and make a quick buck. How is this countering what I am arguing? Lets look at gaming budgets back in the 80's and look at gaming budgets today...


Mocks "garage developers", talks about how modern indie developers, also garage developers, are better.

Logic.

Also of course budgets are bigger today than they were in the 80's. The industry has grown, technology has gotten better/more time-consuming, and the consumer-base has exploded to incredible proportions. That doesn't mean Devs back then were "jokes". Just that they worked within their means to produce games they thought were good without going hideously overbudget and crying that they "only" sold 3 million units.

The same thing happened in Hollywood, really. Hollywood budgets get borderline stupid now, but the difference is, they know their audience and they know when to spend, and when NOT to spend silly amounts of money. They know how to budget. They're not going to make a "Green Lantern" movie with the same budget they used for "The Avengers", for instance.

No its just really dumb reasoning. You are childish because you think Capcom wasn't copy/pasting formulas back then for profit, lol... What a great argument, game companies didn't care about money in the past!


Mmmm...... nope, I still haven't ever said that. You keep repeating yourself though, it's almost cute how you argue points nobody made.

You are the one assuming the worst for the present. I personally think everything being done now is just fine. This is some pretty heavy projecting.


And yet the industry in the 80's was healthy and growing while half of the major Publishers today are crying about growing budgets and dwindling profits without having a sweet clue what to do to curtail the problem. Yep, modern gaming is fine.

Indie Devs are doing well for themselves, ironically, because they're run the same way Devs in the 80's were running. Working within their means and appealing through thought and care instead of throwing money at it. Or, as you keep pointing out, by copying things, in this day and age, usually 2D platformers or space-shooters.
#55Sin_Angelus_Posted 9/12/2013 8:24:46 PM(edited)
NewMoonShadow posted...
Yep. All those Kinect-exclusive titles rated better than "The Last Of Us". That is totally a thing that happened.


It's funny how you don't know what you're talking about.
#56DesperateMonkeyPosted 9/12/2013 11:38:20 PM
NewMoonShadow posted...
There were games that tried to look more realistic. They failed miserably.


Wow, I said varied art styles and you think that is limited to realism??? So there is only realism and cartoons?

Mocks "garage developers", talks about how modern indie developers, also garage developers, are better.

Logic.


Its very logical... I said look at what EVEN indies can do, not that indies are representative of the best in the industry by any stretch. You have poor reading skills. Those garage developers were the bread and butter of a industry that is a shadow of what it is today.

Also of course budgets are bigger today than they were in the 80's. The industry has grown, technology has gotten better/more time-consuming, and the consumer-base has exploded to incredible proportions. That doesn't mean Devs back then were "jokes". Just that they worked within their means to produce games they thought were good without going hideously overbudget and crying that they "only" sold 3 million units.


Just because they had limitations doesn't make them less greedy... how come those guys played it safe and made clones that would sell based on license cartoons? You have no idea what you are arguing.

Mmmm...... nope, I still haven't ever said that. You keep repeating yourself though, it's almost cute how you argue points nobody made.


Jeez lets back pedal!

And yet the industry in the 80's was healthy and growing while half of the major Publishers today are crying about growing budgets and dwindling profits without having a sweet clue what to do to curtail the problem. Yep, modern gaming is fine.


You just never miss a chance to show how little you know or how uncritical your thought process is.

Your first idiocy is assuming the industry was healthier and growing faster. This can't be more false. Gaming itself is growing way faster today and the spectrum on which it is expanding is enormous, from smart phone games to indies to PC to consoles, everything seems to be on the rise.

As for publishers, there were a crapload of bad publishers. What the hell are you smoking? relative to the size of the industry, it was about the same ratio. Do you realize how much garbage games were on the NES that no one even knows about? I doubt you do.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#57NeoMonkPosted 9/13/2013 2:34:11 AM
MS is interested in profits? Well who didn't see that one coming...
---
"The Xbox One board isn't the place for personal anecdotes, joke topics or fanboy affair." Gamefaqs Moderator
#58tadmfpolePosted 9/13/2013 2:45:21 AM
Here's a protip Publishers. If you let your Devs make a good game, you won't NEED to pay IGN to give it a 9.0


Very well said!
---
my current game collection
http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/tadmfpole/games/owned
#59DesperateMonkeyPosted 9/13/2013 8:46:35 AM
tadmfpole posted...
Here's a protip Publishers. If you let your Devs make a good game, you won't NEED to pay IGN to give it a 9.0


Very well said!


Glad the two of you aren't in development. This is a joke.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#60NewMoonShadowPosted 9/13/2013 2:23:39 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Wow, I said varied art styles and you think that is limited to realism??? So there is only realism and cartoons?

When it comes to graphics that are actually limited to 8 Megs of data rather than being styled to just look like it without actually being so limited? Yeah, basically. There's only so much you can do. Next you're going to tell me Atari 2600 Developers were lazy and greedy for not putting backgrounds in their games.

Its very logical... I said look at what EVEN indies can do, not that indies are representative of the best in the industry by any stretch. You have poor reading skills. Those garage developers were the bread and butter of a industry that is a shadow of what it is today.

Obviously the industry is bigger and the games are better, that pretty much can't be argued by anyone except nostalgia-w****s. However, the attitudes prevalent in the modern gaming industry are simply foul.

And indie Developers, even the smallest among them, have access to more powerful technology and tools than the best Devs of the 80's could ever dream of.

Pong was once the height of technological ingenuity.

Just because they had limitations doesn't make them less greedy... how come those guys played it safe and made clones that would sell based on license cartoons? You have no idea what you are arguing.

For one thing, I like how you haven't actually pointed out any examples. Most games on the NES were 2D platformers, whether they were based on a cartoon or not. And a good majority of them had ideas and mechanics that similar games in the genre didn't have. Duck Tales and Rescue Rangers for example.

Hell even games like Robocop played unlike anything else on the system. You couldn't simply look at a game in the 80's/90's and know exactly what the controls and gameplay were like. Not like today where if you see an AK-47 on the bottom of the screen, you can mentally play it without even touching it.

Even some bad games unique ideas, even if they were terrible.

There were clones, but not enough to write off entire genres as being the same thing over and over.

Jeez lets back pedal!

I'm not backpedaling anywhere. I have not once in this thread stated that Devs back then were disinterested in money. That's just stupid. What I've said is that Publishers didn't order Developers to adhere strictly to a specific formula. They had room to think and improve upon the established formulas, or even create their own.

You just never miss a chance to show how little you know or how uncritical your thought process is.

Your first idiocy is assuming the industry was healthier and growing faster. This can't be more false. Gaming itself is growing way faster today and the spectrum on which it is expanding is enormous, from smart phone games to indies to PC to consoles, everything seems to be on the rise.

As for publishers, there were a crapload of bad publishers. What the hell are you smoking? relative to the size of the industry, it was about the same ratio. Do you realize how much garbage games were on the NES that no one even knows about? I doubt you do.


I've never said the NES didn't have bad games, or bad Publishers. But again, keep yammering. I'm tired of talking to a wall.

Also... really? The rise of Phone games is a sign of the industry being healthy and growing? Really?